back to article Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

World+dog is grumpy with Apple, Microsoft, Google and plenty of other multinational companies, because they do legal-but-tricky things to avoid paying tax. But you, dear readers, might have a good reason to let them all off the hook, because you probably own shares in at least one. There's a good chance you don't know about …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Anonymous Coward

Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

Yes.

Apple and Microsoft et al may not exist by the time I retire.

The GFC has amply demonstrated that the financial 'experts' who run pension funds will be unable to either predict or shield my 401K 201K from massive damage should these current titans suffer from a disruption a la Kodak.

If they pay taxes now then the money can be used to fund services I will need.

41
5
Silver badge

Do you really want the governments to collect more tax?

Because we really need a new NHS/fire service/police national IT system to scrapped after the £100,000,000 budget has been overrun by a factor of five. If you give them more money, they will only waste it on something else, like a new internet filter to cut out any references to government waste - after all imagine the damage it would cause if children found such sites.

You have some choice about where to put your investments. You have less and less choice about where governments waste tax payers' money.

9
14
Anonymous Coward

Re: Do you really want the governments to collect more tax?

If the tech giants paid more then the PAYE employee (the people who can't dodge tax) could pay a bit less.

16
4
Silver badge

Reduced PAYE?

Option A) tech giants increase their prices to pay their new taxes, cancelling out any reductions in PAYE.

Option B) Government spending increases to match increased revenue, so there will be no room in the budget for reducing PAYE.

Option C) Politicians continue to manufacture prolefeed about tech giants avoiding taxes, but do not make any effective changes to taxation.

7
9
Anonymous Coward

Re: Reduced PAYE?

and anyone who has ever heard a politician speak - in particular the sanctimonious hypocrite who chairs the Public Accounts Committee - knows it will be Option C.

0
0
LDS
Silver badge

Re: Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

Yes, ask those who had their retirement plans built on Enron shares.... which incidentally had an AAA rating just before the news about it was banrupt run....

5
1
Bronze badge
Paris Hilton

Re: Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

I'd quite like everybody to pay their fair share of taxes (discuss...)

It seems to me the fairest place to do this is on all income as it is paid to a human being (not a company, corporation, not-for-profit-free-range-balsamic-hedge-fund thingummy)

So scrap corporation tax, and chase the rich for their personal income tax contributions.

6
5
Silver badge

Re: Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

But there are ways to dodge this too. A CEO might be paid only a token salary, but also enjoy a few extra benefits - a company home (small mansion), a company car (lamborgini), a company jet for those vital business conferences with other managers in Hawaii, company health insurance plan, etc. Plenty of ways to enjoy the wealth without actually legally owning it.

It's the same trick used by many televangalists in the US - they have as much of their property as possible owned by their church (ie, tax-exempt organisation) and just rent their mansion for a $1/yr peppercorn.

5
2

Re: Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

I love how you idiots think that it'd be great it companies paid more tax. Companies aim to make a profit; profit in it's simplest form is revenue less costs. If you increase their costs they increase their prices. So you cretins that bang on about how morally wanton these companies are just want to pay even more tax when shopping by forcing retailers to pay more tax, which they will then factor into the price. I guess the PAYE and VAT we already pay just isn't enough is it?

5
12
Silver badge

Re: Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

Not to mention RBS. Another classic example.

0
0
Silver badge
Mushroom

Re: Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

This entirely spurious argument - "Tech companies are in your retirement portfolio and therefore can't be taxed" - is so completely and obnoxiously slanted towards the baby boomer mindset. They own the country, their politicians have loaded us up with public debt, and now we can't tax profits because it upsets their final salary pension? Fuck off

9
4
LDS
Silver badge

Re: Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

You idiot fail to understand companies set prices the higher they can before too many customers - within their target - stop buying. If they have a recognized brand (Apple, Audi, Armani, ecc.) they will set higher prices just because of it. Many products are not cheaper at all because their makers don't pay taxes, because companies aim at *maximizing* profits, thereby if they can sell at higher prices and pay less taxes they'll do both. While if they pay more taxes but their prices are already at the maximum they can sell to their customers they won't increase price or the risk is to decrease sales as well.

7
5
Silver badge

Re: but do not make any effective changes to taxation.

Oh, I think that on the strict definition of the word "effective" they will. It's just that you and I don't regard increasing the lining of their pockets as good.

1
0
Silver badge
Boffin

Re: Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

"I love how you idiots think that it'd be great it companies paid more tax. Companies aim to make a profit; profit in it's simplest form is revenue less costs."

Said companies exhort tax rebates on the promise of keeping jobs in the local economies.

These companies have billions of dollars sitting offshore not being used because they can't bring the profits back to the shareholder, or to the corporate HQ. Not to mention that they are using 'legal' tax dodges which don't really equate any additional value to the shareholders except in terms of bonuses for their C level executives.

Were Apple, Microsoft, and IBM to lose their loopholes (which BTW they admitted to wanted to see fixed) they would help improve their states's budget deficits which are providing basic services and then some.

Oh and I forgot to add Google in there too.

The key here is that if that money were honestly put back in to the coffers and honestly spent properly (Note that would mean you need an honest civil servant/politician behind it...) We would all see a better quality of life.

2
1
Silver badge

@Suricou Raven 11:33

Those 'dodges' as you call them will not dodge taxes. At least in the US, you are taxed on the fair value of non-monetary compensation as well. So if you get a company car, you are taxed on what it would cost to lease that car.

The televangelist scheme won't work either. The church may charge the guy only $1/year to lease the mansion, but he's required to pay taxes on the fair market value of the lease. If it would cost $500,000 to lease a lavish mansion similar to the one he has, he must pay taxes on the $499,999 difference.

A lot of the audits on people with higher incomes concerns this sort of thing, where taxation isn't easy to figure since estimates of 'fair market value' and similar. Obviously it is in their best interest to choose the minimum value for such items they think they can get away with. If the IRS disagrees they'll generally just assess you for the additional taxes and there will be no penalty. Penalties only apply when the IRS believes you were acting in bad faith - i.e. saying "OK, my mansion would cost more than $1/year to lease, so I'll call it $50,000/year". That would be fine for a large house, but if it was a mansion assessed at $6 million it is clearly ridiculous to think that the fair market lease price could be only $50,000/year.

1
0

Re: Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

This is something to consider. To be effective however, taxation should not be based on people, rather on accounts. Anytime money leaves an account X% goes to the government. This is the only way to avoid loopholes in tax law.

0
0
Gimp

Re: Do you really want tech companies to pay more tax?

"So scrap corporation tax, and chase the rich for their personal income tax contributions."

Because it's well known that the rich get their dividends/wages/benefits paid out in a clear and observable fashion. Rather than have monies being held by a trust, or say a corporation that they own. Because the rich would never pay someone to save themselves tax.

I'm all for scrapping taxes that stymie economic activity and encourage rent gathering rather than creating value. So scrap income tax and VAT, and gather taxes on land ownership (the owners of the freehold) and wealth tax. You know, set an acceptable amount of stuff you can have (say 10 million quid) and you owe 0.1% of the value of everything else each year to the state.

Or if we really want to keep the current system as is, grow some balls and get aggressive with money laundering laws and benefiting from past crimes. Please prove all your wealth was legally obtained, and due taxes paid. Start at the biggest and work your way down. Except that the current system is all about protecting all the immorally acquired wealth from any re-distribution.

And invade the bloody tax havens. The UK is probably the worst for it in the world, we don't just have tax havens, we have so many they can grouped into differing types. The US is pretty bad for it too, although that's the different states trying to play tax haven against each other. Be nice to have some required legal consistency too regarding where a company is registered and where it pays tax (especially Ireland, with the delightful no-tax-on-transfers despite one of the companies, despite being registered in Ireland, never pays tax in Ireland since it's based elsewhere. So registration counts for being Irish (and part of EU) but the actual company can be elsewhere. The Dutch sandwich is at least understandable where it comes from (legitimate avoidance of double taxation) but it's a pretty dodgy use of it to shift profits around.

I'd be happy if the elites running the show seemed to be able to do it. But they can't, they got to their places mainly through luck, and refusing to accept this means they genuinely believe they (and their progeny) are smarter and better. So they squeeze and shit on the middle classes as much as possible, without realising that they create their own demise. When scoundrels and patriots plot together and all that.

Not really keen on revolution tho. Last few times ended up with some pretty big wars. Guess the elites would rather smash the plate than share the pie :)

2
0
Silver badge

Pay more taxes?

Besides zero? Yes. Yes they should. And not just tech companies, but almost all top corporations.

Considering most people (at least in the US) really aren't affected by dividends and returns because, well, they have NO retirement, pensions or saving due decade after decade of cyclical recessions and stagnate wages, a hit to the billions in profit isn't really going to affect them either.

The US workforce population is approx 156,000,000. Of that, 72,000,000 (almost half of the 156 million) make $500 a week or less. (that's £324) Tried living on that lately? Without free healthcare? Or free college/uni? Bad to non-existent mass transit? Or basically any kind of assistance? (American welfare is a joke compared to the rest of the civilized world)

A study done several years ago showed that in almost any given year, HALF of ALL large corporations in the US, both domestic and foreign, pay NO federal income taxes. Combined with millions of jobs being offshored, it's not rocket surgery to see why the deficit is so high. A severely diminished tax base will do that. Of course the spending and waste doesn't help either, but that's only one side of the problem.

Meanwhile, regulatory agencies are starved for funds, allowing the large corps to literally get away with murder, while public infrastructure continues to fail.

So it would seem that, yes, world+dog have a legitimate complaint. One that WILL eventually boil over. Ask Marie Antoinette how that turned out.

25
5

Re: Pay more taxes?

It's also worth pointing out that the best period for sustained growth in the USA was the 1950s - when corporate and personal income taxes were at their highest.

Reducing taxes simply makes the rich richer at the expense of everyone else.

Corporate tax since then has dropped from around a 35% of the tax pool to less than 2%. Corporates have bought their own tax laws and now want to not only pay no tax but also be given money for free. It's a race to the bottom for the rest of us and the job of our elected representatives is to stop this.

So yes, we should want corporations (all of them, IT isn't special in this regard) to pay their share of tax.

12
3
Holmes

Re: Pay more taxes?

It is true that many/most corporations don't pay much in the way of taxes - but that is because those profits are passed on to the shareholders (especially in smaller corporations) retaining little to be taxed upon. Those shareholders, however, pay the tax on that income.

So, the tax on the income IS paid, just not by the corporation.

Some people want the corporations to pay the tax, AND want the shareholders to pay the tax - basically taxing the same income twice. I prefer that governments stop spending more than they take in and live within their means just like the rest of us.

3
12

Re: Pay more taxes?

In the UK at least, dividends are distributed after taxation so your argument doesn't stand up.

7
3
Stop

Re: Pay more taxes?

>> It is true that many/most corporations don't pay much in the way of taxes - but that is because those profits are passed on to the shareholders

No, no they aren't.

They are accumulated in tax havens. They are hoarded. Shareholders of (for instance) Apple stock have already started to complain that they aren't seeing their cut and the money isn't being invested either.

8
1
Bronze badge

Re: Pay more taxes?

Not sure why the downvotes. As other commentators have mentioned, businesses don't pay tax - their shareholders, employees and customers pay taxes. Corporation Tax is often just a convenient place to pick up the tab.

- Keep money in the company coffers? Pay more corporation tax, but shareholder dividends and staff bonuses take a tumble (along with direct tax revenues from those personal incomes as well as VAT on the stuff those people buy).

- Get rid of all your profit by paying shareholder dividends and staff bonuses? The shareholders and employees get taxed, both on the income and the stuff they buy with it.

- Offshore your profits? All well and good but there isn't that much space or industry on Bermuda - if you want to repatriate them back to somewhere you actually do business, you'll get stung bringing it back in. It's just a short term measure working on the principle that sooner or later a government will come to power that drops corporation tax a bit or holds an amnesty.

Make no mistake, the government gets it's share somewhere along the line.

3
5
LDS
Silver badge

Re: Pay more taxes?

1) Dividends in most jurisdictions pay far less taxes than income/corporate taxes. And may pay 0% somewhere.

2) Given most shares are owned by large investors, there's no correlation between corporate taxes and VAT income, sales, and the like. Reducing income taxes will have a far better impact on sales.

3) Companies *do* offshore profits - because that's the only way to avoid taxes - and then ask governments to be able to reimpatriate them at very low taxes - usually one digit ones - promising to invest them in new jobs, reasearch, ecc. ecc. - but then use them for buybacks and the like as it happened recently in the US...

4
0
Silver badge

Re: In the UK at least

Same in the US, hence the double taxation argument against corporate taxes.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Not sure why the downvotes.

It has nothing to do with how rational your arguments are. It's a UK site with a lot of bleed-over from US low information voters. They're all socialists so you are attacking them personally with facts. They hate that even more than they hate the thought that somewhere someone might actually be making a profit.

1
6
LDS
Silver badge

Re: In the UK at least

Well, VAT is another kind of double taxation - we pay sales taxes with money already taxed, but noone argue against it, instead economist would like to increase it to shift taxation from rich incomes to lower ones...

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Pay more taxes?

"It is true that many/most corporations don't pay much in the way of taxes - but that is because those profits are passed on to the shareholders (especially in smaller corporations) retaining little to be taxed upon. Those shareholders, however, pay the tax on that income.

So, the tax on the income IS paid, just not by the corporation.

Some people want the corporations to pay the tax, AND want the shareholders to pay the tax - basically taxing the same income twice. I prefer that governments stop spending more than they take in and live within their means just like the rest of us."

Not quite, corporation tax is calculated on the "pre-dividend" profit (ie, the company *is* paying CT on them), then the shareholders pay income tax on them (if applicable).

https://www.gov.uk/running-a-limited-company/taking-money-out-of-a-limited-company

1
1

Re: Pay more taxes?

"basically taxing the same income twice."

Like VAT then. Or VAT that has put on top of other taxes (fuel, council).

Or how about paying twice (or more) for the same things. Like state assets (paid for by taxpayers) that get sold off (for pennies on the dollar) that we all then have to pay more for. And when these previous state utilities (water and rail I'm thinking off here, but power too) require some major investment, well it's back to the taxpayer.

If I get to buy something with money I earn, I consider myself lucky I'm only getting taxed twice on it. I guess if I was a corporate entity, then I wouldn't. Maybe we just need to get every person to incorporate themselves.

Never understood the "OMFG! Double tax!! Oh noes" from the corps either. As pointed out all over the place, they just get charge more. Corps will happily charge you for every extra cost that comes their way, plus a few that don't. See Apple pricing in Australia, it's like they factor GST at 40%, and that AUS:USA is 1.2:1.

PS If you think you can run a government budget like a household budget then you to read around the subject area a bit more. When you're at the point of shaking your head, and saying "this is insane" and "but surely this is a ponzi scheme, only with an army to back it up" then you've probably got it. Oh, and bear in mind that in the US and UK, around 50% of the workforce is directly or indirectly indirectly working for the taxpayer. So all that PAYE and NI from those jobs is not really tax take, the only benefits are the ones to society (people made well, stuff not on fire, protesters beaten).

0
0
Gold badge

"How ready are you to give up cheap books and cloud"

Very. There won't be pension funds by the time I retire. That tax money funds my health care system directly. It does not get given to the same spendfree baby boomers that got our entire planet into this mess in the first place. As far as I am concerned the entire baby boomer generation should have their financial management licences revoked en masse.

There are double the number of these retiring "want-it-all"s than there are members of my generation. They honestly and earnestly believe that they are somehow entitled the fruits of other people's labour after having spent the past two decades raping my generation's future and trying to reduce the "entitlements" of their parents.

Now that this pack of self-centered "me, me, me" geezers is finally retiring they are facing the prospect of actually having to live with the consequences of their own asshattery. Too bad. I'll weep not a single salty tear for them and they can have not a bent penny more than would be gleaned by playing within the rules.

And oh yes...I'm entirely in favour of changing the rules to close loopholes. The boomers spend two decades fucking our entire planet sideways, in the face with an angry gorilla. Now that Gen X is coming to power - and Gen Y hot on our heels - we're going to start to put things to rights.

So just don't you fret about climate change, racism, homosexuals, women in the workplace, entitlements or any of that other stuff that kept you up at night. Just breathe deeply; Gen X is now going to start down the long road to redemption (though the burden for fixing ecological damage will sadly fall mostly on Gen Y) and as for you boomer fucks?

We're putting your asses in a home. The ones you see on your precious Fox News.

15
15
Silver badge

There haven't been state pension funds for decades

They were spent ages ago, and my national insurance contributions go on military contracts(*1) to create local jobs (*2), fibre optic cables that BT will charge me to use, broken software for state run services, pensioners and people requiring medical treatment now. I will not be able to retire. The problem is Parkinson's law. To keep the number of bureaucrats rising at the required rate, retirement age will increase to life expectancy within my life time. There will be no pensioners, and later, no schools as children will all be apprentice bureaucrats.

If you want to prevent a baby-boom generation taxing a smaller generation into starvation to pay their pensions then you would have to over-throw democracy because they have more votes. What remains of democracy will not last long. I can understand why you parrot the party line. If you do not become a plusgood duckspeaker, you will be sent to the front line in the war against Eastasia.

PS: You are probably right about the place I will end up, but the technical term for the retirement home you refer to is a joyfarm.

*1 A contract that is delayed, overruns its budget and if it isn't cancelled adds even more junk to warehouses full of defective weapons.

*2 The company has a local name, but the labour is done abroad.

7
6
Silver badge

Couldn't have said it better.

Trev for supreme ruler (or at least protractor)

6
3
Silver badge

@Trevor (was: Re: "How ready are you to give up cheap books and cloud")

You are a part of the problem.

HTH, HAND.

0
7
Silver badge

@Rampant Spaniel Re: Couldn't have said it better.

He seems to be acting as a divider in this case. He's probably multi-functional.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: There haven't been state pension funds for decades

On Military contracts.

I see the value in keeping a domestic production capability. I used to live not far from BAE in Lancashire and their car park was full of Lotus and TVR's. It has a knock on effect on the economy, not just cars but housing, shops, suppliers etc. There was also a huge element of pride, lets face it, as awesome as TVR's were, you didn't buy one for reliability. You got it because it was made in a shed in Blackpool and did 180mph for 30k and was staggeringly beautiful. Although we may want to focus more specifically on certain areas of provisioning i.e. local carriers and yankee aircraft.

What we need to do is ensure we make the right choice first time and stick with it. We seem to not know what we want, then repeatedly throw money at changing contracts back and forth. The carrier\s debacle is a perfect example. We also need to make sure we are buying something we will actually need for a significant amount of time, i.e. it is versatile without insanely expensive refits, like the Eurofighter.

I think this can only start to happen when we hold people accountable for their screw ups. If MP's & civil servants had to pay for these screw ups out of their pension fund they may start to get it right and be less likely to throw away public money over ideological tantrums.

The same can be applied to most public purchasing, especially IT projects. No accountability so they don't give a flying ****. Make it so that it's their wedding tackle dangling over the shredder and they will be more prudent.

4
0

Re: "How ready are you to give up cheap books and cloud"

I have a very satisfactory government pension. I started by working for a pittance while studying at night school four days a week after an eight hour day in 1968. I live in a modest home in Melbourne Australia worth about $600k Aus. This house was paid for more than once after a couple of divorces. My forty years in scientific research was poorly paid but very rewarding. How dare you think that your generation of spoilt brats who have not produced anything of substance is ready to inherit the world! You are typical of non performers blaming others for you perceived lack of recognition.

It was my generation building on all the previous generations that invented the world of technology you take for granted as a birthright! Can you show me what gen X and Y have done apart from complain that we got here first.

Paying tax by all is what gives us a complex society. Any entity that shirks this responsibility has no rights to trade in a society they do not materially support. Bert

10
5
Thumb Down

Re: "How ready are you to give up cheap books and cloud"

Trevor, I'm a boomer, I've paid taxes all my life to support your generation and paid very high taxes for previous generations and the ones after me. I've worked hard and suffered during my working life and don't have al lot to show for it. Unlike you lot as a child my parents couldn't afford lots of pressies and crap for me and unlike most of you lot I studied part time for my education instead of having a gap year and going to Uni. I have paid throughout my life for the future pension you want to steal off me, I have never "wanted-it-all" nor actually "had-it-all" although your generation seem to.

I have detested the obnoxious greed that took off with a vengeance in the 1980's just in time to benefit the younger generations. I have been unable to move house as I could not afford to as house prices rocketed due to that same greed, despite it being to small for the two children we had.

In short Trevor, most of your selfish generation would not have put up with my life and just as things are starting to improve for me you want to take it off me.

Incidentally, the hippies of my generation (many of who became the captains of industry who really created this mess) also thought they could do better than their predecessors, and they looked really practical geniuses compared to Gen X, so I don't hold out much hope for you.

Finally, when this miserable system does collapse you won't just be able to throw things away when they get old, tatty and break down, they will have to be repaired as things did when we were young, (and I still do) and you will need us to show you how to fix them, so don't dump us just yet.

8
12

Re: There haven't been state pension funds for decades

Apparently (in the UK at least), the state pension was conceived as an insurance scheme that was designed only to provide for the minority of people who just happened to survive to 65. With hindsight it surprises me that the govt didn't increase the state pension age much sooner. The usual political pusillanimity in the face of unpleasant policy decisions I suppose. As a baby-boomer myself I guess I'm a net beneficiary, but I don't think I'll be doing much SKIing, as I can see my kids will need a lot of it, and no doubt the govt will eventually tighten the screw on us because they'll have to, pusillanimity or no.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: There haven't been state pension funds for decades

@John Sager.

Absolutely spot on. National Insurance was aptly named. The average life expectancy was little higher than the pension age in those days. Politicians have refused to deal with this timebomb for decades. It was obvious even in the 60s and certainly the 70s. They could have gradually raised the pension age to keep the average retirement years the same proportion. We now have an average life expectancy of about 85ish, which suggest the best part of 20 years in retirement, funded by the same contributions that funded either nothing or a few years at best in the past. Simply doesn't work.

The other aspect to National Insurance was the NHS, which has been a great success, but in many ways, too much. It now deals with far more than was ever expected and therefore the costs have gone exponential and will continue unless something is done about it. There are many treatments now available that would be laughed at by those who created it. People are beginning to expect it to cover just about anything medical, which is simply not practical. There needs to be a real debate on what is and what is not covered by the NHS. For instance.....weight loss surgery. If someone doesn't have the will to diet and reduce weight, is it up to the NHS to come up with some other solution? The best solution is dieting, not surgery which has all sorts of nasty side effects. What about IVF? What about plastic surgery? What about self-inflicted illnesses, such as those associated with long term smoking?

Not saying what's right and what's wrong, but people need to realise these can't all be funded and a grown up debate needs to be had on what can be afforded and is reasonable.

3
0
Silver badge

@Sestun: Re: "How ready are you to give up cheap books and cloud"

(I'm going to use the UK tax system here because, well, it's a UK site.)

I'm in my early 30s. No, you haven't paid taxes all your life to support my generation, and you haven't paid high taxes to support previous generations. Maybe if you are rich, but if you are an average worker then your total taxes paid only just about covers what you get out in pension and NHS treatment.

Just work it out: the state pension is £110 odd a week, but with pension credit it's about £145/week, which sounds rubbish, but it's about £7500/year. The average person retiring now will live to about 85, so that's 20 years of that. Most people work about 40 years or so (I'm taking account of unemployment and that large group of non-tax contributors of that generation: women), and so about £3750/year of their tax goes *just on their pension*.

A low earner, with pay less than about £20k/year, and there are still lots of them, although they are mostly young so you don't care about them, has a tax rate of around 20%, so pays around £4k/year in tax, which is a pretty similar number to the £3750/year that is needed to break even on the pension.

But there's also the NHS. Old people are the greatest burden on the NHS, far more than smokers or drinkers, which are the ones vilified in the press over the "strain" they put on the NHS (the reality is that they reduce the pressure). Each old person costs the NHS, on average, about the same as they do in pension.

Oh, and don't forget that you went to school too.

The reality is that most pensioners and soon-to-be pensioners have not paid in what they personally have taken out. And that's before you think about other departments like transport, defence, etc.

Now let's look at my situation. I am paying for the pensions of people older than me in the full knowledge that I'm being lied to and there will be no state pension when I reach 68, or 75, or whenever we will pretend the retirement age will be when I get there.

I've also witnessed the largest intergenerational theft in history, namely house prices. When my dad bought his house, in the 1970s, it cost 1.5 times his annual salary, and he was a factory worker. I am a (junior) university lecturer, so not well paid but better than most, and my house that I bought last year was 8 times my salary, only affordable with my girlfriend. Where has the money gone? To old people.

Throw in the national debt, which is directly stealing from unborn generations, and the fact that I'm still far from paying off my student loan for the obligatory university education that younger people now must have, that was free and not so important in previous generations, and the bill for younger people just grows.

Old people had better hope that the people in their 20s and 30s don't notice that all their money has gone to subsidize the lifestyles of people older than them.

14
4
Bronze badge
WTF?

Re: There haven't been state pension funds for decades

":NHS, [...] costs have gone exponential"

Rising to an amazing 9% of GDP, more or less the OECD average.

Don't Panic.

1
2
Bronze badge
Mushroom

Re: @Sestun: "How ready are you to give up cheap books and cloud"

You've missed the biggest theft by the oldies - convincing everyone that inflation is the worst thing every and that any level of unemployment is necessary to keep it low.

Inflation is good - it takes money from the savings of old farts and gives it to working people. It also wipes out the national debt, makes student loans easy to pay and cleans your undies whiter than white.

Let them eat cat food.

2
6
Bronze badge

Re: There haven't been state pension funds for decades

Quite. Pensions worked on the principle you worked for 45 years and died within 10 years of retiring.

Now people want to pay in for 35 and retire for 35.

As someone near the start of their career I fully expect to work past 80 (unless I have a genius idea that earns me megabucks somewhere along the line).

On the flip side I expect to live well past 100 - and in good health. Look at medicine 50 years ago and look at where it will be in another 60. Body rebuilds, a much more complete understanding of the brain, the defeat of parkinson's, alzheimer's, etc. Assuming I don't die in a car accident or some other untimely manner, I'll get my 20+ years of retirement. I'll just have to pay for it - not like the (very large) number of baby boomer's who's generous final salary pensions my (much smaller) generation are paying for.

Basic demographics, we've got a relatively small cohort in the 20-40 bracket who will have to cough up to keep a much larger cohort in the 50-70 bracket in drugs and old people's homes into their 90s because they all want to retire at 60-65 like their parents, despite having a much longer life expectancy. Basic maths says that ain't sustainable.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: "How ready are you to give up cheap books and cloud"

You were doing so well until you got to the last two paragraphs. All that good work flushed down the toilet.

Now the one bit the rest of your otherwise spot on rant missed is that neither gen x nor gen y, nor even the tail end of the baby boom generation can do much about it until a good chunk of the lazy f**** die off. Because until they do, they'll still control enough votes to keep the firehose of benefits turned on.

0
2
Gold badge

@Sestun

Bullshit. Your generation hasn't paid for our generation at all. It is our taxes that are subsidizing you. It is your obsession with living beyond your means that is robbing from generations as yet unborn to finance your way of life.

I'm perfectly okay with throwing the lot of you away. We'll find our own way through the maze, and frankly, we'll do a damned sight better than you. At least my generation accepts how utterly screwed we are. If we want to do better by our descendants than you did by us we are going to have to make some very large sacrifices; paying through the nose for you greedy geezer fucks on the one hand and working our asses off not to steal from the future on the other.

You can cry me a river about how terrible it is in the miserable home we lock your asses up in, I won't care. Mine is the generation that has to pay for the sins of the past; but we'll do it honourably. A concept "me, me, me" boomers know nothing about.

7
6
LDS
Silver badge

Re: "How ready are you to give up cheap books and cloud"

I'm perfectly ready to pay more for books and clouds as long as my income tax is lowered. At that point I will be free to choose from which company buy books and cloud services, and not from just a monopolistic one. And we know that monopolies, once settled, will raise prices, not lower them. Look at what Apple attempted for books - use its mass to increase book prices to reap more profit by its sales on its devices.

Corporates will always try to *maximize profits* in one way ot the other, and we, the customers, will always be the weak point unless rules forbid behaviours like moving profits to tax havens.

1
0
Silver badge

@Davcrav

Convert those numbers to US dollars and you have a floor on the equivalent situation here in the US. OK, the names and exact coverages change a bit (medicare = NHI for retirees, medicaid =NIH for unemployed, employed = stuck on company's insurance vendor) but the facts on the ground are similar enough.

0
0
Mushroom

Re: @Sestun

@Trevor

Absolutely.

Generational warfare imminent ------------------->

0
3
Anonymous Coward

Re: @Sestun

I think you'll find that most of the 'baby boomer' generation has already retired, and unless they did so in the last couple of years they'll have got a very nice pension thank you very much.

As to those responsible for the current mega-theft, you should look more at social groups than age groups; there are plenty of 40-somethings on the list, and probably quite a few in their 30s, especially in the City.

3
0
Big Brother

Re: There haven't been state pension funds for decades

> PS: You are probably right about the place I will end up, but the technical term for the retirement home you refer to is a joyfarm.

It's joycamp. (And even that is only mentioned in the appendix.)

0
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums