Labour's tax burden on youth

[afleitch]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5355960.stm

'Taxes, repayment of student debt and compulsory pension contributions may produce an effective tax rate of 48% for some of them, the report says. "Young people are under increasing pressure from rising debt, low earnings growth and low savings and face extreme difficulty in entering the housing market," said Professor Nick Bosanquet of Imperial College London, one of the report's authors. The report by Reform criticises the government's plans to reform the state pension system, claiming this will make things worse for the younger generation. It calls the plans a "very bad deal for young people" as older people - those over 47 - will gain from an eventual higher state pension without having to pay for it.'

-----------------------

This is the underlying reason I would have to say, for the fact that I switched support; Labour have failed the youth of today. From tuition fees, to top up fees, the highest youth unemployment rate since July 97, the increase in young people on incapacity, Gordon Browns a*sing of the nation funds and Blairs rehash of the retirement age that means that those who caused the problem don't have to pay for. Let's not forget the difficulty in renting never mind buying property that is seeing students remain at home into their 30's or having to return due to financial pressure.

The 'social contract' binding the welfare state has broken down; the baby boomer generation, the first to truly make use of the welfare state from birth is busy pulling up the ladder behind them. Young people are not daft, we realise that the welfare state isn't working, that what we pay in will not benefit us, that we will have to work harder, for longer and paying higher taxation to keep our parents generation used to the lifestyle to which they are accustomed because no one in power has the guts to do anything about it.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Repaying student debt is not a tax. And maybe if young people would quit whining and actually vote for a change, things would be set up more to their advantage.
They don't, so it isn't. That's democracy.

[John Dibble]

Repaying student debt is not a tax

No, it's certainly not. However, it can be a significant (and necessary)burden on someone, and other taxes being high won't make that burden any easier.


I typically oppose any system where the young must pay for the old, because more often than not the young will eventually get the shaft.

[afleitch]

Repaying student debt is not a tax. And maybe if young people would quit whining and actually vote for a change, things would be set up more to their advantage.
They don't, so it isn't. That's democracy.

I think I'll excuse that as your Norman Tebbit 'get on your bike' moment

It is not the fault of young people- they voted Labour in 1997, for a government that said it would not introduce tuition fees, and then in 2001 they voted again, for a government that said it would not introduce top up fees. It did both. Why should any young person ever trust what Labour says ever again? Even in Scotland, with our compromise system, university admission is at its lowest for a decade hitting students from the poorest backgrounds the most. Since 2000, graduate debt has rocketed by 318% and th starting wage for graduates is likely to fall as companies clamber to claw back the 4% they have to contribute under the Pension White Paper.

If you play by the rules, if you study hard and save hard for university and hold down jobs to fund your education, as Dibble has said, you get the shaft the moment you graduate regardless of whether you graduate to be a lawyer or a teacher.

Is it fair that a graduate should pay up to 50% of their income in tax in the decade after they graduate?

[Democratic Hawk]

I've got to admit that Labour's changes to higher education funding will hit me hard once I start to earn enough to pay it back

The way I see it with the state pension system is that those who pay their contributions (i.e. the young) fund the retirement pensions of the old just as future generations, in turn, will fund their pensions. It's a cycle

Of course, some poor buggers do pay more into it that they'll ever get out. People like my father, who retired at 65, with a works and state pension, only to pass away at 67. Granted, my mother's state pension increased and she does get half his works pension but she is much worse off then they would have been were he alive. Energy costs have skyrocketted this year and they don't allow for the fact whether there is one person, two people, 10 people, or a 100 in one house

Nevertheless, if it is the case that youngsters from the poorest backgrounds are those likely to miss out on a higher education as a result of Labour policy, then the government should seek to redress this. I can't think of a bigger disincentive to go to university than the prospect of thousands of £'s of debt upon graduation . They were wrong to break their manifesto pledges

Basically, I can understand Andrew leaving the Labour Party for the other lot, just as he understands why I could never join the Conservatives. Margaret Thatcher was wrong to quote St Francis of Assisi upon coming into office and delivering, frankly, the wretched opposite. Of course, some people did very nicely back then, others thought they did , while others didn't and knew it

Still, at least, we can look forward to the number of incapacity recipients falling as those folk who were cast onto it back in the 1980s reach retirement. Mass welfare dependency is the legacy of neo-liberal excesses

Dave

[John Dibble]

The way I see it with the state pension system is that those who pay their contributions (i.e. the young) fund the retirement pensions of the old just as future generations, in turn, will fund their pensions. It's a cycle

The problem with this cycle is that if it breaks you've screwed over multiple generations - the ones hit worst would be those who have paid in their entire lives only to get nothing, and then you get various degrees of having paid in part of life or being cut off mid-retirement. Any retirement system should be set up so a generation pays for itself which ultimately means that a f**k up in the system won't be likely to screw over nearly so many people.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think I'll excuse that as your Norman Tebbit 'get on your bike' moment

Unlike Tebbit I'm actually right though

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The New Deal and so on. Working class young 'un's have done pretty well out of the past decade or so. Would have done better were it not for scarmongering from the NUS et al, but that's a different rant.

O/c all parties break their manifesto commitments (not really a good thing, mind). None of them even treat them seriously anymore anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now, is that because things are set up in a way that hurt poorer students (can't speak for Scotland but they aren't elsewhere) or because organisations and people that students and so on trust have been cynically scaring them away to serve their own ends?
The NUS really pisses me off at times.

The NUS like to scare poorer students by (essentially) claiming that everyone will have to pay top rate fees and all that, everyone will be in debt to [insert huge figure and so on].
I just found out that my grant is bigger than my fee this year. And I'd never describe myself as poor. Ho hum.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Is it fair for a working class household to have to pay it for them instead? Who defines fair anyway? Someone has to pay and the person that pays generally doesn't like paying.
As it happens, I don't like the current system (I think it should be much more, pardon the pun here, graduated), but I'm pretty sure that I prefer it to a system that sees people who will never get a chance to go to Uni having to subsidise the children of the affluent.

[afleitch]

but I'm pretty sure that I prefer it to a system that sees people who will never get a chance to go to Uni having to subsidise the children of the affluent.

Scotland had an almost exact 50% rate; i.e 50% of all 5-6th year students went onto attend university. This has now fallen. It was certainly not just
the children of the 'affluent' who went to university. It has always been a distinctly class-less higher education system outwith St Andrews, Edinburgh and Glasgow at least, particularly if you look at the intake statistics- over 80% of students at Strathclyde University were from state schools.

As for the New Deal, it has not worked; Official (and only official) unemployment amongst all young people is the highest since July 1997 and amongst women of the same age range, it is at it's highest since October 1995 and rising. The jobs created up to 2001 (when youth unemployment was at its lowes since the 70's) has since been reversed since then and we may soon, within months rather than years see a net loss in jobs for those ages 18-25

[Democratic Hawk]

The jobs created up to 2001 (when youth unemployment was at its lowes since the 70's) has since been reversed since then and we may soon, within months rather than years see a net loss in jobs for those ages 18-25

The government will just have to endeavour to get things back on track, as they were from 1997 to 2001 then

Dave

[Filuwaúrdjan]

As for the New Deal, it has not worked

That depends what you mean by "worked" doesn't it? It has created (or has helped to create) a lot of jobs; that's enough for it to count as a success for me.
It's certainly true that youth unemployment has been rising recently, but that can hardly be seen as the fault of the New Deal. It is also certainly true that without the New Deal youth unemployment rates would be quite a bit higher.
It's been a net positive IMO.

[David S]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/5355960.stm

'Taxes, repayment of student debt and compulsory pension contributions may produce an effective tax rate of 48% for some of them, the report says. "Young people are under increasing pressure from rising debt, low earnings growth and low savings and face extreme difficulty in entering the housing market," said Professor Nick Bosanquet of Imperial College London, one of the report's authors. The report by Reform criticises the government's plans to reform the state pension system, claiming this will make things worse for the younger generation. It calls the plans a "very bad deal for young people" as older people - those over 47 - will gain from an eventual higher state pension without having to pay for it.'

-----------------------

This is the underlying reason I would have to say, for the fact that I switched support; Labour have failed the youth of today. From tuition fees, to top up fees, the highest youth unemployment rate since July 97, the increase in young people on incapacity, Gordon Browns a*sing of the nation funds and Blairs rehash of the retirement age that means that those who caused the problem don't have to pay for. Let's not forget the difficulty in renting never mind buying property that is seeing students remain at home into their 30's or having to return due to financial pressure.

The 'social contract' binding the welfare state has broken down; the baby boomer generation, the first to truly make use of the welfare state from birth is busy pulling up the ladder behind them. Young people are not daft, we realise that the welfare state isn't working, that what we pay in will not benefit us, that we will have to work harder, for longer and paying higher taxation to keep our parents generation used to the lifestyle to which they are accustomed because no one in power has the guts to do anything about it.

If you don't like taxes why are you sporting the Democrats's avatar?

House prices in Michigan are cheap right now. Why don't you become a Libertarian and move here?

[NewFederalist]

House prices in Michigan are cheap right now.

Stand by... after the final collapse of Ford and GM they'll be even cheaper!

[David S]

House prices in Michigan are cheap right now.

Stand by... after the final collapse of Ford and GM they'll be even cheaper!

You got that right!

Yes the downside of buying a house in Michigan now is that it is not likely to appreciate.

The impression I get is that Michigan is not alone in that respect, but is unfortunately leading the pack in falling house prices. Our economy is on the ropes right now and I don't see much hope for a turn around.

[Michael Z]

The thing about the UK is that income tax is relatively low... but combine that with council tax, fuel tax, cigarette & alcohol tax, not to mention house prices (especially in London), transport fees, student loan repayments, bills, etc, and the end result is that you have very little left for yourself. Forget about saving. I think, at least as far as western Europe is concerned, this is probably the most expensive country to be young and single in.