Why the baby boomers shouldn't feel guilty

the_flying_pig

CLAPTON wrote: »

why don't collectives of skilled workers build houses at cost price plus reasonable wages

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

why don't collectives of skilled workers build houses at cost price plus reasonable wages

As they did in the 1970s.....


The photographic examples are typical of country areas and have little to do with who builds them. Doing this in a city could still work

A._Badger

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

I do not have a problem with baby boomers having 80% of the wealth, what I do have a problem with is 70 or even 80 year olds in huge 4 or 5 bedroomed houses when 30 working something year olds are unable to rear families in anything bigger than 2 bedroomed shoeboxes.

Excellent! We could have a ministry of housing which forcibly confiscated people's private property and redistributed it to those deemed worthy by the state bureaucrats who administer the scheme.

Amazing how the ghost of Stalin lives on...

CLAPTON

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

Thats just too easy is'nt it...

What we have now is an equivilant of war time food horders that keep prices artificially high while others starve, but with that particular crime retribution is fine.

Both are equally imorral in my eyes.

I didn't ask why you CAN'T do something but why you won't get off your backside and DO something positive.

CLAPTON

the_flying_pig wrote: »

these are all NEGATIVES; that os why they can't do anything positive

in fact they want to STOP house being built

I believe we need to build more houses

homelessskilledworker

A._Badger wrote: »

Excellent! We could have a ministry of housing which forcibly confiscated people's private property and redistributed it to those deemed worthy by the state bureaucrats who administer the scheme.

Amazing how the ghost of Stalin lives on...

You always get some numpty who comes along and goes all drama queen, of course nobody would suggest that your forcibly make anyone do anything. We have a tax system that can be used to encourage people like the ones I am suggesting, more so the ones that might also have a second home by the sea or in the country. And then after they have been heavily taxed and want to stay put, good luck to them. This is not a socialist or commy thing, it is a moral and commonsence thing.

dlk

Every generation could probably look on in envy at certain aspects of other generations lives. Yes it was easier for baby boomers to buy houses and yes they'll have good pensions from an early age. However general financial living standards now are far and away better than even 20 years ago. It's only comparing yourself with other people right now that makes people feel poorer. Somebody on minimum wage or benefits now has more disposable income than the majority of boomers would have had 30 years ago. Similarly basic state pension now offers a much better living standard than most boomers would have enjoyed during there early working lives.

I'm 36 and will have to wait longer for my pension and my house cost £272000 whilst 10 years earlier than I bought it, it was probably be about £80000. However I didn't have to work my !!!! off in terrible conditions from age 15, I've been travelling to most areas of the world and enjoy all the mod cons of modern living. An eighteen year old now may find it difficult to buy a house etc but I'd definately swap with them and have all the life choices now afforded to the young and opportunities handed on a plate.

A._Badger

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

You always get some numpty who comes along and goes all drama queen, of course nobody would suggest that your forcibly make anyone do anything. We have a tax system that can be used to encourage people like the ones I am suggesting, more so the ones that might also have a second home by the sea or in the country. And then after they have been heavily taxed and want to stay put, good luck to them. This is not a socialist or commy thing, it is a moral and commonsence thing.

Compulsion via the tax system is still compulsion. And for what reason? Can you name me one time in history when the older generation did not have more accumulated wealth than the younger?

You have such a chip on your shoulder that 'commonsence' (sic) has blinded you to a very fundamental fact of life. Unless you are born a duke or a duchess, you start life with very little and have to work to acquire wealth.

When you die it is distributed to your relatives, the cats' home or (via the state) to those incapable of or unwilling to work to acquire it for themselves.

homelessskilledworker

A._Badger wrote: »

Compulsion via the tax system is still compulsion. And for what reason? Can you name me one time in history when the older generation did not have more accumulated wealth than the younger?

You have such a chip on your shoulder that 'commonsence' (sic) has blinded you to a very fundamental fact of life. Unless you are born a duke or a duchess, you start life with very little and have to work to acquire wealth.

When you die it is distributed to your relatives, the cats' home or (via the state) to those incapable of or unwilling to work to acquire it for themselves.

Can you not read, I have already said in a previous post that I am fine with them having 80% of the wealth, if you actually read my posts then come back for a fight with me.

grizzly1911

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

You always get some numpty who comes along and goes all drama queen, of course nobody would suggest that your forcibly make anyone do anything. We have a tax system that can be used to encourage people like the ones I am suggesting, more so the ones that might also have a second home by the sea or in the country. And then after they have been heavily taxed and want to stay put, good luck to them. This is not a socialist or commy thing, it is a moral and commonsence thing.

No issue with second homes or BTL being heavily taxed.

Not so sure how you would come up with an equitable scheme that targeted people over a certain age and property, as peoples lives evolve in different ways.

In addition you would tax the houses out of reach of the "struggling" parents and create demand in the sectors already overwhelmed, pushing prices ever higher.

Many people in those larger houses are often asset rich but cash poor. In addition why should someone not be able to accommodate their family at different periods in their personal circumstances, e.g. childrens divorce where one party may be homeless, or at holiday periods.

We need more housing in both the private and social housing sector. It is not just NIMBYS it is Government engineering that dictates local planning. I know of some suitable infill land that could be developed, where there is demand but the council plan created 10/15 years ago doesn't allow it. That plan has been under review for3/4 year sand is going absolutely nowhere.

Perhaps we should have some form of regional tag on these posts as I am sure this debate is heavily skewed to the SE.