Flat-rate State Pension - Opinions?

[vetran]

Based on some seriously oversimplified and idealistic assumptions, such as

-people act rationally
-someone on 10k could get a loan for or easily save up more than twice their annual gross income
-only people with transferable/useful skills would apply

But precisely that would, in the majority of cases not be the case. There's your key flaw. Feel free to continue to ignore it - it'll still be there when you'll try to warm this topic up again the next time.

unfortunately the alternative is that all immigrants come in and flood the market, driving down the wages so that large multinationals can secrete more tax money offshore.

We are seeing levels of immigration 150 -> 300 of any previous immigration event and it doesn't show any hint of stopping, previous immigration peaks were due to tragedies elsewhere in Europe, this is just a financially based flood.


I'm not anti baked beans but if I'm literally drowning in them is it unreasonable to complain we don't need so many baked beans?

[Robinho]

Based on some seriously oversimplified and idealistic assumptions, such as

-people act rationally
-someone on 10k could get a loan for or easily save up more than twice their annual gross income
-only people with transferable/useful skills would apply

But precisely that would, in the majority of cases not be the case. There's your key flaw. Feel free to continue to ignore it - it'll still be there when you'll try to warm this topic up again the next time.

A few points.

It is safe to assume at a macro level people act rationally. No, not all people act rationally all the time, however, most of the time people do. Though i can think of one exception.

People get loans in the form of mortgages many times their annual income every day. If you went to a bank saying i have a job offer, and i need 10k for a loan to buy a visa, you have a pretty good argument there. You have also conveniently ignored the crucial bit where i pointed out the employer would be heavily incentivised to fund the visa.

Finally, i never said it would be perfect, however, it will definitely skew the incomers towards higher skilled and it will definitely bring in money. The degree to which that will happen remains to be seen, however that doesn't mean you can simply assert that it will not happen in the majority of the cases because you have no basis. Never the less at the end of the day (and this is the utterly crucial bit) even if it only happen to a slight degree that is vastly superior to the current system.

[Robinho]

[formant]

A few points.

It is safe to assume at a macro level people act rationally. No, not all people act rationally all the time, however, most of the time people do. Though i can think of one exception.

People get loans in the form of mortgages many times their annual income every day. If you went to a bank saying i have a job offer, and i need 10k for a loan to buy a visa, you have a pretty good argument there. You have also conveniently ignored the crucial bit where i pointed out the employer would be heavily incentivised to fund the visa.

Finally, i never said it would be perfect, however, it will definitely skew the incomers towards higher skilled and it will definitely bring in money. The degree to which that will happen remains to be seen, however that doesn't mean you can simply assert that it will not happen in the majority of the cases because you have no basis. Never the less at the end of the day (and this is the utterly crucial bit) even if it only happen to a slight degree that is vastly superior to the current system.

The current points-based and employer-sponsored visa-system is already heavily skewed towards skilled workers - there's no such thing as simply letting just anyone in.

What you don't want is EU freeflow migration. Subject all EU citizens to current visa regulations and you'll find there'll be no need to also add an auction system.

But that means leaving the EU, which to people like you seems like a brilliant idea.

Well, it's only that if you disregard a whole lot of other issues an EU exit would bring about, such as the reintroduction of customs duties, which would be devastating for the UK economy.

[Doggy Styles]

Yeah. I'm sort of puzzled by the idea that this is meant to beneficial to the long-term self-employed. I mean surely, you should think of a plan B if your self-employment isn't lucrative enough for you to make private pension arrangements of some sort. Surely you're doing something wrong, if after a life of self-employment you're going to rely on those 144 quid/week. No?

I think you've answered your own question later on:

No, you're probably not going to make a fortune (or anything 'meaningful) from re-training, but if it's a decision between some income or no income, what do you prefer? Doesn't mean re-training isn't worth it at all. But no doubt, this is harder for everyone who's a tad older, than it is for those in their thirties.

This is the case for the majority of people. Most jobs like sales assistants are at lower levels of income where you aren't going to save much to prepare for the day you can't work any more, even if you retrain. To mere mortals, £144 a week is a godsend.

[rootsnall]

I think you've answered your own question later on:This is the case for the majority of people. Most jobs like sales assistants are at lower levels of income where you aren't going to save much to prepare for the day you can't work any more, even if you retrain. To mere mortals, £144 a week is a godsend.

I'm hoping it means cruises and mid week Easyjet flights to the Canaries are going to be dirt cheap in 20 years time.

[AtW]

Flat rate pension system is fair so long as taxes are also flat rate.

HTH

[formant]

This is not the only forum where I've seen people talking about a "tax increase" for public sector workers. Can you confirm that you are talking about what I think you are: a 1.4% (or something like that) increase in NI that means they will have to pay the same rate as everyone else?

If that's the case it sounds like a bit of non-issue to me. The amount is small, and from a design point of view the change is good because it simplifies NI.

A valid view to take, no doubt.

That is an additional 1.4% in NI of off people's salary though, not a 1.4% increase in their National Insurance contributions. The BBC quotes £270pa on an 'average' wage. To higher earners like most of us here, that's not much, but not everyone's that fortunate to start out with a great salary to begin with. And it's not just the private sector and not just final-salary-pension schemes, but also career-average schemes, common in the private sector.

My issue isn't so much that some people are losing out (some always do), but that some people are losing out solely to make up for those people who choose not to pay their own NI contributions.

May as well just punitively increase tax/NI for the single-earner of the household to cover the NI contributions and future pension of his stay-at-home wife. After all her staying at home should save them a fortune in childcare costs.

Claiming the money from a completely unrelated group of workers to cover for people like that strikes me as ever so slightly rubbish.

[formant]

I think you've answered your own question later on:This is the case for the majority of people. Most jobs like sales assistants are at lower levels of income where you aren't going to save much to prepare for the day you can't work any more, even if you retrain. To mere mortals, £144 a week is a godsend.

And mere working mortals would have already qualified for that without a problem prior to the changes.

[formant]

I'm hoping it means cruises and mid week Easyjet flights to the Canaries are going to be dirt cheap in 20 years time.

Not if we've left the EU by then!

(mwahahaha)