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 matter how much anyone posts the data, though, people just still come back with the "oh, but WE worked for it" excuse. It's such a selfish, lazy, boring response.

I think that my response is that it felt hard then, just as it is hard now.

My first house purchase - in terns of multiples of my annual salary - wasn't that far from today's multiples. With an interest rate of some 5 times (or more) current rates.

I'm not saying that it is young peoples' "fault" today & that it's possible if you're frugal.

In sheer cost terms, obviously prices are higher. But that's not the only thing to consider. It's a complex multi-factor thing. But one thing I did notice is that when my mortgage rate went from 18% back down to 6% (and that felt like such a huge relief!) house prices boomed.

The market does not self-regulate, whatever Adam Smith devotees think.

Overall, what we see in this thread is that while there are clear statistical observations to be made of populations as a whole, the individual sense of what it felt like then, or feels like now, is quite different, and far more varied.

We don't though hence why educational costs, childcare etc are now so high.

But that's patently incorrect. I have no children, but my council tax (reduced by only 25% of the amount that the family of 6 next door pays) pays for the school on my street. My NI and taxes pay for the hospital in which those children were born.

In paying tax, we pay it forward, to support those who cannot earn ie both children and the elderly. (as well as lots of other things, but we're not talking about those here)

The market does not self-regulate, whatever Adam Smith devotees think

I agree with this & I'd say years of low interest rates have only fuelled house price growth. The government stepped in during the last recession but what do they do if we have another recession. I'm a homeowner but think the market is now unsustainable. Houses near me that were 800k 5 yrs ago & now are 1.7 mill are not going to double again in 5 yrs.

They need to tax unearned wealth much more heavily. There are plenty of older and younger people being taxed too much on their earned income while people who have massive tax free wealth pay nothing. People earning £30k per year pay tax and NI yet someone who has made hundreds on their house appreciating in value doesn't have to pay anything. There should be a Land Value Tax at the very least.

My point is the tax that is being paid is increasingly having to be spent on pensions & there is less in the pot. Hence why schools are having massive budget cuts, the NHS is in crisis, welfare cuts, CB changes etc. So a young taxpayer today is paying for plenty of services they will never benefit from.

Household - you're right, it's multi-factorial. Of course, eye-watering interest rates made life extremely difficult for people in the 80s, but that is not the same thing as a persistent unfavourable ratio of real wages against real house prices - this is about opportunities to get onto the ladder, not just to stay on it. The point is that we don't have to deny that anyone has suffered in the past to say that, in general, the average young person today is n a worse position with regard to buying their own home, than the average young person 30 years ago.

For all those saying the current generation wouldn't put up with the standards their parents did: that simply isn't true. Particularly in London, there are people living in the most awful conditions. Slum landlordism is on the rise. I know young professionals - people with good jobs - who sleep in shifts in order to share rooms in a house. It is much, much worse out there for many, many young people than is generally being reported.

Agree 100% that the market does not, will not, and cannot self-regulate.

The first chapter of this book is a quick, easy read for anyone who wants to be a bit better informed about the way the economy is changing: eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-1119120950.html It is free to download.

Disclaimer: I am not a young person! I am middle aged, own my own house in a cheap part of the country. I am just tired of seeing the same FAKE NEWS trotted out on these threads .

*hundreds of thousands

It is qutie a complex issue.
I would certainly support removing all tax relief from pension contributions for everyone and from charitable contributions (there is too much fraud within charities) and removing all the old age benefits such as heating from those under 85. (Age cuts offs are much much esaier to have than income thresholds).

I would support lower NI but under 25 does not help a huge amount as plenty are still at university or doing masters and gap years until they are that age anyway.

It's certainly true that in the olden days, people who bought a house had to go without an awful lot of other things, often for years; I remember the worry my parents underwent each month as mortgage payment day approached. My mum tells a story of how she was walking to the shops feeling unbelievably happy because my grandmother had given her £5 and so she could afford meat!

When I left home and was paying rent and a share of the bills, it meant I had to do without all sorts of things in order to afford my house-share. Eventually, I got payrises etc and could afford it more easily, but I chose instead to live south of the river which was cheaper, and I could then afford to enjoy myself mor and to save a bit. You have to learn to balance things.

Now I nearly 60, and through my dh's inheritance and various other things, we own our house outright. But I am too disabled to work a proper job ft, so we have no fixed income (dh is a musician) and we are asset righ, cash poor. Paying more tax is nonsensical, we'd have to rely heavily on the state and it would cost more in the long run - dh is my carer but if he had to get an office-type job in order to pay more tax, we'd have to use state carers. At the moment we can stay afloat more or less and cost the state nothing.

But young people go without now too.

It's totally nonsensical to make this into a generational issue but seeing as that's the way these things always go I don't know why I'm surprised.

The price of certain goods have changed because the economic model has changed and now we pump out lots of low quality low cost goods. It may seem like young people but lots of new clothes but it's because the clothes aren't built to last, yes furniture is cheaper but kings that used to be designed to last are built to fail so you have to buy a replacement.

It's not easier now it's just cheaper and I don't think being able to buy an iPhone on credit means your lifestyle is better than when you could afford a home.

Yes the past generations worked hard, but so do we. It's not one or the other.

It's a massively complicated issue, but can I also throw in the point that it's mostly boomers who are bearing the brunt of caring for today's seniors as well as helping their own children

Just as the "kids want it all on a plate" doesn't always bear up under scrutiny, neither does the image of boomers sitting nicely on their money and "having it all"

They need to tax unearned wealth much more heavily

Doesn't that partly depend on what's considered "unearned"? Inherited money is often included here, but while I can see an argument for changes in IHT, the person who originally earned that money has usually already been taxed on it before bequeathing whatever's left

There's only so often we can keep taxing the same pot of money before folk start looking for ever more creative ways of avoiding yet more penalties

They need to tax unearned wealth much more heavily

Agree and yes I would include inheritance in this.

I've never understood the "it's already had tax paid on it" argument. Yes it has but not by the person who inherits.

That's like a retailer or tradesman saying "well my customers have already paid tax on the money they used to pay me, so I shouldn't have to pay tax on my receipts"

Not sure about the deceased usually having paid tax on whatever they're bequeathing. Considering how many estates primarily comprise money from property, which we know has seen massively unearned increases in the past couple of decades, actually that seems pretty unlikely.

I would support inheritance tax being regional eg top 70% of houses by value in each county subject to IHT at 40% on all value of the property over say half the value if you see what I mean. I'd also support removing the advantage for those who are married under IHT. I am single so get much less inheritance tax band than others.

Mind you m ost people don't pay inheritance tax and most old people don't have that much to leave (some do but not most). It is quite hard to generlaise about the old and plenty are in huge poverty whereas my father who worked full time to 77 and died at 79 was paying 40% tax on his pensions although he did use up his life savings on dementia care at home by the way - he spent £130,000 in the last year of his life on his care and he funded us at university - minimum grant (tiny £50) made up to £900 a year which was quite a commitment not all parents were prepard to make.

The complicating factor is that plenty of us older ones are already busting a gut for teenage and 20 something children whilst caring for elderly parents so we are not exactly advantaged. The fact houses are expensive means they do thing like I did - every penny of pension cashed in so that 45% of 75% of it coudl go in a massive tax gift to HMRC this year and the rest to adult children for housing. Thus I have no pension because of London house prices. Other parents will live with their chidlren and grandchildren because those children cannot afford to buy etc etc.

The proposed posthumous levy on assets above a ceiling value which was floated before the election could be workable with more thought. I know it was skewed to recover costs from property wealth to the disadvantage of elderly people in need of social care/housing rather than medical care and that needs addressing; it wasn't dubbed the dementia tax without reason.

But between an ageing population and a falling birth rate, something has to give. As has been pointed out above, not all pensioners are wealthy and of those that are, many will be recently retired but with young adult children in education plus very elderly parents, both of whom may need help in cash or care.

We also have a much larger (and more expensive) NHS with vastly improved life-extending powers than in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. However, unless we develop replacements soon for the antibiotics that are becoming useless, the NHS will get much cheaper to run very suddenly because surgery will (again) be a risk with a surge in post-surgical infection mortality rates. It's a bleak silver lining.

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

But that's what young people are doing!

No it's not. At present, tax rates vary according to income level, not age. Young people with a similar income to mine are paying a similar amount of tax to me, which ishow it should be. Why should I pay more purely due to my age?

stevie of course you "pay" the same amount of tax regardless of age as it's based on income. But young people are not gaining from the benefit of that tax. Or do you believe that 25 yr olds today will be able to retire once they get to 75? You think the NHS will still be free for all in 40 years? Or the many pension funds & investments that rely heavily on the UK property market to generate income will still be viable?

I never actually agreed that older people should pay more income tax just that wealth needs to be looked at & NI contributions.

There is massive generational inequality in the UK & sooner or later it needs to be addressed.

Why on do people think that just because you are over 40 your having an easy time of it because I’m certainly not, I don’t make a fortune and I’m raising small children and need every penny and more coming in

Too simplistic. You are talking only about Income Tax

CGT , Stamp Duty (!), Insurance Tax, VAT, IHT - all thse will get the wealthy don't worry.

Also there are two sides to every equation - I am sure you know that OP.
Pay out > Tax Get in > Benefits/ services

(The very old got very few of either of those although maybe are getting more now in terms of health care)

I'm sick by some of the messages here. Boomers are the workhouse of the country. They built the ruined country up from scratch and had to work hard for all they have got. The snowflake generation have boomers to thank for university education, mobile phones, computers, the internet, budget airlines, low-interest rates and very affordable high end cars.

I would take to the street if pensioners travel or winter fuel payments were not universal. Means testing costs more than it saves. Also it would be criminal if they were to start charging pensioners NI. They have paid into the system for often 50 years and kept their side of the bargain and should not need to pay it ever again once they retire.

How old is old though?

You think 'older people' should pay more tax than 'younger' people? Why?? And what age do you consider to be 'old'??

Peggy, that makes me despair in so many ways that I don't have the words.