My view on Pensions

Rachel_Pierson

Triumph13 wrote: »

In a perfect world, where well informed citizens always made sensible decisions, auto-enrolment wouldn't needed as everyone would see it was a no-brainer. As it is though, auto-enrolment is probably a very sensible bit of paternalism when you are having to deal with so many spoilt children like the OP.

What utter rot. What other decisions would you like to make on other people's behalves? Which food they should eat lest they get too fat, perhaps?

atush

Rachel_Pierson wrote: »

OK. I understand. I couldn't be arsed reading your post after that opener either.

If you did read it, you'd see you are a giant numpty who doesnt understand modern DC pensions.

Triumph13

Rachel_Pierson wrote: »

Nothing beyond what I've already told you. Though some extra free advice on how to argue effectively might be useful in your case :



Funny how the people that are the least able to argue effectively on this forum for positions they believe always use words like "rant" to describe the other side of the argument. Why is that? Is it easier than stating why what you believe to be true holds water?

Possibly the most egregious example of pots and kettles I have ever seen. You have been told repeatedly and in great detail precisely why you are wrong and have always refused to engage in any sensible discussion of the points people have raised, preferring instead to move at will between the lowest levels of your own pyramid whilst maintaining a holier than thou attitude at all times.
As previously quoted, there are indeed none so blind as those that will not see.
Well, at least the people that tried to help you understand and got ranted at for their pains may at least take comfort from knowing a) how thoroughly you are shafting yourself financially; and b) that the way you have conducted your argument leaves vanishingly little risk of you persuading any other poor sap to follow your example.
Please do come back in 25 years to complain about how poor you are thanks to 'inadequate' state pension provision. We will SO look forward to it.

MyOnlyPost

OP doesn't like auto enrolment because doesn't suit her
OP fails to realise that not everyone is in her situation and some people need protecting from themselves
OP doesn't recognise that funds held in your DC pension belong to you
OP shoots down any other opinion despite inviting counter arguments
OP believes she is right and everyone else is wrong
OP lives under a bridge somewhere on the worldwide web

Am I up to speed?

Triumph13

MyOnlyPost wrote: »

OP lives under a bridge somewhere on the worldwide web

Am I up to speed?

I believe so. If there had not been the risk of someone actually believing her and thereby doing themselves lasting harm, we could have happily ignored the troll, but as she has now thoroughly removed that risk we can indeed stop feeding the troll.

Silvertabby

Gosh, Rachel - someone has really rattled your cage!

So, let me get this right:

1. You abhor pensions of any description.

2. You have declined all and any employers pension contributions.

3. You have turned your nose up at the (Government) pension contributions tax relief.

4. You are a high earner (and therefore a high tax payer) who prefers to make her own retirement provisions outside the field of pensions.

Well, dear, that's absolutely fine by me. Deep and profound thanks from me and Mr S for your (tax) contributions to our combined 80 years of public sector final salary pensions. OK. we may not have as much as you tucked away in the bank, but we are 100% happy with our pension choices.

Correction: 78 years final salary plus 2 years career average.

mgdavid

Rachel_Pierson wrote: »

.........
Funny how the people that are the least able to argue effectively on this forum for positions they believe always use words like "rant" to describe the other side of the argument. Why is that? ......

simple - we speak as we find.
"if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck....."

Rachel_Pierson

Triumph13 wrote: »

I believe so. If there had not been the risk of someone actually believing her and thereby doing themselves lasting harm, we could have happily ignored the troll, but as she has now thoroughly removed that risk we can indeed stop feeding the troll.

How could that happen if what I said has no merit? Is it that my arguments have merit?, or people are just that stupid?, or that the whole pension "free money" scam is just so much disingenuous nonsense? Perhaps the pensions industry should just make decisions for people and opt them in whether they want to join or not........oh wait, they already did.

Rachel_Pierson

mgdavid wrote: »

simple - we speak as we find.
"if it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck....."

dunstonh

How could that happen if what I said has no merit?

Nothing you have said has any merit. Your perceptions are wrong. Your opinions are wrong. Your facts are not facts.

You are so negative and you ignore the responses that correct you. The allegations of troll have merit because you are so far from the truth.