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

No. That's a stupid idea.

There are plenty of poor older people and it's often older women.

Tax is on income, not age.

That's how tax works. This new idea is so idiotic I can't even.

By the time I manage to retire, I'll have paid huge amounts in tax. And as a single childless woman I've paid Moreno than I take out.

And get paid around 10% less than men of my age/ profession.

Well yes, they do. It's progressive at 10% of your salary.

Yes but income tax is a tax on income (obviously). If you want to catch capital gains then CT is correct tax to look at not adding age conditions into income tax rates.

CGT not CT.

Im mid fifties and, due to poor choices in men, am poorer now than I have ever been in my life. I was expecting to be happily married, on two nice incomes, kids flown the nest, and here I am , single, kids gone, living on one NMW and restricted hours income, in a house I can't afford to heat or have hot water in.

I don't even earn enough to PAY bloody tax! And that's with two jobs!

I am older than baby boomers CreamBun. I worked until I was 70 - 50 years of tax paying while working: In my 70s and retired I still pay a hefty wack of tax and will certainly have to pay for my own care should I need it before I keel over. What more do you want - blood? A pound of flesh?

Everybody pays income tax based on their income.
The clue is in the name.
If tax evasion was tackled we would all be in a better situation.

Yes, I bet OP will be conspicuous by their absence from now on. There's an important discussion we need to have about taxing wealth v income, which because of the way most assets are held probably would hit older people harder than younger. This, however, is not the way to frame it.

When I read this story on the BBC, it was talking about older workers - the tax breaks are for those in their 20's and 30s, 40+ are classed as older workers. regardless of wealth or career seniority. So people who have retrained and are on starting salaries would pay more, people who have been on career breaks, people who are 40+ but renting, would pay more taxes than someone of 39 or under who could have inherited property and gotten a great career. Like the lifetime ISAs for property or pensions - you get a 25% topup from teh government and the cutoff is 39 years old. Stuff you if you're older and haven't a pension or home.
By all means make things more equal but this isn't the way.

OP YABU.

Income tax does exactly what you suggest anyway - younger people generally earn less, so they pay less.

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 hmm

I have heard this argument before, and actually I agree with it. When my parents bought their first home, they saved like crazy and went without pretty basic things such as new furniture, a tv, a car and (landline) phone in order to afford their mortgage. Nowadays (some) people expect to have a mobile, car, nights out, and a home fully kitted out, then moan that they can't afford to buy a house.

You don't seem to understand how NI works.

The tax system already does this!!!! You don't have to pay tax if you earn less than £11,500...

And older, wealthier people will be taking less out of the system than many younger people and will have been paying tax all their lives - why should they pay even more??

Nowadays (some) people expect to have a mobile, car, nights out, and a home fully kitted out, then moan that they can't afford to buy a house.

This ^

and many younger people don't want second-hand things; everything has to be brand-new. Fine if you can afford it, but you cut your cloth to fit...

Higher taxes should only be for the rich.

Plus, some younger people would save lots of money if they didn't spend it on expensive coffees, meal deals and the latest iPhone.

Then again, someone needs to buy thus stuff to keep the economy going.

The rich do pay higher taxes. The 40% tax rate kicks in at around £50K I think.

Oh my god, I can't believe this gf has actually managed to bring out the 'just cancel sky if you can't afford a mortgage people'

I think there is a big question over NI contributions by retired people.

At the moment NI is not payable on unearned income - so pensions, rental income etc. So the majority of older people - irrespective of income - do not pay. This despite the fact that they are major users of the healthcare system.

I see no reason why wealthier pensioners should not pay NI.

I agree with the OP.
This generation of pensioners have never had it so good.
Final salary pensions, bits and bobs of benefits, they benefited from the housing boom and their children (us) were given university education free.
They grew up AFTER the war, so knew about hardship, but that shouldn't give them a free pass to be immune from cutbacks now.
The argument that they have paid in all their lives is also rubbish - younger generations will also pay in all their lives, but get a lot less.
In the round, it is ALWAYS going to cost more to bring up a family, so IMO, that's where the benefits/tax breaks should be skewed towards.

I don’t think that what the OP is saying is too far away from what is happening anyway- there are now Help to Buy and Lifetime ISAs aimed at younger people, essentially to reduce the tax they are paying on their wealth, quite aside from income. Perhaps it’s not too absurd to say that until the age of 25 that your income tax is lower in order to gain a foothold on the property ladder (by being able to save the extra income), or build up savings to protect against unemployment or low income later in life.
I don’t think it addresses the underlying issue of expensive housing, underemployment and exploitative landlords (not all landlords! Just the exploitative ones end up in a concentrated area), and I do think that people forget that whilst older people may have accumulated more “wealth”, this could be tied up and not accessible. Moreover, you may be unable to access the benefits of a lower tax rate in your younger years and then be hit with higher tax rates in later life- this seems clear that it will increase wealth inequality.

The problem is NIC. It's just another tax paid only by working people and has been rising at a time of so-called "low" tax. There are too many people not paying NIC, i.e. pensioners, those on benefits, those living on foreign income, those living on dividends and other investment income.

I think it's time it was scrapped and the basic income tax rate raised instead. Either that, or NIC following the same rules as income tax, so everyone paying income tax also pays NIC.

Workers are really being screwed. Income tax, NIC, student loan repayments, workplace pensions, etc. You can very quickly get near 50% deductions whereas pensioners etc pay only 20%.

No, I think it should be purely on income and not age-related.

l have worked for 40 years and have paid more than my fair share in. l have just retired and am not going to pay in another penny!

Oh my god, I can't believe this gf has actually managed to bring out the 'just cancel sky if you can't afford a mortgage people'

Why can't you?