<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
BillK wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTin5-j0jA_k5Vbf-1lBB13-Jy4AL-LdoeyelrBTO@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">On 6/24/10, Ross Evans wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap="">The whole pension system is predicated upon actuarial assumptions
that no longer hold true; it was never envisaged that people would live 20+
years beyond their retirement age, and this flaw now represents a risk of
systemic failure in the pension system, especially in Europe. I'd say if
you're 30 years or more from pension age, putting capital into a pension is
likely to be a bad financial decision.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I'm not really disagreeing, just saying keep your options open.
Many dot-com millionaires found their wealth disappeared overnight.
You youngsters will be taxed to the hilt anyway to pay for the boomers
pensions as the population ages. The UK is already proposing moving to
a 70 retirement age and it will probably keep on increasing if life
expectancy keeps increasing.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Of course by far the best solution to the aging demographics is to get
good, cheap enough, ubiquitous anti-aging and aging reversal technology
really quickly. :) Seriously, without that and/or nanotech or
fusion tomorrow nearly every economy is doomed by the expected costs.
<br>
<br>
<blockquote
cite="mid:AANLkTin5-j0jA_k5Vbf-1lBB13-Jy4AL-LdoeyelrBTO@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<pre wrap="">If we get to the stage of life expectancy increasing by one year every
year then you won't *ever* get a government pension.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
Which would be great if you can be kept in good health.<br>
<br>
- samantha<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>