Interesting take on future tax etc...

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

First page, my quote.



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.

I love how you claim to have only said what it would be worth today.

Highlight the sentence in which you did say that. But totally ignore the sentence above and below it. So, let's ignore what you actually said in the fill post for a moment.

Your point then, about the 46k today.

You say you just worked out what it was worth in todays money in 2085. Why did you tell us that then? What was your actual point? (If it wasn't about over cutting as you suggested by typing that).

I may aswell say I paid 46x more for my house than my parents did 40 years ago and completely ignore the fact that I now earn probably 25x what my dad did per year.

So, what was your point really?

StevieJ

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.

I will have a go at that one, you are arguing with Dev

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I love how you claim to have only said what it would be worth today.

Highlight the sentence in which you did say that. But totally ignore the sentence above and below it. So, let's ignore what you actually said in the fill post for a moment.

Your point then, about the 46k today.

That is because it is £200k after inflation over 75 years!!!!!!


AAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I used the figure if we did not cut a thing, the worst case.


Do you want it worked out with the cuts which are implemented I am sure you will dislike that figure more.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I may aswell say I paid 46x more for my house than my parents did 40 years ago and completely ignore the fact that I now earn probably 25x what my dad did per year.

You do, but by having the nominal amount he paid 40 years ago lets you work out how much it has inflated.

If you toll your dad 40 years ago you would have to pay £200K today for the house he purchased he would have laughed and thought it impossible on his current wage.

Really2

Exocet wrote: »

I . 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.

That is exactly how inflation works, give someone £20 50 years ago they would be able to do a lot more with it than they can today.

It is a simple concept.

Exocet

Really2 wrote: »

That is exactly how inflation works, give someone £20 50 years ago they would be able to do a lot more with it than they can today.

It is a simple concept.

I wish I could go back 50 years - I'd be rich I tell you. The scary thing is that we are all going forward, and especially given savings rates and inflation, our future 'wealth' is quite hard to predict.

nearlynew

Really2 wrote: »

It is a simple concept.

Very true, and can be summed up thus ............


......... inflation is theft

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

That is because it is £200k after inflation over 75 years!!!!!!


AAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

I used the figure if we did not cut a thing, the worst case.


Do you want it worked out with the cuts which are implemented I am sure you will dislike that figure more.

I'd like the figure if we did not cut a thing and you included inflation on government expenditure and didnt just apply it to the burden.

Never gonna get it though am I, let's face it

Unless you are saying that NHS spending for example will be say £90bn today, and will still be £90bn in 2075 regardless of inflation?

Or, you could be saying that Income Support is £130 a week or whatever today and will still be £130 a week in 2075? Afterall, this is the only way you can claim what you are claiming.

Orrrrrrrr....maybe you are being deliberately stupid?

Really2

Exocet wrote: »

I wish I could go back 50 years - I'd be rich I tell you. The scary thing is that we are all going forward, and especially given savings rates and inflation, our future 'wealth' is quite hard to predict.

That is why you need to add at least some measure of inflation to future calculations. You know like when they do when forecasting real term house price falls.:) (3% is fairly standard in the current climate)

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd like the figure if we did not cut a thing and you included inflation on government expenditure.

Never gonna get it though am I, let's face it

What so you are now saying that is not the £200K in the article.

Quality fail.

your edit

Unless you are saying that NHS spending for example will be say £90bn today, and will still be £90bn in 2075 regardless of inflation?

Or, you could be saying that Income Support is £130 a week or whatever today and will still be £130 a week in 2075? Afterall, this is the only way you can claim what you are claiming.

Orrrrrrrr....maybe you are being deliberately stupid?

your article

Failure to cut back now or raise taxes – and there is little sign of the population clamouring to make life easier for the as-yet-unborn – 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.

How is that not including inflation, give it up you look a right wally.

chucky

nearlynew wrote: »

Very true, and can be summed up thus ............


......... inflation is theft

how would you prevent inflation?