I think the cutoff to the higher rate is 7 figures.
I agree but someone somehow has to have the balls, the will and ability to do it or we are facing the opening scenes of Elysium as a prophecy.
For too long everyone has just shrugged their shoulders as wealth is transferred to those that need it the least.
And i include large corporations in that. Utility companies, supermarkets just take the preverbial piss, stupid high energy bills, water bills increasing while dividends are still being paid and abhorrent CEO salaries. Sainsburyās shedding staff because of the NI increase, I bet theyāll still increase food prices.
Complicated as it maybe I think Iād start there and Iād look at land and assets as I know youāre in favour of that.
None of this appears to be on the table for the government thus far. Someone really needs to be agressive about it.
Well maybe it needs to be lowered?
Better to target company directors driving around in Ā£100k company cars taking 6 figure dividends than 84 year old Agnes from Stoke
1 Like
Maybe a free trade agreement with a large nearby trading bloc?
Iāll get my coatā¦
7 Likes
The UK tax code really encourages those cars. If my company gets me a car, that is a taxable benefit. Modest savings over just getting it myself, and Iād rather have the cash. In the UK, it is far easier to have the company provide the car as a business expense, as if it is a delivery vehicle or earth-moving equipment.
I donāt know the UK tax code inside out, but every time I have had any reason to learn something about it, I have normally been struck by how carved out it is for sheltering various incomes and benefits.
4 Likes
Well that generation will be dead and buried in 20 years time so the Millennials and Gen X generations can vote in the right party with the right policies and everything will be hunky-dory again in no time.
2 Likes
Standing over smoldering ruins āDo with this what you wish. You are welcomeā
3 Likes
Which is great, but that cohort enjoyed massive social spending in their early years and their family-building years, then pivoted to austerity and similar once they were at the accrual stage of life, cutting the taxes their own parents paid without much grumbling - and running up national debts at an entirely new scale. Only now that they are aging and no longer earning are they starting to again notice a need for increased social spending, to be funded by income tax, natch.
It is a generation that thinks like a Ponzi scheme
3 Likes
Just as a matter of interest I was born in 1964 which is the year cited as being the end of the āboomerā generation.
Iām just wondering if I should be hanging my head in shame for being part of the problem or if I should be fucking outraged at the situation Iāve found myself in?
Any advice would be gratefully received.
4 Likes
Are you flexible enough to do both?
If you arenāt, tough luck, pull yourself up by your bootstraps and do it anyway.
As I celebrate yet another boomer birthday today, I am thinking of all those poor souls who have had the misfortune to be born after 1964. You did miss that arctic winter of 1962/3 though. 
Plus I got to watch us in the old Division 2. How many can say that now?
6 Likes
Yes, but did you watch prime Gordon Hodgson?
Honest answer - I am not sure for the UK, but I can go find that analysis at some point. Empirically, the measure is value of government services delivered during your lifetime versus the amount paid in taxation. For Canada, the people born in 1947 can expect to see about 1.21 for every 1.00 paid. Grew up in the post-war expansion of social services, and were well on their way to raising families by 1980. The worst year is 1967 (my birth year, natch), because by the time we hit the expensive part of the educational system it was tapering, and we got hit hard by 1980ās austerity.
For all Western countries, it is a reversing parabola of sorts. Intuitively, I suspect 1964 in the UK is close to 1967 in Canada, because we pumped the brakes on social spending later (Mulroney 1984 after some earlier tapering, versus the hard slam of Thatcher with the 1980 budget). Equally, I would guess 1947 is not quite as rosy in the UK, because the immediate post-war year were rough in the UK. The peak and the trough are probably closer together. I suspect if you have older siblings they probably made out considerably better.
All of which points to the limitations of using a label that originates from US demographics. As I recall, the peak year for the US is 1948, the trough year is 1965. Without question though, in 1964 you are very much in the declining slope, and may well be at the crossover point which comes very fast.
3 Likes
Sadly not. Before even my time. Didnāt see Billy Liddell either. My first season going with my Dad was 1960/61.
1 Like
Glory hunter!
4 Likes
As I mentioned earlier, these generational cohorts are mostly nonsense and donāt apply across different countries. You would have turned 16 in 1980 and 18 in 1982, which was peak recession and many of the opportunities to learn a trade had been replaced by YOP schemes.
To point out how fake these boundaries are, I saw a quote from John Lennon, in which he pointed out that his big opportunity essentially came from not having to do national service, which was discontinued for children born after 1939, the year before he was born.
Looking at US boomers, their major experience was the Vietnam War draft.
2 Likes
But to be fair, the recession and YOP scheme opportunities were handed to him on a plate
2 Likes
To be fair to @jaffod he did say the population of the UK was going to grow, he didnāt speculate as to how.
He also raised some good points which werenāt addressed.
The problem we have in your response is assumption. Assumption that of the however many people migrating to the UK of a working age, the majority are going to be wanting to work/skilled to work and skilled in the right areas.
So of the ā5 million population increaseā letās assume it is all from Migration. I am going to go with a very conservative figure of a family of 4, so 2 adults, 2 children. So, 1.25m more families, 1.25m places of accommodation, 2.5m extra school places, 5m potential extra NHS patients. Not to mention the extra burden on the Roads, public transport, Utilities, etc.
The second assumption is that as a Country we are going to have the Finances to invest in the infrastructure that the Country so badly needs, let alone delivery it and maintain it. The Country cannot even afford to provide/support the current population with a decent way of life let alone an extra 5m.
Maybe, I am also looking at it backwards, maybe I am just being realistic. Who knows, I just wish I could share your optimism.
Stupid idea - the wealthy just transfer their wealth before death or via trust.
1 Like
You have to compare that to the population at large. The housing is a fair comment, but at the moment the birth rate in the UK is very low, so the school places already exist, itās the children that are missing.
Also, in terms of NHS places, health services tend to be heavily used by the elderly. Itās the existing population that is the largest draw on that.
If I was looking at demographic shift, I would be examining why young adults are not starting families, and also what are the obstacles to people pursuing careers in nursing and care services, construction and other areas where they rely on overseas workers.
2 Likes