Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
fru-gal

Taxing baby boomers will create a better, fairer Britain. Here’s how

Recommended Posts

Some very contorted and twisted arguments, all culminating in a conclusion that they pretty much shouldn't pay anything, despite the headline.

Taxing inheritance as suggested would be a tax on the boomers' children, not the boomers.

I like this bit...

Some on the right advocate the “slasher” option of privatising the state pension or introducing charges in the NHS. But abandoning the principle that healthcare is free at the point of use would be a dereliction of a promise politicians have made since the creation of the NHS. The over-60s would be exempt from any new charges, but that is where the cost pressures are. So it would leave young people paying twice – for the public services for old people and private services for themselves.

... they just have a god-given right not to pay, like that's a scientific fact.

Paying National Insurance like everyone else would be a very good start.  Followed by removing many of the perks, discounts and freebies.  Personally I'd like to see all NHS treatment charged over a person's lifetime to their estate.  Nobody would be turned away or bankrupted, but at least some money would come back, particularly from those whose own personal neglect was the cause of their need for treatment, e.g. smoking, obesity, etc.

You just know that this sort of decision is going to be kicked into the distance until the boomers are all dead though.  It really feels like the current codgers are behaving like some kind of mafia - just keep handing the money over, however unfair and undeserved, and nobody gets voted out.

Edited by Tes Tickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

Half a clue but no more than that. Slashing taxes won't work because it's entirely re-distributionary, no new money is created. Additional private sector debt is a much worse idea than additional public sector debt (170% vs 80% of GDP). Govt borrowing is far cheaper to finance than private sector borrowing.

In summary: Yes, taxes will have to rise. Yes, a land value tax should be one of those taxes to explicitly the address the distortions of the housing market. Yes, public sector borrowing must be allowed to rise so the private sector can deleverage in an orderly fashion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think that public sector borrowing causes the private sector to deleverage?  If that was the case we'd have very little private debt, but both are high.

Edited by Tes Tickle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The very unique generation where some of them will collect more in pension than they did from their entire working lives... and I'm not including the cost of medical care from cradle to grave.

Not very sustainable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd already had the thought that many would take more than they ever paid in taxes but, as you quite rightly point out, many are going way beyond that.

You hear them saying that they paid taxes all their working lives etc, but they seem to fail to recognise the amounts involved.  Even worse, some did next to nothing all their lives and still seem to feel entitled to keep taking.

I wonder what proportion honestly feel that they should get what they do, and how many basically know it's a big scam and just put on a show as they know it gets results.  It's like a kid bawling until they get the sweets they want.

You only have to remember what happened when the tories suggested some fairly sensible changes to care costs last election.  There were winners and losers but they're not used to that, they need to all win every time.  Every bowling club in the country went into uproar and switched their votes to the other side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Tes Tickle said:

I'd already had the thought that many would take more than they ever paid in taxes but, as you quite rightly point out, many are going way beyond that.

You hear them saying that they paid taxes all their working lives etc, but they seem to fail to recognise the amounts involved.  Even worse, some did next to nothing all their lives and still seem to feel entitled to keep taking.

I wonder what proportion honestly feel that they should get what they do, and how many basically know it's a big scam and just put on a show as they know it gets results.  It's like a kid bawling until they get the sweets they want.

You only have to remember what happened when the tories suggested some fairly sensible changes to care costs last election.  There were winners and losers but they're not used to that, they need to all win every time.  Every bowling club in the country went into uproar and switched their votes to the other side.

Don't forget that the Tories were not able to get a majority in 2010 or 2017 and scraped a small majority in 2015. Going forward their voters are older and dying off and their policies means that a lot of younger people who have been priced out have a "scorched earth" attitude because Corbyn/Labour can't do any worse than the Tory policies of high immigration pricing them out of jobs and homes and gifting money to the already wealthy (whilst claiming to do the opposite). I would imagine that the next election will either see a Labour majority or Labour with the most seats. The Tories have ******ed up enormously!

Edited by fru-gal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tes Tickle said:

Paying National Insurance like everyone else would be a very good start.

I am amazed no one has suggested increasing income tax, but dropping NI to compensate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, fru-gal said:

Don't forget that the Tories were not able to get a majority in 2010 or 2017 and scraped a small majority in 2015. Going forward their voters are older and dying off and their policies means that a lot of younger people who have been priced out have a "scorched earth" attitude because Corbyn/Labour can't do any worse than the Tory policies of high immigration pricing them out of jobs and homes and gifting money to the already wealthy (whilst claiming to do the opposite). I would imagine that the next election will either see a Labour majority or Labour with the most seats. The Tories have ******ed up enormously!

Brown's economic doomsday machine of tax credits rolls on....

2010's coalition should have halted it dead for non citizens.

Then reworked within the existing TC system for Brits.

But no Gidiot had a clever wheeze.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, spyguy said:

Brown's economic doomsday machine of tax credits rolls on....

2010's coalition should have halted it dead for non citizens.

Then reworked within the existing TC system for Brits.

But no Gidiot had a clever wheeze.

 

 

I think the Tories are going to be copying Labour more and more so if anything we will see more given to the welfare state as not only does this make them look caring but it panders to the majority who are net takers. I doubt we will ever see a reduction in tax credits now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tes Tickle said:

Some very contorted and twisted arguments, all culminating in a conclusion that they pretty much shouldn't pay anything, despite the headline.

Taxing inheritance as suggested would be a tax on the boomers' children, not the boomers.

I like this bit...

Some on the right advocate the “slasher” option of privatising the state pension or introducing charges in the NHS. But abandoning the principle that healthcare is free at the point of use would be a dereliction of a promise politicians have made since the creation of the NHS. The over-60s would be exempt from any new charges, but that is where the cost pressures are. So it would leave young people paying twice – for the public services for old people and private services for themselves.

... they just have a god-given right not to pay, like that's a scientific fact.

Paying National Insurance like everyone else would be a very good start.  Followed by removing many of the perks, discounts and freebies.  Personally I'd like to see all NHS treatment charged over a person's lifetime to their estate.  Nobody would be turned away or bankrupted, but at least some money would come back, particularly from those whose own personal neglect was the cause of their need for treatment, e.g. smoking, obesity, etc.

You just know that this sort of decision is going to be kicked into the distance until the boomers are all dead though.  It really feels like the current codgers are behaving like some kind of mafia - just keep handing the money over, however unfair and undeserved, and nobody gets voted out.

But as many have pointed out on this thread with have millions of takers who aren't boomers and won't have an estate - so how fair is that to anyone who has tried to be self sufficient 

I think we need to introduce charges for the NHS for everyone at the point of delivery (and actually Life expectancy going down with the fat fast food generations so hardly boomers)

Totally agreed with your comment re healthcare cap - inherently unfair but pragmatism would of said that many families would pay. That did bring out the worst in boomers granted 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s housing benefit and working tax credits they need to worry about! 

HB is £27 billion

WTC is £32 billion

police budget cut to £12  billion as we can’t afford police! 

When generation rent retire with nothing, having paid off 3 mortgages for other people housing benefit will go through the roof! 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Tes Tickle said:

Do you really think that public sector borrowing causes the private sector to deleverage?  If that was the case we'd have very little private debt, but both are high.

Let's think about that. In a closed economy if the public sector in debt it must be owed to the private sector (since combined they equal the whole). 

Real world it's more complicated but there's a good inverse correlation between private and public debt.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2017/08/were-racing-towards-another-private-debt-crisis-so-why-did-no-one-see-it

The question is what do we mean by private debt? Are we talking net or gross? Taking the private sector as a whole the financial position then they would be inversely correlated. However, taking the total of all debts and ignoring the savings etc is (although nonsense) much less correlated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, macca13 said:

It’s housing benefit and working tax credits they need to worry about! 

HB is £27 billion

WTC is £32 billion

police budget cut to £12  billion as we can’t afford police! 

When generation rent retire with nothing, having paid off 3 mortgages for other people housing benefit will go through the roof! 

 

Agreed and those are the easiest and least impacting areas imho but:

NHS budget for 2017/18 = £124.7bn (40% spent on over 65s)

State pension = £92.1bn

Pensionor's benefits £5bn (including £2-£3bn winter fuel allowance)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, cashinmattress said:

The very unique generation where some of them will collect more in pension than they did from their entire working lives... and I'm not including the cost of medical care from cradle to grave.

Not very sustainable.

Won't it be possible for other people to do that as well?  (Get more in pension than they paid in taxes).

I would guess Heather Frost will definitely do that, unless she dies young.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does anyone on this site under 50 think they'll ever receive the state pension?  I don't.

Making it means tested would save significant cash and only impact those who could afford the hit.  I've got no doubt that this will happen one day (or the retirement age will be moved to 80).  Doing it now would generate a big saving.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

Agreed and those are the easiest and least impacting areas imho but:

NHS budget for 2017/18 = £124.7bn (40% spent on over 65s)

State pension = £92.1bn

Pensionor's benefits £5bn (including £2-£3bn winter fuel allowance)

I’ve said this many times, our country is too flabby.. we need a lean workforce.. we import people to look after the needs of people, to look after theneeds of more people.. 

deliveroo 

just eat

hand car washes.. 

just slavery, slumification of housing, low wages mass immigration to prop up corporations with no sustainable business model..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, GregBowman said:

(and actually Life expectancy going down with the fat fast food generations so hardly boomers)

Actually mortality rates flatlined across all age groups when they were expected to keep falling, scroll down to Figure 8 on the link below to see the graphs:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/birthsdeathsandmarriages/lifeexpectancies/articles/changingtrendsinmortality/acrossukcomparison1981to2016#how-do-trends-in-mortality-in-the-uk-countries-vary-by-age

The effect is not specific to any age group, Boomer or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Exiled Canadian said:

Does anyone on this site under 50 think they'll ever receive the state pension?  I don't.

Making it means tested would save significant cash and only impact those who could afford the hit.  I've got no doubt that this will happen one day (or the retirement age will be moved to 80).  Doing it now would generate a big saving.

My personal assumption is that I'll be working until I'm dead.  That's not ideal but OK if you're one of those (like me) who earns by sitting at a desk, not so good for anyone who does physical labour as they'll be physically knackered so unable to earn.

That is if my brain continues to work and I keep up with providing whatever services are demanded.  There were lots of skills in the past that are now worthless, e.g. shorthand typists, estate agents(!).  The internet hardly existed 20 years ago, we've no idea what work or the economy will look like in another 20 years.

A means tested pension may save money for the short term but would be a perverse incentive for the future.  Save for your retirement and be poor, or spend everything and everyone else will look after you.  Other than leaving pensioners to die on the streets it's difficult to see an alternative.

80 is probably a good guess at what the retirement age really ought to be, at least for demographics anyway.  I just don't know whether most people's brains and bodies are much use at this age, I've been in shops staffed by oldies where it's literally like everything they're doing is in slow motion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Tes Tickle said:

Personally I'd like to see all NHS treatment charged over a person's lifetime to their estate.  Nobody would be turned away or bankrupted, but at least some money would come back, particularly from those whose own personal neglect was the cause of their need for treatment, e.g. smoking, obesity, etc.

That's a terrible idea - and totally at odds with the idea of paying National "Insurance".  The point of the NHS is everyone chips in, and those who need it get the benefit.  Not that you accumulate massive deferred medical bills and then they get effectively slapped onto your loved ones when you die.

Under a lifetime charge to the estate if someone dies of cancer aged 45 say, not only does their family have to cope with losing a person too soon, but then has to sell the family home and/or liquidate the family's savings to settle a tax bill for all their end of life care?  And what happens if you're faced with the dilemma: accept potentially-life saving surgery, but in the knowledge that once you're gone the cost of that surgery will have burned through all the money you were hoping to leave to your kids?  These are the kind of horrible situations I read about happening in the US.  I would never want to see this kind of thing here in the UK. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, scottbeard said:

That's a terrible idea - and totally at odds with the idea of paying National "Insurance".  The point of the NHS is everyone chips in, and those who need it get the benefit.  Not that you accumulate massive deferred medical bills and then they get effectively slapped onto your loved ones when you die.

Under a lifetime charge to the estate if someone dies of cancer aged 45 say, not only does their family have to cope with losing a person too soon, but then has to sell the family home and/or liquidate the family's savings to settle a tax bill for all their end of life care?  And what happens if you're faced with the dilemma: accept potentially-life saving surgery, but in the knowledge that once you're gone the cost of that surgery will have burned through all the money you were hoping to leave to your kids?  These are the kind of horrible situations I read about happening in the US.  I would never want to see this kind of thing here in the UK. 

Thats sort of wroked whne everyone was working and there were few OAPs.

AS th previous psoters mentioned, 40% of the NHS budget is spent on OAPS.

The money is not spent, i nthe main, on a aprticualr disease or condition, its just wasted on trying to stop themm dying. And failing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

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.