Boomers have their hand out again!!!

[kzb]

The London Boomer Deficit is some 340,000 persons.

If London had the same percentage of boomers over 65 as the UK average, it would have 340,000 more boomers (>65) than it actually  has.

If we do the same calculation for all boomers, i.e. all persons born between 1945 and 1965, the London boomer deficit is some 543,000 persons.  That's 6.2% of the population. 

So there are plenty of working-age boomers who have upped sticks as well.  Clearly, 543,000 persons leaving equates to a lot of housing being made available.

 

[Unmoderated]

11 hours ago, kzb said:

It doesn't change the argument whether the ratio has changed over time or not.  The fact remains that retired boomers have got out of London, and the current figures show that.  The only other alternative is that they all died, which can't be true because life expectancy in London is rather high.  Even so, dying still makes room for the next generation.

It's not relevant whether this has always happened or not.  The fact is it has happened with the current generation of retirees and they have made room for the next generation.  Or they would have, if the next generation hadn't had to compete with foreigners.

 

Actually it does matter for that particular point. You're suggesting the demographics ratio in London overtime has no relevance but immigrant population changing over time does?

Another tangent but were you suggesting that all foreigners in London needed benefits to live there and they're paying those benefits to foreign landlords? Is this true? Most immigrants I know take nothing. Almost everyone in London over the age of 67 however....

But this is a tangent to the bigger picture. Boomers are, generally, over housed, wealthier and have that subsidised by the working poor suffering higher tax rates (see the point you made earlier about right wingers wanting regressive tax rates ). Even if all the Boomers did leave London they didn't just vanish did they? They bought other houses. That cycle has been running for decades. Move to London young, move out to start a family. It's that second step that's causing friction now. Family homes are not available (nor affordable to the majority) of people in the generations behind. My point is that, perhaps if the handouts to this cohort were a little less generous, more houses could be. 

The rebuttal from you seems to be 'foreigners'?

Perhaps we're arguing about the same thing? Too many people getting too much out of a system with too few contributing. How might we change that? 

[zugzwang]

26 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

Perhaps we're arguing about the same thing? Too many people getting too much out of a system with too few contributing. How might we change that? 

A wealth tax. A land value tax. Tobin taxes on financial speculation. The nationalisation of health, rail, water, energy and transport. A nationwide program of general needs social housing. Abandon the North Atlantic Terror Organisation. Reduce immigration to the mere tens of thousands. Throw Suck Here Starmer down a well.

[kzb]

1 hour ago, Unmoderated said:

Actually it does matter for that particular point. You're suggesting the demographics ratio in London overtime has no relevance but immigrant population changing over time does?

Yes I that it is what I'm saying.  Tthe thing to notice is that the percentage of older people is relatively low, compared to almost anywhere else in the country.

Life expectancy in London is higher than average so they must've moved out.  Whether this has "always happened" or not is not relevant to the argument.  The fact is they've gone and released their accommodation to others who want to move in.

This was your accusation, that boomers were hanging on to houses and stopping younger people from buying as a result.  The house price situation is most severe in London, but it seems the area with the most boomers moving out still has the highest house prices.  So ethnic cleansing of boomers does not look like the complete solution does it ?

1 hour ago, Unmoderated said:

Another tangent but were you suggesting that all foreigners in London needed benefits to live there and they're paying those benefits to foreign landlords? Is this true? Most immigrants I know take nothing.

That's your social circle.  I honestly can't see how people from some of the poorest countries on Earth can live there without substantial subsidy.   Anyhow this does not change the argument either; even if they are all doctors and dentists, they are still outcompeting Brits for housing and pushing up the house price, which is the important thing.  The demand is not stoked by boomers; quite the reverse because they left.

1 hour ago, Unmoderated said:

But this is a tangent to the bigger picture. Boomers are, generally, over housed, wealthier

It's always been the case.  You are born with nothing, and the point of the game is to get wealthier as you get older.  People wouldn't want it any other way.  You've got to have something to look forward to and work towards it.  If you knew your life was never going to get better whatever you did, you'd have no incentive.  That's the whole game.

 

2 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

subsidised by the working poor suffering higher tax rates

It's the social contract.  If you asked those working poor if we should stop the state pension, most would be outraged.  They're looking forward to it.

Anyhow, it looks like you are going to get your way.  The Tories have announced they want to get rid of national insurance, so I guess you are very pleased with that.  It might even make you vote Tory?

Notice this ambition has not come from Labour, it's come from the Tories.  The welfare state, based on national insurance, is Labour's baby, one of the proudest achievements in their history.  No wonder the Tories want to trash it.

So now we can look forward to the pension being paid from taxes.  They have not stated how they will maintain the contributory principle, probably because they have no intention of doing so.  The pension will become just another benefit, and then it is just a short step away from being means-tested.  Which is what they are really after doing.  So congratulations, you are getting what you wanted all along.

 

 

 

 

 

[Unmoderated]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

Yes I that it is what I'm saying.  Tthe thing to notice is that the percentage of older people is relatively low, compared to almost anywhere else in the country.

Life expectancy in London is higher than average so they must've moved out.  Whether this has "always happened" or not is not relevant to the argument.  The fact is they've gone and released their accommodation to others who want to move in.

This was your accusation, that boomers were hanging on to houses and stopping younger people from buying as a result.  The house price situation is most severe in London, but it seems the area with the most boomers moving out still has the highest house prices.  So ethnic cleansing of boomers does not look like the complete solution does it ?

That's your social circle.  I honestly can't see how people from some of the poorest countries on Earth can live there without substantial subsidy.   Anyhow this does not change the argument either; even if they are all doctors and dentists, they are still outcompeting Brits for housing and pushing up the house price, which is the important thing.  The demand is not stoked by boomers; quite the reverse because they left.

It's always been the case.  You are born with nothing, and the point of the game is to get wealthier as you get older.  People wouldn't want it any other way.  You've got to have something to look forward to and work towards it.  If you knew your life was never going to get better whatever you did, you'd have no incentive.  That's the whole game.

It's the social contract.  If you asked those working poor if we should stop the state pension, most would be outraged.  They're looking forward to it.

Anyhow, it looks like you are going to get your way.  The Tories have announced they want to get rid of national insurance, so I guess you are very pleased with that.  It might even make you vote Tory?

Notice this ambition has not come from Labour, it's come from the Tories.  The welfare state, based on national insurance, is Labour's baby, one of the proudest achievements in their history.  No wonder the Tories want to trash it.

So now we can look forward to the pension being paid from taxes.  They have not stated how they will maintain the contributory principle, probably because they have no intention of doing so.  The pension will become just another benefit, and then it is just a short step away from being means-tested.  Which is what they are really after doing.  So congratulations, you are getting what you wanted all along.

Then it doesn't make sense - pitching a demographic trend against a snap shot?

Again, it's tangential - it was a point about conceptions which turned out to be wrong (thanks Dave). Though I wonder if he meant Bournemouth Town, not borough? There's a big uni there so perhaps that's something to do with it. Doesn't matter. It's entirely beside the point. 

Again, missing the point. You're focussed on London now. This isn't a London issue, it's a national issue. 

Life expectancy in London is higher because Boomers moved out? What? Life expectancy is determined by many factors. I'm not sure fewer old people makes sense? What's the life expectancy in the average nursing home? 

The assertion (not accusation) is that Boomers are holding on to the houses. Never said it was a London phenomenon (you're confusing a side point now with the core issue). Boomers are over housed. They hang on to larger houses than young people with young families can get access to. NATIONALLY! I am merely pointing out I think it unreasonable for those same young families to suffer high tax rates to keep Boomers, at the margin, living in houses they couldn't otherwise afford. If someone retired and can do this of independent means then fine - it's a free country. Transferring wealth from the poor to the rich to enable it is not fair.

Boomers are not an ethnic group so there's no ethnic cleansing! Calm down lol. I've not advocated forcing them to move. I'm advocating a reduction in the freebies they get at the poorest in society's expense. 

 

Maybe you can't see how they do it but many do it. I'm happy to see data on this but they are not ALL on benefits. I had an Iraqi dentist who was here as a refugee. Good for him, and good for me and his many other patients. 

Of course, it's immigrants innit - not Boomers living in housing subsidised by the young and higher taxed (including said immigrants). 

 

So, if you get wealthier as you get older why then do you need tax breaks and a triple lock universal basic income plus a whole host of other handouts? Why do the wealthier and older members of society need a lower marginal tax rate than someone in work with little to no assets. You wonder why the birth rate has collapsed.... it's not hard to join those dots is it? 

 

There's no social contract. The working poor are paying in far less than they'll receive. The higher earners are paying in far more than they'll receive. It might have been partially contribution based before WW2 but it's not any longer and has not been for a long time. That's another issue. I'm fine to make it contribution based. I would like to see some relationship between what I pay and what I'd get back out if I'm unemployed or when I retire. I wont. 

You seem incapable of addressing the issue here and lurch to an extreme. Equalising tax rates across age groups IS NOT stopping the state pension is it? You try and make a strawman (badly) here. I'm arguing for, at the very least, the wealthiest to pay the same marginal tax rates as the poorest. That's progressive. Apparently not supporting it makes you very right wing (your words my friend). 

Just so you're clear - I want to keep the state pension. I would even advocate lowering the retirement age, or at least indexing it with life expectancy. I am not in favour of people paying less in tax simply because they're born a year earlier than someone else. Do you understand? 

One of the few things I can get on board with the Tories. NI needs to go and tax rates equalised. I will be old one day (hopefully, it's preferable to the alternative). I see zero benefit to me having a nice big tax cut when I've paid off the house, raised the kids and have a pension paid up (and in receipt of a triple locked state pension if I ever get there). 

I'm also pretty sure the welfare state is nothing to be proud of in it's current form. I'd give Labour the NHS and that's about it. State pensions were introduced in 1909. Retirement age 70 which was actually above the average life expectancy of the time. 

National Insurance was introduced in 1911. It was a tripartite funding between individuals, employers and the state. Labour merely expanded on what was already there. I think both were under liberal/conservative governments?

[kzb]

3 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

You're focussed on London now. This isn't a London issue, it's a national issue. 

Yes I focussed on London because that is where the problem of younger people accessing housing is most severe.

3 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

Life expectancy in London is higher because Boomers moved out? What?

I never said that. Go back and read it again.

More later.

[kzb]

22 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

There's no social contract.

Yes there is.  We were going to be looked after from cradle to grave for paying national insurance.

22 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

The working poor are paying in far less than they'll receive. The higher earners are paying in far more than they'll receive.

Of course that is the whole idea.  The cost is socialised, so the poor benefit the most.  That's the Labour Party, it's in their DNA.

22 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

It might have been partially contribution based before WW2 but it's not any longer and has not been for a long time.

It's contribution based in terms of the number of contributions you have to make to qualify for benefits.   Your state pension is pro-rata to the number of years you have contributed, up to a maximum of 35 years.  Any connection with the cash amount you've paid in has been lost, granted, but it was always pretty weak.

There is a rational for that, i.e. if you are working, you are contributing to the common good, even if you don't earn much yourself.  As I said, high earners such as yourself are enabled by an army of poorer people that make your life possible.  In your case, if there were not a large number of people to farm and exploit, data analytics wouldn't be worth any money.  Your income is completely dependent on those people, you don't exist in a vacuum.

 

22 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

That's another issue. I'm fine to make it contribution based. I would like to see some relationship between what I pay and what I'd get back out if I'm unemployed or when I retire. I wont. 

Yes I do agree with this.  Certainly in many European countries it works like that.  But if you take the French scheme for example, you can get up to 75% of your salary as dole money, which I think would be "unsustainable" as they say.

But on the other hand, the UK contribution-based jobseekers allowance is pitiful.  I really think it should be boosted to give recognition and reward to those that have actually worked, rather than existed off benefits the whole time.

[winkie]

19 hours ago, kzb said:

Yes I focussed on London because that is where the problem of younger people accessing housing is most severe.

I never said that. Go back and read it again.

More later.

Why would anyone who is old want to continue living in London?......what benefits does London offer older people?......better tis not, open more free places, warm and accepting, Cosmopolitan places.....some of us will overcome Brexit......live in places that those who voted Brexit chose to remove choices from others, choices they benefited from.....the British have always moved all over the world, so may it continue, why shouldn't others choose to move to Britain, we benefit greatly from them, other places benefit greatly from us..... cheerio.

[Unmoderated]

20 hours ago, kzb said:

I never said that. Go back and read it again.

On 22/03/2024 at 12:08, kzb said:

Life expectancy in London is higher than average so they must've moved out.  Whether this has "always happened" or not is not relevant to the argument.  The fact is they've gone and released their accommodation to others who want to move in.

OK - what do you mean?

1 hour ago, kzb said:

Yes there is.  We were going to be looked after from cradle to grave for paying national insurance.

That's not the social contract. Get on Google and you'll find multiple variants of it. It's a fictional fluffy 'policy' to get votes and justify tax rises. Even if this were once true, it's certainly not any more. Social contract for someone in their 20s - get into loads of debt to get a degree that's pretty much required to get onto any decent training scheme these days. Pay back that loan at higher rates of interest than a mortgage and all while trying to pay rent.

1 hour ago, kzb said:

It's contribution based in terms of the number of contributions you have to make to qualify for benefits.   Your state pension is pro-rata to the number of years you have contributed, up to a maximum of 35 years.  Any connection with the cash amount you've paid in has been lost, granted, but it was always pretty weak.

There is a rational for that, i.e. if you are working, you are contributing to the common good, even if you don't earn much yourself.  As I said, high earners such as yourself are enabled by an army of poorer people that make your life possible.  In your case, if there were not a large number of people to farm and exploit, data analytics wouldn't be worth any money.  Your income is completely dependent on those people, you don't exist in a vacuum.

So, not contribution based then. You can pay in £20 or £20K. In fact you could pay in £20K for 9 years and get nothing or pay in £20 a year for 35 years and get full state pension. It's qualifying years based.

I am of course aware I don't exist in a vacuum. No man is an island and all that. I'm not talking about farmers and low paid people (either through ability or choice). Really it's more levied on the armies of people doing the square root of FA and paying nothing in (42% of adults do not pay income tax in the UK). It's also levied at the armies of people not paying NI despite being wealthier, on average, than others. 

I wont get into the dumb and frankly self harming tax kinks in the system again other than to say Tories missed a trick here when cutting taxes for the low paid they could have also fixed a tax system that screws higher earners but the massive reductions in NI would have provided more than adequate cover for any BS hypocrisy fired over from Labour on that. 

1 hour ago, kzb said:

Yes I do agree with this.  Certainly in many European countries it works like that.  But if you take the French scheme for example, you can get up to 75% of your salary as dole money, which I think would be "unsustainable" as they say.

But on the other hand, the UK contribution-based jobseekers allowance is pitiful.  I really think it should be boosted to give recognition and reward to those that have actually worked, rather than existed off benefits the whole time.

 

I think most countries only start off so high for a period of time and then it falls in steps down to an eventual floor? Could be wrong. But that is truly and insurance scheme. Someone earning £100K a year likely needs a higher income insurance than something earning £20K. 

JSA is a joke and that's why many have switched to being long term sick. No need to look for a job either. 

Could be funded by abolishing the triple lock perhaps? Or ensuring we all pay the same rates of tax?

[kzb]

2 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

OK - what do you mean?

This is what I said:

The thing to notice is that the percentage of older people is relatively low, compared to almost anywhere else in the country.

Life expectancy in London is higher than average so they must've moved out.

You have to read it in context with the previous sentence.  There was also an earlier post where it was explained.

There are two possible explanations of the the fact stated in the first sentence, i.e. the percentage of old people is exceptionally low.  One is that life expectancy is lower than the rest of the UK, so the missing old people have died.  The second explanation is that they have moved elsewhere.  The first clause of the second sentence is to falsify the first explanation; they have not died, so the second explanation is correct -they must've moved out.

Got it now ?  This is proper data analysis.

More later.

[Unmoderated]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

This is what I said:

The thing to notice is that the percentage of older people is relatively low, compared to almost anywhere else in the country.

Life expectancy in London is higher than average so they must've moved out.

You have to read it in context with the previous sentence.  There was also an earlier post where it was explained.

There are two possible explanations of the the fact stated in the first sentence, i.e. the percentage of old people is exceptionally low.  One is that life expectancy is lower than the rest of the UK, so the missing old people have died.  The second explanation is that they have moved elsewhere.  The first clause of the second sentence is to falsify the first explanation; they have not died, so the second explanation is correct -they must've moved out.

Got it now ?  This is proper data analysis.

More later.

I disagree old people moving out of London as any impact on life expectancy in London. In your rather simple analysis it would have the opposite impact. If everyone over 65 moves out then the average age of death in London would be lower than elsewhere. 

Life expectancy is measured as life expectancy at birth.

Life expectancy in London is higher, I imagine, due to people being wealthier and having better access to healthcare (thanks to proximity to good university hospitals and a good supply of NHS workers - immigrant or domestic). 

There could be other reasons too. Someone living in London gets a long term illness and now their focus is on quality of life so they sell up, quit work and live their best life by the sea or the place they were born etc. 

That is not proper data analysis. Where is the data?

I am enjoying the back and forth btw. You are making me think about things. 

[kzb]

17 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

I disagree old people moving out of London as any impact on life expectancy in London. In your rather simple analysis it would have the opposite impact. If everyone over 65 moves out then the average age of death in London would be lower than elsewhere. 

Life expectancy is measured as life expectancy at birth.

Life expectancy in London is higher, I imagine, due to people being wealthier and having better access to healthcare (thanks to proximity to good university hospitals and a good supply of NHS workers - immigrant or domestic). 

There could be other reasons too. Someone living in London gets a long term illness and now their focus is on quality of life so they sell up, quit work and live their best life by the sea or the place they were born etc. 

That is not proper data analysis. Where is the data?

I am enjoying the back and forth btw. You are making me think about things. 

Thank you, if we can do that we are at least achieving something.

When you are thinking about this, you need to realise that you have got completely the wrong end of the stick on this particular point.

At no time have I brought any causation factors of life expectancy into the argument.  The only thing we are discussing here is that there is a statistical deficit of boomers and persons over 65 in Gtr London.

As I've shown, there are far fewer of these persons in London than you would expect from examining the population stats of the UK as a whole.

There is something like 543,000 fewer boomers in London than there should be.  If boomers had stayed put, there would be 543,000 more of them in London than there actually are. 

 The only reason I mentioned life expectancy was to remove dying as an explanation for the population deficit.

[winkie]

18 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

I disagree old people moving out of London as any impact on life expectancy in London. In your rather simple analysis it would have the opposite impact. If everyone over 65 moves out then the average age of death in London would be lower than elsewhere. 

Life expectancy is measured as life expectancy at birth.

Life expectancy in London is higher, I imagine, due to people being wealthier and having better access to healthcare (thanks to proximity to good university hospitals and a good supply of NHS workers - immigrant or domestic). 

There could be other reasons too. Someone living in London gets a long term illness and now their focus is on quality of life so they sell up, quit work and live their best life by the sea or the place they were born etc. 

That is not proper data analysis. Where is the data?

I am enjoying the back and forth btw. You are making me think about things. 

Re hospitals....we can now pick the hospital we want to be treated in anywhere we want, plenty travel to London or Cambridge or wherever to be treated....stay with a friend.

[Unmoderated]

2 hours ago, kzb said:

Thank you, if we can do that we are at least achieving something.

When you are thinking about this, you need to realise that you have got completely the wrong end of the stick on this particular point.

At no time have I brought any causation factors of life expectancy into the argument.  The only thing we are discussing here is that there is a statistical deficit of boomers and persons over 65 in Gtr London.

As I've shown, there are far fewer of these persons in London than you would expect from examining the population stats of the UK as a whole.

There is something like 543,000 fewer boomers in London than there should be.  If boomers had stayed put, there would be 543,000 more of them in London than there actually are. 

 The only reason I mentioned life expectancy was to remove dying as an explanation for the population deficit.

Thanks. That wasn't clear to me in the original post.

[Unmoderated]

2 hours ago, winkie said:

Re hospitals....we can now pick the hospital we want to be treated in anywhere we want, plenty travel to London or Cambridge or wherever to be treated....stay with a friend.

Sure, but if you're seriously ill a trip across the country and miles from family or friends is a fairly big deal.

[winkie]

3 minutes ago, Unmoderated said:

Sure, but if you're seriously ill a trip across the country and miles from family or friends is a fairly big deal.

Family don't all have to live in one place......if family or friends live near a better more specialised hospital, why not?

[Unmoderated]

27 minutes ago, winkie said:

Family don't all have to live in one place......if family or friends live near a better more specialised hospital, why not?

.

[kzb]

On 24/03/2024 at 16:02, Unmoderated said:

Thanks. That wasn't clear to me in the original post.

Good, now we've established that we can move on to more important things.

Let's remind ourselves of other facts we have already established:

• the UK state pension is low in international comparisons;
• in any other EU country, an average employee would be paying a greater percentage of their salary towards pensions;
• EU social security deductions are higher than in the UK, with the exception of Denmark, where income tax is much higher.

But now we have the Tories saying they want to abolish national insurance.  This is also what you, and many others on here, say they wanted to see.

That means we'll need to fund the state pension out of general taxation.  General taxation would need to increase to make up the shortfall caused by losing NICs.  It does mean there is no exemption for pensioners and others who do not work for a living.

It also potentially means there is no link between contribution (which might consist of other things besides cash) and pension entitlement.

Also, we have got to wonder if the Tories will actually want to increase taxation in this way.  What I think is, they are going to see how to cut pension expenditure so there is no noticeable increase in taxation.

I think this attack on NI is the first step in turning the pension into a means-tested benefit.

So you have got what you wanted, the end of NI, but be careful what you wish for.

 

 

 

 

 

[Unmoderated]

1 hour ago, kzb said:

Good, now we've established that we can move on to more important things.

Let's remind ourselves of other facts we have already established:

• the UK state pension is low in international comparisons;
• in any other EU country, an average employee would be paying a greater percentage of their salary towards pensions;
• EU social security deductions are higher than in the UK, with the exception of Denmark, where income tax is much higher.

But now we have the Tories saying they want to abolish national insurance.  This is also what you, and many others on here, say they wanted to see.

That means we'll need to fund the state pension out of general taxation.  General taxation would need to increase to make up the shortfall caused by losing NICs.  It does mean there is no exemption for pensioners and others who do not work for a living.

It also potentially means there is no link between contribution (which might consist of other things besides cash) and pension entitlement.

Also, we have got to wonder if the Tories will actually want to increase taxation in this way.  What I think is, they are going to see how to cut pension expenditure so there is no noticeable increase in taxation.

I think this attack on NI is the first step in turning the pension into a means-tested benefit.

So you have got what you wanted, the end of NI, but be careful what you wish for.

Hard to compare like for like. There are many other free items that pensioners get in UK. There's also very tax beneficial treatment of private pension contributions (a true contribution based system). 

https://fullfact.org/europe/pensioners-eu-uk/

I note that younger people in those countries are also not being screwed over with high housing, tuition fees and various other things. 

In any other EU country (well some at least) there is a real relationship between how much you pay in and how much you get. Not so in the UK. 

The state pension is funded out of general taxation. It seems bizarre that anyone cannot accept NI as a tax on earnings. It's not an insurance scheme, how much you pay in has no bearing on the pay-out. 

There is no link today between how much you pay in what you get out. Someone could pay £1m in NI over 9 years and get nothing back. Someone else pays £1000 over ten years and gets something back. 

The increase in taxation could be met through fiscal drag. Remove the PA for everyone and NI for everyone. Job done. Everyone pays something into the system and there's no exceptions between age groups. 

Would you do me a favour and point out where I requested a means tested state pension? That's something you've been talking about. I simply stated it's unfair to tax the ar5e out of a 25 year old with NI and a graduate tax when someone in their 70s has far less outgoings, is far wealthier and suffers a marginal tax rate of half their young counterpart. 

 

When everyone is paying into the system and people are not able to game it. When a 25 year old is no longer hampered by paying for people far wealthier than him to enjoy a quality of life he can't provide for himself I will have got what I wanted. 

I think NI going is an excellent thing. Simplify income tax, make everyone pay the same rates. If the state needs a little more then it can make EVERYONE pay a little more. 

 

You know what the tipping point for me was? When they increased NI to pay for the lockdown debts. This is something that harmed the young and benefitted the old. Guess who then is economically insulated from it? Guess who then has to pick up the bill? It's the single thing Liz Truss did that I agreed with. 

[kzb]

4 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

The state pension is funded out of general taxation. It seems bizarre that anyone cannot accept NI as a tax on earnings. It's not an insurance scheme, how much you pay in has no bearing on the pay-out. 

It's a different scheme to general taxation. I've told you several times what the differences are.

4 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

Someone could pay £1m in NI over 9 years and get nothing back. Someone else pays £1000 over ten years and gets something back. 

You would need an extremely high income to pay in £1m over 9 years.  But as a general point, as I've said, it's socialism.  Those with most pay the most and vice versa.   I've also given you the rational for that previously.

4 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

The increase in taxation could be met through fiscal drag. Remove the PA for everyone

Put that in your election manifesto and watch your vote get decimated.  Almost no-one would vote for that.  All the feeling is actually the opposite way, most people think it is daft that we have to pay income tax at below the official poverty line.  The Reform Party policy is to increase the PA to £20k, and it seems a popular policy.

4 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

Would you do me a favour and point out where I requested a means tested state pension?

I didn't say you did.  I am pointing out that is the direction that it is going, for the reason they are implementing what you espouse.

Anyhow, lot's of people say, why are the very rich getting a state pension?  It's a very common moan on here.  Why does someone in a £2m house get a state pension ?  I hear this all the time.

4 hours ago, Unmoderated said:

You know what the tipping point for me was? When they increased NI to pay for the lockdown debts.

Err....when was this exactly ?  I don't recall that at all.

The only thing I recall is the proposal for a social care tax, which rightly got binned.  It wasn't to pay the lockdown debt.

 

[Unmoderated]

2 hours ago, kzb said:

It's a different scheme to general taxation. I've told you several times what the differences are.

You would need an extremely high income to pay in £1m over 9 years.  But as a general point, as I've said, it's socialism.  Those with most pay the most and vice versa.   I've also given you the rational for that previously.

Put that in your election manifesto and watch your vote get decimated.  Almost no-one would vote for that.  All the feeling is actually the opposite way, most people think it is daft that we have to pay income tax at below the official poverty line.  The Reform Party policy is to increase the PA to £20k, and it seems a popular policy.

I didn't say you did.  I am pointing out that is the direction that it is going, for the reason they are implementing what you espouse.

Anyhow, lot's of people say, why are the very rich getting a state pension?  It's a very common moan on here.  Why does someone in a £2m house get a state pension ?  I hear this all the time.

Err....when was this exactly ?  I don't recall that at all.

The only thing I recall is the proposal for a social care tax, which rightly got binned.  It wasn't to pay the lockdown debt.

 

It's not a different scheme. It barely pretends to be to borderline people. It isn't. It's a tax. Do me another favour and explain how it isn't please.

Nothing wrong with those with the most paying the most. Except you seem to think that once past the age of 67 this no longer applies. Those with the most pay the least? Millionaires paying less than those in debt. It's amazing how you're trying but failing to defend this. You didge the questions that make it obvious.

You raise the core point around voting. The undead ever voting boomer leeches continue to vote themselves largesse from the public purse. Finally one realises what the former colonies on this good Earth were placed for. What do you expect the young to do? They'll either leave or they'll stop working. If you imagine otherwise you've an intellectual deficit.

Most people think they deserve to pay zero taxes and get ALL the benefits. I cite Boomer in this group. Crack on. Make it £50K. Who do you think is gonna pay for your unfunded entitlements. Anyone voting Reform is simply inumerate. Show me how that stacks up. Tell me how hard it is for me to F'off to Panama or some other tropical paradise and pay zero tax until I can collect my private pension and pay min NI conts until BS retirement age of X when I return lol. Utter clown world. 

https://www.rsmuk.com/insights/employment-matters/payroll/new-national-insurance-rate#:~:text=In April 2022 the then,NIC rate back to 12%.

September 2022. Not surprised you don't recall it. You seem capable of only recalling what suits. At this point I started maxing pensions so I'd never pay a penny more in tax. 

I have a blog explaining to other how to game the system. I literally want to collapse the tax base until those working and adding wealth are rewarded for all that they do.

Why was it right to bin that proposal, in your humble opinion?

[Unmoderated]

2 hours ago, kzb said:

You would need an extremely high income to pay in £1m over 9 years.  But as a general point, as I've said, it's socialism.  Those with most pay the most and vice versa.   I've also given you the rational for that previously.

Yeah, but despite a high income it's true. 

It is not contribution based. It's a fiction. A doozey. A fallacy. Those with the most pay the most and get FA in return? That's socialism? AND, apparently Insurance. But they're opposites in this context aren't they? 

[14stFlyer]

On 3/23/2024 at 12:44 PM, kzb said:

On 3/22/2024 at 2:02 PM, Unmoderated said:

There's no social contract.

Yes there is.  We were going to be looked after from cradle to grave for paying national insurance.

This is the bit that bugs me.  Life expectancy and health and care costs now are completely different now from when boomers entered into their social contract.  To assume that you can still get cradle to grave care from what you paid in is simply stealing from the young.  It is not realistic or fair for boomers too expect this. 

Unmoderated is right. There is no social contract for the young today, just indentured servitude paying the debts owed to the old.  

[winkie]

Looming retirement crisis.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/mar/26/little-planning-for-looming-retirement-crisis-blackrock-chief-warns

[onlooker]

1 hour ago, 14stFlyer said:

This is the bit that bugs me.  Life expectancy and health and care costs now are completely different now from when boomers entered into their social contract.  To assume that you can still get cradle to grave care from what you paid in is simply stealing from the young.  It is not realistic or fair for boomers too expect this. 

Unmoderated is right. There is no social contract for the young today, just indentured servitude paying the debts owed to the old.  

The costs of housing illegal immigrants is also completely different now from when the commitments were entered into by the British government at about the same time that the NHS was founded. Yet a lot of hot air has recently been vented about how the UK must still abide by those anachronistic commitments.