Resentment of this generation

A._Badger

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What's happened, however, is, statistically, over 50's hold most of the countries wealth, and are using it to suck out more wealth.

What on earth makes you think this is any different to the way it has always been? What surprises you about people having accumulated wealth during their lifetimes?

When in history, save for those members of the upper classes who inherited their wealth, do you think young people have ever started out wealthy?

If you couldn't become wealthier through time, diligence and hard work, who would have any ambition at all?

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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

I thought this thread was about the resentment some people felt to older generations so I feel I’m entitle to talk about that. I thought these threads were a discussion between many people you seem to take most of them personally.

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We could learn from it.

Start incentivising homes Banks will always be wary in falling markets, especially when borrowers are asking for daft LTvs and their ability to service is questionable, rather than continuing to favour BTL the only reason BLT is favoured is because it stacks up and they can see away of making a buck, getting the loan serviced/repaid at the same time.

We could regulate BTL better, Agree . We have some of the worst regulation in the world Not so sure that is true, 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. I don't think this forum is representative in size or mix to make that judgement The lacking regulation is beyond stupidity and weighted very much towards the property owner. The trouble is if people "stumble into it" as you suggest earlier regulation isn't really going to help that

The problem is, we haven't up until now, learnt from it. We are trying desperately to continue it. What evidence is do you have is continuing possibly desperately not so sure

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. Lending against property isn't wrong. Overlending against property without a clearly defined and proven repayment programme is

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. They might try but this is commercial speculation. Lending should be more tightly regulated for this sector and priced accordingly (higher). Prudent lenders don't just lend unless they have a clear repayment plan.

If they descrease lending, they will make it harder for FTB's and favour BTL's. Not if BTLs are regulated as commercial, all institutions will be guided by BOE on exposure levels to sectors across property.

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). The only reason Banks will favour BLT(apart from the margin) is if the loan stacks up. You will find that if a person has a successful property portfolio, with good occupancy rates then yes they will be viewed favorably but they will not want to overexpose themselves to this sector. A FTB over committing themselves in a downward/stagnating market isn't the best prospect in fairness.

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.

BOE regulation powers will hopefully further enhance their regulatory powers and they do provide direction on exposure levels. Not really sure it is a Government role to regulate a free market. They can make sure you don't get ripped off as a tenant maybe.

Can't believe they would flip homes surely

I certainly think the taxation regime could be revised to make it less attractive, higher tax on income and certainly on capital gains and rolling over those gains. The "local resident" only restrictions could also be expanded certainly for new build.

CGT has been increased to the highest income tax level payable.

The trouble is the Government isn't any good at/wouldn't ring fence this to go back into housing stock.

I believe there are plans to ensure that council tax is charged on more fully on second homes which may make them less attractive.

I don't dispute that London and some honey pots make it seem like BLT and second home utopia but I don't believe it is quite as easy as you portray across the board.

I do help a couple of people in their endeavours and so not totally naive. I have thought about it but in our part of the country, with property the way it is I am not convinced the return and risk are worth it.

dandy-candy

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I do hope you're not expecting sympathy for your family's windfalls.

Certainly not. I hate money and all it's trappings. My DH has supported me in being a housewife our whole time together so i'm giving it to him as my contribution for the rest of our life together. Now the kids are all at senior school and I no longer have mum to look after I want to go into voluntary work. I'm content to do it now with out feeling guilty about not bring home any money for the pot.

ash28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.



But it's not now. Figures show that!

Historically the middle aged to retirement have held the most wealth - if you are looking at figures I think people born between 1946 and 1964 make up about 30% to 34% of the population and they own 44% of the wealth - what is so surprising? Do you think wealth should evenly distributed across the generations? Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.

When an age group starts to retire their wealth usually decreases - they often down size, take pensions and lose wages, realise other investments over time, which is probably why someone of 75 has less wealth than someone of say 55 - but that 55 year old will retire in time and do exactly the same things as the person 75 and have less wealth than someone who is 55 at the time they are 75.

I didn't say it was harder - I said my parents in middle age had far more than we did when we were in our 30s - which is true - they did have far more than we did - but they were in their 30s once and their parents would have been middle aged and would have had far more than they did. We are middle aged and have far more than our children do - however when I'm 75 and my son is 50 I would expect him to have far more than we will have.

Is that such a strange concept? That young people haven't worked long enough (in general) to be able to have same assets as someone who has worked 40+ years? And that someone who has worked for 40+ years will have more in the way of assets than someone who has been retired for 10 or 20 years.

To me it's logical.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

ash28 wrote: »

Historically the middle aged to retirement have held the most wealth - if you are looking at figures I think people born between 1946 and 1964 make up about 30% to 34% of the population and they own 44% of the wealth - what is so surprising? Do you think wealth should evenly distributed across the generations? Unfortunately it doesn't work like that.

When an age group starts to retire their wealth usually decreases - they often down size, take pensions and lose wages, realise other investments over time, which is probably why someone of 75 has less wealth than someone of say 55 - but that 55 year old will retire in time and do exactly the same things as the person 75 and have less wealth than someone who is 55 at the time they are 75.

I didn't say it was harder - I said my parents in middle age had far more than we did when we were in our 30s - which is true - they did have far more than we did - but they were in their 30s once and their parents would have been middle aged and would have had far more than they did. We are middle aged and have far more than our children do - however when I'm 75 and my son is 50 I would expect him to have far more than we will have.

Is that such a strange concept? That young people haven't worked long enough (in general) to be able to have same assets as someone who has worked 40+ years? And that someone who has worked for 40+ years will have more in the way of assets than someone who has been retired for 10 or 20 years.

To me it's logical.

It's logical to me too and anyone else with a bit of common sense.
My own circumstances are I have a very affluent mother in her late 80s who is far richer than me,just as I am far better off than my 40 year old daugter (we're in our late 50s) and our poor 20 year old grand-daughter is at the bottom of ladder just starting out hoping to get her first house.
It's not rocket science just common sense.
We all remember feeling a bit peeved about this particular subject when we're just starting out.
That's nothing new either.
If we had everything handed to us on a plate what would we aspire to.

Graham_Devon

Ok, taken all comments on board.

I'm wrong. It's natural for a generation to hold such mass wealth over all other generations. It's obviously got peoples backs up discussing it. Just mentioning the term which has been applied to this generation "babyboomers" get's peoples backs up enough as it is.

It's getting a little unnecessary to start suggesting others who don't agree lack common sense. Theres a reason this generation has been termed with a unique name. Theres a reason for the obvious resentment, on and off this forum.

But like I say, have taken all comments on board, and it's obviously a tender subject, and it looks like I am wrong, and it's completely normal to hold such wealth.

MRSTITTLEMOUSE

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, taken all comments on board.

I'm wrong. It's natural for a generation to hold such mass wealth over all other generations. It's obviously got peoples backs up discussing it. Just mentioning the term which has been applied to this generation "babyboomers" get's peoples backs up enough as it is.

It's getting a little unnecessary to start suggesting others who don't agree lack common sense. Theres a reason this generation has been termed with a unique name. Theres a reason for the obvious resentment, on and off this forum.

But like I say, have taken all comments on board, and it's obviously a tender subject, and it looks like I am wrong, and it's completely normal to hold such wealth.

Well it must be since thats been the way it always has been.
I certainly don't remember it being any different and I can remember going back as far as my great-grandparents who seemed to be rolling in it compared to my mother (their grandchild) and even my grandma who was their child.
As for lacking common sense,I would'nt say that.
It all boils down to experience.
Us oldies have lots more of that too .

quantic

MRSTITTLEMOUSE wrote: »

It's logical to me too and anyone else with a bit of common sense.
My own circumstances are I have a very affluent mother in her late 80s who is far richer than me,just as I am far better off than my 40 year old daugter (we're in our late 50s) and our poor 20 year old grand-daughter is at the bottom of ladder just starting out hoping to get her first house.
It's not rocket science just common sense.
We all remember feeling a bit peeved about this particular subject when we're just starting out.
That's nothing new either.
If we had everything handed to us on a plate what would we aspire to.

That was kind of the origin of my post... that I believe some people had been handed it on a plate . While thinking that they where actually the reason for it happening. E.g. all of these people buying a house, putting in new carpets and then selling a year later for 30% more, and genuinely believing that they did it. With their property developing skills.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Ok, taken all comments on board.

I'm wrong. It's natural for a generation to hold such mass wealth over all other generations. It's obviously got peoples backs up discussing it. Just mentioning the term which has been applied to this generation "babyboomers" get's peoples backs up enough as it is.

It's getting a little unnecessary to start suggesting others who don't agree lack common sense. Theres a reason this generation has been termed with a unique name. Theres a reason for the obvious resentment, on and off this forum.

But like I say, have taken all comments on board, and it's obviously a tender subject, and it looks like I am wrong, and it's completely normal to hold such wealth.

The reason they are called Babyboomers is because of the boom the birth rate after the Second World War.

I have no resentment toward the younger generation in fact I sympathies with the problems they face not only housing. The country is now being run by people who are not Babyboomers so lets see what they do to address the problems.