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

It is interesting Puzzled and hopefully young people will have taken some heart from the results and realised that there is actually some point in voting.

Why the 'though' Onion? I want more young people to vote.

The government would do well to change tax break and avoidance schemes as a start. Pension tax relief in its current format supports higher rate tax payers much more than basic rate so make it one rate for all. Scrap EIS/VCT tax relief, make self employed people pay the same tax as employed people. The use of dividends to avoid national insurance seems unfair to me.

Because someone said turnout in that group is still very low. It is and it isn't. Depends how you look at things.

It's lower than other age groups, but also much higher than it has been for 18-24 year olds for some time. Personally I think simply drawing the conclusion that the young aren't voting as much as those older is very short sighted. If they vote this much at 18, who's to say what might happen later?

It's not going to hit the baby boomers though is it? It'll hit those of us who were starting out in the late 80s and 90s when interest rates were high, student grants stopped, employer pensions schemes were being screwed and house prices were rising.

I didn't benefit from any form of student finance, had to pay stupid ass mortgage interest rates, don't benefit from a final salary pension scheme and feel a bit fed up of "it's not fair". No, it may not be but those baby boomers are off enjoying their pensions now and won't be unduly impacted by a change in tax and NI. It'll be those of us who came immediately after, as social security provision started to tank who'll end up bailing out the kids.

Erm they already do lol

I'm not sure if tax is the answer anyway? This Robbin hood method is a poor way of tackling unequal wealth. Taking off the rich and effectively giving hand outs to the poor. Surely a better way (and a far hard way to find out how to) is a revaluation in Labour (work not the party). Better terms and conditions, far higher minimum wage and the availability of job for all those that can work. I have lived in places were there is simply not enough jobs for all the people who can and do want to work. Also to let the young people realise just because they have been to uni and got a high degree it doesn't entitle them to a high level job. They are just the same as most of their over qualified generation. Most people young and old just want to work and see tangible fruits for their labour. The real challenge is not tax but the creation of good jobs and preventing the explotation of the workforce.

When did you take a degree topsy, were you a mature student? I wasn't sure if you just meant you missed grants or if you studied during the fees era too.

I agree though just looking at tax isn't the answer. It's only part of the picture. We could stop artificially propping up the housing market, for a start. A lot of our low productivity flows from stupid property costs.

I certainly won't be encouraging my children to go to uni unless their chosen career requires further study. However employers have to stop requested degrees educated employees for jobs that don't actually require them.

Look at how the disparity between CEOs & their workers have grown over the last 10 years. How do we stop it though?

Whatever. It's still anecdote, not evidence.

As is yours. What you mean is it doesn't fit your narrative.

We struggled heavily. The assumption that all people in the 80s & 90s had it easy is rubbish we didn't.

Well where I live it's John Lewis and Ocado deliveries all day long. Empty houses because the occupants have gone on cruises, or are in their second home. Two new cars on every drive. All retired people, wealth achieved on one salary.

You seriously think all pensioners live like that?

The important point to remember is not that it was ever easy to buy a house, but that it used to be easier. That's indisputable, but it's also indisputable that easy and easier aren't the same thing.

witches is this anecdotal?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38948369

Define "older" and "younger" and is there a sudden step up at a given age or will it be a tapered increase? Also what about those 20 year olds whose earnings exceed their grandparents (it can, and does, happen). None of this has been thought through IMO.

Not every young person is struggling. Not every pensioner is rolling it in.

To be told whatever when I explain that we didn't have it easy is downright rude and unnecessary.

Silly thought defining it on age. We earn much more than either of our parents and pay more tax also.
I do however think that we should all be taxed the same percentage.

I studied as an adult while working full time. I couldn't afford to go to uni straight from school - I'm in Scotland and got caught in the gap between the end of student grants and the start of tuition fees being paid/SAAS. When I was able to study i did it while working full time so no financial assistance up here. So far I've self funded a diploma, SW degree (no funding because it wasn't full time), a post grad diploma and a Masters. I could literally have bought a new flat with the most I've spent in higher education.

Because someone said turnout in that group is still very low. It is and it isn't. Depends how you look at things.
That 'someone' was me.

It's lower than other age groups, but also much higher than it has been for 18-24 year olds for some time. Personally I think simply drawing the conclusion that the young aren't voting as much as those older is very short sighted. If they vote this much at 18, who's to say what might happen later?
And I hope it does happen. As I've already said, I think the remedy is in young people's hands. You seem to have taken that as a jibe. It wasn't. I hope they seize their chance.
I am not your enemy here.

Why do you think I took it as a jibe?

Because you went on the defensive, or at least that was how it appeared to me. If I was mistaken then I apologise.
I was genuinely saying that I think young people have an opportunity. However it's up to them whether or not they take it.

Currently there has been an increase in state pension (the triple lock) and conversely younger people have not had pay rises. However over an 80 year life I would be very surprised if we could say one group of people has had a tougher time than the other. It is not very easy for those of us who have had much harder lives than many young people today to hear we have had it all easy - that is the point that is difficult for older ones to hear.

However none of it really matters as long as we sort out the problems the country has - which is spending much much more than we have coming in.

Do we give the young more and go back to the days when there was high poverty amongst the elderly?

Also with a aging population (that also tents to use their awesome power to vote) will the electorate allow this to happen?

Fairness is what is required, and fairness we have not. Governments of all hues have always bought votes through policies. The demographic is changing, and fast. The boomers represent people born at a lucky time, nothing more. They are dying fast.
Within ten years the voting block will tip in favour of the have nots - the under 40's.
Government knows this, hence the token gestures towards building a few thousand cheaper homes and extending help to buy - (help to sell for the building companies).
Expect more token gestures as the balance tips further.
Arguably the last 30 years have been a financial anomaly for working people, sadly it was only ever debt borrowed against our childrens futures.

One huge problem has been wage stagnation and even pay cuts in so very many aeras of work with people (other than the public sector and even they have not done that well) with no rises at all even to allow for the minimal inflation and often taking pay cuts to stay in work propped up by benefits paid to full time and part time workers. It is kind of a system to ensure low pay remains.

I don't know how many pensions just have the state pension which is what I will have which is about £122 a week - £6324 a year but there are quite a lot of them and it's unfair to say they are living the life of Riley.

Our biggest problem is the state spending a lot more than it gets in so even just paying the interest that is due is a massive waste when it could be spent on better things.

make self employed people pay the same tax as employed people. The use of dividends to avoid national insurance seems unfair to me.

The tax rates/rules are already the same for employed versus self employed.

Limited companies and dividends are a different matter, and we now have the new personal tax on dividends which aims to tackle the no NIC on dividends issue, and make the difference far smaller. (Though don't forget there used to be higher tax on dividends before idiot Brown scrapped it).

Ironic that a lot of the "tax avoidance" was facilitated by changes made during the Brown era.

One huge problem has been wage stagnation

Smoke and mirrors. True, we've had wage stagnation, but we've also had record low inflation. Go back 20/30 years when 5% p.a. wage rises were common, we "felt" better off, but in reality we were worse off when inflation was a lot higher than that.