Flat-rate State Pension - Opinions?

[Old Hack]

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.

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

Being selective in your immigration policies is savvy, and has served countries who have always welcomed migrants with open hands, if not off the boat, like Australians, for many years. Many times has a brain surgeon tried to work out why a carpenter has more migration points than he.

It's not anti immigraion though, I can't see how you can defend that statement.

[formant]

Re-read the thread you're referring to. I'm not going to repeat myself to someone who doesn't intend to listen.

And your views are anti-immigration. You can either redefine them for yourself, or live with that 'slur'.

[formant]

Many times has a brain surgeon tried to work out why a carpenter has more migration points than he.

That's not what Robinho suggested in the thread that he's referring to. He only wants the super wealthy immigrants, who can afford to outbid others in a visa-auction. He does not care about how their skills will fit into the UK economy. He thinks having (access to) money is the only thing necessary to move in here and be a valuable asset to our society.

I agree that immigration needs some moderation. But not solely based on 'who can come up with a large one-off lump sum to buy their visa'.

[Robinho]

That's not what Robinho suggested in the thread that he's referring to. He only wants the super wealthy immigrants, who can afford to outbid others in a visa-auction. He does not care about how their skills will fit into the UK economy. He thinks having (access to) money is the only thing necessary to move in here and be a valuable asset to our society.

I agree that immigration needs some moderation. But not solely based on 'who can come up with a large one-off lump sum to buy their visa'.

STOP!

...putting words in my mouth.

3 times in a row now.

I do care about how their skills fit into the UK economy, and i am proposing using the pricing mechanism to achieve this.

[formant]

STOP!

...putting words in my mouth.

3 times in a row now.

That's actually exactly what your proposed system entails. But maybe you too are seeing the flaws now.

Unless of course you assume that wealthy = skilled. Oh, right, you do.

[Robinho]

The system entails attracting the people who can increase their earnings the most by working in the UK.

[formant]

The system entails attracting the people who can increase their earnings the most by working in the UK.

If and only if they can come up with a large lump sum of money and outbid their competitors. Their competitors of course may simply have more family money than skill or may have made their money in businesses that work well in the third world, but aren't at all transferable into the first world. But for the sake of your argument you blatantly ignore those cases. And that's not even going into the issue of those whose money comes from corrupt sources.

To use Old Hack's carpenter/brain surgeon example (although more appropriate for Australia): With your system you're not going to get the carpenters that may be needed for the current skillsgap. In fact you'll be lucky if it is the brain surgeon who outbids him, rather than some Indian entrepreneur who's business has zero chance of successfully transferring to and being of any use in the UK.

But you've been told all this already (not just by me in fact). You didn't want to listen then and you're not going to listen now. So, seriously, why are you still bothering? You clearly think your idea is flawless and the solution to all current immigration-related issues.

And I'm just glad you're not working in any capacity that would enable you to put this policy forward.

[IR35 Avoider]

They're not taking away final-salary (or career average) pensions, they're charging those on such schemes additional NI to fund flat-rate pensions for those who haven't worked enough to qualify in their own right.

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.

[Robinho]

If and only if they can come up with a large lump sum of money and outbid their competitors. Their competitors of course may simply have more family money than skill or may have made their money in businesses that work well in the third world, but aren't at all transferable into the first world. But for the sake of your argument you blatantly ignore those cases. And that's not even going into the issue of those whose money comes from corrupt sources.

To use Old Hack's carpenter/brain surgeon example (although more appropriate for Australia): With your system you're not going to get the carpenters that may be needed for the current skillsgap. In fact you'll be lucky if it is the brain surgeon who outbids him, rather than some Indian entrepreneur who's business has zero chance of successfully transferring to and being of any use in the UK.

But you've been told all this already (not just by me in fact). You didn't want to listen then and you're not going to listen now. So, seriously, why are you still bothering? You clearly think your idea is flawless and the solution to all current immigration-related issues.

And I'm just glad you're not working in any capacity that would enable you to put this policy forward.

Ok let's say a foreign carpenter earns 10k at home but could earn 30k in the UK.

And lets say a foreign Brain surgeon earns 50k at home, and could earn 60k in the UK.

The inflated wages of a carpenter in the UK suggest that there is a greater lack of supply of carpenters in the UK compared than there is brain surgeons, so we need the carpenter the most.

So, if only these 2 bid and both acted rationally, the bidding would get to 10,001 and the brain surgeon would pull out. The UK would benefit from an in demand employee and 10k in tax.

Now maybe the brain surgeon really really wanted to live in the UK at all costs, and the carpenter continued to act rationally, then the Brain surgeon would have to bid to 19,999 until the carpenter pulled out (realistically he'd probably only go to 15k or something but in this example he's acting perfectly economically rationally).

So now we got the 2nd best choice, however, we still pocketed 20k and we get another skilled brain surgeon which will deflate the consumer cost of brain surgery.

Both outcomes are superior to the current situation.

As for funding, well the carpenter could save up, or he could take out a loan, or an employer could buy the visa for him and take the cost out of his wages.

[formant]

Both outcomes are superior to the current situation.

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.