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

I'm guessing the old people quoted on here who did well for themselves, appear to be the devil's to the younger generation
But they didn't spend the equivalent to £50 a month on phone contracts each, £70 a month on sky/ virgin, £3-400 a month on pcp car deals, £20-50 a month on broadband and hundreds of pounds getting the latest pc parts

They must have saved or invested it whilst paying their NI and tax all their life.

How dare they.

Btw I'm in my 40's so will be getting lumbered with whatever plan the government come up with.

When the bank of mom and dad dries up, some youngsters will realise what financial responsibility means.
 
I guess my parents are another privileged example? :rolleyes: Both were born in the early 50's, started work around 14 and could not afford to eat properly when me and my brother were growing up. My dad was a welder and never earned more than about 25k with overtime. My mum eventually worked late nights in a petrol station to help put food on the table. They suffered from paying the 15% interest rate on their small 2 bed house but had not overstretched like most people at the time so they did not lose it luckily. They are now retired and have just received their state pension and I think they have around 24k a year for the both of them, with any private pension. They are happy with that. They certainly did not have an easy ride in life and my dad has bad elbows and knee's from a manual job all his life.

You know what I did when I was younger? I saved money so I could buy a house. I didn't blow all my (low income) earnings on the nicer things in life or on expensive nights out and expect someone else to give me a handout when I was older.
 
I'd rather they put NI contributions up for everyone and finally create a proper NHS style social care system that has enough funding to prepare for the coming retirement crisis. Yes boomers will be a problem due to the sheer number of them but we also need plans in place for the next generation as they are unlikely to have adequate funds to cover their care costs or a good enough pension for a respectable standard of living come retirement. The idea of old people today not being able to afford to heat their homes come winter is shameful, we should be past this.

Mr Badger said:
I wouldn't suggest for a moment that we should go back to a time when women were expected to leave work and become a housewife when they got married. However, the fact that this was normal and that blokes who did basic labouring jobs, operated a machine in factory, pushed a trolley of post around the office, cleaned toilets or whatever could afford to buy a house and raise a family on their own salary shows just how far things have shifted. Doubtless they didn't have a luxurious lifestyle, but they weren't trapped by having to spend nearly all of their earnings on rent and they did have the prospect of retiring with a pension.
Click to expand...

This really should cause more anger. In terms of purely financial income, couples / families should be a lot better off with two incomes than previous generations that survived on one but it doesn't seem to be the case. Women working has brought loads of other benefits but costs seem to have risen to counter its financial effect on the family unit.
 
HACO said:
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.
Click to expand...
Theresa May had the right idea, yet surprise surprise, no one wanted to pay for it!

A combination of this new suggested and the 'dementia tax' (a ludicrous name, by the way) is the right course.
 
Devilman said:
Maybe you should try to be more considerate of those not as fortunate as yours and your parents generation?

Maybe you should try and not be so arrogant to think that you simply "worked harder" for it than people do now days?

Maybe you should try and see things from a point of view other than your own privileged position?

But then... Boomers never do give a **** about anyone but themselves, so why would you?
Click to expand...
Please can you show me where I have said my generation have worked harder than more recent generations? I was clearly stating that we didnt have things as easy as you assumed.

Why are you so angry that you have to keep calling people boomers?

Why are you so intolerant?
 
Hades said:
My parents could barely afford heating. Many people of their generation were in abject poverty. When I was a kid I had one bath a week. Today's generation is not as poor as many think.
Click to expand...
This is pretty much the point. Boomers benefitted from the greatest social mobility the country has ever seen.

And then pulled up the ladder.
 
cheesyboy said:
This is pretty much the point. Boomers benefitted from the greatest social mobility the country has ever seen.

And then pulled up the ladder.
Click to expand...

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

And then pulled up the ladder.
Click to expand...
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.
 
Hades said:
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.
Click to expand...

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 said:
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 in the world.

Taxing younger people who can't afford childcare, doesn't have their own home and is 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.
Click to expand...

Bingo!
 
Hades said:
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.
Click to expand...
Boomers have been the biggest voting block for their entire adult lives, and policy has therefore been steered to their whims as a reality of political expediency.

And it continues to be, even to the extent they finally (after boomers being least in favour of joining in 1975 (though with only half their cohort at voting age)) forcing the country out of its greatest fuel to prosperity, that which they themselves coined it in from, the EU.
 
If they are going to do this then they should also tax obese people more to pay for their care.

This will screw over people only just turning 40 the most. I doubt they are going to get pay rises to compensate.
 
And there is no upper age limit, many pensioners pay tax as well so they would be in this one. There is no extra tax allowance for pensioners either. My tax payment has gone down from 20k to 2.5k but my income has also reduced by 60% since retirement. I would be pleased to contribute more tax, if asked and the intentions were good.
 
People strongly against this tax.... are you happy to sell your home and leave nothing to your kids when you get old then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom