Willetts targets the older generations

GreatApe

Too much arguing. There are solutions to everything

There is an easy way to help solve the problem without higher taxes or increased retirement age or reduced services.

Stop the madness of university education for all. All it does is create worthless courses staffed by worthless lecturers brain washing kids to further expand worthless universities

Return to kids starting work at 15
Workforces expands and the ratio of workers to retired improves

There are two other options.
Robots. This can and will be done but should be seen as a bonus not the only bet
Mass migration. Much less effective than kids returning to the norm of entering the workforce age 15/16 because while migrants produce they also consume if its 10:8 ratio then you need 5 migrants for every one kid who starts work sooner.

Good for the kids good for the parents good for society

This pretence of half of kids are smart enough for higher education and deserving of a degree needs to stop. More kids get degrees than their parents got 3 O levels. All we did was debase the marginal degree to that of an O level for no gain and a lot of pain (higher taxes lower services and delayed lives and a sense of entitlement that does no good for the kids all thanks to the Solly idea that 50% need go to university)

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

individuals do not contribute directly for the NHS healthcare they receive.
They pay for it indirectly through taxes.

To be more precise, most people pay net nothing for the healthcare they receive. It is actually funded for everyone by a handful of other people.

Enterprise_1701C

GreatApe wrote: »

Too much arguing. There are solutions to everything

There is an easy way to help solve the problem without higher taxes or increased retirement age or reduced services.

Stop the madness of university education for all. All it does is create worthless courses staffed by worthless lecturers brain washing kids to further expand worthless universities

Return to kids starting work at 15
Workforces expands and the ratio of workers to retired improves

There are two other options.
Robots. This can and will be done but should be seen as a bonus not the only bet
Mass migration. Much less effective than kids returning to the norm of entering the workforce age 15/16 because while migrants produce they also consume if its 10:8 ratio then you need 5 migrants for every one kid who starts work sooner.

Good for the kids good for the parents good for society

This pretence of half of kids are smart enough for higher education and deserving of a degree needs to stop. More kids get degrees than their parents got 3 O levels. All we did was debase the marginal degree to that of an O level for no gain and a lot of pain (higher taxes lower services and delayed lives and a sense of entitlement that does no good for the kids all thanks to the Solly idea that 50% need go to university)

Couldn't agree more. Universities have been forced to devalue their degrees to ensure a reasonable amount of people leave having earned a degree. Degrees are barely worth the paper they are printed on these days, they used to actually be worth something. I know it was changed (by Blair I think?) because it seemed that only the privileged few got to university, but it turns out that the "underpriviledged" cannot cope with university, the drop out rate among them is rather too high.

As my kids said, there is no point in going to university when they could be earning throughout those years and advancing in their chosen careers.

We seriously need to go back to the days when you had to get very high grades to get to uni. And we also need to develop more apprenticeships. Some people hate the idea of being "only" an electrician or plumber, but we will always need the trades.

GreatApe

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

Couldn't agree more. Universities have been forced to devalue their degrees to ensure a reasonable amount of people leave having earned a degree. Degrees are barely worth the paper they are printed on these days, they used to actually be worth something. I know it was changed (by Blair I think?) because it seemed that only the privileged few got to university, but it turns out that the "underpriviledged" cannot cope with university, the drop out rate among them is rather too high.

As my kids said, there is no point in going to university when they could be earning throughout those years and advancing in their chosen careers.

We seriously need to go back to the days when you had to get very high grades to get to uni. And we also need to develop more apprenticeships. Some people hate the idea of being "only" an electrician or plumber, but we will always need the trades.

To expand the numbers going to university they had to invent new subjects and expand multiples beyond need existing mostly useless existing subjects

I recall reading there are 20 x as many photography students than there could be work remotely related to it.

lisyloo

And we also need to develop more apprenticeships

Agreed, but we would need to make a lot more spprenticeships available and also make sure they are providing proper training and not bein used as just a cheap form a labour (as weve seen some internships abused).

lisyloo

To be more precise, most people pay net nothing for the healthcare they receive. It is actually funded for everyone by a handful of other people.

I don't agree with a "handful". Do you have any link for that?
Looks more like 40/60 to me.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10638283/How-much-we-give-the-state-in-tax-and-how-much-we-get-back.html

Number-crunchers at Smith & Williamson, the accountancy and investment group, then computed the benefits received and taxes paid, on an average household basis, for each group.
It showed that the top 40pc of households, ranked by earnings, carried the burden. The lower-earning 60pc are net beneficiaries of the system, taking more back in benefits than they contribute in the many forms of tax to which we are all subject.

BobQ

Arklight wrote: »

I don't think they've intentionally ripped off the younger generations, but four decades of one government after another promising the same demographic a Scandanavian quality of life and American levels of taxation is now not adding up.

I tend to agree, although not all boomers are as well off as the stereotype boomer. Another factor is that so many boomers (and I am one) simply do not realise the trade off between generations. They get that they are better off than they ever imagined but do not associate it with the problems of the younger generation.

But if we don't take money from people who have money, where does it come from?

You are right that boomers are unlikely to vote to make themselves poorer and they are a growing proportion of the population.

My solution is to properly redistribute wealth by signifcicant increases in inheritance taxes. Taxing estates of everyone at death would enable the state to fund decent care packages for everyone. It would also be redistributive by providing care workers with better incomes and stimulate employment in the sector It would also prevent the lottery that the offspring of some people inherit large sums and those of people who contact degenerative illnesses do not. If you are likely to inherit £100K and get say £80K is that really unfair when you never earned it in the first place? Personally I doubt it will make a difference to most certainly not the taxpayer who is dead.

BobQ

Enterprise_1701C wrote: »

We seriously need to go back to the days when you had to get very high grades to get to uni. And we also need to develop more apprenticeships. Some people hate the idea of being "only" an electrician or plumber, but we will always need the trades.

I agree with the principle but as people will end up working until they get to 70 in future, plumbers and electricians may need a second career as their physical condition deteriorates.

westernpromise

lisyloo wrote: »

I don't agree with a "handful". Do you have any link for that?
Looks more like 40/60 to me.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/tax/10638283/How-much-we-give-the-state-in-tax-and-how-much-we-get-back.html

Your own link makes my point.

60% take out
40% pay in
10% of all taxpayers pay 59% of the income tax, so of that 40% who pay anything at all, almost all is paid by 10% with the next 30% putting in only 40% of the money.

This means it is OK for the 60% who get everything for nothing to hate those who pay for it all, as I understand it.

westernpromise

BobQ wrote: »

My solution is to properly redistribute wealth

Sorry, to be clear, whenyou use the euphemism "redistribute wealth" you mean "take other people's money", yes? If so, why not say so? You want other people's stuff that you haven't earned.

If you are likely to inherit £100K and get say £80K is that really unfair when you never earned it in the first place?

The state "never earned it in the first place" either and in fact has taxed the job, the income, the savings, and the expenditure of that person throughout his or her life. You never earned it either. It's not yours.

Personally I doubt it will make a difference to most certainly not the taxpayer who is dead.

Let's try a little thought experiment. One of your nearest and dearest dies. A stranger enters their house and loots everything in it of value. In court the thief explains to the judge, Well, your honour, she was dead so she won't miss it and her family did nothing to earn it, so it's as much mine as theirs. The judge agrees. Case dismissed.

You'd be OK with that, would you? Or are you only OK with stealing from the dead because you don't expect to lose out personally and those who will are people you hate and envy?

Here's a really fair idea for taking other people's stuff. Levy a property tax based on square footage divided by occupancy. You're allowed 400 square feet per occupant. You pay £10 per square foot per year that you occupy beyond that.

4 people living in a 1500 square foot house in London would pay nothing. A widow living alone in a 1500 square foot house in Lancashire would pay £11,000 a year. She's rich, she lives in a big house - she can afford it.

We tried something similar once with the poll tax. A certain segment of society rioted to make it quite clear that their idea of a fair tax was one paid by other people. But I think it's time to revive it.