'Baby-boomers own half of Britain's wealth' telegraph article today.

Kohoutek

baby_boomer wrote: »

Until the baby_boomers, old people tended to live in poverty - and had to be subsidised by their families and the state.

Don't forget that capitalism and inventions will grow the world economic pie - so the younger generations will catch up.

It's just unusual that younger generations are starting with a handicap.

But you could actually argue that this makes things more equal in the long term between the generations - not the other way round.

What prospects have we got for significant economic growth in this country? There's no certainty at all that the younger generation will catch up, because less wealth will be created by our debt laden economy in future years than between 1945 and now. Take a step back and consider how much industrial, not financial, capitalism and invention actually occurs in Britain anymore. Britain was overtaken in terms of industrial capacity and innovation by Germany as early as the 1880s, then the USA, then Japan, now China. Currently our economy is mainly based on consumer spending, and with household debt at record levels, a sustainable recovery is still hanging the balance. Returning to levels of economic growth that occurred for the majority of baby boomers' lives is a distant fantasy.

Retired people exert a much larger burden on the state's finances than ever before because people are living much longer, and have access to more expensive medical treatments and generous benefits than previous decades. This means the burden on the working population through taxation will have to be increased to fund the growing proportion of the population who is retired.

It's absurd to suggest that people who are young today will be better off in the long term - it's obvious that without radical change in how society funds looking after the elderly, an ageing population means the opposite is true.

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

What prospects have we got for significant economic growth in this country? There's no certainty at all that the younger generation will catch up, because less wealth will be created by our debt laden economy in future years than between 1945 and now.

Retired people exert a much larger burden on the state's finances than ever before because people are living much longer, and have access to more expensive medical treatments and generous benefits than previous decades. This means the burden on the working population through taxation will have to be increased to fund the growing proportion of the population who is retired.

It's absurd to suggest that people who are young today will be better off in the long term - it's obvious that without radical change in how society funds looking after the elderly, an ageing population means the opposite is true.

The debt burden was much higher in 1945 than it is today..

Retirement age is being raised and people will work longer

The young of today will also enjoy a longer and healthier life in their turn

What are you suggesting about funding the ageing population.... just make them poorer?

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

The debt burden was much higher in 1945 than it is today..

Retirement age is being raised and people will work longer

The young of today will also enjoy a longer and healthier life in their turn

What are you suggesting about funding the ageing population.... just make them poorer?

The levels of government debt were higher, but the levels of household debt and debt by financial institutions were vastly less. Currently our economy is based mainly on financial services and consumer spending. Also, government debt in 1945 was used to fight fascism, not let bankers keep their Lamborghinis and prop up failing institutions.

People can only work longer to the extent they are physically able to and can find employers that are willing to provide them will work. In some jobs, e.g. police, army, labourer you cannot simply expect people to work into their late sixties.

Making the ageing population poorer is one solution...the other one is making the working population poorer. As a young person, I know which one I'd prefer.

Bootski

Edale wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7085489/Baby-boomers-own-half-of-Britains-wealth.html

'According to Pinch, by David Willetts, a Conservative frontbencher, the generation born between 1945 and 1965 have been left with a disproportionate share of the country’s wealth.'

and later in the article:

'But Mr Willetts argues that the baby boomers have amassed an unfairly large share of the national wealth, and that many rules and policies are currently tilted against their children taking a larger share of that wealth.'

Quite an interesting article, I think the true impact has yet to be felt. My parents cleared their mortgage by my age and we are just about to take on a new big mortgage. Sign of the times I think.

The baby boomers worked hard for it and were right there at the beginning of capitolism, so what:o

Bootski

Bootski wrote: »

The baby boomers worked hard for it and were right there at the beginning of capitolism, so what:o

AND they enjoyed all the free love, sex and rock n' roll to beat:T

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

The levels of government debt were higher, but the levels of household debt and debt by financial institutions were vastly less. Currently our economy is based mainly on financial services and consumer spending. Also, government debt in 1945 was used to fight fascism, not let bankers keep their Lamborghinis and prop up failing institutions.

People can only work longer to the extent they are physically able to and can find employers that are willing to provide them will work. In some jobs, e.g. police, army, labourer you cannot simply expect people to work into their late sixties.

Making the ageing population poorer is one solution...the other one is making the working population poorer. As a young person, I know which one I'd prefer.

you have a very pessimistic outlook.

obviously one can't be sure but I think that we will grow richer, we will become healthier and you in your turn will have a happy and reasonably prosperous old age

Bootski

Originally Posted by Kohoutek

Making the ageing population poorer is one solution...the other one is making the working population poorer. As a young person, I know which one I'd prefer.

A tad selfish, perhaps! You'd not exist if it were not for ageing population! they worked hard and over and above that gave you life!!!:o

But i quess if there was one cake for all to share, you'd get it and eat it:cool:

Kohoutek

CLAPTON wrote: »

you have a very pessimistic outlook.

obviously one can't be sure but I think that we will grow richer, we will become healthier and you in your turn will have a happy and reasonably prosperous old age

I'm not a naturally pessimistic person, but I'm just looking at the facts.

A few decades ago, life expectancy was much lower – when my parents were young, 'the over sixties' were considered the elderly. Now it's more like 'the over eighties' and it'll probably become 'the over nineties' eventually. If we don't propose to reduce the level of care spend on this growing sector of the population, more and more taxation will have to be taken from the younger sections of the population. In the context of poor economic conditions, huge government and private debt – 449% of GDP (google "mckinsey uk debt" for a report) and a decline in the value of the pound which makes imports more expense for consumers, the inevitable result of higher taxation is falling living standards for young people.

Bootski

If people are living longer and costing us more, so be it. You can't just send them all off to the farm for the better of the next generation. They tend not to have that much meat on them at that age anyway - look after your family and sacrifice - it's an old virtue to look after your own but despicable to be rid of them.

CLAPTON

Kohoutek wrote: »

I'm not a naturally pessimistic person, but I'm just looking at the facts.

A few decades ago, life expectancy was much lower – when my parents were young, 'the over sixties' were considered the elderly. Now it's more like 'the over eighties' and it'll probably become 'the over nineties' eventually. If we don't propose to reduce the level of care spend on this growing sector of the population, more and more taxation will have to be taken from the younger sections of the population. In the context of poor economic conditions, huge government and private debt – 449% of GDP (google "mckinsey uk debt" for a report) and a decline in the value of the pound which makes imports more expense for consumers, the inevitable result of higher taxation is falling living standards for young people.

people can work longer and contibute to the economy as they are in better health

in my view the economy will continue to expand... new ideas and innovation will not stop

the pound has fluctuated wildly over recent years and I'm sure it will continue to do so.
currently a low pound is good for exports and discourages imports which is something I would have thought most people would see as good for jobs and the economy

in the short term taxation will almost certainly rise (which will afffect all those baby boomer rich too) but over the long term rising prosperity will provide enough for all of us.