Interesting take on future tax etc...

Really2

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Are those figures inflation adjusted?

I suspect they have inflation adjusted it for the term. So looks big now, not so big in 2085.
I read it they will have paid an extra £150K-£200K by the time they retire. That is the nominal amount at the end point say 2085, so overall the liability is not that high in real terms. but nominally today it looks:eek:

Graham_Devon

Oh jeez. I wanted a decent discussion about whether we should cut our cloth now to help our future generations.

Not more fluff about nominal and real terms and questions about how it's all calculated!

System

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh jeez. I wanted a decent discussion about whether we should cut our cloth now to help our future generations.

Not more fluff about nominal and real terms and questions about how it's all calculated!

Yeah, who cares about the details and what it all really means.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh jeez. I wanted a decent discussion about whether we should cut our cloth now to help our future generations.

Not more fluff about nominal and real terms and questions about how it's all calculated!

OK, what do you mean? cut the education/NHS budget, what about child allowance/welfare payments? Seems to me that a great deal of the spending is actually on the future generation.

undetterred

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh jeez. I wanted a decent discussion about whether we should cut our cloth now to help our future generations.

Not more fluff about nominal and real terms and questions about how it's all calculated!

Look after number 1 now,sod the future and everything else.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh jeez. I wanted a decent discussion about whether we should cut our cloth now to help our future generations.

Not more fluff about nominal and real terms and questions about how it's all calculated!

Why, you could over cut now to the detriment of your son.:eek:

over 50 years of working from today at 3% inflation it would equal around £46,000 in todays money.

That is why it is important GD as you could be cutting services that are affordable and beneficial based on a scary figure you see today.

The_White_Horse

the lefties are in for 13 years, but the damage they caused will last for generations.

Exocet

Here's a simple take on it. If I have a Sky package and I need to make cuts, I wouldn't be looking at the inflation adjusted figure in twenty years time. I'd just cut it and stuff the Sky employees.

System

Exocet wrote: »

Here's a simple take on it. If I have a Sky package and I need to make cuts, I wouldn't be looking at the inflation adjusted figure in twenty years time. I'd just cut it and stuff the Sky employees.

That's not the same though is it. If someone told you you need an extra £x amount over your lifetime, you need to consider inflation and work out if it really is as scary as it looks.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Yeah, who cares about the details and what it all really means.

To be honest, just an ounce of sense will tell you that it's not a static £200k.

An ounce of sense will tell you that 200k is based on todays calculations and todays debts, liabilities and expenditure.

How could it be inflation based? We don't know what the inflation is going to be. Any inflation would also effect all the figures, such as the debt figures and interest. You'd have to then take into account all the inflation on the costs of keeping the services we are running today running, the inflation on the pensions....and can we really suggest that all those costs will stay the same, and only the burden will reduce with inflation!?

I didn't think this would need explaining in any detail to be able ot actually discuss the underlying point of whether we should take some pain ourselves to aliviate the future generation.

Seriously, !!!!!! is wrong with this place.