Baby Boomers: Generation Theft?

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

well maybe not EXACTLY that but you have sort of indicated that they sort of got housing at low prices and so a logical conclusion would be that they would have little mortgage debt?

or are you saying that they paid HUGE prices for housing and are suffering HUGE mortgage debts and HUGE mortgage payments?

Well, no. If you look at what I have wrote, you'll see me talking about SMI for those who've remortgaged up to the hilt through the boom years and condeming it.

You'll see me talking about all those on IO mortgages (I believe recent figures suggested over half with IO mortgages are over 50?).

So it doesn't tally at all with what you said though does tally with what I said about low rates.

Or are you trying to suggest people with credit card and student debts DO actually benefit from low base rates? As that was my overiding point. You have taken objection to a side issue, rather than my point.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Well, no. If you look at what I have wrote, you'll see me talking about SMI for those who've remortgaged up to the hilt through the boom years and condeming it.

You'll see me talking about all those on IO mortgages (I believe recent figures suggested over half with IO mortgages are over 50?).

So it doesn't tally at all with what you said though does tally with what I said about low rates.

Or are you trying to suggest people with credit card and student debts DO actually benefit from low base rates? As that was my overiding point. You have taken objection to a side issue, rather than my point.

are you saying that MOST boomers are in debt?

are your saying that most young people are in massive CC debt?

do you blame boomers for the young people's CC debt or just commenting on how stupid such people are?

dryhat

What is often overlooked in these arguments is the fact that most "boomers" are still working. Only the older ones are starting to retire.

It is only in the coming years that things will get worse.

Which is why it sort of looks sustainable at the moment.

But anyone that understands exponential growth will know that things can go from good to bad very quickly.

CLAPTON

dryhat wrote: »

What is often overlooked in these arguments is the fact that most "boomers" are still working. Only the older ones are starting to retire.

It is only in the coming years that things will get worse.

Which is why it sort of looks sustainable at the moment.

But anyone that understands exponential growth will know that things can go from good to bad very quickly.

I understand exponential growth, but I've no idea what you are referring to.

Graham_Devon

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you saying that MOST boomers are in debt?

are your saying that most young people are in massive CC debt?

do you blame boomers for the young people's CC debt or just commenting on how stupid such people are?

Oh lordie. No.

I'm saying that they are most likely to benefit, through mortgages, from a low base rate.

Young people, as the article talks of, uni leavers, won't have mortgages, but will have student and credit card debt, therefore won't benefit at all from low rates.

Whats so hard to understand?

I think you do understand, but are doing your utmost to cause confusion or argument.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh lordie. No.

I'm saying that they are most likely to benefit, through mortgages, from a low base rate.

Young people, as the article talks of, uni leavers, won't have mortgages, but will have student and credit card debt, therefore won't benefit at all from low rates.

Whats so hard to understand?

I think you do understand, but are doing your utmost to cause confusion or argument.

so I understand you now

you are saying that boomers (46-66 ish) benefit from low interest rates, low savings rates, low annunity rates etc more than say
18-38 year olds?


good, although I don't agree I understand what you are saying now


and just to be really clear are you also saying that if interest rate were high (saving rates, annunity rates etc) then boomers would be worse off and 18-38 would be better of (relatively speaking)?

Graham_Devon

What I am saying, is what you see typed.

Clear enough?

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

What I am saying, is what you see typed.

Clear enough?

good, I will add a 'thanks' to your post.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Yep.

Those boomers have discovered the secret of immortality and will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever...................... die.

Thus allowing them to hoard all the wealth until the end of time.

Damn boomers, that wealth will never be passed on to future generations, never I tell you.....*




























*Oh, how I miss the rolleyes smiley.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yep.

Those boomers have discovered the secret of immortality and will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever...................... die.

Thus allowing them to hoard all the wealth until the end of time.

Damn boomers, that wealth will never be passed on to future generations, never I tell you.....*

Oh, how I miss the rolleyes smiley.

If you read the article, you'll find this stuff about passing on wealth is dismissed in lots of cases, as the wealth is used for care etc.