Welcome to the Boomerang Generation

PasturesNew

If my parents had given me a house ..... now I know how much they're worth in total, I'd be lining up with the other campers to brush my teeth in the communal sinks each morning

MacMickster

I don't think that it is the job of parents to gift houses or deposits to their 20something children.

It is perfectly reasonable, however, to let them live at home as a means of saving for a deposit so long as that is actually being done at a realistic rate. Living at home at that age shouldn't be an excuse not to grow up and, instead, spend all of their income on socialising, holidays and gadgets as the easy option to standing on their own two feet.

chewmylegoff

JonnyBravo wrote: »

Ermmm, why can't you do this already?

BTW, how many kids do you have MrRee? Will you set them all up with a house?

I think he means that if you buy a house for your kids it should be treated as tax deductible expenditure, which is of course just as ludicrous as all the other drivel he posts.

ukcarper

There seems to be an assumption made that all babyboomers are awash with money and can find £30 or £40 thousand to give to their children towards a house. I don’t have that kind of money laying around and the only way I could raise it would with a mortgage on my home. I not sure at my age someone would give me a mortgage and if they did I would not be able to afford it. I would imagine the majority of boomers are in a similar position most of my friends are.

　

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

These boomers want to have house prices at ten times the average salary, they want young people to work for minimum wage in their businesses and factories, they want generous final salary pensions and their State pension tax free, they want motor homes, caravans, foreign holidays, they want to pass the burden of university tuition fees to the young when they got theirs free, and they want £900 a month for their buy to let flat in a bad area.

But now they complain when their children live at home because they can't afford to move out.

Priceless.

boomers are people aged between about 46 and 66
-most don't own businessess or factories
-most don't have final salary pensions
-they probably would like their own pensions tax free but their is no political movement for this to happen
-they may well want motor homes, foreign holidays etc just like people in other age groups
-most didn't go to uni
-most don't actual own a single BTL
-many boomers in the lower age range have school age children and don't resent them living at home


priceless

BobQ

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Other suggestions, apart from tough love!....

Maybe the Government could build more Council Houses, what difference would another few billion make these days......

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

These boomers want to have house prices at ten times the average salary, they want young people to work for minimum wage in their businesses and factories, they want generous final salary pensions and their State pension tax free, they want motor homes, caravans, foreign holidays, they want to pass the burden of university tuition fees to the young when they got theirs free, and they want £900 a month for their buy to let flat in a bad area.

But now they complain when their children live at home because they can't afford to move out.

Priceless.

As a boomer I say

• House prices are set by markets
• I do not want anyone to work for the current minimum wage, it should be higher. The state is actually subsidising wages through benefits because of it.
• everyone should want a generous FS pension, the fact that they are being phased out is one of the biggest confidence tricks of this era.
• the boomers are not the only ones that want holidays etc
• A university education is not a right irrespective of academic ability.
• BTL is not a crime and rents are determined by market rates.

Re university, most boomers did not go to university. This was reserved for the most academic of students doing degrees that society vitally needed. This represented about 5% of school leavers.

If you want anyone who has an above average ability to be able to study at university, irrespective of whether we need the degrees and sometimes just for the experience, then its not fair or affordable for the taxpayer to fund it. This is one of the other big confidence tricks in that employers who used to invest in job related training now expect applicants to have degrees.

A._Badger

BobQ wrote: »

This is one of the other big confidence tricks in that employers who used to invest in job related training now expect applicants to have degrees.

On the contrary. They still have to invest in job-related training. In some cases they need to teach basic language and maths skills, too.

It's grotesquely unfair to blame employers for a confidence trick perpetrated by the education industry and politicians.

purch

MrRee wrote: »

Would pick up the housing market, that's for sure!

I didn't realise that the housing market required "picking up".

I must have been too busy rejoicing to notice this important change in outlook :eek:

wotsthat

Generali wrote: »

You can give your kids a house if you wish to do so. If you die within 7 years then the value of the houses will be calculated as part of the estate for IHT purposes, if you don't then they won't.

I think many people start inheritance planning too late and end up passing IHT to the government when with a little more foresight they could have given that money to their own choice of recipient instead.