Bank of Mum and Dad issues fewer loans

mumps

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

No, of course it's not wrong.

Obviously all wealth passes to the next generations in one form or another, unless you adopted a policy of physically destroying assets created by each generation.

Perhaps when the first owner dies the house should be blown up to stop younger people benefitting from an asset that someone else has created.

Unless people decide to sell up and go cruising round the world till its all gone or need to go into a nursing home and spend it on the fees. I suppose they might decide to leave it to the cats home if they fall out with their kids. Generally I agree with you, I think most people would hope to leave money to their children but it doesn't always work out.

grizzly1911

mumps wrote: »

Unless people decide to sell up and go cruising round the world till its all gone or need to go into a nursing home and spend it on the fees. I suppose they might decide to leave it to the cats home if they fall out with their kids. Generally I agree with you, I think most people would hope to leave money to their children but it doesn't always work out.

Even if it all gets spent it will still cascade into the economy as a whole, the pay of the carer in the nursing homes for instance.

Percy1983

I do agree that wealth always filters though, but lets think of a fairer way.

If HPI goes through roof, great there children will benefit, but which children? only those who have parents who own homes.

How about this, we don't let HPI run away, and then all the future generation could potentially afford a house regardless of there parents wealth, yes some will get gifts/inheritance and pay it off there mortgages if they wish, but it won't be needed to buy a house which would become the case with rampant HPI.

neverdespairgirl

gadgetmind wrote: »

It depends. There is a trend towards being a grandparent at 30 in certain sectors of society, and also many definitions of "boomer".

My Dad was remarking over Easter that the whole "boomer" and "baby boomer" terminology is American, and not used much here until recently.

He said he and my darling Mama (they were born right at the end of the 1940s) grew up being called the "bulge", instead of "boom".

System

The surge in births was much more pronounced in the USA, and lasted for longer. Britain's peaked in 1946 and then rapidly declined. But Britain had a second, smaller, boom in the early sixties, and a third, smaller still, in 1990.

The assumptions about the ongoing economic consequences usually take the American scenario but attempt to apply it to the British economy. But it is established folk-lore and lots of people, especially on this forum, have motives for wanting to believe it.

ukcarper

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

My Dad was remarking over Easter that the whole "boomer" and "baby boomer" terminology is American, and not used much here until recently.

He said he and my darling Mama (they were born right at the end of the 1940s) grew up being called the "bulge", instead of "boom".

I blame trivial pursuit

neverdespairgirl

For the baby boom? Life so dull that a baby bulge was inevitable?

System

You can see why the effect might have been more pronounced in America.
GIs returneed from the war to find that an economic boom was in progress.
Poor old Tommies found that economic conditions were going to get much worse, more items would be rationed, and a new government (largely elected by them) was determined to make life as grim as possible.
And sex wasn't invented until 1963.

wotsthat

Hang on. If we can't blame the boomers for everything then a large number of people might have to acknowledge that one of the biggest influences on their own destiny is themselves.

Surely they can be blamed for something?

neverdespairgirl

I can definitely blame boomers for the atrocious fashions in 1980 that lead me, as an innocent infant, to be decked out in clothes that should have had the fashion police round.