[Politics] Are baby boomers taxed enough?

[Uh_huh_him]

When I started work the tax rate was 33%.

Cool.
How much was VAT?

 

[A mex eyecan]

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.

Cool.
How much was VAT?

in 1974 it was 25% on higher rate items and (I think ) 10% on standard
today it’s 20%

how that compares overall I’m not sure

 

[Uh_huh_him]

in 1974 it was 25% on higher rate items and (I think ) 10% on standard
today it’s 20%

how that compares overall I’m not sure

Today it is applied to far more items than it was in 1974.
I believe there is still a lower rate applied to energy, which was exempt until relatively recently.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

When I started work the tax rate was 33%.

I think this proves my point though doesn't it?
You've seen income tax fall steadily throughout your working life.

This wasn't achieved based on the needs of the population, it was predominantly based on privatising and cutting services.
We are moving into a period of history where the costs of living will continue to rise steeply alongside a need for higher taxation.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

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

The answer is to build more houses, not tax people because of when they were born.

 

[chickens]

I think this proves my point though doesn't it?
You've seen income tax fall steadily throughout your working life.

This wasn't achieved based on the needs of the population, it was predominantly based on privatising and cutting services.
We are moving into a period of history where the costs of living will continue to rise steeply alongside a need for higher taxation.

Precisely. Promising lower tax followed by lower tax eventually boxes its proponents into a corner.

Everybody’s grumbling that their public services are no longer fit for purpose, and there’s no public money coming in to pay for any improvements.

 

[A mex eyecan]

Today it is applied to far more items than it was in 1974.
I believe there is still a lower rate applied to energy, which was exempt until relatively recently.

not as simply as that I’m afraid, good article on wiki that if read shows before VAT introduction in 72 purchase tax was far far higher. VAT on fuel has decreased. Somethings have come down, Vat on sanitary goods etc.

 

[A mex eyecan]

Precisely. Promising lower tax followed by lower tax eventually boxes its proponents into a corner.

Everybody’s grumbling that their public services are no longer fit for purpose, and there’s no public money coming in to pay for any improvements.

Yes it’s wrong, in fact if we want fully functioning services etc etc which I sure we all do, then we will have to raise the level of tax considerably. Sounds great until you try to do it, then everyone would scream if say a lower tax rate of say 33% is proposed

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Yes it’s wrong, in fact if we want fully functioning services etc etc which I sure we all do, then we will have to raise the level of tax considerably. Sounds great until you try to do it, then everyone would scream if say a lower tax rate of say 33% is proposed

Yeah agreed - Sooner or later that conversation will need to be had.
I don't think the younger generation will buy the argument that privatisation is the answer to reducing the cost of services.
The horse has well and truly bolted on that one.

 

[Paulie Gualtieri]

I know someone who recently paid £600 for a wedding cake.
Fruit cake, marzipan, some icing.
Total rip off and anyone happy to pay that can’t complain about costs!

Our wedding DJ was £200 for the evening before I mentioned it was a Wedding and £340 afterwards

The only explanation they could give me for the difference was “because it’s wedding”

Eleven years strong next month so amortised at £30.90 annually I suppose

 

[A mex eyecan]

You know the more I think about all the comments posted on here, of which the majority have validity the more ‘yes but if, and what abouts’ come to mind.

A genuine Question I have is are average wages based on earning compared to people in employment, or is it based on wages compared to population? I don’t know but obviously that would make a huge difference.

Things certainly haven’t been a bed of roses for the Boomers. Yes there’s been great times but equally some terrible times as well. That’s just called life and boom and bust cycles always have and always will exist.

Also to be kept in mind is the mass unemployment of the early Thatcher years, of which the tail end of the boomers, say 1958 to 1960’s had a very very hard time getting a job at all.

I was lucky, I had a job during those early years, earning a massive £40.50p per week, however such was the unemployment levels in general and in the business I worked for we had to take a 7.5% pay cut in order to save one guys job. This happened again about 12 months later. ( See OP and others, not all of us are the greedy self serving bastards as you would have us portrayed).

For sure employment levels improved and those that were minded went out and did all we could to improve our lot. Sometimes it worked, other times it failed miserably. One thing though, as my income improved I did my bit to help other less fortunate than I. No, I’m not after accolades in the slightest, I’m just pointing out again that we aren’t all greedy buggers we’ve been tarred as.

And before I get shouted down, no I am not dismissing the hardships facing the younger of society. I will never ever forget those dreadful times and the sick feeling in my guts month after month, I genuinely feel for them. But please stop slagging us all off and before you send in the Stazi to sieze our homes and raid our pensions try to consider things from the other side to your own, it’s a happier place to be.

 

[A mex eyecan]

Our wedding DJ was £200 for the evening before I mentioned it was a Wedding and £340 awards.

The only explanation they could give me for the difference was “because it’s wedding”

Eleven years strong next month so amortised at £30.90 annually I suppose

Blimey you do well to remember such detail
We knocked up 43 years in April, such a long time ago our DJ had to wind up the gramophone

 

[Mustafa II]

The answer is to build more houses, not tax people because of when they were born.

I'm certain it's not possible to build houses quickly enough to eradicate the wealth inequality between the generations, but you're right, we should be building more sooner and in greater number to help the generations of the future.

I do believe something akin 'windfall' tax to the boomers who have become wealthy purely by being born at the right time is one option.

Or possibly introducing a land tax, or start treating pensions/rental income as a regular income and taxing that, is another option.

The boomers who own more than one property should definitely be a focus for new taxation, at the very least.

 

[fly high]

I'm certain it's not possible to build houses quickly enough to eradicate the wealth inequality between the generations, but you're right, we should be building more sooner and in greater number to help the generations of the future.

I do believe something akin 'windfall' tax to the boomers who have become wealthy purely by being born at the right time is one option.

Or possibly introducing a land tax, or start treating pensions/rental income as a regular income and taxing that, is another option.

The boomers who own more than one property should definitely be a focus for new taxation, at the very least.

Err pensions and rental income are already taxed as income. Are you really that ignorant you think pensioners don't pay tax?

 

[beorhthelm]

I'm certain it's not possible to build houses quickly enough to eradicate the wealth inequality between the generations, but you're right, we should be building more sooner and in greater number to help the generations of the future.

I do believe something akin 'windfall' tax to the boomers who have become wealthy purely by being born at the right time is one option.

Or possibly introducing a land tax, or start treating pensions/rental income as a regular income and taxing that, is another option.

The boomers who own more than one property should definitely be a focus for new taxation, at the very least.

you havent said what you would do with all this raised taxes. seems your plan is just to steal from one group and then... what exactly? handouts for anyone under 40, increasing as get younger? lotteries for the 25-35yo to enter, win grannies ex-flat?

like most arbitary "tax someone" ideas, its just envy based, take something and dont have a clue what to do with it, solve nothing.

 

[Geoffbn2]

Why don't we stop blaming someone born during a certain period, this has come from a newspaper owned and taxed overseas which supports the party of division and is trying to whip up jealousy and division all to distract from the fact that the whole tax system requires changing, as does further education, being a 70's child I'm not a boomer, didn't go to Uni and haven't spent my life despising those who did, Our current problems started in the 80's with trickle down economics and continued in the 90's with the policies that everyone had to go to university. I don't have the answers to our problems but lets stop blaming each other and being led by self interested news papers and politicians.

 

[Mustafa II]

you havent said what you would do with all this raised taxes. seems your plan is just to steal from one group and then... what exactly? handouts for anyone under 40, increasing as get younger? lotteries for the 25-35yo to enter, win grannies ex-flat?

like most arbitary "tax someone" ideas, its just envy based, take something and dont have a clue what to do with it, solve nothing.

Some ideas:

- Interest free loans for first property deposits
- Rent subsidies for young families or couples, with a rent cap.
- Mortgage repayment subsidies for young people during times of interest rate rises
- Wipe out student loan debt/make higher education free again
- Incease stamp duty threshold on single property
- Better financial support for childcare

 

[nicko31]

Err pensions and rental income are already taxed as income. Are you really that ignorant you think pensioners don't pay tax?

But NI exempt, why is unearned income given a tax break?

 

[portlock seagull]

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/

No. There’s your problem. I’m saying everyone can and would argue things were tougher for their generation. You are steadfast in your view there’s only one candidate.

 

[Blues Guitarist]

Some ideas:

- Interest free loans for first property deposits

So boomers paid 18% interest and you think it’s fair to hand out free money. You’re bonkers.