Shifting the bell curve

David Cameron has suggested that the NHS and the education system should ‘close the gap’ between rich and poor.

Recently a grandfather of 29 was in the news. The low-IQ population seems to have a shorter generation length, i.e. seems to reproduce faster than the high-IQ (‘educated’) population. If at the same time it produces more offspring, say twice as many, as the high-IQs, it takes a surprisingly short time for the relative proportions in the population to change radically.

For at least 70 years now the more functional have been increasingly discouraged from producing children (a recent Daily Mail contains a warning to career women that leaving it too late to start families may damage the offspring). At the same time, the least functional have been encouraged, by ‘benefits’ and other measures, to reproduce early and prolifically.

There follows a very rough and simple calculation which shows how the bottom 25% of the population in terms of IQ could become the bottom 75%. There has been ample time since 1945 for a macroscopic shift in the balance of the population to take place and it may well have done so, which might account for the reports of ever-declining standards in primary schools. Bad though the schools no doubt are, this may be the inevitable result of the IQ level of the intake, and not of behavioural deficiencies on the part of either parents or teachers.

Suppose we start with a population of 20 with IQs below 90 (“Bs”), and a population of 60 with IQs above 90 (“As”).

Let us assume that at an average age of 30 the As add two offspring per pair, so after 30 years there are 60 + (30 x 2) = 120 As, and after 60 years 60 + 60 + (30 x 2) minus the original 60 who (let us assume) die at age 60, i.e. still 120.

Let us further assume that at a lower average age of 20 the Bs add 4 offspring per pair, so after 20 years there are 20 + (10 x 4) = 60 Bs, after 40 years 20 + 40 + (20 x 4) = 140, and after 60 years 20 + 40 + 80 + (40 x 4) – 20 = 280.

So now we have 120 As to 280 Bs, so that the ratio has changed from 75:25 to 30:70.

Graphics by Andrew Legge

David Willetts describes the belief in heredity as something that ‘cannot be mentioned in polite society’ (The Pinch, p. 198). Academics who refer to the possibility of hereditary factors are liable to lose their jobs pretty quickly. It is implausible to suppose that there are not hereditary factors affecting individual differences, however much academia likes to believe otherwise, and it is certainly unscientific not to entertain possibilities.

The rationalised intention of closing the gap between ‘rich’ and ‘poor’ (correlated with above-average IQ and below-average IQ) has in all probability only succeeded in creating a bottomless pit into which resources can be poured.

Providing the ‘poor’ with additional resources may simply create an even bigger population of the ‘poor’, while at the same time placing increasing pressure on the ‘rich’, by taxation, to postpone and limit their families.

Has measured average IQ declined since 1945? Perhaps it has not, but this may simply show that IQ tests, as used, do not give a realistic picture of trends over time. The people who devise and apply the tests which are used are usually salaried academics with a vested interest in a certain outcome. When my colleague Christine Fulcher was working for her psychology degree from the Open University, she gathered that the intelligence tests which are used are always being modified to make them ‘fairer’ or more ‘appropriate’ to modern conditions.

Nick Clegg (Daily Mail, 5 February 2011) asserts that the ‘middle class’ will not notice the effects of extra taxation on their ‘lifestyle’. Maybe not; it will be quantitative rather than qualitative in most cases, but it will add that much extra delay to their paying back university debts, saving enough money to start buying houses, start families, send children to non-state schools, etc. Hence adding a bit of acceleration to the shift in the bell curve of IQ. Some of those working here now were at times salaried as university lecturers and in other professional capacities, and some in the future might be again. Taxation has diminished, and would again diminish, their ability to build up capital towards setting up our fledgling organisation as a properly funded and productive academic institution.

The relevant departments of my unfunded independent university are effectively censored and suppressed. They have been prevented for decades from publishing analyses of the complex issues involved, while misleading and tendentious representations of them have continued to flood out from socially recognised sources. I hereby apply, for financial support on a scale at least adequate for one active and fully financed university research department, to all universities, and to corporations or individuals who consider themselves to be in a position to give support to socially recognised academic establishments.

[first posted 7 February 2011]

The Great Pensions Swindle

I have a book entitled The Great Pensions Swindle* which, 40 years ago, made some useful points about the likely unreliability of state pensions. The following, however, is unrealistic:

The breaking point is not postponable indefinitely. The resistance to periodic increases in ‘social insurance’ contributions will begin all the sooner when the ‘contributors’ realise they are paying not insurance contributions but an income tax. (p.128)

In fact, no significant realisation arose that “National Insurance” contributions were just a form of income tax, which increased the Government’s current spending money. Otherwise the book anticipates very much what has happened. What happens when a future generation decides it prefers to spend its money on what is fashionable at the time (overseas ‘aid’, social workers, ‘universities’, etc.) rather than providing a former generation with the pension it thought it was paying for? The pensions are 'too expensive'; they are suddenly means-tested, and paid at ever later ages.

Not least, let it be clearly understood that ‘right’ (to the pension) and ‘contract’ are two more good words that have been made misnomers. A ‘right’ to a pension that a man acquires by saving for it is unambiguous. The ‘right’ a man has to an income when he can no longer work is of a different kind. The word has been re-defined to mean a moral right or claim on society. But transfers of income from one age-group, or class, or generation, to another represent decisions by one group, or class, or generation, to help another in time of need. No group, or class, or generation has a ‘right’ in any absolute sense. ...

In civilised parlance ‘contract’ means a voluntary agreement between two parties each of whom thinks it will gain. There is no such voluntary agreement between the generations on pensions. Indeed, there can hardly be one since future generations cannot be consulted; and if they could they would hardly agree since the terms are loaded against them. (pp.129-130)

* * *

Retrospective legislation has become increasingly frequent, and by now no one seems to remember that there was ever anything against it. It used to be said that the individual had a right to know what was legally open to him (in taxation, etc.) so that he could plan his affairs to secure the best outcome in view of his own interests and priorities, as he conceived them to be.

The recent changes in the ages at which state pensions become payable is really an egregious example of retrospective legislation, and directly affects people in as bad a position as we are. If a company which offered pension schemes were suddenly to announce that all its pensions were to be paid two years later, those who had been paying into the schemes might well wish to sue it for breach of contract. When the government does the same thing, no legal redress is available. This has happened recently and seems likely to happen more, so that my junior colleagues’ pensions recede as one approaches them. The age at which one of them will start receiving her pension was first shifted from 60 to 62, and then again to 64. Another’s pension was shifted from 65 to 67, and seems likely to be further delayed to the age of 68.

Thus the state has already deprived us, who are trying to build up towards an adequate academic institutional environment, of seven years’ pension money, i.e. £35K at today’s pension rate.

I have previously pointed out how means-testing of pensions retrospectively reduces the benefit received in return for contributions paid. This means nearly two thousand pounds per person per year. The proposed tax of £20K towards the cost of state ‘nursing care’, whether such care is received or not, was first proposed as a tax on estates on death, but is now suggested as a capital levy to be paid by every pensioner on reaching retirement age. If that were made retrospective, so that it applied to myself as well as to my colleagues, that would represent an additional confiscation of £80K.

There are several other examples of abandonment of principles, and I should be able to write about them at length, because they are actually very serious, although no one else appears to recognise this. If Oxford Forum were provided with adequate funding, we could be writing and publishing analyses on this issue which are currently being ignored in favour of the usual pro-collectivist arguments.

* Arthur Seldon, The Great Pensions Swindle, Tom Stacey Books, London, 1970.

[First published 11th September, 2010]

Hatred of directors and hatred of ability

It is objected that directors and shareholders of water firms continue to receive substantial ‘rewards’ in salaries and dividends, although the companies are failing to provide consumers with an efficient water supply.

It may be that it is simply impossible to run such a company efficiently in a country so far gone in socialism as Britain now is. It may be that it is necessary to pay directors at a commercially realistic rate in order to attract persons of high ability (which is likely to include high IQ as well as realism) in order to prevent an even worse failure in providing a reliable supply of water to customers.

In my view a company should be free to decide for itself how best to allocate its resources. I also support the idea that a company should be run for the benefit of shareholders. If it is not run for the benefit of shareholders, why should they contribute and place at risk their capital in becoming a shareholder? They may well think, as I do, that they would do better to find other ways of using their capital to increase their independence of the hostile society in which they live.

It is complained that the money spent in rewarding directors and shareholders could have been spent on repairing the fragile pipe system.

The Mail can also reveal that an astonishing £500 million was paid to the water companies’ mainly foreign shareholders for the six months to September 2011 – when drought was already blighting the East of England. Critics say this money could have been better spent fixing Britain’s fragile pipe network. (Daily Mail, 5th April 2012)

So some of the company’s resources are being applied to rewarding a population with above-average IQs, whereas the ideology dictates that resources should only be transferred from higher-IQ populations to those with a lower average IQ.

If directors’ salaries are cut, there will be less money in the hands of individuals who might decide to support other high-IQ individuals, who might then be able to do, for example, research not supported by socially recognised universities, or who might then criticise tendentious research published by them. That is to say, there would be even further reduction of the population of people who might think of coming to work for, or to support morally or financially, my suppressed independent university.

I was forced to start working towards setting this up by the ruin of my state-funded ‘education’. There was, of course, no sympathy with my terrible position as an outcast academic. There is no suggestion that the damage done to the lives of high-IQ outcasts should be repaired, and they are not acceptable objects of charitable support. They may, like me, be unable to ‘earn a living’ by regaining access to a university career at a senior level. Therefore the object has been fulfilled of reducing the access to financial resources of a high-IQ population.

If the water companies were run by the government, it is certainly not likely that more money would be spent on infrastructure; instead the money not spent on salaries or dividends would be absorbed into the collectivist ‘welfare’ system, thus, for example, providing extra support for the population of doctors, teachers and social workers. These, and especially the latter, are very likely to have IQs far below those of company directors.

A cynic might suggest that privatisation of the water companies was arranged partly to create a publicly obvious diversion of resources to a population with above-average IQs, at a level which would be regarded as egregious. This could then be attacked, functioning as a kind of showpiece scapegoat.

The overall net effect would thus be to reduce the resources in private rather than public hands. That is to say, reducing still further the freedom of individual citizens in Britain. (Not yet to absolute zero, though that could come if capitalism were abolished altogether, as is now from time to time advocated.)

A tax guide favouring collectivism

Mention the world ‘tax’ to most people and their first – and often only – reaction is to ask for ways they can cut their tax bill. But once you ask those self same people if they want cuts in education, the national health service, road building or local street cleaning and their response is almost invariably ‘no’. (Tax Handbook 2011/12, published by Which?)

It seems disingenuous, to say the least, to bracket such things as ‘education’ and the NHS with such things as road building and road cleaning. I would wholeheartedly advocate the abolition of state-funded and compulsory ‘education’, but I admit that I would like some usable roads around where I live, although I am not sure that a better arrangement for paying for them could not be found than by paying tax to dubious and unprincipled collectivist bodies such as national and local government.

But it is true that, since roads enable the displacement of persons and objects across areas that are larger in size than any one individual’s territory, there is justification for devising some collectivist system for maintaining them, rather than having each piece of road paid for by the owners of the land along each side of it. However, if the payments for maintaining it are paid into a collectivist entity which is also responsible for maintaining other collectivist activities, there will immediately arise the problem of blurring the exact allocation of a specific portion of the taxes paid in, as has happened so notoriously with pensions.

In the case of collectivist oppressions such as medicine and education, people are being provided (at least nominally) with something that is specific to the needs of the individual, so the arguments in favour of collectivist road provision do not apply.

What an individual will in practice receive under the headings of ‘medicine’ and ‘education’ is what other people wish to impose upon him. This is no substitute at all for what he might wish to pay for on his own account, and the effect of taxation is merely to diminish his ability to do so.

Another benefit financed by defalcation

I see that those on pension credit (the means-tested supplement to the basic state pension), along with others receiving benefits, are to be able to buy a certain number of Royal Mail stamps at reduced prices.(Daily Mail, 28 March 2012.) The cost of this, including the cost of time spent by Post Office staff, will have to be borne by someone, presumably by those not on pension credit or receiving any other benefit, when next the prices of stamps are raised.

When pensions were declared to be means-tested this was effectively turning the state pension system into a ‘benefit’, instead of a payment made ‘as of right’ to those who had made the specified number of contributions.

It was on that basis – the payment ‘as of right’ basis – that I paid into the state pension system for over 40 years, without entertaining any fears of eventual means-testing. Being deprived of a salaried career and even of eligibility for the so-called social security on account of my ruined education, I had virtually no income and paid voluntary contributions to the state pension scheme to reduce, at least by a small amount, my disadvantage relative to salaried academics.

Even if the threat of means-testing had been bruited, I would have thought it unlikely to affect me, since, having no academic appointment, I had no other pension expectations and negligible income from any source.

Having finally qualified for the state pension, and still being without a salaried career, I was horrified and shocked to find that my pension was now to be means-tested and that I would not be eligible for the supplementary ‘pension credit’ even if I was prepared to apply for it as a ‘benefit’. This was because I had devoted all my attention to building up capital to provide myself with a roof over my head. If I had not bought the house I lived in, I would have had no income with which to rent one.

Now that the emphasis of the means-testing is shifting from income to capital, I find that I have too much of the latter to qualify for ‘pension credit’, since I was never able to depend on income and had to build up capital as best I could. I see that those on ‘pension credit’ are to be able to buy cheaper postage stamps, apply for cheaper energy on ‘social tariffs’ and no doubt in many ways spend less on fundamentals than if they were not on ‘benefit’, thus increasing their advantage relative to me.

At the same time, others of my unsalaried colleagues who have fully qualified for their pensions by making voluntary contributions, see them receding into a distant future, and expect them to be means-tested even when they start to be paid.

The question of ethics with regard to pension policy is one of the issues on which critical analyses could be being published by Oxford Forum if it were provided with adequate funding to do so. Meanwhile, the idea that it is 'fair' to redistribute from better-off to worse-off pensioners is likely to receive reinforcement from pseudo-research published by the universities.

Realism versus kidding yourself

This is a letter sent to Bel Mooney, the ‘agony aunt’ of the Daily Mail.

Dear Bel

Every day I wake up and pray: ‘Please God let today be a good day — don’t let me think that I want to die’.

Fifteen months ago, at the age of 56, my youngest sister died very suddenly of pneumonia. The whole family is devastated. Our parents don’t really talk of her and I can’t believe she’s dead. I have to keep telling myself she is gone for ever. I miss her so much. She was my best friend and confidante. We spoke almost every day on the phone, discussing everything, from fashion to politics. ...

The hammer blow of her death made me feel a total waste of space. It’s made me realise how poor I am and how poor she was, that she left this world as poverty-stricken as when she came in. My life has been full of ‘what ifs?’.

I can’t afford to heat the house, pay the water rates etc. My whole family lives this struggle, but I never thought about it, I just got on with it. Now I am so angry, with her, with myself, with fate. I want to be rich and taste some of the fruits of wealth — the theatre, restaurants, foreign holidays and so on — before I die.

Last week I went to get a repeat HRT prescription and the nurse refused it, telling me I had to have a mammogram, because she could not live with herself if I had ‘something’. I went to the doctor (who put me on it) and asked for the full dose, but he refused, pontificating about risks. I don’t care about them.

I’m not coping. I nearly had a panic attack at the thought of not having my HRT. Basically, the nurse told me to ‘pull myself together’.

I cannot handle the stress. Everyone is telling me how bad-tempered I am — shouting at my children and grandchildren. I used to be so placid, now I feel like hitting someone. I just want to go to bed and never wake up, but sadly I do, and it all begins again. (Daily Mail, 24th March 2011)

Bel Mooney’s replies to this lady are, naturally, all in line with the prevailing ideology. Seek counselling and the support of groups of people with similar problems who will help you to be reconciled to your position.

The horrific role played by the medical Mafia in modern society emerges clearly. They decide, not you. On consulting them you expose yourself to psychological abuse, which is the last thing you need when you are already assailed in other ways.

It is deplorable that all are taxed to pay for the NHS; opting out should be possible for those who would never have anything to do with it, or with the medical Mafia in general. It would be a good deal less objectionable if only those who chose voluntarily to submit to such a system were forced to contribute in taxation towards its enormous costs.

Of course, Bel Mooney’s advice is to consult various agents of the oppressive society. Actually this correspondent is realistically aware of the existential predicament, and that the oppressive society in which she lives offers her no ways of improving her position. I suggest to her and to anyone in a similar situation that they come to live nearby, at least temporarily, and do some voluntary work for our organisation. We have many ideas for the best ways in which individuals can cooperate to improve their financial position, but we cannot suggest any particular project unless and until we know what the person concerned is willing and able to do, and whether they can get on with us, who do not accept the prevailing ideology.

Notes on property taxes

(This is an update on the blog post of 25 April 2011, commenting on the government’s plans to tax property.

Looking at the recent Budget, it now appears that the ‘mansion tax’ has been avoided or, more likely, deferred. Instead, stamp duty on ‘expensive’ (over £2 million) properties has been increased from 5% to 7%.)

It appears that they have it in mind to tax property, which is bad for us as we still have no income from society for anything we do (or could do), and we still need to build up capital towards the institutional environment to which, once we get it, extra research departments can be added and the university press made increasingly productive.

Any ‘mansion tax’, or increased stamp duty would only be the beginning of taxes/stamp duties on ever smaller properties, no doubt.

* * *

All you can say for the means-tested state pension is that it may just about cover the taxes we pay to the state. I.e. instead of paying all the taxes and making voluntary contributions to the state pension each year, we now make no contributions because everyone is fully paid up, and the reduced means-tested pensions received by me and Charles McCreery may just about cover, for the four of us, council tax, car tax, television licences, cost of garden refuse collections, cost of getting large rubbish taken away by the council, and cost of dumping unacceptable items of rubbish in the local rubbish dump (which is not very near). And perhaps there is a small net gain to us, so that we can say that, at long last, we are receiving a bit more each year from the state than we have to pay back to it.

If they had not introduced means-testing on the state pension some years after I had started to receive it, it might be adequate to cover capital gains tax (CGT) and ‘mansion tax’ on any houses we may own in the future. But probably not for long, as the taxes would keep increasing more than in line with (realistic) inflation, whereas the pension would not, even if not means-tested.

* * *

So those who are trying to remedy the bad position (non-position) in society imposed on them by their ruined ‘education’ have to be taxed (at any rate, they are taxed) to reduce their rate of progress towards an adequate life, and they have to transfer a part of the progress they have made to provide supposed ‘advantages’ to those who are not yet obviously disadvantaged. (Although, in fact, some of them may be, since they are forced to proceed in making their way through an educational system that is geared against them, and may leave them also with no way of entering a suitable career.) Many of the others will probably never be able to make any use of the sort of opportunities which we need and from which we have been excluded by the hostility to ability of modern society.

‘Education’ means, unfortunately, a very vulnerable period of one’s life when one needs to be acquiring qualifications which will establish one’s claim on the sort of position in society which one needs to have, but in which one has no control over the arrangements which are being imposed on one.

* * *

David Willetts said of the Baby Boomers that they had had such a good life that they should wish their pensions to be reduced so that coming generations could be provided with ‘educations’ as lavish as their own. I was a pre-Baby Boomer so this did not obviously apply to me, but I feel sure that plenty of them, including some with the highest IQs, and some whom I have known, were thrown out at the end of their ‘educations’ with no access to any career to which they could feel suited, and with only the sense that their relationship to their own internal sense of direction had been broken.

So, like me, it is likely that they would be more interested in using their pensions to work towards improving their own lives, rather than in sacrificing their pensions so as to make it possible for yet more people to be subjected to the ‘educational’ process.

We invite such people, whether or not they are prepared to complain of the bad effects of their ‘education’ on their prospects in life, to come and live near us in Cuddesdon, which is commutable from both London and Oxford, and cooperate in our plans to remedy our situation in an anti-individualistic society.

* * *

Building up capital may be the only method a person has of being able to be productive in a way to which they are suited, as it was with me. Not having any way of getting a salary, and being unable to draw the so-called social security, I put getting a roof over my head first, and setting up a college/hotel environment second. At least the increases in value of the house which I bought in the Banbury Road were not taxed. This house had enough space for laboratories and offices, at least on a minimal scale, if I had been able to get funding to do research with which to assert my claim on a normal high-flying academic career. The salary which I could not get would have been taxed, and I would have been getting my pension contributions paid, but as it was I had to pay voluntary contributions myself out of non-existent income.

Eventually the house was worth much more than at the outset, although still not enough to set up even a minimal institutional environment within which academic work could be done.

I shall never stop trying to get all the things I should have had as part of a forty-year academic career in a professorial position as the Head of a department. That is, the salary, status, contacts, laboratory facilities, personal secretaries and other staff, and the dining hall facilities, etc.

I still need these things in order to have a productive and satisfactory life, and I see plenty of things in which to do progressive research for forty years.

Taxation, not avoidance, is morally repugnant

George Osborne, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, announcing the Budget yesterday, said: ‘I regard tax evasion and aggressive tax avoidance as morally repugnant’. (Daily Mail, 22 March 2012)

What this means is that society must be free to use subjective criteria to decide what people’s intentions were when they acted within their legal degrees of freedom.

Some decades ago there was a principle that laws should be clear, and easily understood by any ordinary middle-class or working-class person, so that a person could make his own decisions, and so that the individual could know whether or not he was acting within his legal rights. This principle has gone by the board in the downfall of civilisation. Now, in many areas, the individual must wait for the tax authorities to tell him whether his motivation was ‘aggressive’ or not, and hence whether he is liable to be taxed (and possibly fined).

The idea that it is immoral to avoid tax, so as to preserve the maximum freedom possible to implement one’s own intentions, implies that the purposes for which the government sees fit to expend money are automatically superior to those which an individual might choose to pursue for himself, and that each individual must regard them as being so.

There are those of us to whom this seems an absurd idea, and we would argue that taxation is in itself automatically immoral, in depriving the individual of the right to decide his own priorities in the existential situation in which he finds himself (the assertion of this right being the basic moral principle).

Mansion tax, pensions and ruined educations

text of a letter to an academic

I have had to attempt to claw my way back to a tolerable life after the ruin of my career and family life caused by the so-called ‘education’. And I have had to do this in a society ever more dominated by the ideology that was responsible for causing the ruin in the first place.

Ever more damaging legislation is continually proposed, and the relevant departments of my suppressed and censored independent university are virtually silenced, while the unexamined assumptions continue to flood the television and the newspapers.

Now they propose a ‘mansion tax’ which, once instituted, will no doubt soon become a garden shed tax.

While trying to build up my capital assets to a level that could support even the skimpiest residential college and research department, with live-in domestic and caretaking staff, my only asset was the fact that principal private residences were free of tax (though not of maintenance costs.)

I still have not reached a level at which even the smallest scale of research could be done – not, at any rate, research that would have any hope of enhancing my claim on a salaried university appointment, although I suppose there are a few people who are willing to regard as research the collecting of anecdotes and the writing down of their dreams in the morning, and it has been convenient to suppose that I was one of them. But progress towards an adequate scale of operation would have been severely hampered by any form of ‘wealth’ tax, including tax on property. And progress has been, even without that, agonisingly slow.

Commentators always talk as if, after the age regarded as pensionable, a person could not ‘need’ more than one room to live in. But there may be people other than those here whose careers were ruined by the hostility which their ability provoked, and who, like us, need to build up their resources to the point where they can finance their own careers.

There is no reason to suppose that any society could provide each individual with opportunities exactly tailored to his needs. It is far more important that there should be the possibility for individuals to work towards providing themselves with the circumstances they need for the sort of career they need to have.

In the Britain of Frederic Myers a fair proportion of those with the highest IQs had the circumstances they needed for a productive intellectual life, provided mainly by inheritance. This proportion has been steadily reduced.

As I have mentioned before, you could alleviate our position significantly by buying a nearby house in which, among other things, new provisional associates could live; it being impossible for them to find rented accommodation, even at inordinate expense, and it being impossible for us, at the present time, to sink a high proportion of our available capital in buying additional houses.

No relief for 'those with the broadest shoulders'

A recent article from the Daily Mail on the Government's plans for pensions tax relief:

Higher earners should lose higher rate tax relief on pension savings, Treasury Chief Secretary Danny Alexander believes. The Lib Dem Cabinet Minister says the Government cannot afford to keep paying such a generous allowance on retirement investments. The changes, which could be included in next month’s Budget, would affect those who pay the 40p higher rate of tax, which kicks in at around £43,000. Currently, of every £1 they save in a pension, the Government contributes 40p in tax relief. That would fall to 20p in line with the basic rate of income tax.

The raid could cost middle-class pensioners up to £7billion a year, and discourage many from saving towards their retirement. If the cut was restricted to those earning over £100,000 a year, it would still save the Treasury £3.6billion. Mr Alexander told the Daily Telegraph: ‘If you look at the amount of money that we spend on pensions tax relief, which is very significant, the majority of that money goes to paying tax relief at the higher rate.

‘It's very important that in these difficult times we are asking those with the broadest shoulders to bear the greatest share of the burden.’ Mr Alexander also repeated his aspiration to raise the threshold at which people start paying income tax...

Lib Dem demands are expected to be raised at a meeting on the Budget next week between David Cameron, Nick Clegg, George Osbourne and Mr Alexander. The raid on pension tax relief may meet resistance from Mr Osbourne, who has stressed the need to avoid raids on the wealthy because they could deter successful businessmen from living in the UK. (Daily Mail, 11 February 2012)

The plight of pensioners is a constant focus of attention, although it is difficult to believe that the increases in life expectancy and cost of living can be a major factor in the constant rise in public spending. It is, surely, the increases in expenditure in favoured areas which make it impossible to ‘afford’ state pensions at a level commensurate with the cost of living. In fact, pensions were hit by the retrospective introduction of means-testing, and also by years of ‘withering on the vine’ with rises per annum which were inadequate to match the real rises in the cost of living, let alone in the cost of things which pensioners were more likely than others to need on a socially recognised basis, such as live-in housekeepers and attendants.

We may be sure that there is no real sympathy with this population, with an above-average IQ and a limited voting life ahead of it. Attention to its problems and claims that ‘something must be done’ are actually designed to justify new forms of taxation, the need for which is predominantly created by expenditure on increasing populations with IQs below the general average.

The objective is to justify additional taxation of this above-average population. In the extract quoted above there is one explicit proposal for how this might be done, although the additional taxation is presented as withdrawal of a tax relief, and it is pointed out that the ‘tax relief’ saved will be mainly at the expense of the population of those with the highest incomes, which is also (very likely) a population with a higher average IQ than other pensioners.

Those with ‘the broadest shoulders’ (the highest average IQs) should bear the greatest share of the burden which results from an ever-increasing transfer of resources to populations with below-average IQs.

The following is a re-blogging of part of an earlier post. In light of the article above, I have felt it necessary to reiterate the key underlying issues.

Further misdirection of attention is in asserting that it is not ‘fair’ that those who go into ‘care homes’ should have to sell their houses (if they have them) to pay for the ‘care’ they receive. This, of course, will lead to families being deprived of their inheritance.

Families are said to be ‘betrayed’ by care home funding, which leads to many pensioners being forced to sell their homes. This is described as a ‘scandal’, and it is hoped that a ‘fairer’ system can be devised. This rhetoric in itself should make one aware that a misdirection of attention is involved.

The population of those who reach pensionable age, and have homes to sell, are a population with an above-average IQ; so will their offspring be. So surely the modern mind can see nothing ‘unfair’ in a relatively high-IQ population being deprived of the inheritance it might have had from its parents, also with (statistically) above-average IQs. It is the obtaining of advantages from a previous generation of above-average people which is regarded as unfair, surely? How can ‘fairness’ be increased by transferring assets from one relatively high-IQ population to another?

And so we infer that these expressions of concern that homes will be lost to some of those who might have inherited them must have an ulterior motive. What is presumably aimed at is justification for an additional tax of some kind, resulting in the usual transfer of resources to a relatively low-IQ population.

It is suggested that what a pensioner pays towards his care home fees should be ‘capped’ with ‘the state stepping in’ to pay the rest. That means taxpayers stepping in to pay the rest, including pensioners who do not go into care homes. ‘In a further blow Health Secretary Andrew Lansley refused to rule out a pensioner tax to pay for old age care.’ Aha! This idea - an extra tax on those above retirement age, mooted in the Dilnot Report - approaches more closely the principle of transferring assets from the relatively high to relatively low IQs.

The population of pensioners who do not go into care homes at all may be expected to have higher average IQs than those who do go into them and have homes they might be required to sell, because the former are likely to have better genetic constitutions, have lived more prudently and/or successfully, or because they have devoted relatives, which are all factors likely to be correlated with high IQs.

So it may be seen as ‘fair’ that those pensioners who do not go into care homes should be taxed in order to transfer assets to those who do go into them.

This is no doubt the real reason for blaming the rise in life expectancy of pensioners for the increasing costs of the NHS, so that as usual a population of people with above-average IQs can be penalised for the benefit of a population with below-average IQs.

As for changing demographics, figures for life expectancy are usually quoted in relation to specific ages. E.g. people who are 50 now have a life expectancy of so much. But by the ages one sees quoted, the majority of those with a low life expectancy at birth are likely to have died off, although not before being a considerable drain on the NHS, state education (with ‘special needs’ tutors?), etc. Clearly these are an important part of the real demography, usually left out of the discussion. Those who are still alive at pensionable age (a population with a relatively high average IQ) are certainly not responsible for the rise in the costs of the NHS caused by the genetically dysfunctional (a population with a low average IQ).