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

bo_drinker

Britain needs a wealth tax


By Paul Routledge 29/01/2010

The gap between rich and poor is greater than at any time since the Second World War, and the reason is not hard to find.

People at the top decide how much to pay themselves, helped by fig-leaf "remuneration committees".

They filled their boots - and several spare pairs - in the good times.

People at the bottom have to take what they're given, which means as little as the employer can get away with.

Advertisement - article continues below »


Despite 13 years of Labour seeking to close the gap, through National Minimum Wage, Sure Start, pension and working families' tax credits, fuel allowances, free buses for the over 60s and TV licences for the over 75s, the better-off have got even better off because they can put their hands in the till with impunity.

As TUC general secretary Brendan Barber says, the deceitful "trickle down" theory that giving the wealthy more will improve the lot of the poor has been tested to destruction.

A Tory government would only exacerbate this trend. A wealth tax is the answer. But which politician is brave enough to demand it?

tomstickland

chaostheory wrote: »

When was it ever easy to buy a house !!!!!!? Why can't they save up for a deposit like we did? In fact it's so much easoier to get a mortgage these days that it ever was in the past, which is something else they ought to bear in mind when they start moaning.

You really shouldn't encourage them to moan, it'll make them helpless.

It was easier to buy a house when prices were lower relative to incomes.

baby_boomer

Kohoutek - with your Daily Mail investment article link, you are confusing predictions for short/medium term investment Armageddon in the UK (it's possible) with medium/long term economic Armageddon (not going to happen because we will adjust to changed circumstances).

Addiscomber

FATBALLZ wrote: »

it baffles me that Baby Boomers sit their in their £300k mortgage-free houses,where only the father works, with a couple of cars sat outside, saying my generation has it all, when despite the fact I have nearly enough savings to have bought a house outright back in their day I still have to take a more expensive mortgage (in real terms) than they would have done with no deposit -

Sorry, but not quite true. Back in the sixties and seventies you couldn't get a mortgage without a 10% deposit, saved with the building society that you wanted to borrow from, and you had to wait in a queue. There was also only one interest rate, what has now become the SVR. No interest only mortgages either.

!00%+ mortgages and all these "deals" only came in later when the banks cottoned on to how much money they could extract from the housing market.

Some one said elsewhere in this thread that they couldn't afford a three bedroomed house - sorry can't remember who. Most people of my age (late 50's) had to start in flats and trade up. We also used to beg second hand furniture and carpets to get us started. Actually we are still using the carpet that was in the hall when we moved here in 1992, and we have a threadbare second hand carpet in the dining room because we cannot afford to replace it yet.

Some baby boomers are greedy, some are not and just doing the best that they can for their families. Some younger people are greedy and have bought lots of 'stuff' on credit, others haven't and save hard for what they want more. There have always been differences of attitude between groups of people of the same age and there always will be.

If all the money in the world was taken away, and everybody was given the same amount to start off again there would be significant differences between people within a surprisingly short space of time. Some would spend all and get into debt, others would save a little, or a lot. Some, for example, would work harder than others by growing vegetables or cooking from scratch, whilst others would prefer to spend on ready prepared food. Some would go out drinking, others would not. It is all a question of personal priorities, and those change over time.

Having said that, there is no doubt that, for all sorts of reasons, UK property prices are too high to be sustainable, but the only baby boomers that can really be blamed for this is the likes of Blair, Brown and the other politicians who have had power to wield, and the upper echelons of the financial institutions of all kinds. Most baby boomers only get to put a cross on a piece of paper every 4-5 years, and a lot of didn't vote for the Government that has made a mess of things since 1997.

Addiscomber

Edale wrote: »

I have to post this, I nearly PMSL when I read it in the Rotherham Advertiser a couple of weeks back. It is connected to the thread in so much as people will moan irrespective of their situation (young or old I hasten to add).

WEATHER: OAP slams cold snap payments click for full article

Furious pensioner Brian Hirst (70) this week slammed Government policy on cold weather payments after discovering that only pensioners on Pension Credits and some people on Jobseeker’s Allowance or Income Support were entitled to the £25 boost.

"Child benefit and MPs' expenses are not means tested but they have decided to means-test the cold weather payments," he said.

"It makes me feel very angry that senior citizens who have lived here all their lives and paid taxes are being treated in such a disrespectful manner."

Mr Hirst, a retired careers adviser, added: "If it were not for my grandchildren I would not be bothered about still being around.

"I feel totally ignored. No-one wants to know about elderly people."

He is conveniently forgetting that he should have had a winter fuel payment, which all OAPs get. I think it is £250? That would take care of a sizeable chunk of our gas bill.

FATBALLZ

Addiscomber wrote: »

Sorry, but not quite true. Back in the sixties and seventies you couldn't get a mortgage without a 10% deposit, saved with the building society that you wanted to borrow from, and you had to wait in a queue. There was also only one interest rate, what has now become the SVR. No interest only mortgages either.

!00%+ mortgages and all these "deals" only came in later when the banks cottoned on to how much money they could extract from the housing market.

I'm aware 100% mortgages are a recent invention, my point was purely mathematical.

Addiscomber wrote: »

If all the money in the world was taken away, and everybody was given the same amount to start off again there would be significant differences between people within a surprisingly short space of time. Some would spend all and get into debt, others would save a little, or a lot. Some, for example, would work harder than others by growing vegetables or cooking from scratch, whilst others would prefer to spend on ready prepared food. Some would go out drinking, others would not. It is all a question of personal priorities, and those change over time.

Yes I agree, however you have described people becoming worse off due to wasting their money, however this is their own fault, whereas often what you find now are baby boomers who waste a lot of money but get bailed out by HPI, and youngsters who budget sensibly but are still screwed because housing costs are escalating out of all proportion and they were born after the HPI boat sailed.

Radiantsoul

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Yes I agree, however you have described people becoming worse off due to wasting their money, however this is their own fault, whereas often what you find now are baby boomers who waste a lot of money but get bailed out by HPI, and youngsters who budget sensibly but are still screwed because housing costs are escalating out of all proportion and they were born after the HPI boat sailed.

Just life innit.
I guess we are all pretty luck to be born in a time without major war.