[Closed] Taxing based in age?

But isn’t this something that everyone will eventually need? So wouldn’t more be raised if everyone paid? Or the same raised by more people paying less? But if we all paid, wouldn’t it be like an increase in national insurance rate? But how will people feel about paying that when the NHS is sold off in exchange for some chlorinated chicken?

Yes, probably
Yes
Yes
Yes (which is just an income tax, but no politicians are brave enough to just pull the two things together)
Enraged, initially, then they'll forget about it when the news cycle moves on

Thin end of the wedge isn't it?
What other specifically targeted individual taxes shall we have?
A falling off your bike tax?
A children tax?
A living in a rural area tax?
A Diabetic tax?

About time this time bomb was dealt with, it grates on me that in the devolved governments its free, like prescriptions and hospital parking, but not as much as what we've worked for being sold from under us to pay for care so our kids inherit nothing. I think universal insurance - preferably government based - specifically for this is long overdue. I read the same article and it seems in other countries the model works well, I suppose 40+ is so it allows those under 40 to get their home sorted, if they have kids get the early years out of the way and then transition to paying for old age care. Will be no perfect system, and yes, not everyone will need it, bit like the NHS really, some have massive needs that really cost and others don't. It's one great thing that we have in the UK that we have universal health care etc.

Spud+1

It should be simple. Tax people based on their wealth and income, not age. Use more of that tax to pay for care for the elderly (and anyone else that needs care). That probably means more tax. It should be simple, how much of that extra tax people pay should be based on their wealth and income, not age. Etc...

Yep, maintain the tax model based on income but add better wealth taxes as income tax can be easily avoided by the people who earn the most.
Also remove the concept of inheritance. When you die all money left goes to the state. That would lead to people realising that if they need to spend money late in life it is not a problem and would also put the money back into the economy during their life as they would be holding onto to it because they feel their kids have a right to it.

There might be an element of willingness to pay. Young people may resent paying taxes for things they don't use, older people might be a little more keen to pay things that directly benefit them. The more willing you are to pay for something the easier it is to squeeze a bit more out. I bet over 40s make an awful lot more voluntary pension contributions than under 40s.

It's a problem that needs sorting and I'll pay my bit. However, where I work we could easily end up with a 3 tier system all on the same basic.

First off, we have guys at the same level on the same pay but some are on final salary pensions and others on defined contribution so already, the union is making the point that we effectively have two reward packages for the same job.

With this new scheme you'll get the young guys with the poorer pension but less tax.
Middle guys with poorer pension and more tax
Old guys with golden pension and more tax.

Somehow doesn't seem quite right.

It should be simple. Tax people based on their wealth and income, not age. Use more of that tax to pay for care for the elderly (and anyone else that needs care). That probably means more tax. It should be simple, how much of that extra tax people pay should be based on their wealth and income, not age. Etc…

1000000000000%. Earn more get taxed more simple. But, sadly the rich don't want it that way so everyone else has to pay for their tax cuts.

So it's just another way to cream the silent middle class masses rather than upset their rich donors?

Just whack 2% on NI and be done with it.

Tories playing money-grab games here.

The problem is old age care is expensive and no one wants to pay for it. The selling houses thing looks unfair whichever way you look at it. Why should the state pay for care when the person has a huge amount of capital that could be used for this? Not selling the house does not benefit the person needing care - only their children. ~Effectivly the state is paying middle Class peoples inheritences.

then look at it from the other side - Joe spent all his money off C&H and has nothing, Fred was frugal and owns a mansion. Why should Joe get care for free but Fred has to pay?

Care done to a decent standard is expensive - best part of a thousand a week for a acceptable standard

The system isn't fair. Had MIL not bought her own house and worked all her life, her nursing care would be fully paid for. As it stands she's paying nearly a grand a week for the nursing home. The system sucks.

Fossy - and why not? It makes no difference to her only to you. Do you think the state should pay for her care so you can inherit?

As above - its unfair whichever side you look at it.

Or, here's a better idea.

Instead of ****ing about with the tax system for a specific group of people, why don't we sort society for everyone? House prices? Down. Rents, down. Second homes, tax. Unoccupied properties, tax. Insurance industry, regulate. Public transport, regulate (properly). Education, fee free.

The sooner we stop treating houses as assets and making mobility unaffordable the better. The young can't afford these increases for the same reason they can't afford anything else. Get everyone on a level playing field then we'll talk.

This policy just smacks of the assumption that anyone over 40 no longer has a mortgage as well.

TJ, the middle ground here is a higher tax system that means everyone pays in what is needed for everyone to receive the same (high) standard of care. Then, once societal dues are by with I couldn't care less how much extra someone else has.

Agreed. The only benefit to chasing an ever increasing retirement age is it increases the chance if owning my home so that I can the sell it to fund my care home.

Those that say the 'rich' should pay for it all and not the 'silent middle classes' are numerically delusional. Wringing dry every last penny from the 'rich' won't do much - it's a huge bill and there are simply not enough of them do very much apart from make the rest of us feel better about them not being quite as rich as they once were.

+v - we are living longer and whilst retiring latter still having a nice long retirement followed by many happy years of toddler levels of dependency.
+ve - we have upped our expectations of what elderly care looks like.

-ve - that needs paying for. We all need to chip in.

I can see the logic - in an 'average' middle class western life it costs more setting up home and paying for kids and then we enter our middle years we have more disposable income. The house has been mostly paid off, parents are not paying for childcare or working part time etc etc. So instead of buying your middle aged crisis toy of choice (T6, carbon mtb, motorbike) you put the money into paying for your virtual incontinence pants. Logical, but getting old just starts to suck from a little bit younger.

I quite agree squirrelking - but people in general will not want to pay the extra tax required as we have this fetish about being a low tax country in exchange for poor services which they then complain about.

A high standard of nursing home care is £100 000 a year at least. Multiply that by the half million plus people in care homes and its a lot of money!

To me its best based on two things - higher income tax and much higher inheritance tax starting at a much lower level. This of course would have a big negative impact on me as a child of home owning parents.

I'm not saying the rich should pay only, but I do think they should pay as well. The wider the burden is spread, the less burden we each have to carry.

I think I'd be happier paying more tax if I didn't see so much of what I do pay being spaffed up the wall on thousands of customs inspectors, non-working Covid apps, contracts to Gove's mate etc. What's not fair is folk having to sell their homes to pay for a ruling elite's ideological obsessions.

What’s not fair is folk having to sell their homes to pay for a ruling elite’s ideological obsessions.

Or - whats not fair is having the state pay for someones old age care when they have a huge asset they are not going to be using and are going to leave to their children - why should the state pay so the children get rich?

It unfair either way you look at it.

Also remove the concept of inheritance. When you die all money left goes to the state.

**** that, maybe in a Eutopian world where our elected leaders spend our money wisely and fairly but in our reality, again **** that.

As for an over-40's tax, I think it's a good start (although being over 40 myself I reserve final judgement until I know how much it will be :p ). It would need to be tightly ring-fenced though, rather than the government spaffing it on post-Brexit vanity projects.

If they're seriously now looking at dealing with the ageing population issue then they also seriously need to look at legalising euthanasia. Yes, it comes with a whole host of issues that need to be addressed but how many people currently just existing/waiting to die in care homes actually would want that 'life' compared with the option of euthanasia? I certainly don't want to live past the point I can't care for myself, why are we spending so much money on care for people that don't want that care?

isn’t this something that everyone will eventually need?

No, or at least not to the same degree. The big money goes on care homes. Care home population is stable (despite people living longer) at about quarter of a million. Average length of stay is a little over two years, cost about £80k.

My mum didn't need this, my dad does hence us selling their house. Obviously I'd rather general taxation paid, but this wasn't too popular being labeled as the dementia tax when floated by Theresa May. And most people will get lucky and avoid care costs at this level. Even I've not quite got the nerve to ask my kids' generation to do more of the paying.

In my opinion hypothecation is never a good idea.

Or get amazon Google and all the other tax avoiding conglomerates to cough up a fair share in tax. I'm over 40 and have always said I'd be happy to pay a bit more but the system if far from fair.

Earn more get taxed more simple. But, sadly the rich don’t want it that way so everyone else has to pay for their tax cuts.

We already have this, it's called Income tax, for every extra £1 you earn over £12000 ish HMRC get between 20p and 45p depending on tax band....

The fairest way would be to tax wealth and not earnings and as has been mentioned earlier a higher rate of inheritance tax would achieve this in the fairest way possible.

It's just a silly gimmick so they can pretend it's not really a tax rise, as it's not "income tax". Which is apparently the only tax that counts.

Unfortunately some people seem to think they have an entitlement to inherit their parents' house free of tax, which perpetuates inequality and stifles the housing market, but there we are.

a higher rate of inheritance tax would achieve this in the fairest way possible

Just typed out a reply saying its not the fairest way as you have those who have worked hard for a home or nest egg to leave behind paying for those who maybe lived in council properties all their lives and have no savings, but maybe it is fair as it gives the generation below a fairer starting position ie they will receive less and are closer to those who do start with nothing...

If they’re seriously now looking at dealing with the ageing population issue then they also seriously need to look at legalising euthanasia.

This, after seeing my grandparents in care homes with dementia, I do not ever want to be in one. IMO modern medicine can keep someone alive for longer, but why do we?

IMO modern medicine can keep someone alive for longer, but why do we?

Because it is a whole Pandora's box of moral grey areas and no one wants to go there.

Plus eugenics doesn't really have a good track record eg you'd have a future Tory Party reducing care budgets for Labour councils expecting the council to lower the euthanasia threshold to make up for the short fall in funding, wheras in rich Tory boroughs there'd be fully funded care.

The fairest way would be to tax wealth

Not fair at all - all that "wealth" was income at some point and tax was paid on it at the time. Why should it be taxed twice (three times if you include inheritance tax) ?

maybe it is fair as it gives the generation below a fairer starting position ie they will receive less and are closer to those who do start with nothing

Like many people, one of my main motivations in going to work is so that my kids can have a better life. Should I just put my feet up?

Not fair at all – all that “wealth” was income at some point and tax was paid on it at the time. Why should it be taxed twice (three times if you include inheritance tax) ?

It all depends on whether you want a fairer society of not. Inherited wealth is one of the biggest ways of entrenching privaledge / inequality.

Wealth is often not earned whilst earnings by definition are. Inheritance could be considered the most egregious from of wealth accumulation as it is not based on merit or effort and entrenches social disparities and inequality.

As a society we tax income far more than wealth. Taxing the wealth of someone who has passed away would seem the most just form of taxation especially if it avoids the lottery of losing all your assets to pay for social care if your unlucky enough to need it.

Countries with euthanasia do not see these issues people scaremonger about

I n r a t s but it's well established that older folk have made lots of cash out or property etc and will cost a fi tune to care for, whereas the younger can't buy homes etc and will be shafted by Vivid recession and other things.

Drj
They're unlikely to inherit until they are in their 60s

I don't know for sure but suspect that a very large proportion of inherited wealth was never earnt, it was simply built up via asset inflation in the form of the housing bubble. That's certainly what I stand to inherit in a few years, and the ridiculous sum I stand to gain, which I have done absolutely nothing to earn or deserve, will probably be taxed at an overall rate of no more than 10%-20%.

Why should it be taxed? Because that's how govts raise money to support an equitable and decent society, and I want to live in an equitable and decent society. It makes much more sense to tax both wealth and the estates of the dead (that otherwise pass on to a random handful of people who have done nothing at all to deserve it), than to tax salaries, which directly acts to discourage work.

+1 what TJ says. Large majority of inheritances go to people aged 55-65, anyone needing a handout from their parents at that stage (a) should be ashamed of themselves and (b) has been struggling their entire lives and might have appreciated a bit more support several decades earlier!

If you want to give your kids a good start in life, I'd suggest that waiting until they are 55 is a bit late to be thinking about it.

Not fair at all – all that “wealth” was income at some point and tax was paid on it at the time. Why should it be taxed twice (three times if you include inheritance tax) ?

Errr no. The biggest pots of wealth in this country are Housing and Pensions. Pensions are accrued tax free and taxed as income on withdrawal at a lower rate than would have been the case had it been taxed at source, especially if you include the NI savings. Property on the other hand has, for the last 40 years or so, grown in value but that growth is almost never taxed. Personally I'd rather see CGT being applied to the sale of houses too.

Back to the original question, I've never been a fan of changing tax rates depending on age which is why I'd recommend that pensioners should be liable for NI on the same basis as the rest of the income receiving population.

whats not fair is having the state pay for someones old age care when they have a huge asset they are not going to be using and are going to leave to their children – why should the state pay so the children get rich

I get what your saying but I have paid tax since i was 16 and i would quite like the gains of my 50 odd years of work to help give my kids a better life , i think that is a pretty universal feeling for people with kids . Not everyone is inheriting a 5 bedroom half million pound mansion . I do see it as an issue though where ultimately only people whose parents own houses can afford to get on the ladder .

The part that jumped out at me is the idea that at 40 your on your way to being financially secure . People are having children later these days and a lot of 40 year olds will have kids in nursery's and plenty to go on a mortgage .

It seems to me that whilst it is a problem that definitely needs addressing i dont think it can be isolated from all the other issues that contribute like house prices , tax avoidance/evasion , off shore wealth , a low wage low security economy etc etc .

Basically i feel like if you can solve inequality nearly all the worlds problems could be solved pretty easily , easy peasy 🙂

Coke and hookers it is, then !!

Whilst I see it’s merits, someone has to pay, I am getting pretty narked. I’m 37, so I’m from a generation that had to pay for its education, got locked out of the housing market/have eye watering mortgages, been blamed for an economic crash I had nothing to do with, seen zero pay rises in 10 years, seen my pension terms eroded and moved further in to the distance and now, I am going to have to pay for the end of my life too, whilst being saddled with a mortgage and probably children by then.

End of life care is something that needs paying for, I would prefer a % charge on inheritance, let’s call it inheritance tax, say 50% above £250,000. It doesn’t affect those that are receiving it, the people that receive their care pay up. However, funeral costs could also Be covered by the end of life care package. Any attempt at off-shoring or entrusting assets is taxed at 50% of their auditable value. I think that’s fair, rather than another lifetime tax.

Not everyone is inheriting a 5 bedroom half million pound mansion

Not in London, that's for sure 🙂

But, sadly the rich don’t want it that way

I think you'll find that the "rich" are already propping up the taxation system disproportionately. The simple unpalatable fact is that the tax take across society is not sufficient for the spend required. The highest 1% of earners pay 28% of income tax (not all tax). https://fullfact.org/economy/do-top-1-earners-pay-28-tax-burden/

Belgium, France, Italy, Germany... all have a significantly higher tax take than we do (33% of GDP). Want Denmark's health and social care? That tops the list and will cost a tax burden of 46% of GDP. So does society want to pay half as much MORE tax as we do currently?

I don't need to be a politician to know the answer to that one.

Belgium, France, Italy, Germany… all have a significantly higher tax take than we do (33% of GDP). Want Denmark’s health and social care? That tops the list and will cost a tax burden of 46% of GDP. So does society want to pay half as much MORE tax as we do currently?

I don’t need to be a politician to know the answer to that one.

And we can see the results of that choice around us now - our infrastructure has been run down to such an extent that when we receive a shock, like Covid, it crumbles. I would be happy to move (back) to Denmark and exchange the tax money for the social system, but giving shysters like Gove a big wad of cash and trusting him to do the right thing would be insane.

Not everyone is inheriting a 5 bedroom half million pound mansion

Not in London, that’s for sure 🙂

Yeah typed that in my 3 bedroom semi in glasgow , got to learn to dream bigger 🙂 🙂

Whilst I see it’s merits, someone has to pay, I am getting pretty narked. I’m 37, so I’m from a generation that had to pay for its education, got locked out of the housing market/have eye watering mortgages, been blamed for an economic crash I had nothing to do with, seen zero pay rises in 10 years, seen my pension terms eroded and moved further in to the distance and now, I am going to have to pay for the end of my life too, whilst being saddled with a mortgage and probably children by then.

If only it ended up working like that. I reckon it'll still end up being means tested, so if you've been reasonably financially prudent, you get to pay for it twice.

Could be worse though, could be from the generation that followed.

If you want to give your kids a good start in life, I’d suggest that waiting until they are 55 is a bit late to be thinking about it.

Bit of an over-simplification - people develop lifetime views of their spending. I can (hypothetically) send my daughter to finishing school today because I know I will inherit the family mansion at a later point.

"I like to pay taxes. With them, I buy civilization" Oliver Wendell Holmes.

Denmark gets it. UK doesn't.

our infrastructure has been run down to such an extent that when we receive a shock, like Covid, it crumbles

Could not agree more. It's not a waste of resource to buy capacity for outlier events. See every UK families savings account. Then expand up to country scale.

Dr.
You don't know that though. It might be needed for your parents care or yours

Belgium, France, Italy, Germany… all have a significantly higher tax take than we do (33% of GDP). Want Denmark’s health and social care? That tops the list and will cost a tax burden of 46% of GDP. So does society want to pay half as much MORE tax as we do currently?

I don’t need to be a politician to know the answer to that one.

A complicated issue.

We've had nearly 10 years of the Tories (via the tabloids) telling everyone that we can have first world welfare state for 3rd world contributions if only we get rid of the EU / scroungers / benefit cheats / people of non white skin colour etc etc

This has somewhat skewed the expectations...

We’ve had nearly 10 years of the Tories (via the tabloids) telling everyone that we can have first world welfare state for 3rd world contributions if only we get rid of the EU / scroungers / benefit cheats / people of non white skin colour etc etc
This has somewhat skewed the expectations…

We've had 50 years of governments of all colours treating the link between required public spending and taxation as if it doesn't exist. Indeed 'tax and spend' is a political insult.

Just typed out a reply saying its not the fairest way as you have those who have worked hard for a home or nest egg to leave behind paying for those who maybe lived in council properties all their lives and have no savings

PLEASE can we stop perpetuating the myth that people get a home and savings through working hard, whilst people living in council housing and without savings do not. It's flat out ****ing insulting to the millions of people in this country working bloody hard for a pittance.

On unearned wealth. My parents bought their first house for hundreds in the late 60s. Twice they took on new mortgages to move upmarket. They now have a house worth well over half a million but they have paid much less than that for it as they benefited from massive house price inflation.

They are in their 80s and unlikely to be around for another decade. I'm pushing 60. That inheritance is not going to affect my life enormously - I have paid my mortgage off. If I had inherited in my 30s of course it would have been differnt

Between us is over a million quids worth of property that we have paid far less for in actual cold hard cash. thats unearned wealth.

If my parents need care then their wealth will be used to pay for it - that way they can have quality home care

PLEASE can we stop perpetuating the myth that people get a home and savings through working hard, whilst people living in council housing and without savings do not. It’s flat out **** insulting to the millions of people in this country working bloody hard for a pittance.

I think another thing the Cv crisis has shown us is that we depend more on people who get a poor level of pay than we had previously been willing to admit. However, that doesn't mean that people with good incomes don't work hard.

Bit of an over-simplification – people develop lifetime views of their spending. I can (hypothetically) send my daughter to finishing school today because I know I will inherit the family mansion at a later point.

I can see "I can afford to take this risk now, because if it goes wrong, my family will bail me out". I don't think that's the same as counting on future inheritance, though.

Between us is over a million quids worth of property that we have paid far less for in actual cold hard cash. thats unearned wealth.

Lucky you. I bought a house and then saw the value tumble to such an extent that I had to hand back the keys. Several years savings down the pan. Will that entitle me to a discount on my home care?

Fast forward and suppose I now have a half million quid house that I paid a half million quid of taxed earnings for. Shall I pay the same wealth tax as your parents?

Better than that, you will get it for free if you have handed the keys back and no longer own a house.

Better than that, you will get it for free if you have handed the keys back and no longer own a house.

Maybe they should pay ME to come round and spoonfeed me porridge? 🙂

People need to stop thinking that because they bought a house (instead of renting a house as presumably they have to live somewhere) that any increase in the value is because they have worked so hard and why should anyone take that profit away from them.
My house is worth many times what I pad for it. If it all goes to fund my care at end of life then so be it.

they bought a house (instead of renting a house as presumably they have to live somewhere)

Perhaps this indicates part of the solution - give renters proper safeguards so that they can avoid fuelling the housing market in order to avoid rapacious landlords?

A big issue is that people who are relatively well off (a) don't accept that they are relatively well off (remember that idiot on AQ who insisted at 80k he was under average earnings?) and (b) believe that their wealth is "deserved" due to their hard work and skill rather than (also) involving a substantial dose of luck.

That's not to say the relatively well off haven't worked hard, but they haven't necessarily worked any harder than those less fortunate. And as for those who believe they "saved" for their house that magically went up by a factor of 10 in value while they were living in it...where do you start?

And as for those who believe they “saved” for their house that magically went up by a factor of 10 in value while they were living in it…where do you start?

Maybe by checking your facts? Possibly they suffered massive negative equity on their first house purchases, then also got hit by a duff Endowment policy and then struggled to put the necessary money into a pension. Not all oldies have the fab run of luck that led to a massive home investment.

My house (in the rich South) is worth about three times what I paid for it, not ten times.

But feel free to crack on with your Daily Mail headlines 😉

I'd prefer it if we removed self employment tax loopholes. Why allow people to pay themselves below the taxable threshold, then have made up expenses and 'drawings' to cover their lavish lifestyles.

People need to stop thinking that because they bought a house (instead of renting a house as presumably they have to live somewhere) that any increase in the value is because they have worked so hard and why should anyone take that profit away from them.

But the rich have been doing this for centuries

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions

But its not ok for someone who has spent 40 years unblocking toilets , fixing your car , building houses etc etc to want to leave their kids something ?

The fact is there is enough money in this country to pay for social care , free school meals and the NHS  but the solution is probably one that upsets everyone from the lowest payed to the richest tory party donors , we all have to stump up a bit more .

That’s not to say the relatively well off haven’t worked hard, but they haven’t necessarily worked any harder than those less fortunate. And as for those who believe they “saved” for their house that magically went up by a factor of 10 in value while they were living in it…where do you start?

I suspect that the more knowledge based your job, the less hard you have to work, certainly in terms of hours.

A big issue is that people who are relatively well off (a) don’t accept that they are relatively well off

Yup- - we get that on here a lot. I am rich in UK terms as I have a job earning just over national average wage and I have hundreds of thousands in unearned wealth from property

This sounds likethe usual issue's of "let tax the others".

If you want more then everyone has to pay more tax. Not just those you think "must be loaded" because they are older (different situations) / house is "worth" (the price it is now it not relevant it's where they live) .

Yup- – we get that on here a lot. I am rich in UK terms as I have a job earning just over national average wage and I have hundreds of thousands in unearned wealth from property

TJ i dont think that your situation is as common as you seem to think , certainly the hundreds of thousands in property part .

Tax should be based on what you earn plain and simple

If someone is going to argue that folks start paying more for services they may need, then at what point do people start getting discounts for services they dont need. Do I get a discount as i have no children requiring educating by the state for example?

And taking it a step further, can smokers get a discount as they'll die off earlier and cost the state less?

As has been suggested already, if there is a shortfall ramp up inheritance tax, which has the additional benefit of addressing social inequality at the same time.

Its common amongst folk my age and a bit younger - basically you have to have bought before the boom in prices.

I would be quite happy to have paid more tax to pay for decent services. Too late now as I am about to retire on a tiny income

TJ i dont think that your situation is as common as you seem to think , certainly the hundreds of thousands in property part .

There's a lot of wealth in the UK, just not very evenly spread. However, Median total household wealth in April 2016 to March 2018 was £286,600.

4. Trends in average wealth in Great Britain

The median and the mean are both measures of “average wealth”. Median net wealth is the wealth of what would be the middle household, if all the households in Great Britain were sorted from poorest to richest. The mean is the total wealth of all households divided by the number of households.

Both measures provide useful information and additionally, the ratio between mean and median net wealth provides an internationally recognised measure of wealth inequality, with a larger ratio indicating higher levels of inequality.

Figure 2 shows the median and mean total household net wealth over time. Median total household wealth in April 2016 to March 2018 was £286,600.

Looking at trends over time, there was an increase of 7% in median total household wealth between July 2006 and June 2008, and July 2008 and June 2010. Median wealth was then broadly unchanged between June 2010 and June 2014. Since then, median wealth has been increasing in real terms, with a 9% increase in April 2016 to March 2018, compared with the previous two-year period.

Mean total wealth is higher than the median, and was £564,300 in April 2016 to March 2018, an increase from £508,000 in April 2014 to March 2016. The fact that the mean is higher than the median shows that the distribution of wealth is “unequal”.

The mean has increased in real terms in each survey period, relative to the period before. The rate of growth observed in the last two survey periods has been higher than in the previous four periods, at 12% and 11% above inflation respectively.

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/totalwealthingreatbritain/april2016tomarch2018#aggregate-total-wealth-in-great-britain

Do I get a discount as i have no children requiring educating by the state for example?

As long as you're happy to not benefit from any welfare which they pay for once you've retired......

The chickens have to come home to roost at some point - but with a succession of Tory governments, they're never to going to penalise their voters who have benefitted the most from the post-war economic boom and actually ask them to pay for the public services they use.

Index-linked, final salary pensions (unaffordable), huge increase in house values (from doing nothing) and yet for 30 out of the last 40 years voted for tax cuts whilst our national infrastructure and local council budgets have been slaughtered. Social care accounts for a huge proportion of local council budgets and yet no one's prepared to pay for it.

I agree on a wealth tax for inheritance - we have no kids and there's no reason why that asset shouldn't be used to pay for our health and social care in our twilight years. I'm all for euthanasia if it means I get to choose when and how I leave this life. If pro-lifers disagree, they can pay for everyone else!

Can't see any way of squaring that circle - Covid is going to leave a huge deficit in public finances and Brexit is the icing on the cake in terms of economic self-harm.

I think another thing the Cv crisis has shown us is that we depend more on people who get a poor level of pay than we had previously been willing to admit. However, that doesn’t mean that people with good incomes don’t work hard.

The crisis will undoubtedly also show us that we don't give a flying **** about those people beyond a little patronising clap 5 minutes a week. And nowhere in my statement did I suggest that high earners don't work hard. I'm merely highlighting the erroneous link between working hard and property ownership/savings.

That report on wealth. Am i right in assuming that that 280k is based on total assets, and not savings?

Either way I don't have 280k worth of assets to my name, despite earning well above the national average. I can only assume that the vast majority of that wealth has been accumulated through property price rises.

I hope that I can bring my kids up to be better with money than I used to be. I also hope I can leave a nest egg for them to help reduce financial stress.