The Most Selfish Generation in History and the Debt Trap

ILW

Why all the fuss about uni fees. Don't go if you don't want to pay. The vast majority of the "boomers" never went. If only the 10% elite went now, then it could be free.

ruggedtoast

Some choice excerpts from Paxman's opus. I would like to frame every word but here are some of the best bits:

If anyone attempted to name their children — those born between about 1945 and 1965 — the so-called Baby-Boomers, they might consider calling them The Worst Generation.

I belong to the Boomer generation — a fact I feel increasingly uncomfortable about. No wonder we thought we had it all. Compared to those who came before, we did.

It is not just that the Boomers were the first generation in recent history to grow older while never having to fight in a war. We were also the happy inhabitants of a consumer wonderland in which everyone seemed to be getting constantly richer.

The Baby-Boomers could expect to find — and afford — somewhere to live, for it was the building boom which made Harold Macmillan’s reputation.
Those of us lucky enough to go to university could take it for granted that the state would tax the Unlucky Generation that came before to pay our fees and demand nothing from us in return.

Our parents had Clement Attlee, perhaps the greatest Prime Minister of the 20th century, who died leaving an estate worth £7,000. We have Tony Blair, the multimillionaire messiah.
The overwhelming characteristic of this generation — my generation — became its self-absorption.

Opinion surveys show surprising numbers of this solipsistic generation still consider themselves — absurdly — ‘anti-establishment’ and ‘less trusting of those in authority’.
The truth is, the Lucky Generation are in authority and have been for years now.

It strikes me as more of a wonder the streets aren’t full of demonstrators demanding compulsory euthanasia.

The boomer paradigm has been smashed by Paxman, atomised. They are staggering and can think of nothing in response! Truly every ugly boomer wart and caprice has been thrown into relief by this piece.

Going4TheDream

StevieJ wrote: »

If they do earn more then they will pay more tax in the future anyway that should cover their tuition fees, presumably that is what effectively happened in the past.

I would say its likely, but I would imagine there are a larger number of higher rate tax payers now, many of whom haven't been to University...so in a round about way everyone would still be subsidising their choice????

nearlyrich

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The more articles there are like this the harder it becomes for the boomers to hide. Soon there will be a search light turned on them everywhere they like to reside. The static caravan holiday parks, the mid range chain restaurants, the universities offering pointless creative arts degrees for the over 50s to find themselves.

Please don't tar us all with the same brush:D
I'm 50 work full time pay well over £1500 per month in tax and I have worked for everything I have I wouldn't be seen dead in a caravan park and my full time job means I sadly don't have time to do a pointless degree.

I don't think I'm selfish, I have helped my children through further education and in the case of my DD helped her to get her first house, I will do the same for my DS when he is ready. I didn't inherit anything from my parents, they worked hard to bring us up with a decent education, they didn't get a chance to amass wealth from buying a house. I have a home, I agree it's increased in value but to realise the equity I would have to sell it and then where would I live.

olly300

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I think your point is fair, graduates can earn upto £400k more over their working life than non graduates, perhaps the £30/£40k is a worthwhile investment in their future. I imagine that depends on what career they go into and what degree they study but it seems they are likely to have a better quality of life financially than non graduates.

On that basis why should University education be free and paid by the tax payer. After all it is not compulsory it is a choice??

The figure you quote is an over-inflated one which actually comes from when the last lot of baby boomers went to university.

Now the premium depends on the subject you do.

So if you want to do an Arts degree you may as well not bother going to university and find a job after doing A levels.

The winners now are those who do Medicine and become doctors, those who do law and become lawyers or those who go into the City.

Those who do STEM degrees are fine if they either:
1. Emigrate - which means the tax payer loses the skills they partly funded,
2. Go and work in the City - which means the tax payer may end up paying them again.

Niv

PaulW1965 wrote: »

A baby boomer millionaire pays a marginal tax rate of 52% (and that is only temporary!) and will be reduced to 42%! Whilst you pay a marginal tax rate of 41% on £15k - that's a joke! But somehow you've been convinced by the baby boomers that that is ok?

I wouldnt say I have been convinced by the baby boomers. I prefer to think of myself as not selfish. Two wrongs dont make a right etc etc. If the baby boomers were so wrong and immoral (Not that I believe that) then why should I continue with that selfish attitude?

If we are truely witnessing the most selfish generation of all time then maybe it is the next generation that needs to set the example.

Niv

olly300

ILW wrote: »

Why all the fuss about uni fees. Don't go if you don't want to pay. The vast majority of the "boomers" never went. If only the 10% elite went now, then it could be free.

Unfortunately if we want to complete with the rest of the industrialised world we can't just have every body going straight into work without any form of training.

As employers don't want to pay for their staff to be trained the only way that it can be done is via the state.

However none of the recent previous governments nor the current government understand that they need to encourage children into doing subjects which are viewed as harder.

StevieJ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Some choice excerpts from Paxman's opus. I would like to frame every word but here are some of the best bits:



The boomer paradigm has been smashed by Paxman, atomised. They are staggering and can think of nothing in response! Truly every ugly boomer wart and caprice has been thrown into relief by this piece.

What did your parents do to you to make you hate them so?

Going4TheDream

olly300 wrote: »

The figure you quote is an over-inflated one which actually comes from when the last lot of baby boomers went to university.

Now the premium depends on the subject you do.

So if you want to do an Arts degree you may as well not bother going to university and find a job after doing A levels.

The winners now are those who do Medicine and become doctors, those who do law and become lawyers or those who go into the City.

Those who do STEM degrees are fine if they either:
1. Emigrate - which means the tax payer loses the skills they partly funded,
2. Go and work in the City - which means the tax payer may end up paying them again.

I dont think on average a £10k a year difference in salary for someone with a good degree is unrealistic over a 40 year working life ...........

kabayiri

Going4TheDream wrote: »

I dont think on average a £10k a year difference in salary for someone wiht a good degree is unrealistic over a 40 year working life ...........

When you had degree/non-degree split of say 10:90 and now have maybe 50:50 then there must be a supply n demand effect though surely ?

The next battle ground will be workers wages across the board. By inflation or immigration or anything else, I suspect this and new governments will want to reduce UK labour cost. So where would this leave the graduate premium ?