Willetts targets the older generations

lisyloo

Health care is currently free.

I think most people would interpret in the way it was meant as "free at the point of delivery".
The comment was in the context of individuals paying for the services they receive.

westernpromise

economic wrote: »

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?

Because people who pay nothing are not in the least bit grateful for all that the state gives them (funded by such as your dad), they never say thank you for any of it, they moan that it's not enough and the more they've given for nothing the more they whine and snivel for even more free money off other people. They're entitled. It's not his money, it's "society"'s money, some of which "society" has been generous enough not to steal yet.

It's funny how the most vociferous advocates of what a good thing tax is pay next to none of it and want those who actually do to pay even more. Pure, piggish greed admiring itself in a mirror as virtue.

John-K_3

lisyloo wrote: »

I think most people would interpret in the way it was meant as "free at the point of delivery".
The comment was in the context of individuals paying for the services they receive.

So in the same way that my Waitrose delivery is free, then, or my car?

The idea that it is free is just not right, and it’s a little lie that seems only ever to be trotted out when it advances someone’s argument.

John-K_3

westernpromise wrote: »

Because people who pay nothing are not in the least bit grateful for all that the state gives them (funded by such as your dad), they never say thank you for any of it, they moan that it's not enough and the more they've given for nothing the more they whine and snivel for even more free money off other people. They're entitled. It's not his money, it's "society"'s money, some of which "society" has been generous enough not to steal yet.

It's funny how the most vociferous advocates of what a good thing tax is pay next to none of it and want those who actually do to pay even more. Pure, piggish greed admiring itself in a mirror as virtue.

As it was put in an episode of the West Wing...

Last year I paid twenty heee times what the average person did in taxes, and for what? If my house is on fire, does the engine come twenty times as fast? If I am being burgled, do they send twenty three police cars? No, they do not, but that is fine, it’s just the way that it has to be for everything to work, and I am glad to pay it. But please, when I am paying so much in for the good of everyone, can you please not insult me about it?

Cakeguts

I am a baby boomer with no children so I think I am due a refund of tax and council tax that I have paid. I haven't used the NHS for giving birth or for the health of my non existent children. I also haven't used any school places either. I will have enough money to pay for my own care.

I would like to suggest that I have already paid quite enough tax to support other people as well as any NHS services I have used myself.

Baby boomers without children haven't taken more out than they have put in. People under 30 with two or more children have though so perhaps they should pay more for what they are using?

westernpromise

There needs to be a lifetime limit on the income tax you pay. It is outrageous that so many people pay nothing for so long.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

Cakeguts wrote: »

I am a baby boomer with no children so I think I am due a refund of tax and council tax that I have paid. I haven't used the NHS for giving birth or for the health of my non existent children. I also haven't used any school places either. I will have enough money to pay for my own care.

I would like to suggest that I have already paid quite enough tax to support other people as well as any NHS services I have used myself.

Baby boomers without children haven't taken more out than they have put in. People under 30 with two or more children have though so perhaps they should pay more for what they are using?

People without children should be forced to pay more tax due to the lack of future taxation not received by the government from their children.

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn

westernpromise wrote: »

There needs to be a lifetime limit on the income tax you pay. It is outrageous that so many people pay nothing for so long.

We could do this by capping total income rec'd so it would be impossible to pay high levels of tax. How does that sound?

This could be implemented by ensuring directors can only receive 10x the amount of their lowest paid worker.

lisyloo

John-K wrote: »

So in the same way that my Waitrose delivery is free, then, or my car?

The idea that it is free is just not right, and it’s a little lie that seems only ever to be trotted out when it advances someone’s argument.

I think you have interpreted was was meant incorrectly.
I am not saying it doesn’t cost anything to provide - of course it does.
In the context of the conversation it meant individuals do not contribute directly for the NHS healthcare they receive.
They pay for it indirectly through taxes.

The context was what individuals paid for directly - for example if you go into a care home and have more than the threshold then you pay directly for your care whereas if you have an nhs operation you do not pay directly for it.

If it wasnt clear then I take responsibility or my part in being unclear.
If you are deliberately trying to take what I said out of context then you can continue point scoring alone as what I meant should now be clear.
Individuals do NOT pay directly for nhs care at the point of delivery.

lisyloo

Jack_Johnson_the_acorn wrote: »

People without children should be forced to pay more tax due to the lack of future taxation not received by the government from their children.

But most people (and therefore children in future) are net takers not givers, so surely people who have children should be taxed more.