Interesting take on future tax etc...

Graham_Devon

Failure to cut back now or raise taxes – and there is little sign of the population clamouring to make life easier for the as-yet-unborn – will leave future taxpayers with an additional burden of £200,000 each over their lifetimes to pay for the public services enjoyed by this and previous generations. Even with current plans to reduce the deficit, the tax bill would still be as high as £150,000 over the life of someone born in 2011.

Martin Weale, director of the NIESR said: "For spending to have simply carried on as from the 2008 Budget would have led to a very high burden on future generations or required a very large tax increase."


The baby boomers and their parents have also benefited from phenomena that are unlikely to be enjoyed by future generations, including: free university education, including maintenance grants; mortgage interest relief at the highest marginal rate of income tax; property booms that saw a massive transfer of wealth from the young to the old; free long-term care for the elderly; the proceeds of privatisations of state assets; and the demutualisation

Note the transfer of wealth being talked about, which caused a massive argument on here before now!!

Anyway, looks a bit cr*ppy for my son....and his children.

Was it pure greed? Or a failiure to pull the strings before things got too out of hand?

Whatever it was, our kids are going to pay for it, and if you are classed as ababy boomer, your kids will be paying for it....

So, should we pay more now, rather than worrying about the HPI in our homes?

chucky

leave future taxpayers with an additional burden of £200,000 each over their lifetimes

no doubt there will be a burden for this generation and the future generation...

but i can't see this number being too accurate - if people work for 40 years that's an additional £5,000 per year in tax per person.

that's a lot of extra tax to pay

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

no doubt there will be a burden for this generation and the future generation...

but i can't see this number being too accurate - if people work for 40 years that's an additional £5,000 per year in tax per person.

that's a lot of extra tax to pay

Which is why they will probably have to work till 50!

I guess we need to cut back today. As in, take a little pain ourselves, take a step down in living standards, to protect our children and their children from having all that extra tax to pay.

Thing is, would we ever do such a thing as a nation? We already have people crying out every cut is unfair, poverty this, poverty that.

System

Are those figures inflation adjusted?

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Note the transfer of wealth being talked about, which caused a massive argument on here before now!!

Anyway, looks a bit cr*ppy for my son....and his children.

Was it pure greed? Or a failiure to pull the strings before things got too out of hand?

Whatever it was, our kids are going to pay for it, and if you are classed as ababy boomer, your kids will be paying for it....

So, should we pay more now, rather than worrying about the HPI in our homes?

This is lost money on service (providing the young do not gain from it.)

free university education, including maintenance grants;
Mortgage interest relief at the highest marginal rate of income tax; ; free long-term care for the elderly;
the proceeds of privatisations of state assets; and the demutualisation

As a parent the following we cycle this straight back to the young on death.along with any other assets.

property booms that saw a massive transfer of wealth from the young to the old.

So you could argue anything they have benefited from providing the government have not pee'd it up the wall will eventually be cycled back down to the younger. (always has done)

I suspect the bold bit is the problem, as assets are fully transferable without cost (well until inheritance tax came in)
The problem is is government also taking their cut on the assets so the full wealth is not returned to your children.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Which is why they will probably have to work till 50!

I guess we need to cut back today. As in, take a little pain ourselves, take a step down in living standards, to protect our children and their children from having all that extra tax to pay.

Thing is, would we ever do such a thing as a nation? We already have people crying out every cut is unfair, poverty this, poverty that.

that would make it £4k extra tax per person for each year that they work

do you think that the £4k or even £5k extra tax per person per year is a bit high or maybe wrong?

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

that would make it £4k extra tax per person

do you think that the £4k or even £5k extra tax per person per year is a bit high or maybe wrong?

That 200k is based on if we do not cut anything.

I don't think it's neccesarily high, considering the debt we have...if we did not cut anything.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That 200k is based on if we do not cut anything.

ok - i was actually wrong. it's not £5k it's £2.5k per person per year worked.

StevieJ

The baby boomers and their parents have also benefited from phenomena that are unlikely to be enjoyed by future generations,

Clueless.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Note the transfer of wealth being talked about, which caused a massive argument on here before now!!

Anyway, looks a bit cr*ppy for my son....and his children.

Was it pure greed? Or a failiure to pull the strings before things got too out of hand?

Whatever it was, our kids are going to pay for it, and if you are classed as ababy boomer, your kids will be paying for it....

So, should we pay more now, rather than worrying about the HPI in our homes?

your children and their children are likely to inherit a golden age; massively better health care, massively better educational opportunities; massively better job opportunities; massively better technology, massively better life opportunities all round ; unless of course their generation !!!! it up

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

So, should we pay more now, rather than worrying about the HPI in our homes?

One argument is if we pay more, then we have less to provide for our children.

I'm all for living within our means and although I can afford a lot more, I'm providing for not only mine but my childrens future.

So I'm covering my childrens cost, they will not have to pay for my lifetime.

I much preder to have ownership and control over how to provide for my childrens future than to give to a government who have a history of innefficiency and wastage.