Rift grows between young and old

toby3000

suburbanwifey wrote: »

I feel the child trust fund was one of Labours biggest mistakes and hurt our country so much. No wonder we are in this mess today, the masses of money Labour threw on this sort of thing. I'm very pleased it is being abolished. If people have children, its up to them to support them, not the wider economy, not the job of Govt. and certainly not the job of tax payers, which is where the child trust fund money came from. ISA's are there for anyone who chooses to save and do benefit everyone. Child trust funds only benefited children and cost tax money from those that chose not to have children.

ISAs don't benefit everyone, because for lots of poor people there isn't any 'choice' about whether they save, and the prospect of saving £5,000 a year is utterly fantastical. On exactly the same argument, it is "not the job of Govt. and certainly not the job of tax payers" to give a tax break to savers who would save anyway.

(I would like to point out now that I DO benefit from ISAs and would never have benefited from Child Trust Funds..)

suburbanwifey

toby3000 wrote: »

ISAs don't benefit everyone, because for lots of poor people there isn't any 'choice' about whether they save, and the prospect of saving £5,000 a year is utterly fantastical. On exactly the same argument, it is "not the job of Govt. and certainly not the job of tax payers" to give a tax break to savers who would save anyway.

(I would like to point out now that I DO benefit from ISAs and would never have benefited from Child Trust Funds..)

Really? I don't think we should have to pay tax twice! Tax is paid on income, any spare that we save out of our money, that we have already paid tax on, should be free of tax on the interest. Our money has already been taxed! ISA limits should be higher or tax on savings scrapped all together in my opinion.

toby3000

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Really? I don't think we should have to pay tax twice! Tax is paid on income, any spare that we save out of our money, that we have already paid tax on, should be free of tax on the interest. Our money has already been taxed! ISA limits should be higher or tax on savings scrapped all together in my opinion.

You don't pay tax on the money that you put in your account, you pay tax on the interest you earn. It isn't money you've already paid tax on.

Maybe you're right, and we shouldn't pay tax twice, but I bet your not prepared for the levels of income tax that scraping VAT and other indirect taxes would result in.

In my opinion ISAs make zero difference to behaviour and are simply a tax break for the nice middle classes. I just hate this sense of entitlement they have

suburbanwifey

toby3000 wrote: »

You don't pay tax on the money that you put in your account, you pay tax on the interest you earn. It isn't money you've already paid tax on.

Maybe you're right, and we shouldn't pay tax twice, but I bet your not prepared for the levels of income tax that scraping VAT and other indirect taxes would result in.

In my opinion ISAs make zero difference to behaviour and are simply a tax break for the nice middle classes. I just hate this sense of entitlement they have

Well, thank goodness we have Cameron in power now, who does like the middle classes. All whom, like me, are so relieved after a shambles of a decade under labour, who only, lets face it, take from us to give to the poor! (they should earn it themselves, like we all had to!)

toby3000

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Well, thank goodness we have Cameron in power now, who does like the middle classes. All whom, like me, are so relieved after a shambles of a decade under labour, who only, lets face it, take from us to give to the poor! (they should earn it themselves, like we all had to!)

You're completely right, the government should work towards middle classes being able to afford that 3rd holiday rather than the working class scum being able to turn their heating on. Anyway, we all know if you give poor people they just waste it on booze and loose women.

suburbanwifey

toby3000 wrote: »

You're completely right, the government should work towards middle classes being able to afford that 3rd holiday rather than the working class scum being able to turn their heating on. Anyway, we all know if you give poor people they just waste it on booze and loose women.

Yip, they do, a lot of them, not all though. On the subject of holidays, if someone works hard enough and can afford 3 holidays a year, why shouldn't they? The poor really do resent those that work hard, play hard and get more don't they.

toby3000

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Yip, they do, a lot of them, not all though. On the subject of holidays, if someone works hard enough and can afford 3 holidays a year, why shouldn't they? The poor really do resent those that work hard, play hard and get more don't they.

I didn't say I resented it (though I think the idea that we live in a society where those who work the hardest are rewarded the most is farcical, and most of the services that the middle classes enjoy are subsidised by the government indirectly).

What I said was that if the government are going to subsidise people via the tax system (which is what ISAs are) then they should be giving money to those who need it most. You're arguing for a tax break for those who need it the least.

pqrdef

suburbanwifey wrote: »

Well, thank goodness we have Cameron in power now, who does like the middle classes. All whom, like me, are so relieved after a shambles of a decade under labour, who only, lets face it, take from us to give to the poor! (they should earn it themselves, like we all had to!)

What a fascinating planet you live on. Here on my planet, the growth of middle-class salaries over the last decade has been obscene. The differential between rich and poor was far wider when Labour left office than when it arrived. I think they said they were intensely relaxed about it.

pqrdef

toby3000 wrote: »

the idea that we live in a society where those who work the hardest are rewarded the most is farcical

Of course it is. I've worked harder than wifey can imagine, but that was manual labouring, and paid accordingly.

And the people I've known on 6-figure salaries spend their days sitting around in meetings.

PaulF81

A._Badger wrote: »

I'm glad somene asked that. I was sitting here scratching my head wondering quite what it was the 'go to university on the strength of a couple of O levels' generation was being so cruelly excluded from.

I was talking about uk planning laws. And there is plenty of evidence, open the Telegraph, wanton nimbyism and hatred of new sensible planning laws. Happy that their little castle has been developed, boomers now want to keep the planning drawbridge firmly shut.

This was not the situation even 20 years ago. Its never been easy, but it was never impossible. Give young people something to aspire to, ie a decent spacious home at an affordable price in relation to salary, and they will work for it. Why are they going to work hard for the country when the best they can hope for is a shoe box flat till they are mid 40?

The boomer generation are restricting the younger generations in other ways, for,example the rediculous cash wasted on nhs treatment of the over 70s. Why spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on treatments for an individual that could go on infrastructure, education and research?Let me guess, because you lot will only vote in a shower of idiots willing to keep the merry go round from stopping, without any consideration to later generations. Want old age care? Pay for it yourself or hop on a ferry to Dignitas.