To think that older, wealthier people should be paying more tax and NI than younger?

[Creambun2]

So various suggestions, which will probably come to nothing, that young people should pay less tax and national insurance than than older people, presumably with a links to actual incomes maintained.

What do you think? I am in favour as I think that young people are being done over really. Unaffordable housing, educations expenses etc etc.

Of course according to many boomer types this is all their fault and they have no money for housing due to buying a coffee and having a phone

We've paid our stamp all our life and now expect what was promised in return - cradle to grave health care

Health care yes - and even then there's the questionable expectation that absolutely every senior medical issue should be treated - but surely not all the social/personal care on top?

And it's incredible that anyone still thinks they've paid all their lives and are now "owed" all of this, when actually they were paying for the pensioners above them, so to speak, just as today's workers are paying for current seniors

House prices on today's Radio 4 Call You and YOurs is quite interesting - www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b098bsv8#play - such a regional variation - one person owned for 16 years no increase and then other areas massive increases. I am from the NE originally and now in London. They say it is very misleading to talk about average house prices as it varies a lot.

stevie Nope still don't see how the majority of 25 year old will have a hope of retiring. The same 25 yrs olds who chances of having a home have decreased dramatically, how will they fund their rent?

Yes the NHS is not free but you don't rock up the doctors or hospitals with your debit card do you. I think it will go the same way as dentistry has.

Still happy to meet for lunch, on you of course 😉

You tax me more and I'm supposed to support two children at university how? And don't you want me to pay as much into a pension as possible so you don't have to support me as much in Old age?

YABU to think older people should pay more tax. Older doesn't mean you are wealthy. Wealthier people do pay more tax

The UK’s public sector pension liabilities are equivalent to 81 per cent of gross domestic product, according to the National Audit Office.

Figures published by the department reveal public sector net liabilities of £1,493bn, the single largest liability on the government’s balance sheet. It represents 42 per cent of all UK government liabilities or £55,000 per UK household.

Factor in longer life expectancy & increased social care bills I don't see how this will be funded without increased taxation.

I agree it can be hard for younger people to get on the housing ladder but your suggestion is nonsence OP.

I already did pay more tax when I was younger as the tax free allowance was far less even as a proprtion of earnings and I think tax was 30% . I was also paying near 20% in mortgage interest and this was at age 18. I lived of pasta for years. The fault for the situation young people are in is not due to older people. I think NI has gone up since I was young - but then I am still working and still paying all these taxes and at the same time trying to give my DC a start in life too.

For the last few pay rises at work, the increases has been skewed towards the lower salaries. I don't really have a problem with that especially considering that the pot is so small anyway. A colleague pointed out though that in many cases all we are doing is giving young people more socialising money while giving people with families and homes less. It was hard to completely disagree tbh.

Your colleague could also have said they're giving more to the people without wealth rather than those with it, if the ones on higher salaries are also the homeowners. Interesting that they didn't. I say this as a homeowner.

Being a home owner doesn't necessarily make you better off - that's quite a weird thing to say. his point was that people on slightly higher salaries often had larger commitments such as a home and children to support so their extra £10 a month might be thinly spread whereas an extra £15 to a teenager often just meant more beer money.

Classic lazy journalism post!

Fuelled by everyone being so willing to dive in and offer details of their financial situation, age, future plans.....

And lots of lovely links to other articles so the journo doesn't even need to put any effort into finding what else has been done.

They are talking about limiting payment of the state pension to a maximum term, 20 years I think.

Bollocks, of course they aren't. Are you volunteering to go round shooting us when our 20 years are up. I've read some stupid things on MN but this one takes the whole shelf full of biscuits.

Bollocks right back at you. I guess that didn't come up at the numerous pensions conferences that you've attended during your career in the pensions industry?

It's a fact that it is one of the options being considered in the pensions industry atm in relation to the state pension changes. People are living a long time and one way to reduce the cost of providing pensions is to limit the term they are paid for.

And yes, it is an outrageous idea, but the most outrage seems to be the suggestion that those getting the pension now should have it stopped. What about the people paying NI now who will get their pension stopped after 20 years, if they get one at all?

I'm livid that I'll have spent my working life supporting pensions for the current pensioners who say they are entitled a pension and free healthcare simply because they paid their stamp for those same pensioners to not give a shiny shit that when I reach pension age I won't enjoy the same benefits for my lifetime, despite having paid the same 'stamp' myself.

It's not such a horrifying idea that those receiving the benefit now should throw a little more in the pot to top up what ran out a significantly long time ago and they are still taking out in abundance, and for that to be in the form of additional NI contributions on their state pension.

Being a home owner doesn't necessarily make you better off - that's quite a weird thing to say.

Which is why I didn't say it.

If you own a home, that's wealth, an asset. This point has been made in the thread already, but it's worth stating again because the pattern of home and asset ownership is very, very skewed generationally in our society. Posters upthread have talked about examples of eg a pensioner couple who own a valuable property outright having a lower income than their neighbours who earn more but have been priced out due to their generation and therefore rent. Wealth and money coming in aren't the same thing.

Thus, your colleague could just as easily have described the distinction as wealth havers versus not wealth havers. It's no more or less accurate than the way he chose to describe it. If he'd said it to me, I'd probably ask him why he was so sure the younger colleagues were choosing to spend their raise on socialising rather than saving towards a deposit. Although it would arguably be better for the economy if they were doing the former.

It's not such a horrifying idea that those receiving the benefit now should throw a little more in the pot to top up what ran out a significantly long time ago and they are still taking out in abundance, and for that to be in the form of additional NI contributions on their state pension

I think you make a fair point, and for the same reason that I'd like to see fewer complaints about assets being spent on senior residential care ... it's not just about being fair, but about being seen to be so

For me, the same applies to the winter fuel payments, travel concessions, free prescriptions and so on. I've no objection at all to those in genuine need benefiting, but - even at an age where I'd shortly have got them myself - I think their universal nature is indefensible

Nor does the argument about it costing more to work out who really needs them stand up, when we already have Pension Credit which could serve as a perfectly good benchmark without any need for further means testing

I am in 50s and already pay more tax because I earn a bit more than I did in my early 20s. Not much more, but incrementally more.
It’s how tax works

No I don't think this would be fair at all. Tax should be based on how much you earn. Older people might have disabilities and need more heat or care. The housing market is totally out of control. And not all older people are mega rich. Though everyone on MN seems to think they are.

The problem with means testing universal benefits is that it can quite often be more expensive than not doing.

You could still make an argument for doing it anyway, for example it would presumably create a certain number of jobs and some people are in favour of more public sector job creation. But equally, some will have an issue with the state going the more expensive route. Personally, I hope free bus passes stay universal simply because anything that incentivises people to stay out of the morning rush hour is imho worth a little subsidy.

I’ll be brutally honest. I’m sick of hearing how young people are apparently so hard done by.

And all I ever feel I hear on the news is that’s its all about the students and the pensioners.

I’ve just turned 40 and frankly I never feel I hear anything about helping people in their 30’s/40’s. I’ve never felt there’s been anything specific out there to help people of my age group. We never seem to get talked about unless it’s to do with us being targeted for something negative by the government. So I get really fed up of 2 core specific age groups being the focus/target of the government. The UK is not made up of purely people under 25 and people drawing their pension. Yet the rest of us seem to get forgotten about unless the government want to penalise us financially in some way. At least that’s how it feels to me.

It’s not just ‘young people’ who struggle to get on the housing ladder. Plenty of 30 something’s and over are still struggling to get on the property ladder. Plenty of 30 & 40 something’s will also be lucky if they ever see a pension.

Every age group has had to face some difficulties in life. Younger people aren’t on their own in that fact. Some of the older generation have had to go through a world war, lost their loved ones and lived on rations for years during and after that war. So they know hardship. Have they had it easier with housing etc? Yeah, probably, but not without other sacrifices in their lives.

And will this current young generation have it easier than the generation after them? Yes, probably. Swings and roundabouts. Life is shit sometimes.

I absolutely do not think that tax should be based on age, especially if it’s just to help out the younger generation. How on earth would that even be fair? The only fair way is to base it on income, the way it already works.

Don’t think age should be the factor, surely it is about wealth? A younger richer person will pay more in taxes than older, poor people.

Op, your post is creeping towards the definition of “snowflake “. Getting started financially is tough. Really tough. Keeping going financially is tough, especially (but not exclusively) when you start a family.
I’m too busy paying for myself and my family to give you handouts.

Fionnbharr you seem to forget (or don't know) that the NHS is not just funded by NICs but also by general taxation so any pensioner still paying tax is still contributing to the NHS.

Stay focused. The 1%!

Companies who pay no tax at all.

Puzzledandpissedoff pension credit is NOT a benchmark far from it
A single pensioner on pension credit has their income topped up to 159.35 per week, a single person who has paid in for 35 years under the new rules gets 159.55 state pension are you suggesting that someone who only gets 20p more a week has to pay for everything without the chance of getting help when working age people on more money or working age benefits like TCs have the advantage of means testing to get the help they need.

Same with pensioner couples who get their pensions under the old rules a pensioner couple who gets the old rate ( and there are plenty that only get that) get 244.60, a pensioner couple on PC get 243.25 that's only 1.45 a week extra are they to pay for everything on an extra 1.45 a week????.

You may have a point when all older people get their pensions under the new rate so a couple would get at least 16,593.20 per year between which would put them over the limit for means tested benefits like free prescriptions which is about 15k for working age claimants, that may work but the new rules only happened last year so 1000s of pension house holds don't get it and until they do they must have automatic exemption or a least a chance to claim using means testing

@Oldsu

I do realise that. But I still do not understand why wealthier pensioners should not pay National insurance when younger people do.