Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

Make Elderly Pay To Help The Young, Government Report To Say

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph...ort-to-say.html

Interesting. Since demographics are changing and the younger population becomes more politically active (their votes start to count) I think we will see more and more of this. I wonder if they will decide to start taxing unearned wealth accumulated in property by the old? Seems like an easy tax and one that can't easily be avoided.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest unfunded_liability

http://www.telegraph...ort-to-say.html

Interesting. Since demographics are changing and the younger population becomes more politically active (their votes start to count) I think we will see more and more of this. I wonder if they will decide to start taxing unearned wealth accumulated in property by the old? Seems like an easy tax and one that can't easily be avoided.

Quote from the article:

Wealthy pensioners should lose their free television licences and winter fuel allowance to address a “fairness deficit” between generations, a Government advisor has said.

Fair enough you might say, make those 'orrible boomers pay at last. But I suspect none of the clawback will be used to benefit the young.

ed. sp

Edited by unfunded_liability

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fair enough you might say, make those 'orrible bommers pay at last. But I suspect none of the clawback will be used to benefit the young.

Also, means-testing free TV licences and winter fuel allowances so that pensioners who are higher-rate taxpayers don't receive them is going to save what, tens of millions of pounds a year? The UK's problems are in the hundreds of billions, ten thousand times larger. It's pointless posturing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear government geniuses, here's what might actually help the young:

1. Lower asset prices so that the young can afford to accumulate capital.

2. Lower housing costs so that British labour is affordable for those looking to hire.

3. A shift in the burden of taxation away from wages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear government geniuses, here's what might actually help the young:

1. Lower asset prices so that the young can afford to accumulate capital.

2. Lower housing costs so that British labour is affordable for those looking to hire.

3. A shift in the burden of taxation away from wages.

You bloody communist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't wait to hear what milliband says, its become something of a comedy him reading a pre-prepared script.

All three party leaders are going to be tripping over each other in the rush to defend pensioners. Clegg's just the first one out of the gates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Tories are starting to appreciate that their existence as a going concern on the UK political landscape is not assured if they only push policies which benefit, to a tremendous degree (via setting HPI in concrete amongst other things), a diminishing pool of older voters at the expense of the entire next wave of citizens, voters and potential party members.

Economic conservatives simply have no UK political home, whatever their age. The young have less reasons than most to compromise and vote Conservative. Every month of deficit, overspend/borrowing and idiotic debt enslavement traps allied to a callous disregard for the sort of costs a younger lower earner might be hammered with, means a step closer to Conservative central office being plunged into a fiat-currency style crisis whereby people refuse to believe they have any legitimacy, and it becomes self-fulfilling. Sooner the better imo, followed by a sound money rebirth and a cull of wets like Cameron/Osborne etc.

There are approx.140,000 Conservative members today, down over 100,000 in under a decade. Circa 0.5% of the adult population are members of the main party of Government. The idea that such a party could, would (or even should!) represent the best interests of the nation is laughable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear government geniuses, here's what might actually help the young:

but the government and majority of voters (over 40's) do not want to help hte youngsters.. FFS Cameron will be setting up workhouses for the under 25's soon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear government geniuses, here's what might actually help the young:

1. Lower asset prices so that the young can afford to accumulate capital.

2. Lower housing costs so that British labour is affordable for those looking to hire.

3. A shift in the burden of taxation away from wages.

You bloody capitalist!

Only hard workers (with or without families) could advocate that!

What of the landed gentry, the rentiers of the country - have you nothing for them?

Oh, bankruptcy for rentiers, fair play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, means-testing free TV licences and winter fuel allowances so that pensioners who are higher-rate taxpayers don't receive them is going to save what, tens of millions of pounds a year? The UK's problems are in the hundreds of billions, ten thousand times larger. It's pointless posturing.

A 1.2bn saving was the outcome on GMTV this morning

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A 1.2bn saving was the outcome on GMTV this morning

Total cost to DWP of free TV licences for over 75s = £0.5bn link

Total winter fuel allowance cost = £2.1bn link

Combined cost = £2.6bn.

GMTV figure £1.2bn divided by £2.6bn = 46%.

Wealthy pensioners should lose their free television licences and winter fuel allowance to address a “fairness deficit” between generations, a Government advisor has said.

How are they going to define "wealthy pensioners" so that 46% of households currently entitled to these benefits are excluded?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Total cost to DWP of free TV licences for over 75s = £0.5bn link

Total winter fuel allowance cost = £2.1bn link

Combined cost = £2.6bn.

GMTV figure £1.2bn divided by £2.6bn = 46%.

How are they going to define "wealthy pensioners" so that 46% of households currently entitled to these benefits are excluded?

Why means test of course, good sir!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why means test of course, good sir!

Yes, but what will be the test that says 46% of pensioners are "wealthy" and 54% are not?

Edit: maths fail.

Edited by Dorkins

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear government geniuses, here's what might actually help the young:

1. Lower asset prices so that the young can afford to accumulate capital.

2. Lower housing costs so that British labour is affordable for those looking to hire.

3. A shift in the burden of taxation away from wages.

you shell be executed immediately in the front of your family for a war crime to even consider this ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Perhaps the Tories are starting to appreciate that their existence as a going concern on the UK political landscape is not assured if they only push policies which benefit, to a tremendous degree (via setting HPI in concrete amongst other things), a diminishing pool of older voters at the expense of the entire next wave of citizens, voters and potential party members.

Economic conservatives simply have no UK political home, whatever their age. The young have less reasons than most to compromise and vote Conservative. Every month of deficit, overspend/borrowing and idiotic debt enslavement traps allied to a callous disregard for the sort of costs a younger lower earner might be hammered with, means a step closer to Conservative central office being plunged into a fiat-currency style crisis whereby people refuse to believe they have any legitimacy, and it becomes self-fulfilling. Sooner the better imo, followed by a sound money rebirth and a cull of wets like Cameron/Osborne etc.

There are approx.140,000 Conservative members today, down over 100,000 in under a decade. Circa 0.5% of the adult population are members of the main party of Government. The idea that such a party could, would (or even should!) represent the best interests of the nation is laughable.

The demographics of the UK suggest the power of the pensioner vote is not going to disappear any time soon particularly as most post war baby boomers have not even retired yet. Indeed birth rates show young voters are not going to be a deciding force again until the kids currently at infant school reach 18. Of course by then they will be voting in their own interests and not todays generation of 25-40 year olds who will by then starting to get a bit long in the tooth themselves. You can be sure that all the politicians are only too aware of the way the votes stack up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right thing to do might be to remove 650 MPs to stop them doing any more damage.

Edited by tinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Private pension / home equity / share holdings / savings.

Possibly a truer reflection of how comfortably off people are than income, as pointed out by winkie on the how much do you earn thread...how much is your household net worth would have been more interesting. I note from chart 3 here that those coming up to retirement 45-64 are the wealthiest per capita at 325K for men. But the retired are not far behind, which is why giving them special treatment over young people with nothing and a mountain to climb never made sense to me. But as one housepricecrasher recently pointed out we have a cougar economy where elderly widows give the young a good shafting.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/statistics/wealth/personal-wealth.pdf

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be nice if there were some full time jobs out there with a minimum wage sufficient to give you the income of a pensioner on pension credit who has never worked in their life, and a 3bed council house with a garden and a room big enough for you to spin round in with your arms outstretched without bashing the walls, and a roof high enough for you to stretch in the morning without hitting the ceiling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but what will be the test that says 46% of pensioners are "wealthy" and 54% are not?

Edit: maths fail.

Probably "not wealthy" would be qualification for means tested benefits such as pension credit and all its associated passported benefits.

Will encourage saving for old age...NOT.

Certainly "wealthy" won't be anything connected with paying higher rate tax!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   209 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.