We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
Baby Boomers Were More Financially Responsible
Comments
-
gadgetmind wrote: »Whether it's "OK" is something people need to decide for themselves, but that it's a natural consequence of very low interest rates (which make mortgages cheap and casg savings pointless) is plain to see. Nothing will change until interest rates rise.
Which unfortunately in my view is keeping house prices artificially high. From a BTL point its great (yield > mortgage cost). For a FTB wanting a home, not so great.
And BTW, Merry Christmas to you and your family Gadget!0 -
There is one thing that baby boomers clearly can be blamed for: moves to increase the value of state pensions at rates above inflation, while their children and grandchildren's smaller generations pick up the bill. Meanwhile, when paying themselves, the boomers didn't go for higher than inflation rises and had the benefit of a larger working generation to reduce the per-person cost.
The general wealth accumulation for older people is just to be expected since those are the people who've accumulated savings ready to sustain themselves for many years of retirement.0 -
And BTW, Merry Christmas to you and your family Gadget!
Why, thank you, and the same right back at you, as our American friends would say!I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
You have a serious chip on your shoulder about things. The reality is we all try to do our best in the free market that most people seem to be content to operate in. Just because some people decide to invest in property and want a return on the investment, you seem willing to subject an elderly person living on a state pension to lack of heating, inability to afford to travel.
Oh and rental income is taxed from the first pound.
er no.
I think pensioners deserve all of the above, but not pensioners with multiple properties and millions in the bank. The phrase you are looking for is " means tested". If families are losing Child benefit if they earn above a certain amount then why are we giving stuff away to people who can very easily afford to pay for it ?
Mr Nick Clegg agrees
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/nick-clegg/8934674/Nick-Clegg-pensioners-benefits-should-be-means-tested.htmlBetter in my pocket than theirs :rotfl:0 -
guitarman001 wrote: »Yeah, it's ok to rip the younger generation off because nobody else is giving the older folks a better return. Too damn right I'VE got a chip on my shoulder about it. I can't afford to start a family or buy a bog-standard (decent) flat due to artificially high housing prices. I'd rather see a major downturn than continue on this path. How about that for a Christmas message? (And I'm in a good decent-paying job)
Here Here.
Are we just going to price the up coming generation out of having kids unless they are on benefits?
Cause without jobs or housing we will have a lost generation so people can have a return on investments.
and BTW i do own my own house , have minimal debt, have a good job and a decent pension. However i won't do to my kids and grandkids what the babyboomer generation have done to there's, so i can have a return on a investment. some things are more important than a profit.Better in my pocket than theirs :rotfl:0 -
Here Here.
Are we just going to price the up coming generation out of having kids unless they are on benefits?
Cause without jobs or housing we will have a lost generation so people can have a return on investments.
and BTW i do own my own house , have minimal debt, have a good job and a decent pension. However i won't do to my kids and grandkids what the babyboomer generation have done to there's, so i can have a return on a investment. some things are more important than a profit.
out of interest
what exactly are you doing NOW that these baby boomers weren't doing at your age
and/or what exactly aren't you doing that they were doing that differentiates you from them?0 -
Because they have paid huge amounts of NI across multiple decades.
If you means test pensions, then people will simply save less as everything they save now will result in less back later. This is why HMG are *reducing* means testing.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
er no.
I think pensioners deserve all of the above, but not pensioners with multiple properties and millions in the bank. The phrase you are looking for is " means tested". If families are losing Child benefit if they earn above a certain amount then why are we giving stuff away to people who can very easily afford to pay for it ?
I am more inclined to agree that there should be limitations on age related benefits based on ability to pay but saying that this should be based on arbitrary criteria like owning a second house is absurd. It would mean that someone who chose a BTL property as a supplement to their retirement income was treated less fairly than someone who had a fat pension.
Personally, I would favour using the tax system to tax the benefits since it would probably cost more to means test them than it would save.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
. However i won't do to my kids and grandkids what the babyboomer generation have done to there's, so i can have a return on a investment. some things are more important than a profit.
You make it sound as if the baby boomer generation did this deliberately. Life is about choices, we all have to make them and they have consequences but at the time the consequences are not always obvious or avoidable. People have always invested to fund their retirement and other key events in their lives.
If someone borrows money to start a business and makes a healthy profit from the labour of their employees we call them an entrepreneur. If someome buys a few BTL properties we moan about them and say they are exploiting those who can only afford to rent.
Seems hypocritical to me.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
out of interest
what exactly are you doing NOW that these baby boomers weren't doing at your age
and/or what exactly aren't you doing that they were doing that differentiates you from them?
I am not in favour of running up hugh debts for the next generation to pay off , so i can retire in the lap of luxury. Something me and my kids will probably never be able to do.Better in my pocket than theirs :rotfl:0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 354.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.4K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.4K Spending & Discounts
- 247.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 604K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.4K Life & Family
- 261.5K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards