Why Baby Boomers are richer than Gen X...

ukcarper

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

All that shows is that some people will have to sell to fund care and a small number of people are selling and going into rental accommodation. The majority of people whose parents own their houses will inherent some of the money if not all of it.

　

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

All that shows is that some people will have to sell to fund care and a small number of people are selling and going into rental accommodation. The majority of people whose parents own their houses will inherent some of the money if not all of it.

　

Sigh.

I stated that an increasing number of people are having to sell to fund retirement, and care. (therefore, wealth will not neccesarily be passed down)

You stated this was not fact.

I linked up to media articles about an increasing number of people having to sell to fund retirement and spending, and an increasing number are having to sell to fund care.

I can't really do anymore can I. I wans't having a pop at the babyboomers or any other section of society, just looking at what Hamish had to state, and stating it was untrue.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

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.

Graham, I stated that 100% of the wealth accumulated by the old is eventually transferred to younger generations.

And that statement is true.

Whether that transfer is through inheritance, taxation, or spending in the economy, 100% of the wealth is eventually transferred to younger generations.

Unless you convert it all to gold and get buried with it (And even then, chances are some metal detecting treasure hunter will benefit in a few thousand years time), the wealth will transfer in one way or another.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Sigh.

I stated that an increasing number of people are having to sell to fund retirement, and care. (therefore, wealth will not neccesarily be passed down)

You stated this was not fact.

I linked up to media articles about an increasing number of people having to sell to fund retirement and spending, and an increasing number are having to sell to fund care.

I can't really do anymore can I. I wans't having a pop at the babyboomers or any other section of society, just looking at what Hamish had to state, and stating it was untrue.

*sigh*

You've linked to examples of wealth being transferred to younger generations.

Well done. :T

Every penny paid by the old to fund their care is a penny the young don't have to pay. Every pound spent by the old in a cafe, restaurant or shop is a pound being transferred to the younger employees, younger business owners and younger taxpayers.

The current value of UK housing stock is around 4 trillion pounds.

How much of that wealth will still be owned by it's current owner in 100 years? Or even 50 years?

100% of all wealth held by the old is eventually transferred to younger generations. Mostly through inheritance, but also through spending and taxation.

Is there a part of that you find hard to understand?

ukcarper

grizzly1911 wrote: »

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 .

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-34892029.html

This is a £3 million pound house in Wimbledon I could not afford a flat in that area in 1972 earning about the equivalent £30k today.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Graham, I stated that 100% of the wealth accumulated by the old is eventually transferred to younger generations.

And that statement is true.

Whether that transfer is through inheritance, taxation, or spending in the economy, 100% of the wealth is eventually transferred to younger generations.

Unless you convert it all to gold and get buried with it (And even then, chances are some metal detecting treasure hunter will benefit in a few thousand years time), the wealth will transfer in one way or another.

Then your understanding of "passing" wealth to the young is very different to mine.

ruggedtoast

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Graham, I stated that 100% of the wealth accumulated by the old is eventually transferred to younger generations.

And that statement is true.

Whether that transfer is through inheritance, taxation, or spending in the economy, 100% of the wealth is eventually transferred to younger generations.

Unless you convert it all to gold and get buried with it (And even then, chances are some metal detecting treasure hunter will benefit in a few thousand years time), the wealth will transfer in one way or another.

A significant amount of the "wealth" is crippling liabilities for national debt, pensions and other retirement benefits, followed by end of life healthcare fees.

If there was some great cascade of wealth from care homes I might agree with you, but they are essentially factories of neglectful misery staffed by immigrant care staff on minimum wage and owned by tax fiddling non-doms and companies registered in Guernsey.

Many people will leave an overpriced house behind them after the government have stolen most of their liquid assets, but in order to turn that into money someone will have to borrow the equivalent amount of money and immediately add more debt to the system than money created.

Nevertheless it is a good try , you may have a Salmond.



And a grining Trump

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Then your understanding of "passing" wealth to the young is very different to mine.

Well yes, in as much as I actually understand the process, and you don't.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Well yes, in as much as I actually understand the process, and you don't.

Oh, of course.

Pretty much how only you understand that when the ITEM club state "the reccession is over" they actually mean "the recession will be over in 3 months time".

Only you understand.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh, of course.

Pretty much how only you understand that when the ITEM club state "the reccession is over" they actually mean "the recession will be over in 3 months time".

Only you understand.

Thanks Graham, you've just made my point in the other thread for me perfectly.

In order for the recession to be declared over at the end of Q3, it would actually have to be over in Q3. And funnily enough, the ITEM club made that declaration in Q3.