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 have a housing crisis in the UK which is generating a huge amount of social problems. House price growth is something else that could reasonably be taxed.

House price growth is unearned and untaxed and contributes to the growing housing price bubble. It is also an illusion for all but BTL investors. Taxing it would not really disadvantage home owners, would help to reduce house price inflation and would thus benefit the younger generation.

My DM lives in a Victorian workers cottage for which she paid £50,000 years ago and which on paper is worth £500,000 because of its location. It is however still a two up two down cottage. She will never move from it. So it really does not matter to her whether it is “worth” £50,000 or £500000. If she does not need to sell it to fund social care in her later years much of it will be taxed away in inheritance tax anyway. It is only “worth” that amount if she sells up and moves abroad which is not going to happen.

Young people today are having to find the money to finance the house price increase windfall that their parents enjoyed and that is not fair.

And no, I'm not prepared to pay a higher rate of tax to subsidise the young

But it's OK for the young to pay more (NIC, student loans, etc) to subsidise the old???

We do. never in British history have the better off paid more of the tax burden both in money terms and as a % of tax paid. I have never paid as much tax as this year. Couple that with funding chidlren's housing deposits and unviersity costs and older people are paying loads out - many are also paying care homd fees for parents too and those who are retired often pay 40% or more tax on their pension income.

However I agree that we should improve the generational differences. We should introduce 100% of childcare costs to be set against your tax bill.
We should merge tax and NI to say 33.3% basic rate so pensioners pay tax and NI on their pensions in effect.
We should abolish the fuel and travel allowances for the old.
We should give 100% tax relief against contributions by parents to school fees and university fees and payment for care of their parents.
We should move the obligation to support the old from the state to families.
We should either move to a 33.3% flat tax/ NI rate or give rights to set mortgage interest against your tax.

We all know housing has become unaffordable for the younger people, but that issue should be tackled at source, e.g. building programmes, rent control, responsible offspring choice, etc. Unless through inherited wealth, older people who are comfortable now have often become so through living within their means, or frugally.
Remember, until the 60s there were no credit cards; you had to agree a loan personally with a bank manager or buy on hire purchase. They received a small child benefit payment but housing and working tax credits did not exist. People had to live on their wages, and so had much lower expectations than we do in terms of lifestyle. So is it fair to expect the older generation, who have few or no years of earning left, to subsidise younger people?

This op seems to be wishing the whole population over a certain age should be the same as their mum and dad and subsidise them.

That's a stupid assumption.

Yes I am prepared to subsidise young people. I'm already happily subsidising my son and most of my friends are still helping out their kids well into adulthood. So less of the sniping and the tired baby boomer cliches please.

I don't think taxation is the answer as the wealth isn't from my income - it's tied up in our house. I would support an end - or at least strict limits - to inheriting property, with all the money going into a 'pot' for affordable housing for young people.

"Tax threat to older workers 'in Budget giveaway to the young': Philip Hammond could cut National Insurance for younger Britons"

I a not against that plan although it does not exactly help the young and just means they may be more likely to have to help their parents who may not then have so much of a pension when the parents are older.

i support low taxes with abolition of as many tax reliefs as possible.

Fl, though I don't know how that could work. I am giving my children m oney now in their 20s about 20 or 30 years before I die so long before inheritance tax would kick in. I suppose we could tax gifts - a capital transfer tax on all gifts (though I would not like that).

I don't know either but that's what lawyers are for.

But that's what young people are doing!

I kind of think that I paid for young people's education, the cost of their birth, their vaccinations, their frequent needs for health care in their early years.

And so on.

Any argument about generational "debt" can be countered so easily by either side. And on we go ...

Why not accept that we are all interdependent? And that you'll be "elderly" one day. Well you should hope you will be old, as the alternative is far worse where's the emoticon for a coffin ?

older people who are comfortable now have often become so through living within their means, or frugally

I'm still of working age (late middle age). When I bought my first house, it had no heating or hot water, and I was paying around 15% interest on my mortgage. I didn't run a car, and I had a lodger , lived like a student, and worked my main job plus freelance extra work when I could get it, to pay for the mortgage, and eventually renovations.

I think that sometimes each generation forgets that its parents probably started off frugal, stretching themselves financially, and struggling at the start.

But household older generations don't pay for younger generations. It's the generations that come after that pay. We have an aging population & contrary to opinion not enough children being born to fund the older generations.

Ok & what were you earning when you bought your first house & how much did it cost?

Taxed more simply because of age, no way

Taxed more because they have more wealth, yes especially on unearned income such as profits from investments above a certain level

I think it can only be on income and not age or circumstance. I agree with the comments about previous generations being more frugal as well. When I bought my first flat I had to be exceptionally frugal and had been when renting before. I used to eat shreddies every night or toast and squirrel away every spare £5 into a building society account. If I bought an item of clothing (required really for work) then I couldn't go out that week. My nephews have absolutely no concept of this whatsoever and no intention of discovering the meaning of saving prior to having.
It cannot just be a tax on age. I have no children and have never claimed any form of benefit, child allowance, children to be schooled etc. Why should I then be penalised as I get older having paid into the system all my life and having not allowed myself lots of things that other people have in terms of what they perceive as necessities and I perceive as luxuries? Plus I will also have to fund my own care as well! It has to be on income.

not enough children being born to fund the older generations

Most people of fertile age can hardly afford to have children so what can we do about the low birth rates?

well they clearly need to save more Cappuccino 🙄

I think people not being able to afford to have children is a big problem.
Me and DH aren't going to have children and finances, though not the only reason was certainly a big factor.

If your 'wealth' is tied up in a valuable house, it isn't wealth you can use. You can't sell a bit of it to buy your groceries!

Of course it is and of course you can! Google equity release.

And you talk about downsizing like that isn't an option either. A person may not want to do either of these things, and indeed in the case of equity release they're probably well advised not to. They still have the option of doing so though. It's still untaxed wealth, no inverted commas needed, and not wanting to cash it in doesn't make it not wealth (although it does make it not taxed).

I haven’t rtft but I think this idea is complete nonsense. You can’t tax people for being older. People who earn more pay way more in tax already than people who earn less (which I also think is hugely unfair but we’re not talking about that).

Hard to find a house with no heating or hot water now, they have all been done up to buggery with the intention of making massive profits.

I think downsizing is an option - we're considering it at some point. But it would need to be tied up with a care deal. At the moment there's a real fear in case you need that equity towards the end of your life and that needs addressing too.

I think what always strike me about these threads is folks pile in with what they think thr tax system should be and in the vast majority of suggestions it’s to benefit them personally. Either someone else pays more tax or them less by offsetting their costs. The ultimate result is everyone alwats wants to pay less and have someone else pay more

I don't think that's true though Bluntness. There are plenty of wealthier people who would pay more tax to live in a fairer and more civilised society.

You can’t tax people for being older.

Why not ? Governments can do whatever they like, unless stopped by an election.

A generation ago people were saying "you can't tax people". We still got the poll tax.

The (now strangely quiet) OP must be pretty pleased with her/himself.

To the posters who argue they have paid their dues, lived frugally etc. Where do you think the money is going to come from?