Interesting take on future tax etc...

StevieJ

Pennywise wrote: »

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).

.

Endowment surpluses, certainly not my experience, although I am sure some made money

Privatisation - I thought these brought more efficiency, and cash into the Govt coffers - Why do you say companies like BP and BT had no value.

Pensions based on artificial asset values - I note many companies like Shell and GSK are paying yields of well over 5% which suggests they are cheap compared to historical measurements, especially considering low inflation.

IveSeenTheLight

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.

the thing is, if someone was to say I needed to consider an amount over a lifetime then shouldn't inflation be added to that figure, not reducing it?

Take a mortgage for example.
If I were to take one today for £150k and not pay anything on it, I'd have to pay a hell of a lot more (to include the interest (inflation) over the time period)

Personally though, I'd cut all the crap and unneccasries immediately.
I know councils that spend £100k+ each year on flowers.
It's completely unneccessary.

Everyone should have to cut their cloth accordingly and live within their means.
I just don't have the confidence that the government can or will do it.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

IveSeenTheLight

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
-

On a simple front, it would seem hard to cut education or nhs spending as this needs to be maintained to continue and develop a better service.

The others though, why not.
Saw a clip of a programme the other night where some woman is the supper nanny of getting people out of benefits and into work.

Caught the figure of they were receiving something over £1200 per month (after tax) on benefits and was helping them to clear their debts and have a better life.

I'm sure most people on benefits would be able to go and do something to earn those benefits, be it sweeping the road, cutting grass, emptying bins, fixing our potholes, general assistant in a government office etc etc etc
If they had to earn the benefits, there would be a higher emphasis on them doing another job which would earn them more

Generali

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

According to a bloke on Wake up to Money the other day there will be 340,000 graduates this year and 140,000 graduate jobs. Scope for cuts there.

CLAPTON wrote: »

reduce nhs spending

The NHS was never designed to provide comprehensive health coverage, it was meant to be a safety net. I can never work as structured so cut spending a lot.

CLAPTON wrote: »

cut unemployment benefits

Probably can't be cut much without people starving. Perhaps a time limit could work.

CLAPTON wrote: »

cut child benefits

It's crazy that rich people get child benefit.

ninky_2

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?

here's the thing. if we considered our inter-generational wealth better most of us could be living very comfortably indeed. if everyone just reproduced by their same number (max) then inherited wealth would see most sitting comfortably (assuming no unfair taxes).

of course, this would pose a problem for the capitalist system because there would be a lack of labour on the market. sort of the same problem faced by australia when first colonised. land was freely available meaning no one was prepared to work for others.

a guy called wakefield (who had been a politician before being disgraced) wrote of the problems under the guise of a recent immigrant to australia. he had in fact never set foot in the country but his imagination and insight influenced the way in which nz was colonised - hence the class structure was sent out reflective of uk (i.e. capital and labour ratios) and land was not free.

IveSeenTheLight

Generali wrote: »

According to a bloke on Wake up to Money the other day there will be 340,000 graduates this year and 140,000 graduate jobs. Scope for cuts there.

The education pot is not spent on university education though,it's spent on lower level education

Who was it that said

I bleieve the children are our future.
Teach them well and let them lead the way

We have to educate our children and hope they become smarter than the current generation.

Really2

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

The education pot is not spent on university education though,it's spent on lower level education

Who was it that said


We have to educate our children and hope they become smarter than the current generation.

I have heard education overall is being cut 25%. But schools are ring fenced at least for the next 3 years.

So anything other than compulsory child education will be getting fairly large cuts.

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

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

Why do you think that education/job/life opportunities will be massively better in the future? I don't mean to be pessimistic for no reason, but I see very little to suggest that will be the case.

I don't think the education system has improved much in this country over the last few decades, unless you believe the reason that some many people achieve 'A' grades is something other than grade inflation. We're becoming a more unequal and less socially mobile society than 30 or 40 years ago, so that suggests job and life opportunities will be worse, not better.

This the most significant thing that the next generation will inherit from the current one [source: US Dept of Energy] – hardly conducive to a golden age unfortunately:

CLAPTON

Generali wrote: »

According to a bloke on Wake up to Money the other day there will be 340,000 graduates this year and 140,000 graduate jobs. Scope for cuts there.




The NHS was never designed to provide comprehensive health coverage, it was meant to be a safety net. I can never work as structured so cut spending a lot.



Probably can't be cut much without people starving. Perhaps a time limit could work.



It's crazy that rich people get child benefit.

I made no reference to cutting government spending as such... the point being debated was whether we should all feel 'pain' now so our children have a better life in the future.
My question was 'how does pain now help the younger generation?'
and if it does what sort of pain do we advocate.

So reducing government spending on the nhs and replacing it by personal spending doesn't mean any pain in overall terms. However if we choose to not have operations, not cure cancer suffers, not treat people involved in accidents etc then there is real reduction spending and real pain.. Its not an option I intend supporting however.

So it may well be a good debate about Universal benefits like child tax benefit and whether they are 'good' or bad but that wasn't the debate I had in mind.