[Politics] Are baby boomers taxed enough?

[Bakero]

But when people wanted a mortgage back then I think I’m right in saying that wives income was not allowed into the affordability calculations whereas todays are.

Even with one salary, the data suggests it was affordable for a young couple to buy back then.

 

[A mex eyecan]

Even with one salary, the data suggests it was affordable for a young couple to buy back then.

possible for some, not all.
the same as that it is still possible today for some couples to buy but not all couples to buy.

 

[Goldstone Guy]

To answer the OP's implied question, taxing people more just because they're of a certain generation wouldn't be a good idea. Being part of that generation doesn't mean you must be wealthy and could afford to pay more taxes. But the gap between rich and poor seems to be growing and some sort of partial redistribution of wealth would probably be good for society in my opinion. I've heard of an annual tax on land/property suggested before. Never going to happen with this government and it would only help society if the taxes were spent properly, but it's worth consideration I think.

 

[Bakero]

possible for some, not all.
the same as that it is still possible today for some couples to buy but not all couples to buy.

We're talking about averages not individual cases.

 

[Bakero]

To answer the OP's implied question, taxing people more just because they're of a certain generation wouldn't be a good idea. Being part of that generation doesn't mean you must be wealthy and could afford to pay more taxes. But the gap between rich and poor seems to be growing and some sort of partial redistribution of wealth would probably be good for society in my opinion. I've heard of an annual tax on land/property suggested before. Never going to happen with this government and it would only help society if the taxes were spent properly, but it's worth consideration I think.

Land Value Tax is definitely an idea worth exploring.

 

[Glawstergull]

Technically, by a few months I believe, not quite a baby boomer - but nontheless, 'we' pay the same taxes as you. So f*** off.

And have done for many decades.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

No, it wasn't. It was different but no easier unless you moved around. Wages were poor.

It was the norm that a couple could buy a home based on one income.

Relative to the cost of living, wages were much higher.

Unfortunately these discussions always slip into personal narratives.

It's exactly what the ruling classes want.

 

[A mex eyecan]

We're talking about averages not individual cases.

well forgive me ..

have you actually researched the average amount of single earners who could afford in the 70’s and compared with your research of how many combined wage applicants can afford to buy today? It would be interesting to see

 

[Bakero]

well forgive me ..

have you actually researched the average amount of single earners who could afford in the 70’s and compared with your research of how many combined wage applicants can afford to buy today? It would be interesting to see

A quick Google suggests the average house price was around 3 times the average annual salary in 1970.

Today, it's more like 4.5 the average combined salary of man (35k) and a woman (30k).

 

[portlock seagull]

A quick Google suggests the average house price was around 3 times the average annual salary in 1970.

Today, it's more like 4.5 the average combined salary of man (35k) and a woman (30k).

That’s because in 70s many women didn’t work. Naturally as households gained 2 incomes, it accelerated inflation. Then came selling off the gardens and council houses and the great greed is good, “the grabbing hands, grab all they can” (as DP famously sang) rush was well and truly underway for a swath of people that had never known such fortunes were there to be made. Everyday common people. Again therefore, quite simplistic to pour scorn on todays wealthy individuals because many were yesterdays poor. All things relative of course. Moreover families more broken than ever, people live longer, and it all contributes to pressure on land availability here.

Mostly however, the pursuit of money is everything for majority of people. Opportunities to make more money are there. It’s a competitive world, globally. You are facing fierce competition from billions of others who can buy that house without entering the UK as an investment, or can come here and work and are willing to for less. Harsh reality facing anyone in todays work force.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Land Value Tax is definitely an idea worth exploring.

No it's not - it takes no account of the ability to pay. Someone that brought a plot say 30 years ago doesn't neccessarily have the cash to pay a tax on it - same for property tax.

 

[portlock seagull]

It was the norm that a couple could buy a home based on one income.

Relative to the cost of living, wages were much higher.

Unfortunately these discussions always slip into personal narratives.

It's exactly what the ruling classes want.

Far from the norm, millions could not afford to buy even with 2 incomes. I don’t know where this narrative “life was easier in the past” comes from, it’s always incomparable. Every generation will and can argue they had/have it tougher.

The only thing I would say is there’s one generation who are certainly comparatively way better at one thing seemingly: whinging. It’s almost epidemic amongst.

 

[Mustafa II]

This thread has been interesting.

I think I can pretty much summarise the views:

- House prices are the leading cause of wealth inequalities between boomers and young people
- 'Boomers' generally believe that their wealth is deserved and earned and so it would be unfair to subsidise young people
- In addition, some believe that young people should work harder/move somewhere cheaper
- Some people have claimed that it is considerably harder for young people due to the ever increasing average salary to property price ratio, although others disagree due to other difficulties that they may have experienced
- Many believe that my personal views of redistribution of wealth to improve generational inequality is extreme and unfair
- The poll results do not reflect the comments, which suggests that those who oppose the above are more vocal

 

[Bakero]

No it's not - it takes no account of the ability to pay. Someone that brought a plot say 30 years ago doesn't neccessarily have the cash to pay a tax on it - same for property tax.

Going for a pre-lunch drink but will try to remember to get back to you on this later/tomorrow.

 

[Colonel Mustard]

This thread has been interesting.

I think I can pretty much summarise the views:

- House prices are the leading cause of wealth inequalities between boomers and young people
- 'Boomers' generally believe that their wealth is deserved and earned and so it would be unfair to subsidise young people
- In addition, some believe that young people should work harder/move somewhere cheaper
- Some people have claimed that it is considerably harder for young people due to the ever increasing average salary to property price ratio, although others disagree due to other difficulties that they may have experienced
- Many believe that my personal views of redistribution of wealth to improve generational inequality is extreme and unfair
- The poll results do not reflect the comments, which suggests that those who oppose the above are more vocal

I suspect they were your views before you had the brainwave of starting this thread. Google ‘Confirmation Bias'. It’s something we’re all susceptible to.

 

[A mex eyecan]

A quick Google suggests the average house price was around 3 times the average annual salary in 1970.

Today, it's more like 4.5 the average combined salary of man (35k) and a woman (30k).

yup, get that. But the gist of this thread is that younger people are those struggling and hence older people should be taxed more heavily, and some on here have almost advocated forcing them out of their homes.
It would be more relevant if the stats were applied to those just of say 20-35 year olds.

There is no doubt it’s tough for the youngsters, but as the Clamp posted earlier there are many many factors affecting this whole issue.
For my two penny worth as well there was also the fact that pre 72(?) school leaving age was 15, today it’s 18. So there’s a 3 year head start of earning differential.
I would doubt if many of the older folks took gap years etc to travelling, so again a year or so head start of earning, Plus the gap year takers actually incur costs.
Also life expectancy was around 72 in 2022 it was around 82.

It far from a simple fix and for sure something has to be done to start to address the problem, but it’s not just a case of it being pillage the older in society to solve the younger societies issues, nor is it right that they are clobbered to pay for whatever the fix may be.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Far from the norm, millions could not afford to buy even with 2 incomes. I don’t know where this narrative “life was easier in the past” comes from, it’s always incomparable. Every generation will and can argue they had/have it tougher.

The only thing I would say is there’s one generation who are certainly comparatively way better at one thing seemingly: whinging. It’s almost epidemic amongst.

If you say so.
Everyone can (and will) carry on pointing fingers at each other and argue they had it tougher.

However, home buying relative to income is factually at it's highest level for 175 years.
https://www.schroders.com/en-gb/uk/...us-about-house-price-affordability-in-the-uk/

 

[Uh_huh_him]

And have done for many decades.

Very true.
However taxation has been at a much lower level than required for that period and will need to increase significantly to meet the needs of the population now.

That tax burden will fall on the young generation, for a higher percentage of their working lives, than for those at/nearing retirement age.

 

[fly high]

yup, get that. But the gist of this thread is that younger people are those struggling and hence older people should be taxed more heavily, and some on here have almost advocated forcing them out of their homes.
It would be more relevant if the stats were applied to those just of say 20-35 year olds.

There is no doubt it’s tough for the youngsters, but as the Clamp posted earlier there are many many factors affecting this whole issue.
For my two penny worth as well there was also the fact that pre 72(?) school leaving age was 15, today it’s 18. So there’s a 3 year head start of earning differential.
I would doubt if many of the older folks took gap years etc to travelling, so again a year or so head start of earning, Plus the gap year takers actually incur costs.
Also life expectancy was around 72 in 2022 it was around 82.

It far from a simple fix and for sure something has to be done to start to address the problem, but it’s not just a case of it being pillage the older in society to solve the younger societies issues, nor is it right that they are clobbered to pay for whatever the fix may be.

With a much larger proportion of young people going to uni and not starting work until they are 21 or 22 that is even more of a head start.

 

[fly high]

Very true.
However taxation has been at a much lower level than required for that period and will need to increase significantly to meet the needs of the population now.

That tax burden will fall on the young generation, for a higher percentage of their working lives, than for those at/nearing retirement age.

When I started work the tax rate was 33%.