Tween taking money from wallet. Credit:Virginia Star But eventually the books should balance, and when they do, they will do so on the shoulders of future generations who will pay higher taxes than otherwise. We hear a lot of whinging from young people about a "war on youth" and their contempt for the easy ride the baby boomer generation seem to have enjoyed through life with free education, affordable housing, generous family benefits and super tax breaks. Meanwhile, university fees climb, house prices soar and the Newstart allowance goes nowhere. Of course, it is a feature of youth to feel hard done by by your parents. So are young people today really getting ripped off? Is it getting worse? And is it any worse than what happened to our parents when they were young?

"The answer is yes, yes and yes," says John Daley, the head of the Grattan Institute. "It's been a long time since policy has favoured the young, rather than the old. By contrast, we can point to dozens of decisions which have favoured older voters: a series of changes to the age pension over and above average weekly earnings; superannuation in general, which has just been the most massive gift to older generations imaginable, primarily the wealthy ones; the capital gains tax discount, which only works for people who own assets, so it's been terrific for them." Daley adds the little commented upon fact that Australians aged over 65 also enjoy a higher tax-free threshold than younger Australians, thanks to the Senior Australians Tax Offset, for no apparent policy reason - just simple age discrimination. "Old people just don't have to pay as much tax as young people," says Daley. "All these things are manifestly unsustainable." He has done the numbers, and found households aged under 65 contribute an average of about $4000 to $5000 each year to government coffers – ie, what they chip in as tax, minus the benefits they take out. Households aged over 65, by contrast, are a net drain on the system to the tune of about $22,000 at the start of the mining boom, rising to a whopping $32,000 six years later in 2010.

That's an enormous and growing drain on the budget if those households continue to draw down at that rate every year until they die. But isn't it true that young people will inevitably grow old themselves, and take their rightful place on the taxpayer gravy train? "If young people think that, then they should adjust their expectations," warns Daley. It is becoming clear that the budget largesse shown towards older Australians over the past decade represents a one-off boost to the hip pockets of one generation of Australians that can neither be sustained, nor repeated again. Essentially, the Howard government took the proceeds of the biggest mining boom in our history and funnelled it almost exclusively into the pockets of older Australians. A boom predicated entirely on extracting value from the resources owned by all Australians, past and future, was spent entirely on the present generation of adults.

Whichever party wins government this weekend will face deficits totalling $85 billion across the budget's four-year horizon. Gross government debt will top $600 billion in 2020. Of course, going into debt is fine, as long as you use the money to invest in assets which grow in value over time. Human minds are a good example, because good investments in education increase our ability to be productive. Investing in the health of a population also expands its productive capacity. As do investments in urban infrastructure like roads, trains and public spaces, which make our cities more efficient and liveable. Right, so, is that what we're doing with our debt? A bit. But mostly no. The budget is in deficit because we're committed to spending billions of dollars each year on the age pension, family benefits for the well to do, tax concessions on super and housing, and assistance to industries which will be dead by the time young people come to get a job. Our budget is in the red to fund the spending of today, not to invest in the future.

"Budget deficits are in effect a tax on younger households", reminds Daley, who estimates every $40 billion deficit – about the norm for the past seven years – forces households aged 25 to 34 to pay an extra $10,000 in tax over their working lives. It is increasingly evident that the budget largesse heaped upon older Australians over the past decade has stretched the intergenerational compact to breaking point. No young person can realistically expect to enjoy the same spoils being enjoyed today by the baby boomer generation. Some will, of course, inherit their wealth. Many others will not be so lucky, deepening inequality in our society. And every young person will end up paying higher taxes because of the political parties' decision at this election to abandon the task of budget repair.