Baby Boomers at it Again

Percy1983

The problem is it will get to a point where those with financially ept parents will have a clear advantage which really should be the way.

Which is better all houses are £300k but people can only get mortages for £200k, simply solution all those parents give £100k to the children and all is well. If your parents didn't do so well you are doomed.

OR houses are all £200k and all have an equal chance of buying.

I will say we managed it without help (ok a £500 gift if you want to get picky) but we bth had to get harder jobs and work more hours than our parents did for a similar house.

thorsoak

I have to admit that my feathers are ruffled every time one or other of the old faithful come up with the "Baby boomers eat babies" type of posts - it seems to me that we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't assist our children on to the property ladder!

As a generation we didn't set out to wreck the prosperity of this country - we bought our properties in all innocence - we did not buy them as a means to making money - we bought a HOME - not an investment. The fact that we lived through so many economic peaks and troughs cannot be laid at the doors of we who were bringing up the next generation and giving them what we ourselves did not have whilst growing up post war. Is that wrong?

Anyway - Babyboomers and Babyboomer beaters - my New Year's resolution is to ignore all jibes against us - but I wish you all well and a prosperous New Year to one and all.

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Would it be fair to suggest that most people will have wanted to settle by the age of 40?

Would it be fair to say most of those who are now classed as boomers, even the "working class" coud have done this easier than now?

I don't know where you get the idea that because some of the younger generation are suggesting it's hard today, they are "demanding" something?

1. Settled yes, but not necessarily have everything they aspire to by 40. The vast majority of boomers certainly didn't. By 40 it is possible for the vast majority to save up a deposit unaided even in today's conditions.

2. Don't know, it's very complex question with no simple answer. But if it were the case what's the point in harping on about it -- we are where we are ?

3. "Demand" refers to some of the idiots who post wind ups on here about enforced relinquishment of larger homes, reductions in state pensions etc. But I don't believe that the considerable majority of younger people really think that way, if for no other reason that they would not want to be put in the same position when they retire !

olly300

Percy1983 wrote: »

I will say we managed it without help (ok a £500 gift if you want to get picky) but we bth had to get harder jobs and work more hours than our parents did for a similar house.

But even then you have won on life's lottery.

Both your character and your upbringing mean that you can work towards something and deal with delayed gratification.

The posters who bash the oldies obviously don't have the same characteristics as you.

Oh and I don't live in a similar house to my parents.

The only one of my many siblings and half-siblings who does is one of my older half-brothers. He is a baby boomer. He however is the one of the people who has had to work the hardest and also has helped to support some of his much younger half-siblings who are young enough to be his children. (Not me btw.)

Graham_Devon

thorsoak wrote: »

I have to admit that my feathers are ruffled every time one or other of the old faithful come up with the "Baby boomers eat babies" type of posts - it seems to me that we are damned if we do, and damned if we don't assist our children on to the property ladder!

As a generation we didn't set out to wreck the prosperity of this country - we bought our properties in all innocence - we did not buy them as a means to making money - we bought a HOME - not an investment. The fact that we lived through so many economic peaks and troughs cannot be laid at the doors of we who were bringing up the next generation and giving them what we ourselves did not have whilst growing up post war. Is that wrong?

Anyway - Babyboomers and Babyboomer beaters - my New Year's resolution is to ignore all jibes against us - but I wish you all well and a prosperous New Year to one and all.

Exactly. You did all that.

And all the young want is the same. Were all on the same page!

So why jump down their throats and pretend that parents are actually doing the country a favour by handing over deposits for houses and that will have to be the new norm. It smacks of brushing crumbs to to kids. This doesn't help anyone. Not the older or the younger generation, it simply masks a problem.

The problem for the baby boomer generation is one of simple fact. They have taken far more than they will ever put in, and it's crashed the system in some respects. This wasn't individuals faults, it was the governments fault...buying votes wherever possible.

I've said before, but somoene I know is livid that her son has had his pension changed for the worse. She blames everyone her age on the take, defending their better pensions. She blames the government for not applying the rules to everyone, therefore protecting the better off while making the worse off, even worse off.

What did she do? Took voluntary redundancy in order to keep her pension and took 2 years wages with a bonus....The crucial thing is....it's everyone elses fault but hers....she paid in and was entitled.

This is where we come from in all of these arguments, from a position of how WE personally benefit.

Seems to me, we have some youngsters who whinge and moan, spend up to their eyeballs with debt, and then complain its everyone elses fault. But we sure as hell have the polar opposite from some babyboomers, castrating every younger person, beliebing we all go round wiping our bums with ipads and buying a new one for the fun of it.

Were struggling just as, if not more, than others when they were the same age. We just want the same thing at the end of the day....and not one single one of us is more entitled to it. Babyboomer or not.

GeorgeHowell

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Exactly. You did all that.

And all the young want is the same. Were all on the same page!

So why jump down their throats and pretend that parents are actually doing the country a favour by handing over deposits for houses and that will have to be the new norm. It smacks of brushing crumbs to to kids. This doesn't help anyone. Not the older or the younger generation, it simply masks a problem.

The problem for the baby boomer generation is one of simple fact. They have taken far more than they will ever put in, and it's crashed the system in some respects. This wasn't individuals faults, it was the governments fault...buying votes wherever possible.

I've said before, but somoene I know is livid that her son has had his pension changed for the worse. She blames everyone her age on the take, defending their better pensions. She blames the government for not applying the rules to everyone, therefore protecting the better off while making the worse off, even worse off.

What did she do? Took voluntary redundancy in order to keep her pension and took 2 years wages with a bonus....The crucial thing is....it's everyone elses fault but hers....she paid in and was entitled.

This is where we come from in all of these arguments, from a position of how WE personally benefit.

Seems to me, we have some youngsters who whinge and moan, spend up to their eyeballs with debt, and then complain its everyone elses fault. But we sure as hell have the polar opposite from some babyboomers, castrating every younger person, beliebing we all go round wiping our bums with ipads and buying a new one for the fun of it.

Were struggling just as, if not more, than others when they were the same age. We just want the same thing at the end of the day....and not one single one of us is more entitled to it. Babyboomer or not.

The main gripe hinges on property value appreciation. That didn't happen mainly through boomer greed, government policy, or any deliberate conspiracy. It happened through supply and demand. Understandable that the younger generation would like the same, but they can't have it because the world has changed. So what do we do ? Revert to enforced redistribution of wealth and property and turn into the old Soviet Union ?

poet123

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Exactly. You did all that.

And all the young want is the same. Were all on the same page!

So why jump down their throats and pretend that parents are actually doing the country a favour by handing over deposits for houses and that will have to be the new norm. It smacks of brushing crumbs to to kids. This doesn't help anyone. Not the older or the younger generation, it simply masks a problem.

The problem for the baby boomer generation is one of simple fact. They have taken far more than they will ever put in, and it's crashed the system in some respects. This wasn't individuals faults, it was the governments fault...buying votes wherever possible.

I've said before, but somoene I know is livid that her son has had his pension changed for the worse. She blames everyone her age on the take, defending their better pensions. She blames the government for not applying the rules to everyone, therefore protecting the better off while making the worse off, even worse off.

What did she do? Took voluntary redundancy in order to keep her pension and took 2 years wages with a bonus....The crucial thing is....it's everyone elses fault but hers....she paid in and was entitled.

This is where we come from in all of these arguments, from a position of how WE personally benefit.

Seems to me, we have some youngsters who whinge and moan, spend up to their eyeballs with debt, and then complain its everyone elses fault. But we sure as hell have the polar opposite from some babyboomers, castrating every younger person, beliebing we all go round wiping our bums with ipads and buying a new one for the fun of it.

Were struggling just as, if not more, than others when they were the same age. We just want the same thing at the end of the day....and not one single one of us is more entitled to it. Babyboomer or not.

You forget though that as parents we see the reality of many twentysomethings lives close up. I know that they do buy stuff that when we were their age we wouldn't have considered paying such a price for, if it was weighed against a house deposit.

I am not saying who is right or wrong, just that we all make choices on what to with with disposable income and we also have to take the consequences of those choices.

Graham_Devon

GeorgeHowell wrote: »

The main gripe hinges on property value appreciation. That didn't happen mainly through boomer greed, government policy, or any deliberate conspiracy. It happened through supply and demand. Understandable that the younger generation would like the same, but they can't have it because the world has changed. So what do we do ? Revert to enforced redistribution of wealth and property and turn into the old Soviet Union ?

I can tell you what the main gripes are, if you are willing to listen?!

1. Protectionism. I.e. campaigning againsts new builds as it will ruin views and countryside....from people who live in buildings which have ruined the countryside. Look at any NIMBY march, the MAJORITY are of boomer age. There will be some younger green / rich types, sure, but the majority....



2. BTL. Now, while we need BTL's, we don't need a vast amount of the boomer generation (and fact staes it IS the babyboomer generation who make up the majority of those undertaking BTL) literally creaming it off all and sundry below them.

3. Over occupation. Not neccesarily babyboomers here, but all those who simply refuse to move from "their houses" even though they are not theirs as it's their home. MOVE ON. You've had your family there and benefitted from the grace of the welfare system, give someone else a chance.

4. Protectionism pover pensions and working ages. Why is the babyboomer generation exempt from most of the changes to pensions and working hours? Howcome a small group of boomer women found it so easy to get the government to change the rules in order that they would receive a higher pension, for less work? Such a minority was listened to.

Want more? I could go on. I feel they are fair reasonings.

ash28

PaulF81 wrote: »

And my generation will work considerably longer, for much the same life expectancy, with worse public services and a smaller means tested pension. All because the boomer generation will not be told their pensions are unaffordable.

Work considerably longer? How?

If you're under 32 the state retirement age is 68 and the school leaving age is rising to 18. So 50 years. Maximum 52 years.

Boomer leaves school at 15 or perhaps 16 and works until they are 65 or 66 - so 50 or 51 years.....not so very different.

Graham_Devon

ash28 wrote: »

Work considerably longer? How?

If you're under 32 the state retirement age is 68 and the school leaving age is rising to 18. So 50 years. Maximum 52 years.

Boomer leaves school at 15 or perhaps 16 and works until they are 65 or 66 - so 50 or 51 years.....not so very different.

The school leaving age may well be rising to 18.

But it's not currently. You have left out 25+ years of school leavers who left at 16 too who will have to work longer.

And what about all the men and women who retired at 60-62 who you have left out?

I have to commend the reliance of massaging the figures to suit though!