Possible new tax for over-40s to pay for social care

[HACO]

Basically social care for boomers is too expensive and they’re seriously considering introducing a tax for over-40s to fund it:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/jul/26/uk-ministers-looking-at-plans-to-raise-taxes-for-over-40s-to-pay-for-social-care

It will be a shared pool (i.e. what you pay in is spent now, when you get old what young people pay in is spent on you, like the state pension). In other words, very likely that it won’t exist in a few decades given population stagnation and decline.

 

[HACO]

This is pretty much the point. Boomers benefitted from the greatest social mobility the country has ever seen.

And then pulled up the ladder.

Precisely. The whole "my parents worked hard and ended up with a great house and amazing pension so they deserve it" kind of proves the point that they had it a lot easier than the current generation.

They do deserve it. Right now people work just as hard and don't end up with their own home and get a crappy pension, if any at all.

Young people also deserve the same opportunity at social mobility.

 

[HACO]

It's not boomers who did that. It's the nations failing economy after we are no longer a key player on the world stage. It's globalisation and everyone (boomers and today's generation) wanting cheap goods meaning production - and therefore the nations wealth - flowing overseas. It's governments spending beyond their means to win tax votes and borrowing to do so. 'Borrowed' money has to be repaid somehow. Boomers and every generation since kept voting for governments who did this. Boomers are not the only generation to blame but it seems easy and lazy to do so.

I guess the argument is that the government should prioritise offering increased chances at social mobility to younger generation, rather than continue to extract from them to pay for the boomer generation who are already by far the most advantaged generation.

Taxing younger people who can't afford childcare, don't have their own home and are in student loan debt so that the old boomer wouldn't have to sell their nice home to pay for their social care is just an example of this.

This is just giving further advantages to the already super advantaged generation at the expense of the most disadvantaged generation. i.e. the most regressive form of taxation.

 

[HACO]

If they are going to do this then they should also tax obese people more to pay for their care.

They do. Sugar is already taxed. Smoking is taxed, alcohol is taxed, etc...

 

[HACO]

But they can avoid those things and not pay it. You cant avoid getting older.

Yeah. I'm strongly against this tax (or taxes on alcohol or smoking, etc). But you made the equivalency

 

[HACO]

People strongly against this tax.... are you happy to sell your home and leave nothing to your kids when you get old then?

I don't think we should tax other people (who can't afford it) to pay for my social care (which I can afford if I sell my house), so that I can keep the house as an inheritance for my kids.

Are we socialising inheritances now?

 

[HACO]

Its not taxing 'other people' because guess what... we all get old. This tax would benefit the vast vast majority of people if implemented correctly.

It won't be implemented correctly. Just like the state pension system. People who are paying now are extremely unlikely to get anything out, the math just doesn't work out. We all get old, but there won't be money for us to receive the same benefits.

By the time any of us get old, this will get means-tested, so we'd end up paying for this AND losing our homes (assuming this generation can ever afford to buy a home, most people won't).

 

[HACO]

How about a 2% democracy tax? Pay it if you dont vote at GE.

Mandatory voting and/or assigning fines and taxes to not voting happens in dictatorships. Democracy also means the choice to not participate.

 

[HACO]

It also happens perfectly normally in Democracy's too...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting

In only handful of them. Vast majority of countries that do this are dictatorships.

 

[HACO]

I'm not talking about people who have actually put in the effort and worked their whole life but through personal circumstance not been a top revenue earner with a gucci belt. I'm talking about people who have had the means, but not done so - because let's face it, it seems they're actually the smart ones.

Tell me where's the incentive to "better yourself", make sacrifices and save for retirement if in the end the outcome is the same as if you hadn't bothered?

Why should I not sell my house and spend the money on fast cars, expensive holidays, hookers and coke, and let someone else pick up the bill when I need to go into a nursing home? I'll end up with no house either way, but at least I'll have enjoyed life.



I don't know if it's a new thing, or just my age, but I've noticed more and more recently that living in this country really doesn't reward hard work and success; it just incurs financial penalties and breeds contempt.

You want to spend 3+ years at uni being skint, living on beans on toast while doing 16+ hours a day studying and working 2 jobs just to pay the bills? Go for it - you'll also be paying that back for the majority of your working life.

You want to follow up the above by going into nursing/medicine in general - a career which is critical to society, and usually involves working long, hard, antisocial and stressful hours? Wait.. you actually want to get paid a decent wage? Lol, have a round of applause instead

Well done, you've finally got yourself into a secure financial position to be able to afford your dream car. Here you go, have a nice scratch down the side of it and a knife through your tyres, just to remind you to know your place.

Oh, so instead of wasting your money on expensive foreign holidays every year, a new car every 3 years and the latest gadgets and toys, you've paid off your mortgage earlier and saved a good chunk for retirement? Nice house. We'll have that then.

I actually agree, everything is too complicated here. I hate programs that some people qualify for and others have to pay top dollars for, in addition to them paying higher marginal tax rates.

What I believe would fix the issue is to make every program universal (EVERYONE qualifies regardless of income), then tax that away from people who were too rich to qualify, so increased top marginal tax rates and maybe wealth/property taxes, but more universal programs (UBI, universal social care, universal childcare, etc).

 

[HACO]

That's the unfortunate truth that there's not an answer apart from a lot more taxation or a massive cut to pensions.
If only there was some way of importing workers who would only be here during their 20s-40s. Missing out the years which cost the most money to the government but still paying tax..................................

We should build robots to replace workers and tax them at 100% And their owners at 90%

 

[HACO]

You are in same /similar position as me . 25 years left at 34. Too late to start again.
Ooooh.I have a lot of credit available on CC.

Maybe just take it all out. All on black.

Maybe just put it all in bitcoin. And say I lost the wallet address

I was thinking about overpaying my mortgage this year. But in the current environment seems like throwing money away.

Refinance the mortgage at current rates (1.5%) for 5 or 7 years fixed. Makes no sense to overpay at these rates.

 

[HACO]

Makes no sense to overpay when the rates are low? I think I get you... Are you saying that there is no incentive to overpay and get the total down to minimize interest since the rates are so low anyway? I thought it generally was always better (regardless of rates) to overpay where possible, since the quicker you get the total down, the less interest you pay in total.

You're effectively borrowing at below inflation interest rates, why would you ever want to pay that off? Keep 1 year of payments and invest the rest in anything that pays above 1.5% and you're ahead like bonds or mutual funds. Put it in your ISA or pension.