To want a budget which puts young people and families first

[HFJ]

In advance of an upcoming budget that will likely hammer working people (again, despite the rhetoric), I’m consoling myself by imagining my own budget. You’ll notice a theme. This is because I believe young people and families are the future, deserve to have hope, aspirations and goals. Please feel free to contribute.

1. The first 5 years of young people’s full time earnings to be tax and NI free. This would enable all to save for a house deposit, rather than only the few who inherit. Imagine the incentive to work hard!
2. No increases to any tax that primarily affects working age people, including fuel tax (because working people need fuel to go to work)
3. No stamp duty for young people and those with children under 18. This enables them a fairer chance of buying property rather than have to compete unfairly with cash buyers
4. Complete removal of the pension tax free cash allowance. This is because 100s of 1000s are poised to take their 25% lump sum and plough this into the property market (tbf I think the gov has got wind of this, hence the landlord tax changes)
5. instead of massive increases to NHS budget (which does not really benefit the young or families), a £10 charge to see the doctor, so people start to take ownership for their health
6. Removal of the free prescription for over 60s. Instead, use this money to bring back the school nurse and perhaps even school dentist visits

Any other ideas?

How would this work? My kids child benefit has covered everything from , food, clothes,school trips, clothing for cubs/brownies, in school instrument lessons, basically covering whatever the child needs at that time. Now they are teens it covers books for GCSE, books for a levels, paying for a provisional driving licence and in the future in will to pay for driving lessons. Vouchers or whatever you decide will not cover all these things. Things that children off differing age groups need

No. Targeting wealth if that's the way forward, means targeting the wealthy, regardless of their age. This may mean disproportionately targetting older people if thats where the wealth lies, but it certainly doesn't mean sweeping generalised age based policy that ignores the fact that millions of older people live in poverty at a time of life when they are no longer able to improve their circumstances; while at the other end of things we have privileged young people who are not only set to inherit the wealth of past generations, but also have their working lives ahead of them to secure themselves. Generational inequality exists only where you compare the generations of different demographics. The children of the wealthy will be wealthy themselves. The children of the poor with a bit of luck may find themselves less poor than their parents, but that's no means guaranteed.

No. Targeting wealth if that's the way forward, means targeting the wealthy, regardless of their age

older people hold more of the wealth largely due to property. That doesn’t mean that every single young person is poor or some old people aren’t in poverty….

The average age to inherit is 47, which isn’t really going to turn your life around if you’re not on the property ladder.

Yes!

If you inherit enough to buy a property, give you freedom to retire early or change career, set your children up for life - I think inheritance whilst you still have years of healthy life left is life changing - I know sone youngsters think life stops at 40 but you will be surprised

Completely agree with this, I don’t understand where this idea has come from that all previous generations moved from their parents house straight into a mortgaged house! Everyone I knew was renting in their 20s, often in shared houses, now young people act like this makes them so hard done by!

People see what older people have now and can't believe that they haven't lived like that all their lives

@midgetastic most people don’t inherit enough to buy a property outright though which is the point.

In terms of building wealth 10k at 20 is better than 100k at 50

Exactly. Which is why the OPs suggestions are flawed. She wants us to create a generational divide and advantage all younger people over all older ones, like with the tax free work for 5 years suggestion and the charges or funding restrictions to services disproportionately used by older people. Its too generalised and will not achieve fairness. You might as well say that men hold more wealth than women so let's increase their income tax and let women earn tax free. Charge men for prescriptions not women. Reduce funding for men's health and plough it into services for women.

People see what older people have now and can't believe that they haven't lived like that all their lives

That doesn’t make sense. Adults now see what their childhoods were like & see it’s often unaffordable these days.

She wants us to create a generational divide and advantage all younger people over all older ones, like with the tax free work for 5 years suggestion and the charges or funding restrictions to services disproportionately used by older people. Its too generalised and will not achieve fairness.

Young people do need some help though, they have been ignored for years. No government policy can work on every single individual basis it has to be a societal one.

Most older people had nothing like today's youth in their earlier lives! There seems to be a group between 20 and 35 that are most affected by expectations of adulthood being shaped by privileged childhoods, but that's hardly all or most of the population

I am only in my 50s - cinemas were a birthday treat, coffees and takeaways - we had fish and chips the day we moved house- cars - gadgets, days out to zoos or Christmas lights or anything really - we had a picnic in the hills , house had water running down the walls of the third bedroom, I recall my grandparents getting an inside loo and heating ... and we were quite well off I would say. My mam at least always had a job. I didn't get to buy a home till I married in my 30s.

It actually can. It's called means testing and has been about for years. OK, it's more clunky and expensive to administer than generalised policies, but it saves money in the long run by not giving benefits to those who don't need them, while taking them from those who do, putting them further into poverty. Poverty that ends up costing more in the long run.

Tech & globalisation does change though, it’s called progress. I didn’t have certain things because they didn’t actually exist…

It actually can. It's called means testing and has been about for years.

But there has to be a cut off, some will lose out. Hence the outcry over means testing winter fuel.

It shouldn't be impossible in this day to have a smooth rather than hard cut off for any benefits - so if you don't claim pension credit but would have less income once the fuel allowance is taken into account you should get the difference

Years of under investment in our national IT systems I suspect

Divert the money to schools and colleges so that they can directly pay for and provide all the stuff that the kids actually need, such as text books, reasonable school trips, school meals, and yes, maybe even divert money to colleges to finance driving licences (it's a life skill and just as valid for many jobs as a paper qualification). Give schools a supply of vouchers to give parents for school uniforms. Where there's a will, there's a way!

But today's young also know that the chances of them achieving the same kind of "wealth" of the older generation are next to nil unless they benefit from an inheritance. Today's youngsters aren't going to benefit from the privatisation and demutualisation windfalls, the rampant house price inflation, endowment policy maturity profits, and probably not even basic state pension. Today's youngsters will, on average, have to wait longer before they can buy their own home, if ever. They're also having to pay student loan repayments to cover their Uni costs (the older generation either didn't need to go to Uni or got grants rather than loans). So many aspects are very different.

Started writing something similar, and was thinking about using tv as the example, we had the BBC - one ‘subscription’. Now most people have at least two or three - BBC, Sky, Netflix, Now, Prime etc. Every school holiday, parents have to ‘make memories’. Parties used to be fun and games in your lounge for about six kids - now it’s whole class parties in the local hall, or experiences. People are spending so much more money than in the past.

I agree and it also shows what a load of balls Net Zero is.

If the planet were on fire or freezing-pick the one you like-governments would be making sure that buses and trains were cheap and accessible.

They're not because it is, as I said, a load of old balls.

Todays young people don't KNOW that things wont ever get better

It's a fear and a very real one I do agree

We need to work together ( not fight each other) to work out how that will happen

It won't happen if we fight each other, squabbling for scraps off the rich man's table

It also won't happen if we deny climate change , prioritise short term joy for decades of misery

I still think the big thing to fix is housing - people should be able to have a decent quality, safe and secure home , and two people working should be able to afford that easily without state benefits or handouts from family

And when they do have their own family they can get by for the early years ( expecting flash lifestyle in those early years is a bit much for my stomach but they should be able to afford to heat and eat )

I guess there is an underlying question as to what would be an acceptable minimum lifestyle- but that should be across all age ranges

Thanks, I prefer to make my own decisions about what my kids need with child benefit. Why would the school have the money for txt books when I can source it half price on eBay then have money left over for other essentials. When school sends firms out to order books, calculators etc it's always far more expensive than sourcing it myself

Bus fares are still lower than 10 years ago though !

At least in the 2 regions I can compare

Although I do think that feee public transport should be the end goal