Possible new tax for over-40s to pay for social care
- Thread starter HACO
- Start date
As I have said earlier in the thread, pensioners are over 40 too. They will pay additional tax. I agree that this should have been addressed earlier but if it is being addressed it's good, right?
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
I'm not agsinst the tax, but I am against using the revenue to plug todays social care crisis.
As long as its hitting pensions that's not so bad.
I missed that bit.
Better to be taxed more at 40 than 20.
Its not great obviously. But more money has to be found.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 14,312
- Location
- Peoples Republic of Histonia, Cambridge
It doesn't have to be true any more than taxing other generations would be detrimental.
Or conversely, if you squandered your money when you were younger and didn't plan for retirement, then why should someone else be forced to give up the rewards for their hard work and sacrifice to pay for you?
Quite. At 40 I was hitting my max earning potential, bigger increases due to promotions before then and smaller ones after for mainly cost of living. So people over 40 tend to have a bit more disposable income and be in steady employment.
It would be better to have all parties on board so that this is not changed at every new government cycle.
Who decides if they "squandered" it or just didn't have the same luck in life, or went into a career that didn't pay so well (ya know, like nurses) ... You?
Also.. What happened to the notion of being a decent human being, having some ****ing morals and not behaving like anyone who didn't have as economically prosperous working life as if they beneath you and do not deserve your help?
MANY of those people today working in and around the care industry are the exact people who are being abused by this the most. What chance does the average nurse have to buy their own home, compared to the private dentist who's on £80k+ a year?
But based upon what you wrote, you seem to be suggesting that said nurse should basically get no help at all, simply because they chose a profession that doesn't pay well when it has a huge contribution to society?
Last edited:
Don't really get why this would be over 40s, why not just apply it across the board? Why 40 and not an older or younger threshold?
It's a bit of a double-whammy, people my age were the first generation to go to uni when grants were abolished and fees introduced, and now 22 years later they line up another tax to shaft people born early 80s again.
It's a bit of a double-whammy, people my age were the first generation to go to uni when grants were abolished and fees introduced, and now 22 years later they line up another tax to shaft people born early 80s again.
The cynic in me says it's because they know that most people by the time they are above 40 are already totally invested into their life's commitments (Rent/Mortgage, Job etc..) to such a degree they have no option but to "suck it up" and keep going.
Target the 20's and you'd be far more likely to watch a large majority of them stick 2 fingers up to "the system" and refuse to work / pay anything in as they have significantly less to lose from doing so.
It's the same reason they always tax hike the "usual suspects" come budget time.. Fuel, Drink, Cigarettes. They know most people will simply pay up and keep going.
I had more disposable income in my 20s when I was living at my parents and had no bills to worry about, now I have a wife, kids, house and bills to pay so disposable income is much tighter.
Would rather the govt start taxing the big corporations rather than letting them get away with paying next to nothing while making massive profits.
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.
That can be said for benefits, NHS and many taxes
Tax isn't fair
I do like how everyone wants to tax someone else
Oh absolutely, but it's not quite as simple as "increase taxes = more money", and the more you squeeze people, the more they are going to try and avoid being squeezed.
Just take VAT as an example - raise it and people will spend less, lower it and people will spend more.
Obviously finding the balance is the tricky part!
You can probably address that by making it progressive rather than age-based though. Do it in a way that it doesn't disincentive lower paid work significantly so people don't refuse to work.
edit: regarding the "balance" thing, I think the vice tax on booze and fags is an interesting one. I drink a lot but I would change my behaviour if they properly hiked taxes. But because it is "2p on a pint of beer" etc (which is a joke in itself - when was the last time you went in the pub and the price went up by anything other than a multiple of 5p?) it makes no difference to my habits. If it got to the stage of being £30+ for wine, £10+ for a single beer etc in supermarkets then I'd rarely buy it.
Sadly I can't disagree with any of thatI'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.
This is unfortunately, the crux of the issue tbh.. There is little to no incentive for people to try harder, but even for those who do, like nurses etc.. They get a pathetic "clapping party" every thursday night for a few weeks instead of any real rewards for doing such a critical role to society.
The reality is though.. most times, people are trying harder (relatively) compared to their boomer ancestors. They have far less opportunities available to them, far less social housing, far less job security - and they come out the other end worse off than their parents.
Because of this, Gen-X / Gen-Y will be the first generation to be worse off than their parents. So why should they now be made even worse off having to be the ones to fix the problem that was created by their parents?
I think it's unsustainable in the long run and we simply have too many people. And it has to be corrected. And due to economics that will be painful. You can't just lower the birth rate. And you can't let older people just die.
You tax more and people spend less. That's what I'll do personally.
Whichever way you look at it jobs will go. And thus lives will go.
Problem is people live longer but aren't productive longer so the cost gets bigger.
Birth rates drop and jobs drop. You have to squeeze the productive more and more.
Jobs reduce and you squeeze fewer more.
And the feedback loop just keeps pulling things down.
Wouldn't be so bad if mortgage payments weren't so high but a crash will hurt the very people contributing to this tax.
Don't see a win myself. There's an outcome, but it is people dying earlier in essence.
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
It's not too many people, it's too many old people compared to young. If you had a smaller population but the same ratio there would still be similar struggles. It's the stupid price of housing that's causing people issues now. Like other people have alluded too, the current crop of OAP generally could start to focus on their retirement during their 40s, now i imagine a lot in their 40s still have at least 10 years left on their mortgage.