Interesting take on future tax etc...

RenovationMan

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).

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.

1. Don't endowments rely on high inflation and high interest rates in order to work? I'm not sure why this is viewed as artificial wealth generation, it is just a financial product that was good for its time and has now had its time. Instead we have low interest rates and low inflation and need to use different investment tactics to benefit from this environment and generate wealth. My own tactic is to use low interest rates to make direct overpayments onto my mortgage, rather than relying on an investment vehicle.

2. The money for these came from investors buying the shares. With former publicly owned companies, the tax payers benefitted by tax cuts and customers benefitted from greater competition in the market place. The investors benefitted from gains in the stock market.

3. True, but in a decade and more of low inflation and low interest rates, this was inevitable.

4. I'm not sure what you mean with this statement, so sorry if I've misinterpreted you. If you're noting that stock markets have not done so well in the 00's as they did in the 80's and 90's, a lot of this can be blamed on our old friends low interest rates and low inflation, which both negatively impact share growth.

The blame for most of your points can be laid at the door of low interest rates and inflation. While some may have gained from high interest rates & inflation with their investments and endowments in the 80's and 90's, many more will have gained from low rates and inflation in the 00's with their low mortgage rates. Each generation will have its own opportunities, it's up to that generation to identify the opportunity and run with it.

ninky_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.
.

there is the option to have no / fewer children. no children = no pain?

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

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:

It rather depends upon whether or not you are an optimist or a pessimist.

I would certainly agree that energy supply is a major issue for the future but an optimistic that solution will be found.

I'm less optimistic about the continuing popluation growth which I see as the most significant global problem.

A new world (nuclear) war is also a possibility but I refuse to worry about it.

But I think that for most young people now they have better opportunity for a long and healthy life, for a large range of educational opportunities.
I'm not very convinced about the measures of social mobility as the arguments seem very unsubstantial and poorly researched.

ninky_2

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm less optimistic about the continuing popluation growth which I see as the most significant global problem.

.

is it possible that we could turn this around though. compared to our parents generation, most of us born in this country are having fewer children. it's not totally impossible that others will follow suit within a generation or two. once people realise that their economic and lifestyle prosperity is actually served better by having fewer children (and they have the access to - and choice to use - birth control etc) i think many would make that choice.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

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.

Yer.

Well I kind of meant things like paying a fee for library books, turning street lights off in the early hours of the morning, stopping free prescriptions and instead asking for a £2 token payment, stopping free bus passes and asking for again, a token £1 payment or such like, paying a fine for missed NHS appointments.

All small items, which may make us actually think about the resources we are so used to using, for free, and use them better.

For example, do you realise how many people get free prescriptions and therefore get aspirin on prescription instead of paying 20p for it?! Huge waste of doctors time, doctors staff time, printing costs, renumeration costs from the pharmacies etc etc. A simple £2 token payment would stop all that complete wastage for a pack of aspirin, AND increase revenue for those that currently get them free.

We take all this for granted and abuse it. That 20p pack of aspirin has just cost the taxpayer £2. But it's free for the end user, so they don't care.

Wasn't really expecting anyone to assume that by pain I mean we simply leave people trapped in a car after an accident to die...cus thats a bit extreme really isnt it.

It seems that indeed you do need to actually chair a thread you start just to stop that absolute extremes taking over.

StevieJ

Generali wrote: »

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.

.

That is not my understanding.

StevieJ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer.

Well I kind of meant things like paying a fee for library books, turning street lights off in the early hours of the morning, stopping free prescriptions and instead asking for a £2 token payment, stopping free bus passes and asking for again, a token £1 payment or such like, paying a fine for missed NHS appointments.

All small items, which may make us actually think about the resources we are so used to using, for free, and use them better.

For example, do you realise how many people get free prescriptions and therefore get aspirin on prescription instead of paying 20p for it?! Huge waste of doctors time, doctors staff time, printing costs, renumeration costs from the pharmacies etc etc. A simple £2 token payment would stop all that complete wastage for a pack of aspirin, AND increase revenue for those that currently get them free.

We take all this for granted and abuse it. That 20p pack of aspirin has just cost the taxpayer £2. But it's free for the end user, so they don't care.

Wasn't really expecting anyone to assume that by pain I mean we simply leave people trapped in a car after an accident to die...cus thats a bit extreme really isnt it.

It seems that indeed you do need to actually chair a thread you start just to stop that absolute extremes taking over.

Ahh you have gone into detail

RenovationMan

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yer.

Well I kind of meant things like paying a fee for library books, turning street lights off in the early hours of the morning, stopping free prescriptions and instead asking for a £2 token payment, stopping free bus passes and asking for again, a token £1 payment or such like, paying a fine for missed NHS appointments.

All small items, which may make us actually think about the resources we are so used to using, for free, and use them better.

For example, do you realise how many people get free prescriptions and therefore get aspirin on prescription instead of paying 20p for it?! Huge waste of doctors time, doctors staff time, printing costs, renumeration costs from the pharmacies etc etc. A simple £2 token payment would stop all that complete wastage for a pack of aspirin, AND increase revenue for those that currently get them free.

We take all this for granted and abuse it. That 20p pack of aspirin has just cost the taxpayer £2. But it's free for the end user, so they don't care.

You can get a Prescription Prepayment Certificate to reduce prescription costs if you dont qualify for free prescriptions. I dont think that the disparity between prescription drugs and non-prescription drugs is so high for the NHS (£2 as opposed to 20p), and many free prescriptions are subsidized by those who pay £7 for medication that may cost far less than this.

mbga9pgf

Really2 wrote: »

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.

State Pensions (a big part of that expenditure) are index linked.

Last time I checked, so were salaries and import costs, as are running costs. Nice try Steve, but your arguement would only hold true if budgets were frozen for 50 years.

Really2

mbga9pgf wrote: »

State Pensions (a big part of that expenditure) are index linked.

Last time I checked, so were salaries and import costs, as are running costs. Nice try Steve, but your arguement would only hold true if budgets were frozen for 50 years.

The end expenditure was £200K over what is paid over a working lifetime than someone in the here and now.

or £150K if budgets were cut as per set out by the government.

So the figure above (£46k)is what it would be today in todays terms (if everything was frozen at todays levels but without further cuts))

I thought that was fairly clear.

PS My name is not steve