The upthread point of controversy was whether this scheme would be a negative for anybody. I think I've shown that there are people for whom it would be a negative (at a minimum, increasing the risk of a current holding with no offsetting increase in return in the success case).
If you disagree, that's OK, but there's probably no way to make further progress in resolving that disagreement beyond a back-and-forth of "nuh-uh, yuh-huh".
Oh, ok. So you’re saying that changing tax systems would change the equilibrium, and some people might call that a harm. But that’s true of any major change, even if the new equilibrium is better for most people. It’s more of a fact about the _change_ than about what you changed to.
Likewise pensions. My personal opinion is that anyone accepting a pension instead of better pay is not really doing themselves a favor; they’re taking on extra risk that the politicians won’t raid the pension fund or otherwise mismanage the city. I would rather just own the underlying securities myself, and eliminate the extra steps.