Brickbats for boomers in awful article

FTBFun

ruggedtoast wrote: »

So the opinions of thousands of people on a national newspaper site arent valid, whereas the opinions of a dozen or so hardline boomers on this site are?

No, neither are valid really.

abaxas

Children used to respect their elders. But stopped when the elders stopped respecting them.

StevieJ

abaxas wrote: »

Children used to respect their elders. But stopped when the elders stopped respecting them.

I think the opposite is probably true, in owden days children were expected to be seen and not heard

ruggedtoast

StevieJ wrote: »

I think the opposite is probably true, in owden days children were expected to be seen and not heard

Yes but people in their 30s and early 40s weren't.

Regardless of what journey you think you have taken to your retirement, if vast numbers of grown adults a couple of decades below you see themselves as seriously disadvantaged because you have stitched them up then trouble is coming.

Especially if you are relying on them to pay your bills.

Think how boomers treated the "forgotten generation" who were pensioners in the 80s and 90s before the winter fuel allowance etc. As you reap so shall ye sow, boomers.

CLAPTON

bloomers are people aged in the range roughly 46 to 66

they have never been a majority of the electorate and will never be so.

StevieJ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Think how boomers treated the "forgotten generation" who were pensioners in the 80s and 90s before the winter fuel allowance etc. As you reap so shall ye sow, boomers.

What is that about

GeorgeHowell

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Yes but people in their 30s and early 40s weren't.

Regardless of what journey you think you have taken to your retirement, if vast numbers of grown adults a couple of decades below you see themselves as seriously disadvantaged because you have stitched them up then trouble is coming.

Especially if you are relying on them to pay your bills.

Think how boomers treated the "forgotten generation" who were pensioners in the 80s and 90s before the winter fuel allowance etc. As you reap so shall ye sow, boomers.

A lot of people may feel that way because of ageism in modern society (stirred up by the Blair government) and scapegoat-ism because times are hard.

The facts are :-

The pensions situation is caused by increased longevity, removal of tax breaks, and the end of the long term stock market bubble. Baby boomers cannot solely be blamed for any of that.

UK state pensions have never been great. It looks like the boomers will have a better deal but assuming that is not changed for the worse sometime down the line all future generations will benefit. It's not reasonable to fail to improve things on the grounds that it would be unfair to those who did not benefit in the past.

Boomers have certainly benefited from house price inflation ... on paper. But that was caused by supply and demand not by greed, and most of them cannot realise the wealth because they live in it. The next generation will benefit from inheritances in many cases. Many boomers had to scrimp a lot to pay the mortgages in the early days and settled for a frugal lifestyle that many of today's younger generation would not countenance.

Most boomers did not have the bank of mum and dad to fall back on because mum and dad could not have afforded it. Boomers had to build up their standard of living over time. Today's young seem to compare where they are now with where boomers are now, not where the boomers were at their age.

Many boomers still work and pay tax, many of those who are retired pay tax. It's not true to say that their lifestyle is solely funded by the younger generation.

ruggedtoast

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

A lot of people may feel that way because of ageism in modern society (stirred up by the Blair government) and scapegoat-ism because times are hard.

The facts are :-

The pensions situation is caused by increased longevity, removal of tax breaks, and the end of the long term stock market bubble. Baby boomers cannot solely be blamed for any of that.

UK state pensions have never been great. It looks like the boomers will have a better deal but assuming that is not changed for the worse sometime down the line all future generations will benefit. It's not reasonable to fail to improve things on the grounds that it would be unfair to those who did not benefit in the past.

Boomers have certainly benefited from house price inflation ... on paper. But that was caused by supply and demand not by greed, and most of them cannot realise the wealth because they live in it. The next generation will benefit from inheritances in many cases. Many boomers had to scrimp a lot to pay the mortgages in the early days and settled for a frugal lifestyle that many of today's younger generation would not countenance.

Most boomers did not have the bank of mum and dad to fall back on because mum and dad could not have afforded it. Boomers had to build up their standard of living over time. Today's young seem to compare where they are now with where boomers are now, not where the boomers were at their age.

Many boomers still work and pay tax, many of those who are retired pay tax. It's not true to say that their lifestyle is solely funded by the younger generation.

This is exactly the point.

People now who are scrimping are likely never going to get to the point where it pays off, regardless of how many more years the government keep extending the pension age.

For boomers even if you started out with nothing, working hard and saving paid off.

For Gen X and Y it most probably won't.

I honestly dont know how to get through to you lot. You seem to think the world is exactly the same now as it was for you apart from everyone has iPhones and central heating.

GeorgeHowell

ruggedtoast wrote: »

This is exactly the point.

People now who are scrimping are likely never going to get to the point where it pays off, regardless of how many more years the government keep extending the pension age.

For boomers even if you started out with nothing, working hard and saving paid off.

For Gen X and Y it most probably won't.

I honestly dont know how to get through to you lot. You seem to think the world is exactly the same now as it was for you apart from everyone has iPhones and central heating.

Three points :-

Firstly a lot of the younger generation don't do much scrimping. They convince themselves that there's no point as an excuse for enjoying a largely hedonistic lifestyle.

Secondly, working longer is the solution to the pensions issue. Retiring at a certain age cannot be a realistic target when longevity is apparently increasing so much so fast. The length of time spent in retirement has to be the realistic target and that cannot be increased unless people in general want to give up more in earlier life in order to fund it. By the way only in the public sector are today's pensions funded by today's workers. In the private sector they are funded by invested funds built up from employee and employer contributions.

Thirdly, your pessimistic assumption about affordability of housing never improving largely assumes that the unaffordable deposit requirement posed by the banks (as an overreaction to their past ludicrous lending policies) will never change. The banks are going to have to change fundamentally in many ways, however much they have to be dragged kicking and screaming into it. With low interest rates looking like a fixture for many years to come realistic deposits will make housing much more affordable. The young won't be able to afford houses like their parents have straight away. But neither did the baby boomers when they started out.

ash28

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Yes but people in their 30s and early 40s weren't.

Regardless of what journey you think you have taken to your retirement, if vast numbers of grown adults a couple of decades below you see themselves as seriously disadvantaged because you have stitched them up then trouble is coming.

Especially if you are relying on them to pay your bills.

Think how boomers treated the "forgotten generation" who were pensioners in the 80s and 90s before the winter fuel allowance etc. As you reap so shall ye sow, boomers.

I think you'll find it was boomers who introduced the winter fuel allowance for pensioners - it was introduced in January 1998 - by Gordon Brown - who is a boomer.

The previous conservative government's junior health minister Edwina Currie told them (pensioners) to put on woollie hats - she's a boomer too.

And wasn't the winter fuel allowance cut by this government in a recent budget.

It's not age or generation related it's politics related.

I know quite a number of people in their 40s and their 30s who have done very very well - they aren't all struggling to buy houses or have poor jobs or have no pension provision.

It's like saying all boomers have good jobs, will have good pensions, all bought houses when they were 20, for next to nothing and those houses are worth a small fortune now....I wish.