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

FATBALLZ

chaostheory wrote: »

WOW - how did the most spoilt generation EVER manage to make themselves into victims!?

They have had more material things than any other generation, more educational & job oppotunities, better health care, everything and they are MOANING!

If they gorged themselves on debt, they only have themselves to blame.

I do like this.

"I am bitter and jealous that my children's generation have cheaper and more accessible technology than when I was young, therefore it is completely acceptible to deny them the fundamental things in life I do have, such as housing and pensions. I am of course also completely missing the irony that I myself had cheaper and more accessible technology than my parents did, and my childrens children will have more cheaper accessible technology than my children have."

Thrugelmir

bendix wrote: »

What an unbelievably trite article.

So people aged between 45 and 65 who are at the peak of their earning potential and who have managed to accumulate assets for 20-30 years own more than kids, students, early nesters starting out on the road to mortgage, and the elderly who are using living off savings.

What an amazing revelation

And this passes for journalism.

The writer also seems to have forgotten this is the post war generation. A few years previous a lot of people lost something far more important than wealth, and those in cities were only just seeing the rebuilding programme come to fruitition.

ukmike

They say on average as a man expect to 6-8 years after retirement.:(

Not according to this site-
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=168

Life expectancy at age 65 – the number of further years someone reaching 65 in 2006–08 could expect to live – is also higher for women than for men. Based on 2006–08 mortality rates, a man aged 65 could expect to live another 17.4 years, and a woman aged 65 another 20.0 years.

Graham_Devon

chaostheory wrote: »

WOW - how did the most spoilt generation EVER manage to make themselves into victims!?

They have had more material things than any other generation, more educational & job oppotunities, better health care, everything and they are MOANING!

If they gorged themselves on debt, they only have themselves to blame.

My son will have even better healthcare, and even better technology.

I personally think we should all therefore join together to make damn sure he never gets a roof, or if he does, he has to at least spend 40 years working hard going without a life to get it. That should teach him for being born later than us.

Harry_Powell

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

Is that because they've lived longer and had more time to do it then or is there some conspiracy that we don't know about.
Guess they'll be saying the same thing in 20 years time as well.

I've made the headline a little less ambiguous.

I used to rail on about how the boomers have had final salary pensions, cheap shares in former public owned companies, earlier retirement age (esp. women), but I also know that our generation has had its advantages too, not least a university education which my parents could only have dreamed of (regardless of free grants). I now just get on with my own life and have stopped moaning. It seems to work well, I'm certainly much happier in myself and I'm a little bit wealthier since I got off my backside and leared about SIPPS, ISAs, etc.

Mr_Matey

I would like to see how that's changed since the previous generation.
Something like how the % of Britains wealth owned by 45-65 year olds has changed over the past 20 years. Perhaps on a per-capita basis, as the demographics would skew the results.

Anyone?

marklv wrote: »

LOL! :rotfl:

No, not really any more. Oldies are no longer dying, they are just fading away in old people's homes, paid for by their savings and houses, and when they finally die at 105 there is nothing left.

This is still transferring wealth to younger generations, just not their own children, and not as quickly as before. Paid for in care, drugs, etc.

Harry_Powell

Mr_Matey wrote: »

This is still transferring wealth to younger generations, just not their own children, and not as quickly as before. Paid for in care, drugs, etc.

Excellent point MM. Many young people are employed in care homes and the healthcare profession in general.

chaostheory

bendix wrote: »

What an unbelievably trite article.

So people aged between 45 and 65 who are at the peak of their earning potential and who have managed to accumulate assets for 20-30 years own more than kids, students, early nesters starting out on the road to mortgage, and the elderly who are using living off savings.

What an amazing revelation

And this passes for journalism.

Not just a newspaper article - soon to be a book



http://www.amazon.co.uk/Pinch-Boomers-Childrens-Future-Should/dp/1848872313/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1264682267&sr=8-1

This provocative and thought-provoking book argues that the baby boomer generation have thrived at the expense of their children. The baby boom of 1945-65 produced the biggest, richest generation that Britain has ever known. Today, at the peak of their power and wealth, baby boomers now run our country; by virtue of their sheer demographic power, they have fashioned the world around them in a way that meets all of their housing, healthcare and financial needs. In this original and provocative book, David Willetts shows how the baby boomer generation has attained this position at the expense of their children. Social, cultural and economic provision has been made for the reigning section of society, whilst the needs of the next generation have taken a back seat. Willetts argues that if our political, economic and cultural leaders do not begin to discharge their obligations to the future, the young people of today will be taxed more, work longer hours for less money, have lower social mobility and live in a degraded environment in order to pay for their parents' quality of life. Baby boomers, worried about the kind of world they are passing on to their children, are beginning to take note. However, whilst the imbalance in the quality of life between the generations is becoming more obvious, what is less certain is whether the older generation will be willing to make the sacrifices necessary for a more equal distribution. "The Pinch" is a landmark account of intergenerational relations in Britain. It is essential reading for parents and policymakers alike.

I think I might emmigrate. I can't believe the younger generation has started maoning already and the recession has barely started:eek:

Really2

ukmike wrote: »

Not according to this site-
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?ID=168

According to my fathering law on should he take a lump sum on his pension.

They advise to take a lump sum as on average they can expect to live 6-8 years. Cant see why they would make it up as you live longer they lose more if you don't take a lump sum.

So according to office of stats if you hit 65 you should on average hit 82 also....

Check out how many over 60s and over 80s there are. I think the stats must be flawed (no conspiracy just looking at raw data).

Mr_Matey

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Excellent point MM. Many young people are employed in care homes and the healthcare profession in general.

Yes, Demographics and improvements in care and technology will mean this is a "booming" industry going forward.

The bad news is the cost this will have on future taxpayers.