To be confused by 'high earners' complaining about taxes?

[tutuland]

So high earners pay lots of tax. The top 20% pay for 70% or whatever the numbers are.

But (beyond printing more money) isn't the money there high income people make just coming from the paying public? No matter who you work for, your company's profit is just an accumulation of normal people paying for things.

So ultimately, isn't it all our money anyway? Just beacuse the game is rigged and you get paid 400K for management whatever, it doesn't mean you're more deserving of that money than anyone.

Quite! The current pensioners seem happy to shaft younger generations but feel that they are fully entitled to be paid for by the same younger generations. Not a nice attitude and certainly one that is contributing to current social problems and division between age groups (amongst other divisions).
If pain is to be taken, everyone should partake in it, not just those who have already been shafted by policy for many years.

So basically you're happy to slide - earn enough to not help anyone else - but complain that no-one is helping you?

We have a nice life supported by no family money, everything earned ourself. and yes some sen children

I agree with your description of Singapore.

Philosopically and culturally, the Singapore government wants to incentivise work. Hence there is a relatively flat progressive rate of tax with a low ceiling of 24%. Apart from income tax, you get to keep what you earn and pass on to your descendents. There are no capital gains taxes or inheritance taxes (I kid you not).

Working people are forced to save for retirement (CPF) out of their earned income. Hence, the expectation is self-help, not handouts. That said, there is little evidence of homelessness or starvation in the streets. I believe the country provides welfare support to low income earners through community schemes and subsidies for medical and hospital care which are not highly publicised to avoid people thinking there is a safety net. Immigration is tightly controlled using identity cards and work permits. It is not possible to live in Singapore as the identity card (now digital) is needed for almost every aspect of life. The Singapore government gives regular bonuses to citizens into their CPF fund which are not means tested. This helps low income people who need it and also gives weathier citizens who don't need it a chance to share in GDP growth and feel part of a society that values their contributions.

It is a rapidly aging society. I was very impressed by the joined up approach between the government agencies offering multiple options at various means-tested price points when I was looking for care and assisted living for a close relative.

It is not perfect for sure and a model that is not easy to replicate outside of a small city state. I cite this is an example of how a society can incentivise work and still look after its people.

I agree with all this. The Singapore government have managed things much better. It helps that the PAP has been in power for decades so they are able to make long term plans. I would argue that the political system is along the lines of benign dictatorship, rather than democracy. Things have historically been far more controlled, with little room for dissent. I think that has changed somewhat as time has gone on.
It's also worth mentioning the HDB flats (guaranteed accommodation for Singaporeans above a certain age) which certainly reduces homeless. The socially deprived and disabled are either looked after by their families or by charities and there are far, far less of them compared to the UK.
The whole social system is also different to the UK. Families take on responsibility for helping each other (lots of inter generational living, with grandparents caring for the children and then elderly being cared for by their children later in life). I believe it is actually the law that children financially support their parents in later life.

"Whilst there isn’t an individual pot, today’s workers fund today’s pensioners, there is a widely understood social contract:"

But older people, especially public sector workers, tend to be completely ignorant of government finances. My father was a teacher and was shocked/didn't believe me when I told him there was no 'teacher's pension fund'. He'd been paying his pension contributions and thought the money was being invested somewhere. He didn't realise it was just a big ponzi scheme. I think one of the reasons he was ignorant was because he simply didn't want to know. He was doing fine and that's all he really cared about. If he'd been told, during his working life, that he needed to fund previous retirees and also contribute to a defined contribution scheme, I think he'd have been outraged.

How many old people are under the same impression for National Insurance and the state pension?

I also worked for a multinational with a fairly generous pension scheme. We paid in 5% and the company paid in 10%. As 40% tax payers that meant that we lost 3% of NET pay for 15% pension contributions - a 500% instant return on your investments is not to be sniffed at. One colleague opted out and said 'the future will take care of itself'. Why should he get looked after by the state in his old age?

Not enough people in Britain realise that 'the government' isn't just a magical thing that showers unlimited money from above.

Which is why I think we need to transition slowly to just having private savings and pensions instead of continuing this ponzi scheme