Interesting take on future tax etc...

Really2

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.

Or how some are looking at it:

You are short on cash and work out sky will have cost you £16,600 over a 20 year period.

So you cancel sky, your phone, paper, mobile, gas, electricity sell your car etc. to recover that money.

After 5 years you realise you are OK and did not need to cut all those services.
But it does not matter as you are now a hermit eating road kill.:)

Exocet

Joeskeppi wrote: »

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.

No, I don't think so mate. If I was checking my budget, and I couldn't afford it, I would have to cut back now. I appreciate the argument is a bit different for governments, they seem happy to keep borrowing, but I'd rather not have any debt if possible.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

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.

Give us some examples of 'pain ourselves' that will help future generations

take it as read that we ALL agree that waste should be reduced but what about the following

-reduce education spending
-reduce nhs spending
-cut unemployment benefits
-cut child benefits
-stop using our cars to save the planet
-use less electricity and gas



-

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

How could it be inflation based? We don't know what the inflation is going to be.

You don't so you use an average for the projection. Your statement is rather ironic considering you debating future house price inflation only yesterday.
You use some kind of inflation to make any future forecast, I can't see why you would not get that.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

Give us some examples of 'pain ourselves' that will help future generations

take it as read that we ALL agree that waste should be reduced but what about the following

-reduce education spending
-reduce nhs spending
-cut unemployment benefits
-cut child benefits
-stop using our cars to save the planet
-use less electricity and gas



-

It's not really up to me to give examples. As then we will just end up in a situation arguing as to why my examples should not be cut. Why they are wrong etc etc etc

There doesn't need to be such in depth analysis of all this.

The question is, should we take some pain, to help aliviate our future generation.

That's the question, it's simple. It doesn't need disecting. It was there for discussion, that is all. Not for arguments and for me to somehow chair what cuts should and shouldn't be made.

This simple discussion would be easily achieved elsewhere on the forum, but it seems to be a massive feat here. For some reason, we need deep analysis before we can comment on the simplest of discussion points.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

Do you have a mirror handy

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

The question is, should we take some pain, to help aliviate our future generation.

That's the question, it's simple. It doesn't need disecting. It was there for discussion, that is all. Not for arguments and for me to somehow chair what cuts should and shouldn't be made.

It is for all of us to take because if we over cut now you are only making your childs future worse than what it would have been if you had done F all.

It you want a yes or no answer I think you may be on the wrong board. I am far to in depth for one just to say yes or no without analysing the data.

System

Really2 wrote: »

You don't so you use an average for the projection. Your statement is rather ironic considering you debating future house price inflation only yesterday.
You use some kind of inflation to make any future forecast, I can't see why you would not get that.

The article specifically says "over their lifetimes" which suggests to me they've obviously forecasted it including inflation going forward.

If that's not the case then it would mean we're all paying £400 a month in real terms more than the previous generation, for the rest of our lives, clearly not realistic.

I can't answer Grahams question until I know which it is, if it's the former we probably don't need to cut much at all, if it's the latter then I really will go invest in a bunker.

Pennywise

It's been blatantly obvious that we've been living way above our means for a decade or two. The following are examples of artificial wealth that one generation has enjoyed to be paid for by the next:-

1. Endowment mortgages paying out tens of thousands of pounds that wasn't real money.
2. Privatisations, de-mutualisations, etc of banks, building societies, friendly societies, life insurance companies etc raking in huge windfalls for their customers - again, money that never really existed.
3. House price rises way above inflation.
4. Pensions (public, private and state) based on artificial asset values (shares etc).

Notice any pattern? It's all because of over-inflated asset values which never had any logical basis other than they were high because some fool would buy at that level. The financial services industry has an awful lot to answer for since it's they who've creamed the money from what is basically nothing more than a ponzi scheme.

I've said many times, years before the 2007 crash, that the 1990s was the golden era for the middle aged and old, and that generations to come would be paying for it.

StevieJ

Pennywise wrote: »

I've said many times, years before the 2007 crash, that the 1990s was the golden era for the middle aged and old, and that generations to come would be paying for it.

Interesting, I had a quick look at RPI and the Nationwide house price calculator for the UK in the 90's and these figures popped out

RPI increase 32%

HPI increase 30%

http://www.nationwide.co.uk/hpi/Default.asp?calculate=true

In fact HPI where I live was only 20%.