(19-12-2024 00:56 )The Silent Majority Wrote: (18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote: The majority of pensioners today are Boomers, who are the richest generation ever to exist, 27% just over 1 in 4 are millionaires.
Ah statistics.
Except your interpretation is flawed... 
Also how is the wealth broken down? i.e assets v disposable income.
No comeback? Ok, let's have look at a few of your points.
27% of pensioner
households are millionaires. So a pensioner couple living together are not necessarily millionaires individually.
Also, the latest figures are for 2018 - 2020. i.e. pre fuel crisis, pre cost of living crisis, pre Truss, and pre (what I think will become known as) the Reeves Recession.
The next set of figures may be somewhat different.
The richest generation ever to exist? I should fucking hope so, taking into account inflation and the length of time they've worked. A millionaire isn't what it used to be.
Let's see where you are by the time you reach retirement.
(18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote: our pensioners aren't retired coal miners & dock wokers, anyone who wasn't a gangster in Peaky Blinders, they're IT consultants & Human Resources middle managers.
What utter nonsense. Who exactly were all these HR middle managers managing? Other HR middle managers?
(18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote: Even for the ones that aren't millionaires they still find themselves sitting on considerable assets, many boomers, like my parents & aunts/uncles are just themselves still living in the 3+ bedroom houses they raised their families in.
Yes, houses they probably spent most of their working lives paying for...
(18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote: the price of a house has gone from 4× the average salary in the 80s to 8× today.
Maybe so. But Boomers were buying their houses in the 80's. Prices may have been much lower but mortgage rates were in double figures. The peak was over 18% in 1981. 18%, just think about that for a minute.
(18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote: I don't see the priority in them giving millionaires and the many other well off pensioners £400 given everything else they get.
I don't disagree with this, but I think the threshold should have been higher and tapered.
(18-12-2024 23:13 )southsidestu Wrote: People talk about taxing the rich, pensioners are the richest among us. The Corbyn and Sanders lot in The Guardian would have you believe that we could become a utopian society by skimming a little extra off the top of the 1% and becoming Scandanavia but that isnt how it works. Yes they should pay more but in the Scandanavian countries they have higher taxes across the board, thats the reality of effectively funding a state: everyone has to pay more.
You do realise pensioners pay income tax the same as everyone else.
A large amount of these 'rich' pensioners wealth is tied up in assets. Their house, in most cases.
Do you think assets should be taxed? Say you bought your house for £150k, and it's now worth £200k. Does that mean you now have £50k sloshing around to spend?
Let's say Reeves decides to hit you with a £10k windfall tax. No problem, right? After all you have this £50k spare to pay it from...
Assets should only be taxed at the point of sale. Because that's the only point at which the cash is available to pay the tax.
Taxing standing assets (like those held by 'rich' pensioners) basically destroys lives. It's that simple, and it's part of the reason the economy is starting to tank under Labour.
It depresess aspiration, business investment, and growth. The immediate tax take will be worth fuck all, in the grand scheme of things, but the reduced tax take going forward will be many times more.
Farmers have a saying "You can shear a sheep every year, but you only slaughter it once..."
Each generation has to deal with the hand it's dealt. Do you think the Boomers paying 18% mortgage rates looked back at the war generation and said they had it easy?
Real Ecstasy
Hot & Wet
Live Sex Latinas
Babestation
Search
Member List
Help
/
Keir Starmer - and his miserable government
