Interesting take on future tax etc...

Graham_Devon

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.

Exactly.

And considering our debt and current overspend before the crisis of about 30bn a year, if you REALLY want to try and calculate this including inflation (remember we have no idea what the inflation figure is, but oh well), it certainly wouldn't be reducing the overall burden, as you would have to apply inflation to our overspend each year also.

As I said...ounce of sense.

Working it all out today and then suggesting everything else effected by inflation can be ignored?! What's the point?!

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Exactly.

And considering our debt and current overspend before the crisis of about 30bn a year, if you REALLY want to try and calculate this including inflation, it certainly wouldn't be reducing the overall burden, as you would have to apply inflation to our overspend each year also.

As I said...ounce of sense.

Oh dear, Obviously I do not have one (according to GD):D

To run it past you again I have applied inflation at 3% it is fairly clear your article says on top of a person tax burden at today rate.

So please explain why I have no sense GD as I fail to see the error that is so obvious to you.

PS the bold bit, so you now disagree with the article you posted because you believe that is not in their £200,000K calculation. No worries but why post it then?.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

Oh dear, Obviously I do not have one (according to GD):D

To run it past you again I have applied inflation at 3% it is fairly clear your article says on top of a person tax burden at today rate.

So please explain why I have no sense GD as I fail to see the error that is so obvious to you.

The error, is that you have ONLY applied inflation to the tax burden, which you have then reduced to 40 odd grand in todays money.

That's fantastic. But you have ignored inflation on pensions, wages, welfare, services, debt interest, everything.

If you want to apply inflation to the tax burden over a period of time, then you simply HAVE to apply inflation to everything that makes up the tax burden calculation in the first place.

Your point was that it's actually, in todays money, 40 odd grand, not 200 grand.

That might be so, but say it costs £600bn to run the country today. Is it going to cost £600bn to run the country, if we keep all services the same as today, in 50 years time?

No, of course not. But that's basically what you are saying when you are saying it will be reduced with inflation factored in.

So yes, ounce of sense. Hopefully, thats gone some way to helping you on your way to your ounce.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

That's fantastic. But you have ignored inflation on pensions, wages, welfare, services, debt interest, everything.

If you want to apply inflation to the tax burden over a period of time, then you simply HAVE to apply inflation to everything that makes up the tax burden calculation in the first place.

Your point was that it's actually, in todays money, 40 odd grand, not 200 grand.

!!!!!!, so you are saying they ignored it not me. AFIK they have included that in the £200K. Are you saying they have messed up their figures now as it is clear they state on top of what a person now would pay

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.

All I have done is show what £200K in 2085 would be eqiverlent to today if inflation was 3% (not unrealistic)

Why post an article which you do not believe now?
I am responding to your OP, if your OP is wrong say so and move on.

Exocet

Really2 wrote: »

All I have done is show what £200K in 2085 would be eqiverlent to today if inflation was 3% (not unrealistic)

Am I right in thinking you are advocating time travel as an answer to our taxation worries?

Really2

Exocet wrote: »

Am I right in thinking you are advocating time travel as an answer to our taxation worries?

Ask the article what they used, but remember the higher inflation rate you use the lower the value it is in todays money.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

!!!!!!, so you are saying they ignored it not me. AFIK they have included that in the £200K.

All I have done is show what £200K in 2085 would be eqiverlent to today if inflation was 3% (not unrealistic)

Why post an article which you do not believe now?
I am responding to your OP, if your OP is wrong say so and move on.

Read what you actually said about the 3% inflation Really.

You did not just come on here and state what it would be worth in todays money.

I aint gonna sit here arguing with you. I think you now realise your mistake in not applying inflation to the costs, but applying it to the burden only, and therefore reducing it by 75%.

The 200k was calculated for a baby born in 2011. If we do not cut anything, keep everything the same and inflation hts 10% over 10 years, the burden will be £220k for a baby born in 2021.

All this talk of todays money has absolutely no relation to the article whatsoever, so I really do not know what your point was.

I've made mine, and thats that.

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

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 optimistic that in the long term a solution can be found, but the point is that even if a scientist found a way of converting water into fuel today, solving all our long term problems, we would still have a prolonged energy crisis, because basically nothing has been done to shift the economy away from oil. In an economy based on fossil fuels, it takes expending a lot fossil fuels and about 10-20 years of preparation to build an alternative energy infrastructure.

TPTB (i.e. idiotic politicians, economists) have known about this issue for a very long time - and have chosen to do nothing, if anything to increase our dependence on oil rather than reduce it. The next generation are going to pay a heavy price into terms of reduced standard of living because we are so close to the peak of oil production that it is now basically not possible to have a smooth transition away from an oil based economy.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Read what you actually said about the 3% inflation Really.

You did not just come on here and state what it would be worth in todays money.

First page, my quote.

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.

It is clear as day GD that it is what I wrote so stop trying to get one over on me.

I have made no mistake as I am working with the figures supplied by the article.
I really dont get how you have the balls to now blame me for the article you posted.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

1)The 200k was calculated for a baby born in 2011.
2)if we do not cut anything, keep everything the same and inflation hts 10% over 10 years, the burden will be £220k for a baby born in 2021.

1) Over their life
2) It was £150K over their life on current deficit reducing levels. So the £200K was never for an ever increasing deficit, it was to keep spending at pre bust levels.
It clearly says to enjoy the same service we had. It does not say and an ever increasing deficit

It is simple to see that would then mean their whole article is just a load of @ollox.

If you can't understand the benefit of knowing the cost in todays terms are you are a fool, simple as that.

How you could argue yesterday about real term falls but dis working out inflation costing is beyond me.

Exocet

I am quite enjoying this thread. Now, if I understand Doctor Really right and his Time Machine theory... if I take my ten pounds and travel to 2085 I will be feeling fairly poor. But, if I take ten pounds from 2085 - which will presumably only buy a penny chew by then, and travel back to 2010 I will be feeling much wealthier.

So if we could travel backwards in time, which is sometimes what reading this Board feels like, we could be minted.