Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 2,812
- Location
- Essex
Nope I think it’s a great idea and that why I’d be more than happy to pay it .
Possible new tax for over-40s to pay for social care
- Thread starter HACO
- Start date
Nope I think it’s a great idea and that why I’d be more than happy to pay it .
Anything can happen over the years, it's quite possible this will just become another tax and people will still have to sell their house to pay for care in future.
Honestly, people are probably better having nothing in this country. Then they can't take it off you.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Mar 2007
- Posts
- 2,812
- Location
- Essex
Agree with you there, and I’ve considered squandering it all away to be in that boat . If I didn’t have kids I would .
Welfare state system and social care will continue to ruin this country - Torres tried to sort it out with what they called austerity (remember everyone on the sick has to be assed ) and every lefty ********* on earth did nothing but moan !
At the present time we have bigger issues.
I do agree that boomers have been a significant election voting block.
But I don't think that's quite right about the EU. A boomer is someone born between 1946 and 1964. Only those born between 1946 and 1957 would have been eligible to vote in the referendum (which was actually for a common trading block rather than political union back then, hence the original name of the Common Market vs today's name of the European Union). Only boomers aged between 18 and 29 years old would have been eligible to vote (any older and they would not be a boomer, any younger and they could not vote). So only half of the boomers would have been able to vote in the referendum and the outcome of that vote would have been mostly influenced by the voting habits of the generation before boomers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers
Then we look at the percentage of eligible voters in 2016 for the Brexit vote. I don't have exact figures from 2016 but I did find a graph from 2018 so will use that. I've added a green line above the 18 year age group. Anyone above that line could obviously vote. I've then drawn a green box around the 1946 to 1964 boomer generation. It can be seen that there were more non-boomers who were eligible to vote than there were boomers.
So in both cases, to take us in to the Common Market, and to take us out of the EU, boomers were nowhere near being a majority of voters. They were outweighed by everyone else.
EDIT: Interested to hear that boomers were the least in favour of joining the common market. Is there something I can read about that?
Last edited:
In theory I'm happy to pay this (40 in a few years... eugh) provided it does actually go towards elderly/retirement care etc.
However I know with the utter clowns we have in charge of the country, this will undoubtedly end up squandered on a combination of faux-patriotic virtue-signalling, failed IT projects, and MP's expenses.
I've been thinking this more and more recently. Why go through all the stress and wasted time of studying/working your **** off, when half of it is taken off you in taxes - surely it makes more sense to save yourself the aggro and just claim the half in benefits?
However I know with the utter clowns we have in charge of the country, this will undoubtedly end up squandered on a combination of faux-patriotic virtue-signalling, failed IT projects, and MP's expenses.
I've been thinking this more and more recently. Why go through all the stress and wasted time of studying/working your **** off, when half of it is taken off you in taxes - surely it makes more sense to save yourself the aggro and just claim the half in benefits?
Reform the Uk tax system and everyone pays 2 3 and 5 percent more from the next day....
You want the perks of a decent western country you have to pay.
Problem is in 30 or 40 years time when you retire it still wont be enough and you'll still get a 3rd world level of care.
You want the perks of a decent western country you have to pay.
Problem is in 30 or 40 years time when you retire it still wont be enough and you'll still get a 3rd world level of care.
My point about the original vote was that eligible boomers was the exact age group that were least in favour of joining the EU.
And then they were most in favour of leaving.
See the first graph here:
https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2017...tinuity-and-change-in-british-euroscepticism/
It's one of the ironies of all the "spirit of the blitz" rhetoric and iconography from the pro-brexit camp that those actually alive during WW2 wanted and welcomed the EU.
And with boomers controlling much of the news, business etc, they had a lot of influence in the most recent referendum. As they do in all our elections (this isn't intended to be a brexit-centric argument I'm putting forward, that's just an example).
Real life instance: A friend of mine is a company director of a manufacturing business (he's not quite a boomer, his fellow directors are), and they sent out communication to their staff that the business was strongly in favour of voting leave because of the ways they felt it would help the business ('red tape' was one of the main beliefs). And since the vote they've set up a plant in Germany to shift the bulk of their production to, to mitigate the effects! Fine for the directors, not so good for the UK staff!
As for this 40+ tax.
It's coincidence, of course, but it's not lost on me that the very first people to start paying this tax at 40, should it go ahead, were also the very first people to pay university tuition fees, and have student loans instead of grants. And they and their generation to be attempting to buy houses after prices had swollen to crippling levels. And face the worst recession in memory as they were starting their careers, and now another as they were starting their families.
The life and times of a millennial. I'm not confident it's any better for Gen-Z either.
It's coincidence, of course, but it's not lost on me that the very first people to start paying this tax at 40, should it go ahead, were also the very first people to pay university tuition fees, and have student loans instead of grants. And they and their generation to be attempting to buy houses after prices had swollen to crippling levels. And face the worst recession in memory as they were starting their careers, and now another as they were starting their families.
The life and times of a millennial. I'm not confident it's any better for Gen-Z either.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 9 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 12,234
- Location
- UK
Worst idea I've heard in a long time. Hard to believe it's true. Not even April 1st.
I have worked my ass off to get what i have from humble beginnings. The difference is the word "WORK" I have not had everything handed to me on a plate, or demand life is unfair and how am i meant to keep 10 subscriptions a month going, my expensive phone and avocado on toast, every weekend. You go without its quite simple.
This should start with anyone born in the 1980s at least they have time to prepare for a new tax, just throwing it on people above 40 now is just wrong.
This should start with anyone born in the 1980s at least they have time to prepare for a new tax, just throwing it on people above 40 now is just wrong.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Mar 2014
- Posts
- 2,361
I think they really need to do something about social care. I have two grandparents with dementia. They are currently using their savings to pay for social care. I can handle that perhaps but I don't really like it. If they have to sell thier houses then it's too much.
I think this is a good idea tbh. Once you get to an older age you generally have more money. I think this could work as long as it is spent on caring for the elderly.
I think this is a good idea tbh. Once you get to an older age you generally have more money. I think this could work as long as it is spent on caring for the elderly.
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?
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.
I do agree that boomers have been a significant election voting block.
But I don't think that's quite right about the EU. A boomer is someone born between 1946 and 1964. Only those born between 1946 and 1957 would have been eligible to vote in the referendum (which was actually for a common trading block rather than political union back then, hence the original name of the Common Market vs today's name of the European Union). Only boomers aged between 18 and 29 years old would have been eligible to vote (any older and they would not be a boomer, any younger and they could not vote). So only half of the boomers would have been able to vote in the referendum and the outcome of that vote would have been mostly influenced by the voting habits of the generation before boomers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_boomers
Then we look at the percentage of eligible voters in 2016 for the Brexit vote. I don't have exact figures from 2016 but I did find a graph from 2018 so will use that. I've added a green line above the 18 year age group. Anyone above that line could obviously vote. I've then drawn a green box around the 1946 to 1964 boomer generation. It can be seen that there were more non-boomers who were eligible to vote than there were boomers.
So in both cases, to take us in to the Common Market, and to take us out of the EU, boomers were nowhere near being a majority of voters. They were outweighed by everyone else.
EDIT: Interested to hear that boomers were the least in favour of joining the common market. Is there something I can read about that?
I agree with your figures on who is entitled to vote. The reality is in this country 76% of the boomers vote vs 46% of the rest of the eligible voters which makes them a massive voting block.
And as a voting block of 7.5m of which 5m vote, 5m votes is enough to swing any election/referendum to their way which is why ALL parties concentrate on the boomers in their policies.
...then why do people moan at boomers? They should be moaning at everyone else who can't be bothered to vote. As I have always said, if someone doesn't vote they they are actively deciding that they are giving their vote to whichever side wins.
(this is a rhetorical question - I'm not arguing with you
)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).
People will argue that "younger generations should vote then"
But unlike Boomers, younger generations have never seen the benefits of voting. Because policy has always been shaped around boomers (who, conversely, have been trained by this process that politics is 'for them')
Even child benefit was stopped from being universal once boomers' kids were adults, so they would no longer get it anyway!
...then why do people moan at boomers? They should be moaning at everyone else who can't be bothered to vote.
(this is a rhetorical question - I'm not arguing with you
Oh I agree. If everybody else actually used their votes on the same percentage then the boomer voting block power would be vastly reduced. It still wouldn't go away though. 5 million people voting is enough to swing most votes. If you lose a million of those boomer voted because you are bringing in a "dementia" tax or means testing pensions or removing the triple lock or other radical ideas then you are unlikely to gain those 1m votes from the rest of the voting public.
No party in this country can expect to win a GE without winning the majority vote of the boomers.
Yes, agreed. This is why it's frustrating when people say "I don't vote because it won't change anything". If everyone voted then it would change things.
Yes. Chances are your home has grown significantly in value since you bought it, why shouldn't the equity generated be used to fund your care when you can no longer live in the home?
Housing becomes a state-funded ponzi scheme otherwise.