Flat-rate State Pension - Opinions?

[Coalman]

You are pathetic.

I think that sums up the both of you.

[The Spartan]

Final salary schemes used to be very open to abuse - don't know if that's still the case. I have seen both the below scenarios in effect in the same organisation.

e.g. person works part time (50%) for 20 years. For the last 5 years, they go full time. The part time years are still credited as 'full years' so they get 25 years worth of pension.

But another person works full time for 20 years, then part time (50%) for 5 years. They negotiate to get the part time years credited as 'half years' on full salary, so will get 22.5 years pension. (IMO, this is how it should work)

Spot on I saw this when I worked at Companies House regularly and was astounded, not sure if they're able to do this anymore though.

In regards to the old Public sector pay is lower think again I have worked in the Civil Service and I was well paid for what I did and so were other the people who worked in the post room got 16k for opening and distributing mail. The DWP also worked in the same building and they had better salaries than us at the time and I also have friends who work at HMRC just answering calls (or not as the case maybe) and there on decent money for that.

[eek]

The problem is that it's not just a basic tax increase for all - instead it hits some a lot harder than others (anyone on a contracted-out pension scheme (not just final-salary, also career-average)). And those that are affected aren't affected in proportion to their income (the majority aren't higher rate tax payers).

An unfair tax increase that penalises some group of people not others. I'm shocked I tell you, shocked.

[Robinho]

Yes, cause - like - there couldn't possibly be any other reason why someone wouldn't want to waste their time on your ....

You know what, I'll leave you to throw around the blatant insults. It's doing such a great job underlining (or should I say undermining?) your point.

Look i just questioned why when i propose a policy that is a factor on wealth my system is flawed because it would just attract corruption. But when you propose a system that is a factor on wealth, it's because people are too stupid/lazy to relocate and/or retrain, or because they chose to sacrifice work for children.

It just seems to me like a double standard and i'd be curious to know where i have perhaps gone wrong in my understanding.

However, so far you have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to even entertain the perfectly fair point i have made, and the silence is getting a little deafening.

[formant]

Look i just questioned why when i propose a policy that is a factor on wealth my system is flawed because it would just attract corruption. But when you propose a system that is a factor on wealth, it's because people are too stupid/lazy to relocate and/or retrain, or because they chose to sacrifice work for children.

It just seems to me like a double standard and i'd be curious to know where i have perhaps gone wrong in my understanding.

However, so far you have demonstrated a complete unwillingness to even entertain the perfectly fair point i have made, and the silence is getting a little deafening.

You're talking about vastly different types and tiers of wealth in two scenarios that couldn't be any more distinct (filtering immigration through visa auctions while simultaneously leaving the EU (your point) vs. not rewarding people's poor career (or lack there off) choices at the expense of a select few).

Quite frankly, there's no comparison to be made.

If you're looking for someone far-right-across-the-board, you're talking to the wrong person. I'm a fiscally mildly conservative and sceptical non-partisan leftie "socialist". I don't have a blanket-view of politics, I like to assess each topic on it's own merit. I'm sorry I'm not going to retrospectively entertain your immigration visa idea on the grounds of leaning slightly to the right on this current topic.

[Robinho]

You're talking about vastly different types and tiers of wealth in two scenarios that couldn't be any more distinct (filtering immigration through visa auctions while simultaneously leaving the EU (your point) vs. not rewarding people's poor career (or lack there off) choices at the expense of a select few).

Quite frankly, there's no comparison to be made.

If you're looking for someone far-right-across-the-board, you're talking to the wrong person. I'm a fiscally mildly conservative and sceptical non-partisan leftie "socialist". I don't have a blanket-view of politics, I like to assess each topic on it's own merit. I'm sorry I'm not going to retrospectively entertain your immigration visa idea on the grounds of leaning slightly to the right on this current topic.

No, you made the assumption only Russian oligarchs etc would come in, even though you conceded there were already loopholes available for them to come in anyway.

I did not anticipate that to be the case. I actually want a very similar filter to apply, i want people coming to the UK who made good career choices and are productive and come to the UK to do high paid jobs.

But i'm glad after all this time we have diagnosed where you went wrong.

[formant]

No, you made the assumption only Russian oligarchs etc would come in, even though you conceded there were already loopholes available for them to come in anyway.

I did not anticipate that to be the case. I actually want a very similar filter to apply, i want people coming to the UK who made good career choices and are productive and come to the UK to do high paid jobs.

But i'm glad after all this time we have diagnosed where you went wrong.

You may wish to re-read that thread, your memory seems to be a bit sketchy and your paraphrasing is so creative it's really just blatant misquoting. Your proposed system had a lot of flaws. You didn't wish to hear about them. You still don't. Why do you keep asking for my input? I'm sure there are enough people around who subscribe to your anti-immigration mindset, why don't you go and bother them instead?

[Robinho]

Wo wo wo! Where on earth have i demonstrated an anti-immigration mindset?

That is shameful accusation.

Nor does it have any flaws. Certainly none that you're able to outline.

[formant]

Wo wo wo! Where on earth have i demonstrated an anti-immigration mindset?

That is shameful accusation.

You want the UK to leave the EU.

You want to ensure that exclusively wealthy - "good quality" immigrants receive visas.

If that isn't anti-immigration, I don't know what is.

Nor does it have any flaws. Certainly none that you're able to outline.

You're in complete denial. Thanks for reminding me yet again why I stopped bothering with you last time around.

[Robinho]

You want the UK to leave the EU.

You want to ensure that exclusively wealthy - "good quality" immigrants receive visas.

Anti immigration is not wanting immigration.

Pulling out of the EU is not anti-immigration. It is anti-stupid undemocratic laws.

Wanting to cap the level of immigration to maintain a sensible population is not anti immigration.

Wanting productive immigrants to come into this country is not anti-immigration.

It's a shame that you have to resort to such slurs quite frankly.

You're in complete denial. Thanks for reminding me yet again why I stopped bothering with you last time around.

It is clear as day that you are the one in denial. You cannot explain any of the flaws, and continue to run away from the argument shouting personal insults behind you and resorting to pathetic slurs.