How House Prices And Debts Are Building Ugly Tensions Between Parents And Their Children

[OMG]

For any defenders who would argue that they're just providing a service, market forces, blah, blah, etc the same argument could be applied to drug dealers but the effect is the same. Destruction of young lives.

This can also be applied to buying cheap tat from developing countries. £4.99 toasters, £1 shirts, etc.

[Gigantic Purple Slug]

Sorry, but I really don't see how I can be held responsible for what others of my generation have done. I have never voted Labour (New or otherwise) and actively campaigned against them, have never claimed benefits, always paid tax and NI. I am now retired on a modest annuity funded by my private pension payments and my savings. I won't qualify to draw my state pension for another.... well, I'm not sure how many years as it looks like that's going to change.

Well I didn't vote for the people who promised you the pensions and pissed the money up the wall either, so by the same argument why should I have to pay for them ?

[Authoritarian]

The state pension that I should eventually get is a pittance, it may pay for a few reasonable bottles of wine a month, but it's nowhere near commensurate with what I paid into the system.

Am I bitter? No, that's the was it is. But I do get pissed off when people on here accuse me of taking out more than I paid in.

You need to factor in house price rises too which I don't think you're taking into account.

If you pay £100k into the system but HPI means you house goes up by £200k then you're a net receiever of government benefits. Most boomers have out far taken more than they paid in, and the difference has to be made up by somebody else.

[Bruce Banner]

Well I didn't vote for the people who promised you the pensions and pissed the money up the wall either, so by the same argument why should I have to pay for them ?

Because that's the way the system works. If they don't pay us, you will soon be refusing to pay any national insurance because you'll know it's a con.

NI was the NuLabour tax of choice because they promised not to increase taxes and just went for it with NI. Thieving bastards.

[Bruce Banner]

You need to factor in house price rises too which I don't think you're taking into account.

If you pay £100k into the system but HPI means you house goes up by £200k then you're a net receiever of government benefits. Most boomers have out far taken more than they paid in, and the difference has to be made up by somebody else.

And if I made a few mil by selling my business, should I pay that back too? Hell, let's all throw all of our money into a big pot and share it out equally.

[Authoritarian]

For any defenders who would argue that they're just providing a service, market forces, blah, blah, etc the same argument could be applied to drug dealers but the effect is the same. Destruction of young lives.

What a disgusting comparison, how can you sit there and compare BTL to drug dealing?

Drug dealers are taking a real risk to provide a product that people want, BTL slumlords on the other hand just bleed their tenants dry for a disservice; a significant portion of the house price would actually be free if it wasn't for their presence.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Chef

[Authoritarian]

And if I made a few mil by selling my business, should I pay that back too? Hell, let's all throw all of our money into a big pot and share it out equally.

We're not disscusing the proceeds of work though, your point was specifically about government benefits; a category that house prices falls neatly into.

The government uses a tax policy that is designed to enrich homeowners, so when you claim you're a net contributor into the system you need to take HPI into account too, otherwise the calculation is meaningless.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Chef

[Bruce Banner]

We're not disscusing the proceeds of work though, your point was specifically about government benefits; a category that house prices falls neatly into.

The government uses a tax policy that is designed to enrich homeowners, so when you claim you're a net contributor into the system you need to take HPI into account too, otherwise the calculation is meaningless.

Well that's a relief.

Although I don't agree with you that HPI is a government benefit, off the top of my head, over the years I paid out far more in combined employers and employees NI than I made out of HPI.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Am I bitter? No, that's the was it is. But I do get pissed off when people on here accuse me of taking out more than I paid in.

You really don't understand.

YOU HAVEN'T PAID ANYTHING IN.

Every penny you paid in you were given back as tax cuts.

You have saved precisely.... zero. Merely receiving NHS treatment during you retirement means you are taking out more than you put in.

You can't disconnect the paying in from the taking out. It's like saying in the last 20 years I've paid £3/4m into my bank therefor they owe me £3/4m... ignoring the fact that you've taken that £3/4m back out again during that time too.

[Georgia O'Keeffe]

You really don't understand.

YOU HAVEN'T PAID ANYTHING IN.

Every penny you paid in you were given back as tax cuts.

You have saved precisely.... zero. Merely receiving NHS treatment during you retirement means you are taking out more than you put in.

You can't disconnect the paying in from the taking out. It's like saying in the last 20 years I've paid £3/4m into my bank therefor they owe me £3/4m... ignoring the fact that you've taken that £3/4m back out again during that time too.

are you on smack, you cant deduce hes received more than hes paid individually by using the collective national debt, otherwise you are implying you yourself have done the same and taken more out , along with everyone else in the uk because the uk national debt increased last year. How much was your net withdrawal last year?

You have no idea of his personal historical contribution/withdrawal

Edited September 9, 2010 by Tamara De Lempicka

[Bruce Banner]

You really don't understand.

YOU HAVEN'T PAID ANYTHING IN.

Every penny you paid in you were given back as tax cuts.

You have saved precisely.... zero. Merely receiving NHS treatment during you retirement means you are taking out more than you put in.

You can't disconnect the paying in from the taking out. It's like saying in the last 20 years I've paid £3/4m into my bank therefor they owe me £3/4m... ignoring the fact that you've taken that £3/4m back out again during that time too.

I understand completely, the government took money from me and promised to pay me a pension in return, I had no control over what they did with that money. Anyway, the state pension is only pennies so I can't see what the fuss is about. Had I been able to opt out of the state pension I would be a rich man now.

Don't get me started on the NHS. I would have dearly loved to have opted out of that shambles, but no, no choice .

[Authoritarian]

Well that's a relief.

Although I don't agree with you that HPI is a government benefit, off the top of my head, over the years I paid out far more in combined employers and employees NI than I made out of HPI.

Fair enough, I think it's been a lot easier for your generation to profit from the government though, those that have worked hard and paid their taxes (like my parents) have taken a lot for granted and simply don't realise how different it is now. I'm sure my father would swear blind that he's a net contributer, but when you take into account HPI, the council house he bought at a rock bottom price, the shares he profited from when Thatcher sold off gov't industry, the services he still received like the police, NHS, roads etc and the odd benefit due to short spells of unemployment I bet that assetion starts to look pretty suspect.

I don't think his experience is by any means unique either, factor in the gold plated pensions that many of his age group have promised themselves and it begins to look like one of the greatest heists in history.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Chef

[Bruce Banner]

are you on smack.......

I fear he is.. http://www.housepricecrash.co.uk/forum/index.php?showtopic=150749&view=findpost&p=2704799

[Redcellar]

Well that's a relief.

Although I don't agree with you that HPI is a government benefit, off the top of my head, over the years I paid out far more in combined employers and employees NI than I made out of HPI.

Firstly I'm not anti boomers.

Your summary is flawed. Primarily because all 'businesses' pay some NI as 'employers', they do not pay employees NI, the employees have that taken from their salaries.

Secondly it's the business that pays it and is simply a cost of doing business, just as paying a supplier or your Corporation tax etc. It's not a personal payment so I can't say "I pay NI for my employees" that's rubish. If you take that route then everything you do is a personal expense, which is just nuts.

In fact if your business is structured efficiently you dramatically reduce your personal tax bill and NI payments over what you would pay had you been a normal salaried employee. So strictly speaking we are much better off and aren't contributing our fair share to the NI system.

[Bruce Banner]

Firstly I'm not anti boomers.

Your summary is flawed. Primarily because all 'businesses' pay some NI as 'employers', they do not pay employees NI, the employees have that taken from their salaries.

Secondly it's the business that pays it and is simply a cost of doing business, just as paying a supplier or your Corporation tax etc. It's not a personal payment so I can't say "I pay NI for my employees" that's rubish. If you take that route then everything you do is a personal expense, which is just nuts.

In fact if your business is structured efficiently you dramatically reduce your personal tax bill and NI payments over what you would pay had you been a normal salaried employee. So strictly speaking we are much better off and aren't contributing our fair share to the NI system.

If you own 100% of the business, who else is paying the employers NI.

[Redcellar]

If you own 100% of the business, who else is paying the employers NI.

The people who buy your products.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

I understand completely, the government took money from me and promised to pay me a pension in return, I had no control over what they did with that money. Anyway, the state pension is only pennies so I can't see what the fuss is about. Had I been able to opt out of the state pension I would be a rich man now.

No sorry you still don't get it.

If the government hadn't taken money from people "for their pensions" it would have had to take the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM THEM in increased income tax in order to provide the same services. So you would have been no richer. The only way you could have been richer would be if the government had let you, *JUST YOU* opt out but made everyone else keep paying in so they all subsidised your standard of living.

You see the government wasn't setting fire to this money, it was spending it on the services you received.

You had your pension money back as tax cuts. Plain and simple.

While you may not have consciously decided this, you went on to enjoy the benefits of increased services for your money.

You could have used that money you got through reduced taxation to get a private pension.

You paid tax for services your received, but you said "this part of the tax counts as my pension" and declared yourself entitled to a pension despite not paying anything towards it. All you paid for was the services you received... nothing more. No money was put aside in a "pension fund". A generation simply declared entitlement.

The fact that people simply can't understand these simple facts is part of the reason we are in this mess, and having this discussion, in the first place.

And the kicker, and absolute kick in the guts for your kids, is that because the civil service pension allowed the civil service to get away with paying lower wages, a whole generation actually received MORE services than they payed for, as a portion of the cost of those services (the civil service wages) was deferred in the form of civil service pensions, which THE NEXT GENERATION have to pay... a figure in excess of £1trn.

So not only have the "boomers" promised themselves a pension their kids and grandkids have to pay for, they even got OTHER PEOPLE to provide them with services at a reduced rate in exchange for a pension their kids and grandkids have to pay for.

[R K]

I don't think anyone begrudges the boomers a comfetable retirement out of spite, but it's become increasingly apparent that they're expecting their children to live in squalor and work 50+ hours a week to pay for services that they think they're entitled to. It's a zero sum game, the more affluent they become the poorer everyone else gets, but a group they seem unable to grasp this concept and so don't understand why generation Yers have become so resentful.

If the wealthy boomers reduced the main sources of their income; houses prices and pensions then the associated living costs that the rest of society has to endure would be considerably lowered. One way or another this is going to happen, but I'd prefer to work with the boomers than against them.

At last. The penny is starting to drop.

But then it undrops just as fast. Oh well, perhaps it'll stick eventually.

[Bruce Banner]

The people who buy your products.

What's left over after tax belongs to the business owner, NI is a tax, so at the end of the day it comes out of the dividend.

[Bruce Banner]

No sorry you still don't get it.

If the government hadn't taken money from people "for their pensions" it would have had to take the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM THEM in increased income tax in order to provide the same services. So you would have been no richer. The only way you could have been richer would be if the government had let you, *JUST YOU* opt out but made everyone else keep paying in so they all subsidised your standard of living.

You see the government wasn't setting fire to this money, it was spending it on the services you received.

You had your pension money back as tax cuts. Plain and simple.

While you may not have consciously decided this, you went on to enjoy the benefits of increased services for your money.

You could have used that money you got through reduced taxation to get a private pension.

You paid tax for services your received, but you said "this part of the tax counts as my pension" and declared yourself entitled to a pension despite not paying anything towards it. All you paid for was the services you received... nothing more. No money was put aside in a "pension fund". A generation simply declared entitlement.

The fact that people simply can't understand these simple facts is part of the reason we are in this mess, and having this discussion, in the first place.

And the kicker, and absolute kick in the guts for your kids, is that because the civil service pension allowed the civil service to get away with paying lower wages, a whole generation actually received MORE services than they payed for, as a portion of the cost of those services (the civil service wages) was deferred in the form of civil service pensions, which THE NEXT GENERATION have to pay... a figure in excess of £1trn.

So not only have the "boomers" promised themselves a pension their kids and grandkids have to pay for, they even got OTHER PEOPLE to provide them with services at a reduced rate in exchange for a pension their kids and grandkids have to pay for.

Sorry, but you are demented .

I've had enough of this thread... bye.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Sorry, but you are demented .

I've had enough of this thread... bye.

What part of this can't you understand:

If the government hadn't taken money from people "for their pensions" it would have had to take the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM THEM in increased income tax in order to provide the same services.

[Redcellar]

What's left over after tax belongs to the business owner, NI is a tax, so at the end of the day it comes out of the dividend.

That doesn't make any sense.

You rightly say what's left after tax belongs to the business and NI is a tax.

So it doesn't belong to the business, its a tax, simply a cost of doing business. You build it into the price of the product and is a cost that's passed on, it's not a charity donation from profits. Hence what I said before, you don't pay it, the customer does. What you are effecitvely saying is electricity, rent, employee salaries etc etc are reducing the dividend??? Doesn't make any sense at all. They are costs associated with creating wealth aka the dividend. Without them you have no business and no profit and no dividend.

So I say it again. You personally didn't pay your employers NI, any more than you paid electricity, rent or tax, the customer buying the product pays.

[corevalue]

What part of this can't you understand:

If the government hadn't taken money from people "for their pensions" it would have had to take the SAME AMOUNT OF MONEY FROM THEM in increased income tax in order to provide the same services.

Basic rate of 35% on income tax not enough for you (1976)? Perhaps you'd prefer 1967/8 when it was possible to pay 136.25% income tax? Add to this mortgage interest hovering in the teens of course.

You don't know you're born, nowadays.

Find 136% here

HM gov historic rates

[Bruce Banner]

That doesn't make any sense.

You rightly say what's left after tax belongs to the business and NI is a tax.

So it doesn't belong to the business, its a tax, simply a cost of doing business. You build it into the price of the product and is a cost that's passed on, it's not a charity donation from profits. Hence what I said before, you don't pay it, the customer does. What you are effecitvely saying is electricity, rent, employee salaries etc etc are reducing the dividend??? Doesn't make any sense at all. They are costs associated with creating wealth aka the dividend. Without them you have no business and no profit and no dividend.

So I say it again. You personally didn't pay your employers NI, any more than you paid electricity, rent or tax, the customer buying the product pays.

One last post on this thread.

It depends on how you arrive at your selling price.

I always charged the maximum price the market would stand, as long as it was profitable. I would drop to 100% mark-up if really necessary, but usually worked on 200%-300%. So any cost, expense, tax etc effectively came out of my pocket. My accountant saw it differently, but in reality that's how it was.

[Oh Dear]

Just a quick question..why would the 'boomers' want to have high house prices. They are probably in thier final homes already and mortgage free, what does it matter to them what the final value is. I am sure some would prefer their houses to be valued less (cheaper insurance etc). Is the pension excessive? It seems to me that their is loads of money chasing a terrible quality housing stock. What we all need is a right to build houses (with gardens etc), so that we can build our own to our own specifications and needs, and this right not to be so restrictive as to mean it cost multiples of years earnings just for land with 'permission' in a corner of some 'boomers' back garden.