[Politics] Are baby boomers taxed enough?

[Bakero]

No. There’s your problem. I’m saying everyone can and would argue things were tougher for their generation. You are steadfast in your view there’s only one candidate.

What do you mean no? Are you saying home buying relative to income isn't at its highest level for 175 years?

 

[Seagull over Canaryland]

Rather than targeting more taxes - why not hold the Govt to account and focus on the existing tax revenue already wasted / lost within its departments?

The National Audit Office has already identified £60 billion of 'our' money is 'lost' per annum! Comprised of £26bn 'fraud & error' in the tax & welfare system, £25bn 'fraud & error' in Govt spending and £9bn shortfall in 'tax compliance'. Not helped by 30% fewer tax compliance checks being conducted.

Govt departments need to be more efficient. Even 50% of the above, if recovered, would go a long way.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

No. There’s your problem. I’m saying everyone can and would argue things were tougher for their generation. You are steadfast in your view there’s only one candidate.

Stats bare it out.

I'll stick with the maths.
Thanks.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Being underweight is a risk factor for some cancers…but this is all.

Living longer is a risk for all cancers. A fat person who has died of a heart attack is at zero risk of cancer, while the thin person who has lived to grow old is at great risk.

If we split causes of death in 4 categories. 1, death caused by overweight; 2, death caused by cancer not affected by weight; 3, death caused by old age or dementia or both; 4, death caused by anything else including non-weight related heart disease.

Whatever proportion of the deaths caused by overweight among the fatties - let's say 25% - is not going to apply to people who aren't overweight. Therefore people who are not overweight have a total of 100% of deaths caused by cancer, old age/dementia, or other; fat people have only 75% of deaths caused by these three.

Therefore, thin people are at more risk of dying of cancer, and therefore at more risk of suffering from cancer. QED.

 

[jackanada]

What an odd thread to start. For the duration of this government we've witnessed a massive transfer of wealth to the very top. A tiny fraction of a percent hoovering it all up. Yet strangely we're focusing on boomers. Yes they are the generation who have generally profited most from the welfare state we had and the rise of property values but this is just a divisive question.
If you're not a billionaire we don't really need to tax you personally any more.
We need to cut rampant profiteering not any more services.

 

[Randy McNob]

It's the super rich who are hugely undertaxed

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Living longer is a risk for all cancers. A fat person who has died of a heart attack is at zero risk of cancer, while the thin person who has lived to grow old is at great risk.

If we split causes of death in 4 categories. 1, death caused by overweight; 2, death caused by cancer not affected by weight; 3, death caused by old age or dementia or both; 4, death caused by anything else including non-weight related heart disease.

Whatever proportion of the deaths caused by overweight among the fatties - let's say 25% - is not going to apply to people who aren't overweight. Therefore people who are not overweight have a total of 100% of deaths caused by cancer, old age/dementia, or other; fat people have only 75% of deaths caused by these three.

Therefore, thin people are at more risk of dying of cancer, and therefore at more risk of suffering from cancer. QED.

This doesn’t make any sense whatever. Not all fat people will die from being overweight. There will be fat people in 2) , 3) and 4).