Willetts targets the older generations

lisyloo

westernpromise wrote: »

I am right to think I shouldn't pay more tax, because I already pay obscene amounts. People who pay almost nothing (most people) who think they should not pay more are just wrong.

I don't agree with your views which is fine and there is little to discuss as your view seems fixed.

However the fact is that the current tax system does not cater for people who can afford to pay for their own personal care so that benefit cannot be provided without either additional money to pay for it or cutbacks elsewhere.

Personally I don't think either would be politically viable. The PM did suggest some changes and they had a lot of opposition and had to be withdawn, so I think we are stuck with the status quo for a while.

westernpromise

Linton wrote: »

As to why you should pay it: you are only able to receive obscene amounts of income because of the existance of the state and the rest of society. If those cease to exist your money becomes meaningless.

That's an argument why everybody should pay tax, not for any particular level on individuals. It also assumes that without a state there'd be anarchy by which I wouldn't prosper more. Throughout most of human history the church rather than the state was what organised society, and plenty of successful states had next to no tax.

The beneficiaries of the state are the people who take out, not those who put in.

lisyloo

westernpromise wrote: »

The beneficiaries of the state are the people who take out, not those who put in.

I don’t agree with that.
Those who pay in are benefitting from our peaceful state as well, most of whom wouldn’t profit as much if we had an anarchic society. Many of them will be benefitting from free infrastruture such as roads and free nhs for their employees.

You come across as very bitter.

The rich who might consider themselves paying too much tax are often very much better off in most senses than those who you consider beneficiaries e.g. those in nursing homes, hospitals, on benefits or perhaps with disabilities or illness that prevent them contributing.

It’s a society we live in. If you don’t like it why don’t you live somewhere else that suits you better? If you don’t like paying too much tax why don’t you become a company director and pay yourself dividends?
The state is for the many. If you don’t like it then why not go somewhere else?

HornetSaver

Rinoa wrote: »

Every £ the boomers pay in health care/nursing care, is one less pound their children will inherit.

For all but the mega-rich who can afford to go entirely private, the British care system is perhaps the most communist in the world. You give up everything you've built up beyond one year's average salary and receive the same standard, or lack thereof, of care regardless of what you put in. If that system - combined with inheritance tax - can't convince people that they can't take any of their wealth or possessions with them after they die, goodness knows what would.

The way I see it, more overtly encouraging boomers to spend their accrued wealth during the earlier part of their retirement, to move out of the old family home and into more appropriate accomodation, and pass anything on to their descendants that they don't intend to use themselves during their life, is the single best way of fixing many of the generational imbalances within the economy. This should be achieved through a combination of properly co-ordinated carrots and sticks.

Such a behavioral shift would spark a boom in those very things that we must excel at, quickly, if we intend to make a success of Brexit - the manufacture of high-end goods due to home demand, with a view to gaining a reputation for them and exporting them successfully. Investment in the infrastructure necessary to deliver top-end goods and services efficiently to the standard that those paying good money for them expect - choosing to meet the demands of today rather than being forced to meet the absolute needs of tomorrow. Development of technology tailored towards better meeting the needs of older people, on the basis that these are the ones going out and spending money (rather than the general trend over the last 40 years of private sector technology being tailored towards the younger), again a good avenue for export. Less need to create vast urban sprawls because the housing stock is being used more sensibly and therefore there's less of a supply-demand miss-match.

HornetSaver

westernpromise wrote: »

The beneficiaries of the state are the people who take out, not those who put in.

Who stands to lose the most if the security of the country is compromised, due to the failure of the military, the security services, the police and the government to maintain law and order, and prevent civil war or invasion? Those people who actually have something to lose. Why on earth should the poor contribute a thruppenny bit towards that?

Whose lives are blighted the most if rubbish piles up on the streets, if burglary, robbery, muggings and looting are rife, and there are no rules, regulations and procedures in place to enable nimbyism? The people who have the nicest back yards, the most expensive-looking possessions and who live in the most tempting targets for burglary.

For that matter, if the unemployed get to a point where they cannot afford to not commit crime in order to maintain food and shelter, who loses out the most then?

None of the above are reasons to suggest that the tax balance is or isn't correct. Perhaps the burden is too high on the rich, or perhaps it isn't. Who on earth am I to say? But all are reasons why the "I put in more than I take out" arguments are far too simplistic to give significant weight to.

My experience is that those at the very top and those at the very bottom tend to do very well out of the structure of any Westernised state, and that different parts of the middle (by which I mean everything from the lower end of the employed working class, right through to high-earning professionals who don't fall into the mega-rich category) get hit the hardest to various extents, with the exact group facing the worst balance varying drastically from country to country.

John-K_3

lisyloo wrote: »

and every £ they don't pay is one more their children will pay in tax.
Health care is currently free.

There are some weird things written on the internet, but I think that you win with that one.

Health care is not free. The NHS costs about a hundred and thirty billion pounds per year to run. That is nearly two thousand pounds a year for every man, woman and child in the U.K.

chucknorris

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

Who was that other poster who was hysterically obsessed with boomers?

I think that you are probably thinking of 'rugged toast'?

Enterprise_1701C

OK, so a lot of people want boomers to hand over all their income because they happen to have been able to buy a house at the right time etc etc.

A lot of these people also want to abolish public schools, they hate the perceived advantages it gives to these kids. This would mean more kids in state schools. Surely paying for private education is a form of self taxation?

A lot of these people would also like to see an end to private health care, again they see it as a perceived advantage to the wealthy. Once again this would cause more people to have to be treated under the nhs. Again, this is a form of self-taxation.

Also, people would like to see the government take away inheritances and give them to the people that shout the loudest. What would there be to work for then, why would people actually bother working hard just to hand everything over to the government?

The people that actually bother to work hard already pay a lot of tax.

One thing for sure, if I thought that what we pass on to the kids would be heavily taxed I would be the first one out there spending the lot. And it would not be in this country, there are some wonderful holidays out there to be had.

economic

My dad is in his early 60s. Never has had any health problems to date, hardly ever used the NhS and has worked for over 40 years paying huge amount of taxes. He!!!8217;s healthy as one can be in his 60s and longevity runs in the family (living to around 100 years).

He also has assets worth over 1m including his house. Why should my dad be taxed at all?

Enterprise_1701C

OK, something very few people dare say.

Surely it is because of the baby boomers that young people have the benefits that they do. In previous years people have paid taxes and NI all their working lives and then died before or shortly after retirement, getting little or, sometimes, nothing back. Baby Boomers, and their parents etc have paid their taxes all their lives. The youngsters these days have barely started, and some seem to have decided to never work. It is the way it works, you pay in and the money is spread around everyone. Unfortunately there is now simply too many of the younger generation. Maybe they will have to pay more tax, but it is the way it has always worked.

We should stop people EXPECTING to be given a house and that sort of thing. Things like handing people lifetime tenancies of housing association places should be ended, fixed term tenancies that I know some operate should become a requirement. I always remember being disgusted when Bob Crow boasted of still living in a council house - he could have well afforded to vacate that and allow someone that needed it to have it, you should have to prove you need it.