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

Of course not all old people are rich & cancelling Sky will not enable you to buy a house.

IMO the system is broken, largely due to the housing market in the SE where the majority of jobs are. Income is not the be all, we need to tax wealth. I also agree with the point of retired pensioners paying NI.

Frankly young people if they go to University will be saddled with debt, likely earn less in a job then someone would 10 years ago. Have less protection in their jobs, little chance of home ownership, & likely to work till they drop. I have small children & am depressed about the future they face.

If you have ever looked after elderly parents you will know that their finances are rigorously picked over by everyone to ensure that they pay for their own care wherever possible. Including selling their home and using up most of their assets.
I don't know how the payment of NI by pensioners would be organised as it is currently linked to salaries.
It might be one of those things that would cost more to organise than it would bring in.

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

This isn't necessarily true at all.

The older you get, the more you're likely to need from the NHS. Anecdotally we all know instances where that's not the case, but it's certainly wrong to say older wealthier people WILL be taking less out of the system. Additionally, you could have quite substantial property wealth without ever having paid much in taxes in your life: for example, if you were a SAH spouse for most of your life and live in an expensive house now.

ECHT, you're about to get a non Daily Fail version of the young people spend all their money on Iphones that's why they can't afford houses philosophy right here on MN! You may want to arrange easy access to a wall to bang your head against.

Yes, older people tend to use the Healthcare system more, and many of them will have paid in over 40 years.
People with mental health issues also use the Health system more than your average person (have you been watching 'Ambulance'?). Many of these folks ^haven't been paying in NI contributions for 40 years. However, I don't begrudge them the support they need now - that is how taxation and a welfare and healthcare system works. I don't mind the fact my taxes go into things like the fire service or the criminal justice system despite never having used them. Masses goes into education so folk without dc might have a beef with that - but that's just the way tax works - we all pay then it is used to support all the systems we have in place. You don't pay more when you need to use a service.

I think they should tax people more if they mention expensive coffees, or if they say they have "paid in". Tax them double extra if they do both.
It would be an ignorance tax.

Do you work at the Treasury OP?

My first thought was Conservative Party troll.

YABU op

A superb idea FaFoutis. And triple for anyone who mentions broadband or Iphones.

BackForGood I expect most of us are aware of the principle that our NHS isn't pay as you go. But it becomes extremely important to mention that older people use the NHS more when people try and claim they take less out of the pot than younger people, or that they've paid in enough to cover their contributions.

Echt, my dad has said this, and I honestly think he believes it. He just refuses to accept that is is harder to buy a house now than it was 'in his day'.
when I look at the houses my parents' friends now own outright, mostly bought with just one salary, it is obviously the case, but no, he won't have it.
I bought my first house at 20 - that is an unachieveable dream for most young people nowadays.

This notion of "I have paid in for X years & deserve it is unfortunately not true". Social care is in crisis, we have a huge public sector pension deficit so more money is going to have to come from somewhere. I don't see how working people (largely young) can pay more.

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.

But then in some areas, house prices massively outstrip average income, while rental prices have also gone up, rail fares have increased, bus services have been cut and being available all times of the day for better job opportunities etc has become more prevalent. Not to mention job insecurity. If you had to sit in every night for endless on your bean bag, watching the spiders and drinking water out of your chipped enamel cup, just to buy a house to occupy on your own (because you’ve been unable to maintain friendships or a relationship), it’d be a pretty miserable existence.

The older you get, the more you're likely to need from the NHS.

True. Or wealthier older peolple may have private health care. Younger people may also use the NHS a lot - pregnancy, birth, A&E, MH services...

it's certainly wrong to say older wealthier people WILL be taking less out of the system.Additionally, you could have quite substantial property wealth without ever having paid much in taxes in your life: for example, if you were a SAH spouse for most of your life and live in an expensive house now.

In that case, presumably the SAH spouse's husband has been paying tax for 40 years then? That's the way the health and social care system works - you pay in when you're younger and you benefit from it when you're older.

Of course, some people - no matter their age - will be much heavier users of services throughout their lives than others. Younger people will be using schools/the education system and associated services.

Social care is in crisis, we have a huge public sector pension deficit so more money is going to have to come from somewhere. I don't see how working people (largely young) can pay more.

Yup. That's the bottom line.

The older you get, the more you're likely to need from the NHS

As I recall, it's mostly in the last year of life. And rather less from the NHS than the first 2 or 3 years of one's life.

Interesting that some pp see having children as worth the State paying for, and even giving tax breaks for, but no similar understanding of care for the equally vulnerable fragile elderly at the end of their lives.

I wonder when ageism will finally be as unthinkable as racism?

Young people who care for their elderly parents and uncle at home, like my brother, should definitely get a tax break. As he tops up care short falls with his own money by his own efforts - am sure care homes charge a pretty premium for washing soiled clothes/food/days out etc. Other kinds of young people shouldn’t get a tax break.

Wealthy people do pay more tax, that's how it works. Have no idea why you think it should be age related, that's completely unfair.

But then you'd have to give them al the benefits that younger people get like cb and tax credits.
Doesn't sound like you've thunk this out OP

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 is true, but it doesn't negate the issue that house prices have suffered excessive inflation over the past couple of decades. Over-generous mortgage allowances by the banks started it, quantitative easing prevented a correction when the banks were reigned in and lack of new stock has compounded it. Only a significant correction will fix it but that will hit all existing property owners hard (including the big fish who have a lot of political influence) so will not happen easily.

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

Name one.
I work with hundreds of younger people and have never once come across this. The poor sods work two crappy jobs and study for expensive degrees at the same time, while living in a horrible rented dump. A phone is about all they have.

This notion of "I have paid in for X years & deserve it is unfortunately not true".

Exactly, If the average person actually adds up their NIC contributions over their working life, it won't come anywhere near the cost of their state pension, NHS treatment and other services in retirement. "Paying in" a few pounds per week just isn't enough. The younger generation are the ones paying student loans, workplace pensions, NIC etc., all things the older generation didn't, so it is time the current pensioners (those who can afford it), paid a bit more. NIC on occupational pensions is the obvious way to do it.

Younger people may also use the NHS a lot - pregnancy, birth, A&E, MH services...

Still less on average than older people, though. Mentioning instances when younger people might use it doesn't change that fact.

In that case, presumably the SAH spouse's husband has been paying tax for 40 years then?

Perhaps. Perhaps not: they may well have stopped doing so long before 40 years.

But the SAH spouse won't have done, is the point. Having a working spouse who has doesn't mean they have. As such, it was simply incorrect to say an older person with wealth WILL have been paying taxes all their lives.

This isn't a matter of opinion any more than the NHS point is: there isn't a correlation between having a high level of wealth and having paid a lot of tax, thanks to the way the property market has behaved over the past couple of decades, but there is a correlation between being older and using the NHS more.

Today 11:15 gillybeanz

But then you'd have to give them al the benefits that younger people get like cb and tax credits.

But not all young people get this though? I'm mid 30s & don't qualify yet my dad who was a banker got CB as there wasn't always a salary cut off.

Today 11:15 gillybeanz

But then you'd have to give them al the benefits that younger people get like cb and tax credits.

But not all young people get this though? I'm mid 30s & don't qualify yet my dad who was a banker got CB as there wasn't always a salary cut off.

But then you'd have to give them al the benefits that younger people get like cb and tax credits.

What, in the same way you have to give younger people the benefits that older people get like pension credit? Also, since when did boomers never get any tax credits? OPs idea is a terrible one, but not for the reasons you mention.

Should be done on income. My dad is a baby boomer but due to an expensive divorce agreement is not yet able to retire; works part-time (could do with working full-time money-wise but his health won't allow). He has few to no breaks/holidays, nothing much in the way of 'treats', runs a tiny cheap car etc.

He's spent his whole adult life working hard, giving to society, paying tax and spending money, thus keeping the economy going. I'd be furious if someone suggested he should pay more just because of his age.