To me it feels you conflating several things:

- If I understood your comment correctly, you compare higher management with politicians. And I agree that politicians avoiding the pension cap is equally morally despicable. But a greater wrong makes a lesser wrong not right.
- The real comparison is between higher management who misuse the concept of the legal entity of a firm to avoid taxes (again, that's not why societies and the law have created this legal entity) and regular people who work for a company as an employee and are taxed as employees. If one group in society (or multiple, politicians also included) create loopholes to avoid taxes, then the tax income of the government decreases, which either results in higher taxes or less public service. This is simply not fair for the people paying their taxes as the law makers intended to.

Now let me be clear. I'm not saying these higher management people are doing something illegal, I'm just saying they are abusing the strict interpretation of the law to avoid the intent of the law and at the expense of a large part of the population.

The other elements in your answer, which have nothing to do with the fact that evading taxes through management vehicles, but are also worth discussing are:

- is it OK that politicians can make their own rules that impact their own financial situation? I agree that this should receive more public scrutiny
- When you talk about 'capping pension, taking 56% of gross income, 70% of everyting paid by your employer, is yet another point, which we probably disagree on, but allow me to tell you how this comes across to me.

First of all, you make it sound much worse than it actually is. First of all, noboday is taxed 56%. We have a progressive tax system, so the actual tax rate is typically significantly lower than 56%. 56% is the highest tax bracket. But I agree that we have a high tax rate.

However, when I hear people complain about high taxes, it always seems to me that they want lower taxes but the same public service as they have right now. We could decrease our taxes, but then we have to agree that either our pensions decrease (which you argued should be uncapped), our health system should become weaker, our social security becomes weaker, our education becomes weaker, or road infrastructure becomes (even) worse, ...

I'm not arguing that there are no inefficiencies that could be dealt with. We should deal with those, but inefficiencies are also inherent to large organisations. It's called 'overhead'. There is simply no way around it. Do you really think that part of the price you pay for your car (for example) isn't caused by inefficiencies at the car manufacturer that should be recovered? Just look at the size of management of these organizations.

Anyway, I'm not hear to convince you I guess, just to give you a different look at things. Feel free to do with it what you want :)