£1.2tn given to old from young

pipkin71

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

Well done to your dad,he's done what the majority of us in our 50/60s had drummed into us,worked hard and got on and made something of his life.
I'm in my mid 50s and feel no guilt about whatever wealth I've accumulated,just like my kids in their mid 30s are working hard to accumulate some for themselves.
I can assure you no one ever gave our generation a helping hand,we had no luxuries like tax credits ect. and any children we had had to be paid for by ourselves whilst trying to be frugal and fund a retirement.
As for we can't take it with us,we know that and spend it quite freely along with our children when they need a helping hand.
We've did the scrimping and saving now we're going to enjoy it.
It's always been the case the older generation has had more wealth,it's just a case that nowadays the young think they should be equal before they've had a chance to work for it.
How on earth can you say the old is taking from the young if they did'nt have it in the first place.
A bit like sour grapes if you ask me.

A good post MrsT

ukcarper

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Because thats what I stated as what my boomer grandparents bought their first 3 bed semi for in the late 1950s.

They are good boomers 23 late 50s lets say 1959 so born in 1936 I thought the war started in 1939 and ended in 1945.

FATBALLZ

pipkin71 wrote: »

A good post MrsT

Actually I find it to be utter head in the sand misinformed drivel. But depends if thats what you define to be 'good'.

mbga9pgf

So, whats the difference? 9 Years for gods sake. Things hadnt changed that much post-war for gods sake!

StevieJ

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Actually I find it to be utter head in the sand misinformed drivel. But depends if thats what you define to be 'good'.

Likewise

ukcarper

mbga9pgf wrote: »

So, whats the difference? 9 Years for gods sake. Things hadnt changed that much post-war for gods sake!

There was a big difference house prices doubled in the early 70s when most boomers bought

baileysbattlebus

mbga9pgf wrote: »

So, whats the difference? 9 Years for gods sake. Things hadnt changed that much post-war for gods sake!

You could also argue that things haven't changed in the last 9 years...

I am a boomer born in the mid 1950s - we paid £23.5k for a small 3 bed terrace with a tiny garden and 12% interest rates - I would have loved a 3 bed semi with a 1/4 acre plot and 6% interest rates - but I was born about 20 years after your grandparents - so it was not to be. They are a similar age to my mother - an earlier generation.

Really2

ukcarper wrote: »

There was a big difference house prices doubled in the early 70s when most boomers bought

And there was a massive building program from 60/70s to get the boomers going (breeding).

I would argue there was a big difference being born pre and post war.

I said earlier I purchased 9 years ago, no one said what was the difference then.

pipkin71

Really2 wrote: »

so the house built for boomers (1960s/70s semis) are good quality! (personally I think most class Victorian as good quality but hardly boomer).

My parents Victorian was a fine example of good quality building. An expense to heat though, with their high ceilings.

Once we left home it became too big for them, even though it was three bedrooms. They moved to another three bedroomed house, which is a lot smaller, and although a good quality build, not a patch on their old house

pipkin71

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Actually I find it to be utter head in the sand misinformed drivel. But depends if thats what you define to be 'good'.

We're all different, but that's what makes debate interesting.

Would be a pretty boring place if everyone agreed