Baby Boomers Were More Financially Responsible

trets77

gadgetmind wrote: »

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.

Why should my taxes subsidise giving the well off free TV licenses? you know a TV is not essential you know. thats what you would be telling me if i said i could not afford it.

And i'm only on about making those that can afford it pay. Yes multiple properties should barr you from having a free TV license, if you don't like that you don't have to have a TV you know.

trets77

BobQ wrote: »

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.

Really !

there is a difference between providing jobs and employment and living off people who have no realistic chance of getting on the housing ladder, cause greedy people have brought all the houses and inflated the market beyond the means of most average earners trying to get on the ladder.

I'm so glad you think it is okay to leech off those that never had the chances you had , cause they were denied the opportunity to ever make that choice.

ladylouise62

BobQ wrote: »

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.

I was just about to say this myself. As someone just out of the BB period, I know that any investments or monetary decisions I have made have never had any suggestion that they would be detrimental to the future of the next generation.
Those who blame the babyboomers seem to suggest that they were purposely putting the next generations into debt and are obviously so clever that they would have seen what very few were able to predict at the time. They are also so aware of the financial world that they must also all be ensuring that any savings/investments they make (including any pension savings) are all done with ethically sound companies/banks, as so many savings vehicles contain profits from companies that are widely known to cause detriment to the world and are easily avoidable.

gadgetmind

BobQ wrote: »

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.

Speaking as someone who's done the former a few times (in my own small way) but who's always seen the latter as too much like hard work, I think the two are very different.

The former creates jobs, increases our knowledge and skills base, and can also bring money into the country as long as you're creating export-driven businesses, which has always been my approach.

I don't see the latter as being anything like as good for the country, though I do respect it as being a perfectly acceptable way for someone to invest their money,

BobQ

trets77 wrote: »

Really !

there is a difference between providing jobs and employment and living off people who have no realistic chance of getting on the housing ladder, cause greedy people have brought all the houses and inflated the market beyond the means of most average earners trying to get on the ladder.

I'm so glad you think it is okay to leech off those that never had the chances you had , cause they were denied the opportunity to ever make that choice.

This is just a matter of interpretation. Both situations involve the use of assets and/or loans to supply goods or services, neither is usually done for altruism or to provide jobs for people. Both may skew the market and neither care less about this if they make a legal profit (which is also true of many industries energy, grocery supply etc). If you want to make a moral judgement about ther output of the business, fair enough, but its a separate issue.

The majority of people in UK support a free market. A consequence is that markets may be skewed by the business. Individuals or firms that buy houses do not drive prices up. This is done by demand (for good quality housing from those obsessed with owning a house. The baby boomers grew up in families that mostly did not own houses but rented. If there was more willingness to rent the price of housing would fall.

Incidentally, FYI I am not a Rachman! I have one BTL property in which I once lived and in which I plan to live again in the future.:)

guitarman001

trets77 wrote: »

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.

You're one in a million, mate - not so many would be willing to say this. Heartening to hear.
The amount of brainwashing I hear from my elders about 'get on the property ladder now, son' is ridiculous and fuels the fire.
If the BBs have so much wealth and their grandkids are soo poor (relatively) that they can't afford a famil/house unless it's through benefits, then surely some of that wealth should be distributed. Fat chance! It's not just me saying this - many of my educated co-workers think the same, and you should hear what the non-educated youngsters say. Thankfully those coming into the mainstream are now starting to represent our age group so hopefully we'll see some change in the future. Hopefully I wont be a lonely man still living at home by then. The best thing would be for the cost of property (residential and commercial) to fall as it is sorely damaging to the economy.

BobQ

guitarman001 wrote: »

You're one in a million, mate - not so many would be willing to say this. Heartening to hear.
The amount of brainwashing I hear from my elders about 'get on the property ladder now, son' is ridiculous and fuels the fire.
If the BBs have so much wealth and their grandkids are soo poor (relatively) that they can't afford a famil/house unless it's through benefits, then surely some of that wealth should be distributed. Fat chance! It's not just me saying this - many of my educated co-workers think the same, and you should hear what the non-educated youngsters say. Thankfully those coming into the mainstream are now starting to represent our age group so hopefully we'll see some change in the future. Hopefully I wont be a lonely man still living at home by then. The best thing would be for the cost of property (residential and commercial) to fall as it is sorely damaging to the economy.

I can appreciate the reasons why you express the views you do. But in reality these things go in cycles.House prices do fall from time to time and when they do you will get your chance to buy. But if you do not individuals will take advantage of the relatively low prices and drive the market up again. If you manage to buy you may then take a different view when younger people say that prices must fall. By then those representing your age group will probably comprise owner occupiers with different views from now.When I was in my 20s I was desperate to buy a house because they were rising so much that I feared I would never be able to afford one, yet 10 years later they fell as now.

How far prices fall and for how long is govered by many factors. but while a large drop would suit you now, it will be of little help to those a little older who owe large sums on a mortgage they will still have to pay. Equally those who have full equity in their houses which is often sufficient to fund care home fees for a significant period will suffer from a fall and look to you as taxpayer to pay their care fees or retirement.

Why do you want to buy a house anyway? Probably because you expect it to rise in value after you have purchased it ? How far do your wealth distribution principles go? Would you support a regulated market in which the cost of all assets was controlled?

hermante

BobQ wrote: »

But if you do not individuals will take advantage of the relatively low prices and drive the market up again. If you manage to buy you may then take a different view when younger people say that prices must fall.

If I bought a house at a low price, and it went up in price, then I can't really complain if someone else wants the price to fall.

but while a large drop would suit you now, it will be of little help to those a little older who owe large sums on a mortgage they will still have to pay. Equally those who have full equity in their houses which is often sufficient to fund care home fees for a significant period will suffer from a fall and look to you as taxpayer to pay their care fees or retirement.

If they couldn't afford to buy the house at a reasonable price, why did they buy it at an inflated price?

Why do you want to buy a house anyway? Probably because you expect it to rise in value after you have purchased it?

That's the stupidest reason ever. I want to own a house so that I have somewhere to live. If it rises in value, that's good for me, but bad for everyone else. I might also want to own a house that I can rent out, in which case its value doesn't need to rise for it to be worthwhile. Of course I want someone to give me something for nothing, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing. If you are gaming the market then it's different, but you should at least accept that what you are doing is ethically questionable.

CLAPTON

trets77 wrote: »

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.

it would seem that you are doing most of the things that babyboomers did;
i.e. got a good pension, a good salary, a property

as I understand there are people under 46 years old (i.e. non baby boomers)who have built up substantial debts and there are baby boomers with no debt (like you)

so how exactly are you behaving now that's different to baby boomers?

guitarman001

BobQ wrote: »

I can appreciate the reasons why you express the views you do. But in reality these things go in cycles.House prices do fall from time to time and when they do you will get your chance to buy. But if you do not individuals will take advantage of the relatively low prices and drive the market up again. If you manage to buy you may then take a different view when younger people say that prices must fall. By then those representing your age group will probably comprise owner occupiers with different views from now.When I was in my 20s I was desperate to buy a house because they were rising so much that I feared I would never be able to afford one, yet 10 years later they fell as now.

How far prices fall and for how long is govered by many factors. but while a large drop would suit you now, it will be of little help to those a little older who owe large sums on a mortgage they will still have to pay. Equally those who have full equity in their houses which is often sufficient to fund care home fees for a significant period will suffer from a fall and look to you as taxpayer to pay their care fees or retirement.

Why do you want to buy a house anyway? Probably because you expect it to rise in value after you have purchased it ? How far do your wealth distribution principles go? Would you support a regulated market in which the cost of all assets was controlled?

I want to own at some point because once the mortgage goes out of the window, that's the biggest cost goone and will give larger flexibility later in life (work part-time etc). I wouldn't care two hoots if I bought and the 'value' of my home dropped 90%, honestly I wouldn't. And if it meant the rest of the population could get on with their lives, the faster the crash the better.