How the baby boomers have stuffed the younger generation

Percy1983

But there is a section of boomers who have bought up more houses than they need to live, I would say they are partly to blame.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

markharding557 wrote: »

MRSLITTLEMOUSE wrote:
I am not one of the younger generation,i'm in between.
I have a daughter who is on the threshhold of adulthood and it is for her that i worry
So many like you could not care less about the younger generation or their futures but then you are the people who elected thatcher three times when i was in my teens so it's to be expected.

I have three in betweener daughters and three grand-daughters two at uni and one just starting an apprenticeship so I'm well aware of the problems of both age groups.
All three of my daughters went to uni and ended up in debt like every other student.
They've all managed to buy homes and manage despite the usual pains life brings them.
I care very much as it happens but I've seen both sides and I know some people are never happy and will moan hardship and being hard done by regardless.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

Percy1983 wrote: »

But there is a section of boomers who have bought up more houses than they need to live, I would say they are partly to blame.

With all due respect there are a lot of young people who do this too.
My friend lives in rented accomodation her landlord has just turned 30 and has over twenty five houses he lets out.

markharding557

MRSLITTLMOUSE wrote:

All three of my daughters went to uni and ended up in debt like every other student.

Student loans probably did not exist when they went uni and certainly not in the form that is being imposed now

julieq

Student loans now are not debt in any real sense, they're a form of taxation. You don't have a liability unless you have the income to pay them.

By all means let's change the name of student loan to graduate tax. But if you do you'll find it gets open-ended just like NI did and just becomes a perpetual and unbounded tax.

Someone has to pay for higher education. It's probably fairer that those benefitting directly from the education pick up that tab than those who didn't. That also shifts the basis of education to a transactional one - if you're paying for something you'll demand it's provided to a decent standard and you won't drift onto a course because it's free and a degree of some sort seems a good idea, it'll be targetted at a specific objective.

After all, 90% of babyboomers didn't go to university themselves, so why are you expecting them to pay for you to?

WHITEVANMAN

Percy1983 wrote: »

In my case I found 2 places across 5 training providers, as it is the 2 places where with 1 provider so I only know the approx number of applications they had there, as it is we had a short interview and quite a few tests and I got the call from them before I got home as I stood out so much. By all means I wish the best of luck to the other applicants, I am sure if others really wanted to do the same they will have stuck at it and got there.

You are getting an accountant and economist mixed up, I have had no training on where tax goes and how it works, just how to calculate and pay it. By all means my point is with the early years of our education we all get one and we all pay tax later so the point in null and void in my opinion, everything past my compulsory education has been funded by me.

To a point you have just confirmed what I am saying, you need to get qualified and probably get into debt to get a starter home, the boomers just had to get any old job and it was possible. Yes I can see this is because more people get more qualifications but that doesn’t mean it isn’t hard work to get them. Where as before you could get a starter home as you started and get bigger as your career progressed, now your career has to progress just to get the starter home.

Maybe the bigger problem is I would never regard rented accommodation as my home as I would never feel secure, knowing the LL could kick me out quite quickly just because they feel like it isn’t something I would ever want to face, I wouldn’t be as against renting if I would have more rights if I did.

It maybe wise to admit my complaint isn’t that I can’t afford a home as I clearly can, my complaint is the opinion that all us youngsters have it easy.

I dont think my point is that all youngsters have it easy, maybe more that some would think they have it any harder.
Different I would agree, but then the society in which you live is also differnt from those older generations.
The need for manufacturing and manual workers is different today, but also consider that in years gone bye some apprenticeships were also of 5 years on next to no wage for some trades.

Hardworking boomers could get a job, jobs that were the necessity of the period and get a basic house if they tried, however home ownership was much much lower as a percentage of the working population in the past, so your ideas are somewhat skewed.

Hardworking unskilled working couples can also get themselves a basic starter home today if they try, much like those of years gone bye, those homes would be either very basic in need of much work or in more affordable areas often less desirable, in years past many would often choose to rent instead.
Owning your own home as the norm is a modern phenomena in 1970s the percentage was under 50%.
The increase is mainly due to the promotion of the idea and the selling of Government stock on the cheap and the consequences that caused.

Although you may not have been formally trained on the use of taxes, i would suggest it was wise that you make a choice to become more knowledgable, it will allow you to make better choices when it comes to voting for those who will shape the future.

Percy1983

I do wonder if the higher student fees may rebalance some of the problem, as mention it seems everybody has a degree where now where there is real implications of cost people will get more focus and many won't bother unless they have a focus.

By all means there is BTL landlords who are younger, but as most boomers could just cash the equity on there over priced house to do it (no hard work involved), yet for me to own more than one house it woukld involve a lot more work or a windfall/inheritance.

julieq

markharding557 wrote: »

So many like you could not care less about the younger generation or their futures but then you are the people who elected thatcher three times when i was in my teens so it's to be expected.

If you want to go back to how things were before Mrs Thatcher, you're very welcome indeed. But it wasn't a barrel of laughs.

Who was it who introduced tuition fees incidentally? Thatcher or Blair?

But this is the rhetoric of the left which is to inflame existing divisions based on prejudices rather than uphold any regard for truth. The Labour government took about 10 years to stop blaming the legacy they had been left: I was watching Question Time last night and being subjected to the baroque monstrosity of Alistair Campbell pressing Simon Hughes to commit to reopening a Children's ward in Burnley. When the decision to close the ward was made by the Labour government.

WHITEVANMAN

markharding557 wrote: »

MRSLITTLEMOUSE wrote:
I am not one of the younger generation,i'm in between.
I have a daughter who is on the threshhold of adulthood and it is for her that i worry
So many like you could not care less about the younger generation or their futures but then you are the people who elected thatcher three times when i was in my teens so it's to be expected.

So I guess you would fit the generation that Voted in 'New Labour' 3 times over and look where that has got us

mystic_trev

julieq wrote: »

If you want to go back to how things were before Mrs Thatcher, you're very welcome indeed. But it wasn't a barrel of laughs.

Who was it who introduced tuition fees incidentally? Thatcher or Blair?

Agreed. Why let facts get in the way of a good argument!