Who would be a millenial?

stator

ukcarper wrote: »

In my 20s I was paying 33% income tax and did not benefit from a university eduction. Isn't student debt written off after 30 years.

Something like that. Just at the point where people start to vote Tory. Coincidence?

The marginal rate of tax for university graduate on £20k is 41%
For every extra £1 they earn the government keeps 41p.
The marginal rate of tax for a rich person on £150k who didn't go to university or is old enough that they didn't have to pay for it is 47%.
That's a 6% difference from £20k to £150k.

The step down in NI masks the step up in income tax, such that most people think the tax rates are more staggered than they really are.

ukcarper

stator wrote: »

Something like that. Just at the point where people start to vote Tory. Coincidence?

The marginal rate of tax for university graduate on £20k is 41%
For every extra £1 they earn the government keeps 41p.
The marginal rate of tax for a rich person on £150k who didn't go to university or is old enough that they didn't have to pay for it is 47%.
That's a 6% difference from £20k to £150k.

The step down in NI masks the step up in income tax, such that most people think the tax rates are more staggered than they really are.

I think there are a lot of boomers and gen X'ers who have never earned anywhere near £150k.

ukcarper

CLAPTON wrote: »

as a matter of interest ; you were probably paying 33% tax plus 5% (or less NI) so max of 38%
as against 20% tax plus 12 % NI ie. 32% now
although thresholds etc have changed making comparisons difficult

As you say difficult to compare basic income tax did peak 35% but then VAT was lower. Also wages have increased by considerably more than inflation since the 70s although that has now gone into reverse.

[Deleted User]

I was born in 1980. I'm not sure if I'm a millennial or a Gen Y-er.

ukcarper

ringo_24601 wrote: »

I was born in 1980. I'm not sure if I'm a millennial or a Gen Y-er.

Probably depends where you look. Whole thing seems a bit silly to me I think boomers ended in 1964 but someone born in 1964 would have more in common with someone born in 1965 than 1946.

[Deleted User]

ukcarper wrote: »

Probably depends where you look. Whole thing seems a bit silly to me I think boomers ended in 1964 but someone born in 1964 would have more in common with someone born in 1965 than 1946.

I'm going to say I'm not a millennial. I can't say I share anything in common with a recent graduate. I've got more in common with a 45 year old really. 1985ish is probably the birth year cut off.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

It would be an impossible task for the rich to only marry the rich and keep it up for multiple generations. In fact mathematically at some stage it would only be possible with inbreeding

it is clearly the case that the rich do 'mainly' marry the rich
it is clearly true we are all inbreed
it is clearly true that the very rich are very inbreed.

Mistermeaner

My biggest concern is wheat happened to generation z?

Noone even talks about them

ukcarper

Mistermeaner wrote: »

My biggest concern is wheat happened to generation z?

Noone even talks about them

After a bit of googling it seems Gen Y has disappeared leavening only Gen X.

stator

ukcarper wrote: »

I think there are a lot of boomers and gen X'ers who have never earned anywhere near £150k.

Exactly. The point was how much tax the very rich older people pay vs how much tax the young poor pay. In the old days the gap was larger. A 9pp higher tax rate is huge compared to the other differences in tax rates ie rich vs poor