Why Baby Boomers are richer than Gen X...

The_White_Horse

i don't know the exact year, but would guess between 1968 - 1973.

The_White_Horse

BritRael wrote: »

Dream on. How do you know what their situation was?? If they really were on 'a pittance' they wouldn't have got a mortgage. Also, of course, it is possible that the purchase was funded by money from elsewhere; their own parents for example.

It is 100% true. When I say a pittance, i mean what a new teacher and junior civil servant were on. Let's say the equivalent of £25k each in today's money? Could you get a £3m home now for that? No.

wotsthat

The_White_Horse wrote: »

It is 100% true. When I say a pittance, i mean what a new teacher and junior civil servant were on. Let's say the equivalent of £25k each in today's money? Could you get a £3m home now for that? No.

They were either very lucky, had significant outside help or you've got the story wrong.

Private schools, holidays, holiday homes? Even simple maths show that this can't be true.

What would a house have costed in 1970 in Wimbledon that's now valued at £3,000,000?

wotsthat

Worked out an average - they must have paid around £80k in 1970 to buy that house. They wouldn't have got a mortgage let alone been able to afford to pay it.

ukcarper

The_White_Horse wrote: »

It is 100% true. When I say a pittance, i mean what a new teacher and junior civil servant were on. Let's say the equivalent of £25k each in today's money? Could you get a £3m home now for that? No.

You wouldn't have in the early 70s either I was on about that then and had to move miles out of London to be able to buy a house which would now be worth £200k max.

Average house price in 1968 was about £4k in 1973 it was £9k compared to £166k now.

So 41x since 1968 or 18x since 1973 that makes your £3 million pound house worth about £73k in 1968 £166k in 1973. £1.5k would have been a very good wage in 1968 higher than £25k now.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

But unless we manage to abolish this little thing called "death", then 100% of that wealth will eventually be transferred to the younger generations.

However, this has been proven wrong. People are living longer and selling their assets to support themselves.

Now, I'm not against thism before that is stated. I'm simply stating that 100% of the wealth being passed on is wrong. It's also increasingly wrong.

Theres very little point in such threads when these sort of points are drummed out. You know they are wrong yourself, as you refer to the selling, downsizing and holidays (plus spending in the economy etc) in other threads.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

However, this has been proven wrong. People are living longer and selling their assets to support themselves.

Now, I'm not against thism before that is stated. I'm simply stating that 100% of the wealth being passed on is wrong. It's also increasingly wrong.

Theres very little point in such threads when these sort of points are drummed out. You know they are wrong yourself, as you refer to the selling, downsizing and holidays (plus spending in the economy etc) in other threads.

Another thing proven which in fact isn’t proven.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Another thing proven which in fact isn’t proven.

Okey doke.

Falling pension incomes and the rising cost of living have led to a rise in the number of older people selling their homes and moving into rental properties in order to fund their retirement, according to latest research

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/aug/08/older-people-sell-homes-pay-retirement

Record numbers of pensioners are having to sell their houses to pay for a care home place amid a crisis in services for the elderly.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/4743514/Record-numbers-sell-home-to-fund-care.html

A new report from insurer Liverpool Victoria (LV=), shows as life expectancy in the UK increases, the number of people that will need to make use of formal long-term care services will increase by 1.1 million 2025 – an increase of 37pc.

Nearly one in five adults believe they will have to fund the cost of their own long-term care in the future. When asked how they would fund their own care if needed, nearly a quarter said they would use their property to pay for care, either through equity release, remortgaging or selling their home. Just under a fifth of adults said they would use savings or their pension income

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/longtermcare/9242545/Long-term-care-costs-to-hit-38bn-by-2025.html

robmatic

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Okey doke.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/aug/08/older-people-sell-homes-pay-retirement

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/4743514/Record-numbers-sell-home-to-fund-care.html


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/insurance/longtermcare/9242545/Long-term-care-costs-to-hit-38bn-by-2025.html

These all demonstrate how easy babyboomers have things in what way, exactly?

grizzly1911

ukcarper wrote: »

You wouldn't have in the early 70s either I was on about that then and had to move miles out of London to be able to buy a house which would now be worth £200k max.

Average house price in 1968 was about £4k in 1973 it was £9k compared to £166k now.

So 41x since 1968 or 18x since 1973 that makes your £3 million pound house worth about £73k in 1968 £166k in 1973. £1.5k would have been a very good wage in 1968 higher than £25k now.

Lots of the comments on these threads seem to be devoted to London and the SE. Which is way out of reality for the vast majority of the UK.

I know wit has been mentioned before that there are still relatively cheap pockets in London/SE could this example just be one of the incredibly luck spots?

Won't these leafy areas have benefited form much greater continued rise than the average multipliers?

Either way this type of astronomic growth figure is more a consequence of wanting to cram everyone into the SE and concentrating jobs there than growth of this magnitude for all.

As usual an example at the extremes .