The Real Truth of new 'flat rate' pension (where everybody gets different amounts)

gadgetmind

agarnett wrote: »

Well the bit of the conversation you seem not to want to add to went like this:

I've got no issue with adding extra information, but I won't entertain your clumsy straw man arguments.

Most readers would assume you meant that if my suggested substantially higher taxes were implemented, the majority of those with valuable skills would leave, and those who remained would fail as a country.

There is no need to assume that because I stated it clearly.

What is your rationale for stating that the majority with valuable skills would leave?

Why would they remain to pay the 80% or 90% taxation you proposed?

And what is your rationale for stating that the country left behind would be unable to feed itself

Simple mathematics applied to income tax statistics.

Would not a significant number of geese who lay golden eggs choose to remain ?

Not under the draconian tax regime you proposed, no.

And would they not contribute sufficiently to their country

They will contribute to a different country, one which prizes their skills rather than punishing them.

What is it that motivates the typical geese that lay golden eggs you envisage as you type, please ?

They are motivated by the desire to succeed, to found major new companies (perhaps totally new areas of technology), to create things that are new and beautiful, to help people with new medicines and technologies, and much much more. They are more than happy to do this hand in hand with society and government ...

Unless the government turns on them, imposes punitive taxes that strip away everything they have worked for, and leaves them wondering exactly what it is that they've done wrong to deserve this punishment. They studied hard, worked hard, employed skilled people, exported like crazy, and now they're made to feel like all of this was somehow wrong, reprehensible, evil.

This is a *very* British thing BTW. I travel regularly to the USA, Taiwan, Germany, Japan, China, etc. and this deep-seated hatred and distrust of any whiff of hard work and success just isn't part of their mindset.

I do hope it will be expunged in the UK too, but I fear this will only finally happen when our angry old dinosaurs have passed away.

silverwhistle

gadgetmind wrote: »

Unless the government turns on them, imposes punitive taxes that strip away everything they have worked for, and leaves them wondering exactly what it is that they've done wrong to deserve this punishment. They studied hard, worked hard, employed skilled people, exported like crazy, and now they're made to feel like all of this was somehow wrong, reprehensible, evil.

I see you like your own strawman arguments too.

You come across as a very negative person: a bit of an angry old dinosaur, dare I say?

agarnett

This is a *very* British thing BTW. I travel regularly to the USA, Taiwan, Germany, Japan, China, etc. and this deep-seated hatred and distrust of any whiff of hard work and success just isn't part of their mindset.

Ah yes. Or rather ... no ... What deep-seated hatred and distrust of any whiff of hard work and success are you on about? Sounds like that's a straw man failing miserably as the antithesis of the proud desire of beneficent and benevolent businessmen demonstrating their success by proudly contributing high taxes to the country to which they feel they belong. Castles protect hard won interests, don't they? Countries with committed citizens are trying to protect something more elusive, I think.

The lofty traveler's tale is oft told to validate a view. We could not possibly be as widely traveled, could we? We could not possibly realise how easily those with valuable skills might fly away to the castles of their choice where they might be more amply rewarded for their real entertainment value. Sounds like you have visited many castles, all no doubt similarly equipped with drawbridges that can safely be hauled up so as not to distract those inside too much with the more popular or troublesome affairs of the states you state you know well.

The big flaw in your argument could be that those in castles tend not to care to actually govern anything but their own continued well-being, and of course that never directly benefits non-insiders. No castle is ever a country.

One or two castles do however serve admirably as the backdrop for scenes which identify a country easily:


How many in this picture will realise the real truths lurking behind the new flat rate single tier pension ? There are many ways to serve, and the reward is to stand and truly belong and be proud, not to fly away to be rich, surely?

We must be constantly on guard, for there are those who would dare to renege on agreements made to even some of the smartest who served.

Linton

gadgetmind wrote: »

......
They are motivated by the desire to succeed, to found major new companies (perhaps totally new areas of technology), to create things that are new and beautiful, to help people with new medicines and technologies, and much much more. They are more than happy to do this hand in hand with society and government ...

.....

This discussion should really be held in another place but I couldnt restrain myself...

Why do these paragons of virtue who achieve immense satisfaction from all the good works they do believe they should be showered with gold as well, way beyond any realistic dreams of the rest of their fellow citizens? Even to the extent of moving themselves and their family to another continent to achieve it. Why does anyone need tens or hundreds of times the average income?

Perhaps as I think you imply it's not the money as such but rather the prestige that goes with it. No chief executive wants to be anything other than in the first quartile in the earnings list. And no company with ambitions wants their CEO in that situation either.

In other fields this problem is solved by naming a theory after someone, giving people honorific titles, awarding prizes or naming buildings after them. Perhaps Her Majesty could be persuaded to change the balance of OBEs, CBEs and knighthoods - more thrusting entrepreneurs relative to the number of longstanding dinner ladies.

gadgetmind

agarnett wrote: »

The lofty traveler's tale is oft told to validate a view. We could not possibly be as widely traveled, could we?

Maybe you are, maybe you're not, perhaps you go to different places, who knows? All I can comment on is the gulf I've seen between attitudes in the UK versus those in other places that I have visited.

There are many ways to serve, and the reward is to stand and truly belong and be proud, not to fly away to be rich, surely?

That's a choice that people need to make for themselves, and they will have a wide variety of reasons for choosing to remain where they are versus to move elsewhere (in the country, in the world) to improve their quality of life.

Regions and countries are very much in competition with each other to attract the workforce that they need. I'm currently pulling in a fair few people from Spain and Greece; should they have stayed there despite there being no work? What about the Somalis on boats heading for Europe? Greedy? Cowards?

gadgetmind

Linton wrote: »

This discussion should really be held in another place but I couldnt restrain myself...

Agreed, but I think the crazy castles rant means that it's pretty much blown itself out!

Why does anyone need tens or hundreds of times the average income?

No idea, maybe they don't, but that's certainly not the kind of person I was talking about mainly because I have close to zero knowledge of them.

I'm just talking about ordinary people not the much despised 1%. Crank up their tax rate to 80% and the UK will lose a large percentage of those with skills that are valued internationally. And no, I don't mean banking!

No chief executive wants to be anything other than in the first quartile in the earnings list. And no company with ambitions wants their CEO in that situation either.

Mathematically impossible to achieve and not what motivates any senior execs that I've met.

agarnett

gadgetmind wrote: »

Agreed, but I think the crazy castles rant means that it's pretty much blown itself out!

Well that's a disappointing retort, gadgetmind! I chose those castles for you - I thought you might recognise some if not all of them from your travels! Did you not like my selection ?

My point was that what you hear of the pervading world opinion on anything from your dealings within closed group "castles" would surely be a dangerous conclusion of world opinion generally ?

I think Linton inadvertently also strayed into Straw Man territory when he asked

Why does anyone need tens or hundreds of times the average income?

did he not?

And so you were then easily able to tune your response to that range of incomes.

No idea, maybe they don't, but that's certainly not the kind of person I was talking about mainly because I have close to zero knowledge of them.

If we said double to tens of times the average income then I am guessing we might discover that improved range might cover close to 100% of those you meet daily, and it is indeed that group who I assert are not taxed sufficiently in the UK. I am not saying that those earning £52K and over should instantly find themselves paying any tax at 80%, but I do believe that they should be paying 40% on more of their income, and the higher you go towards £260,000 (ten times UK average approximately) the tax should rise so that yes, perhaps at the top end 80% tax might be justified.

The thread has not blown itself out at all. The debate will roll on.

We are discussing tax levels because of course it is taxation that funds state benefits such as reformed state pensions! And we are discussing the Real Truth behind recent state pension reform - inadequate taxation (to fund current and future state pensions) is part of that real truth, isn't it?

I'm just talking about ordinary people not the much despised 1%.

Yes, so am I. Ordinary people who happen to earn extraordinary incomes compared to the average £26,000.

You may think you are entitled to take double the national wage and in fact I would credit you with much higher - probably four or five times is what I guess from the way you write, but it would only be a bad guess (the most I ever commanded was about £50,000 fifteen years ago and had I survived with head down in wage slave land I am estimating I'd be on around £100K by now) - by the way, that's your cue to call me bitter and twisted and jealous if you like, but I wouldn't bother because I've been quite happy and fulfilled at lower income levels since then! I know first hand how to manage on what varied levels of income I might earn, but I'd be the first to admit that growth in earnings whilst still young is important to enable most people to appreciate what they might like to do with their lives and build a platform they are happy with!

Trouble is (I feel), many never quite gain the confidence that they might survive if they step off the treadmill - so they beaver on head down until retirement and when they finally do step off the treadmill, they call the platform itself their life's achievement and hate that the platform itself should have been nibbled at or bitten off in chunks as taxation :rotfl:

I shouldn't laugh, because it is actually a bit sad. All those commuters trudging across London Bridge each day. Do they each know why or do most of them do it because that's just what they do? And four or five weeks holiday a year and then a retirement? What do they do with their spare time ? More and more do rack up serious achievements outside of work, which is good, but I fear it is still not enough for a healthy society. I mean healthy of mind and intention of course.

As I drove through country lanes south of Cambridge taking the pretty route to Stansted yesterday morning at about the same time London Bridge would be vibrating underfoot for the commuters, I came across many of what I imagine were commuters' wives or partners jogging in the morning sunshine, mostly in pairs. Expensive running gear obligatory of course. Strange to compare with who might have been the people I'd have seen in those same village lanes a generation ago. Roadmenders and hedgecutters and farmworkers perhaps. None of those now. Roads don't get mended (not enough taxation to pay for that either). Hedges and fields maintained by the giant machines of large farming conglomerates which need 10x fewer farmworkers to operate. So we have commuter villages, not proper ones. Houses in the country. Crash pads in the city. Sadly, I think there's a larger portion of "them and us" partitioning in the country too - social housing still exists in the villages, but is often just tolerated as long the look of it doesn't pollute the parts where the commuters live. So many front gardens full of old bangers and pavements cluttered with white vans and ancient 4wds. They need the vehicles because there's inadequate bus routes (not enough taxation to subsidise them). They need the 4wds to cope with the state of the roads. Unemployment or very low incomes amongst the working age residents of social housing in these villages is I think quite high. I think rather a lot of the original (now not needed) 9 out of 10 farmworkers scrub by on black market work euphemistically called self-employment, but I suppose the pension reforms do mean that they at least can look forward to full flat rate pensions

Crank up their tax rate to 80% and the UK will lose a large percentage of those with skills that are valued internationally.

Again, that is just a subjective assertion based on the way you think most people think - you conclude it that way of course because you mix with more people who think that way than people who don't. You broadly made a point of saying exactly that with your traveler's tales.

... not what motivates any senior execs that I've met.

Well I am sure you have reason to state that, i.e. you must have met a number, and they must have shared their motivations with you - I think MSE readers would be interested to hear what indeed does motivate them, and how then they justify taking the incomes they do, without paying sufficient tax to fund the damaged (underfunded) state pension systems we are discussing here.

gadgetmind

agarnett wrote: »

Well that's a disappointing retort, gadgetmind! I chose those castles for you

Thoughtful but irrelevant.

If we said double to tens of times the average income then I am guessing we might discover that improved range might cover close to 100% of those you meet daily

I glad you included the word "might" twice, and "guessing" once as you're wrong.

indeed that group who I assert are not taxed sufficiently in the UK.

Fortunately for *everyone* you're not in a position to implement such a disastrous policy.

I am not saying that those earning £52K and over should instantly find themselves paying any tax at 80%

How kind, but again, what you say makes zero difference.

As for the rest of your woffle, I simply can't find anything worth commenting on. Perhaps you can wind back on the essays as they are deep into TL : DR territory?

agarnett

"Waffle" like mine still gets sufficiently noticed to expose your sometimes rather irritable attempts at derailing it, doesn't it?

You can always put me on ignore - in fact I thought you did not too long ago!

Perhaps some of the stuff I write interested you, afterall! But I worry you get bored easily when your view doesn't pervade.