Resentment of this generation

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I don’t know why you find it odd that people coming to the end of their working life have more wealth than people do at the beginning. What is the point of resting entire generations because a small percentage of them have more than one house?

I don't know why you keep having to put words in my mouth.

I never said I found it odd. I simply used facts to support my point.

Were not just talking about those coming to their working life having more wealth than they did at the begining. This small age range hold 50% of the wealth. I cannot say context enough. It seems everything said is just ignored and a tiny part of the post homed in on.

More wealth than their mum and dad retired with. More wealth than their children are likely to retire with. 50% of the wealth of the country. Thats a very large holding for one small age band.

I'm not moaning here, I'm trying to discuss, and answer the "why blame us" stuff. No ones blaming any particular person. But it cannot be denied that thats a lot of wealth for such a narrow age band to hold. Something went very well for that age band. We know what that something was, and we know they have maximized their opportunities over the last 15 years to the point where it's crippled not only younger generations, but also some of their own generation! Let alone banks etc. Hence, while holding so much wealth, they also take 52% of the SMI pot to keep them in their homes as many have over indulged.

I try not to say babyboomers too much as its too much of a generalisation. But a hell of a lot of housing "wealth" is held by the 40-65 age group. They have been able to use asset price increases to excel borrowing and excel their opportunities. Something that was partly luck, but partly engineered, through deregulation and favoured lending.

I'm sure it's very annoying to have people suggesting, or taking it that people are suggesting you may be greedy. But it's no different to those people going on about Ipods and holidays all the time, as if were all living the high life and if we did without an ipod we'd have all the same opportunities.

If we can't get past "why blame me" and "you should save, get rid of the ipod" stuff, we can't really have any meaningful discussion.

Dave101t

so the OP wants what, exactly?
A new world war to 'reset the values'?

the last few generations may of has it better some ways but not others.

thorsoak

What has happened, has happened. Fact. What do you suggest to resolve the situation? resolution?

grizzly1911

thorsoak wrote: »

What has happened, has happened. Fact. What do you suggest to resolve the situation? resolution?

Maybe revolution:eek:

Graham_Devon

thorsoak wrote: »

What has happened, has happened. Fact. What do you suggest to resolve the situation? resolution?

We could learn from it.

Start incentivising homes, rather than continuing to favour BTL.

We could regulate BTL better, much better. We have some of the worst regulation in the world, leading to people just keeping their first homes and renting them out, then stumbling onto forums such as the house buying forum saying "I;ve got tenants, what do I do now....oh, do I need to tell my lender"....no idea what they are doing. This is increasing, regulars have stated so, and are now just linking to previous threads for the info. The lacking regulation is beyond stupidity and weighted very much towards the property owner.

The problem is, we haven't up until now, learnt from it. We are trying desperately to continue it.

The only solution at the moment to the countries housing problems appears to be calls for more lending. Thats what got us into this mess.

The (should say some) people who own multiple properties warn those without that if they increase lending, they will use it to buy up more FTB homes as prices will rise on the back of higher lending.

If they descrease lending, they will make it harder for FTB's and favour BTL's.

They say if lending stays the same, and people wish for property prices to fall, lending will stay restricted and BTL favoured (currently happening, banks admit it).

So in all ways, they win. Banks know it, they know it. Government knows it. Government won't do a thing to disincentivise it. Wonder why! They also, by large, are in the game. The amount of flipping homes and second homes paid for by us shows that.

ash28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

No one is asking YOU or any individual poster on here, or any individual baby boomer, or whatever you want to call them to do anything on a personal level.

What's happened, however, is, statistically, over 50's hold most of the countries wealth, and are using it to suck out more wealth. This cannot be denied. BTL is just one example. Who hold most BTL's? It's certainly not those who have saved up, it's those who have used their homes as collaterel to enable them to borrow the sums needed to invest in BTL.

I know, I know, someone is going to tell me in a minute that they personally did not do that. But figures suggest (and it's one reason why the housing market is to big and too indebetd to fail and banks simply cannot face another crash in property prices) that many many people used the excess in their homes to jump in ahead of others and buy up swathes of investment homes, and rent them out to the younger generation, under the guise that they are offering a service.

Who holds most second homes? It's not the OAP. It's not the younger families. Again, it's the babyboomers.

Again, no one is asking YOU, or anyone on a very personal level to do anything about anything. All this "i haven't got another house", "I know someone who did or didnt do something" is just pumping smoke into the discussion. It's very difficult to talk about an entire generation when it's broken down to singular people.

Over an entire generation, the babyboomers have the most wealth (statistics show this, think I already linked to that). They have the most second homes. They have the most BTL investments, and continue to surge ahead and buy even more up, with the advice not to sell your home, just rent it and buy another...cus you can, you have all the equity and are worth it. They MEW'd the most, and again, on average, they are taking the most from the taxpayer pot though SMI interest payments, which is bizzare in itself, but suggests some have overextended themselves.

This is aimed at no one on a singular level. But it cannot be denied on a generational level.

Statistically the over 50s have always held the majority of the nation's wealth - why should this be a suprise to anyone? People in their 40s and 50s have had longer to accumulate, work, save or pay off a mortgage than someone in their 20s or 30s.

For instance, when OH was in his 20s and 30s he was climbing the greasy pole - that pole was climed by the time he was in his late 40s/early 50s - his final year's salary when he retired at 55 (last October) was a tad over £75k a year - almost double what our son of 31 earns - why should anyone be surprised? Our house is a lot bigger and worth a lot more money than our son's - why would anyone be surprised? By the time our son is 55 I would expect his salary to be far in excess of his daughters - unless they become high flyers.

So baby boomers ought logically to have more money than their children - I would imagine that is the same in most economies - wealth will be skewed towards middle age and older.

On the subject of statistics HMRC produce stats on personal wealth albeit not complete, which show that 28% of wealth is owned by 18 to 44 years and 44% of wealth is owned by 45 to 64 year olds and 28% owned by the over 65s - so the baby boomers own 44% of wealth and those older and younger own the remaining 56%.

So the other problem regarding wealth is that most baby boomers are still active and working and earning. If OH gets too bored he might go back to work

The children of the baby boomers assuming the money isn't taken up by care home fees - will receive the biggest inheritances of any generation, to date that is. Yours might have more to leave your children.

There were times during our 20s and 30s when we wished we had as much money as my parents - and they didn't have much - but they had more than us - we were in our 40s before we started to feel halfway comfortable - having 3 children and a big mortgage doesn't make for easy living - at least not for us.

OH has an expensive hobby - when we were in our 20s and 30s he used to moan like mad because anything he bought had to be bought in dribs and drabs - where his friends were able to go out and buy more or less what they wanted - it used to really p1ss him off. It made no difference to him when I explained that his friends were all older than him - kids grown up - small, if any mortgage - I used to say to him - in 10 or 15 years time you will be in the same position they are now - and guess what - he was.

It's no use fretting about an older generation having more than you - it was always thus.

As a baby boomer I don't feel the need to apologise for being born when I was, for buying a house, for working damned hard (so I didn't end up like my parents), for helping our children and giving them the best we could possibly give them - and in view of the some of the posts on here I wonder why I bothered. I must ask them if they feel the same way. Perhaps they are just too polite to mention it - or, and I rather hope that the reason they have never mentioned it, is because they are too busy working and getting on with living to be bothered.

Graham_Devon

From the Oxford Student. Got it through the first page of google news.

So this is a perspective coming from an Oxford Student Writer.

Our predilection for buying rather than renting is not just the result of snobbery and a conservative attitude regarding what constitutes the proper environment in which to raise a family though. There are good practical and financial reasons for preferring paying for a mortgage over paying rent. Home ownership is ultimately good for both the individual and the state, because in the long term it saves both money. At the moment the majority of pensioners in this country own the home they live in. If this ever stopped being the case, the existing pension system would become grossly inadequate and the shortfall would have to be made up either by families or from the public purse. Either way, the financial burden would be crippling.


So what is the solution? Getting the banks to free up credit doesn’t seem like a great idea, given that doing so has been the cause of four housing bubbles in the last 40 years, each of which has in time burst and wreaked havoc across the whole economy. What about building more houses to drive down property prices? This might work, though there would obviously be an environmental cost involved, and there would be controversy about how much of the building should be done by the public sector and how much by the private.


According to The Daily Telegraph’s Daniel Knowles, all government has to do is get rid of restrictive planning regulation, and new houses would “spring up like wild flowers.” But our elected representatives will not countenance such a move whilst they continue to pander to the baby boomers who have a vested interest in keeping property prices high.


So it’s time for us to make our voices heard. I for one do not want to be a member of “Generation Rent.” This is the issue that our generation should be taking to the streets about, because frankly, tuition fees are small change in comparison to the way we are all going to be screwed over by the property market in the next few years unless something is done now.

The same keeps being said by my generation, and the same keeps being said by the older generation. Meanwhile, we just continue to argue against one another!

There are, I feel, some good points made above. Pensions, increasing lending, we can see the outcome before it starts. The only thing that would make a difference without leading to future busts or pension problems is bolstering up regulation surrounding BTL, maybe rent controls even, many countries on par with us operate this succesfully....and building.....but building isn't the solution. The first step is planning permission.

First we need to get past everyone taking offence whenever this is bought up.

Graham_Devon

ash28 wrote: »

On the subject of statistics HMRC produce stats on personal wealth albeit not complete, which show that 28% of wealth is owned by 18 to 44 years and 44% of wealth is owned by 45 to 64 year olds and 28% owned by the over 65s - so the baby boomers own 44% of wealth and those older and younger own the remaining 56%.

Exactly. Narrower age band, 44% of the wealth.

Larger age band in the younger generation, less wealth.

Even larger age band in the over 65's means they end up the worse off.

Again. No one, least me, is blaming any individual person. So I'm not asking you to personally apologise. I do keep saying this, yet just get how hard it was back in response.

I'd expect the younger to have less wealth. Will always be that way. But the narrow age band having so much more wealth than the generation before isn't in my view, normal. You'd expect the older generation to have more wealth. Afterall, they have had assets longer, in general, and those assets have had longer to appriciate.

It's no use fretting about an older generation having more than you - it was always thus.

But it's not now. Figures show that!

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I don't know why you keep having to put words in my mouth.

I never said I found it odd. I simply used facts to support my point.

Were not just talking about those coming to their working life having more wealth than they did at the begining. This small age range hold 50% of the wealth. I cannot say context enough. It seems everything said is just ignored and a tiny part of the post homed in on.

More wealth than their mum and dad retired with. More wealth than their children are likely to retire with. 50% of the wealth of the country. Thats a very large holding for one small age band.

I'm not moaning here, I'm trying to discuss, and answer the "why blame us" stuff. No ones blaming any particular person. But it cannot be denied that thats a lot of wealth for such a narrow age band to hold. Something went very well for that age band. We know what that something was, and we know they have maximized their opportunities over the last 15 years to the point where it's crippled not only younger generations, but also some of their own generation! Let alone banks etc. Hence, while holding so much wealth, they also take 52% of the SMI pot to keep them in their homes as many have over indulged.

I try not to say babyboomers too much as its too much of a generalisation. But a hell of a lot of housing "wealth" is held by the 40-65 age group. They have been able to use asset price increases to excel borrowing and excel their opportunities. Something that was partly luck, but partly engineered, through deregulation and favoured lending.

I'm sure it's very annoying to have people suggesting, or taking it that people are suggesting you may be greedy. But it's no different to those people going on about Ipods and holidays all the time, as if were all living the high life and if we did without an ipod we'd have all the same opportunities.

If we can't get past "why blame me" and "you should save, get rid of the ipod" stuff, we can't really have any meaningful discussion.

Did you read the title of this thread.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Did you read the title of this thread.

You were replying to me and my post. You specifically said "you". You were not replying to the OP.