We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
IFS: People born in in 60's and 70's to be worse off than previous generation
Graham_Devon
Posts: 58,560 Forumite
I.e. worse off than the babyboomer generation.
There have been plenty of arguments over this, indeed, many with the conclusion that "of course people have more money when they have had longer to earn it".
However, the IFS have researched this, and it's likely that those in their 40's and 50's WILL be worse off than those in their 60's for the first time since WW2.
That is, unless they benefit from inheritance.
The IFS found (to combat arguments by some of the boomers on here) that incomes are NO higher today than the generation before them.
Pensions will be worse.
High house prices mean those in their 40's and 50's will find it harder and more costly to achieve the same thing, hence lower home ownership.
Not boomer bashing, simply laying out the findings of the IFS.
Secondly, I do believe all this "pitting generations against each other" is an excellent distraction from those who played a part in creating this issue.
There have been plenty of arguments over this, indeed, many with the conclusion that "of course people have more money when they have had longer to earn it".
However, the IFS have researched this, and it's likely that those in their 40's and 50's WILL be worse off than those in their 60's for the first time since WW2.
That is, unless they benefit from inheritance.
The IFS found (to combat arguments by some of the boomers on here) that incomes are NO higher today than the generation before them.
Pensions will be worse.
High house prices mean those in their 40's and 50's will find it harder and more costly to achieve the same thing, hence lower home ownership.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25411181People born in the 1960s and 1970s will only be wealthier than the previous generation in retirement if they inherit money, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has said.
Not boomer bashing, simply laying out the findings of the IFS.
Secondly, I do believe all this "pitting generations against each other" is an excellent distraction from those who played a part in creating this issue.
0
Comments
-
so people who will have the second best standard of living ever are complaining that they can't have the best ever?
in practice, as GDP is a very imperfect measure of well being, they will (already have) have a better life than the old people.0 -
so people who will have the second best standard of living ever are complaining that they can't have the best ever?
See, this is what I find so frustrating about these discussions, hence why I rarely partake in them.
This is research by the IFS.
It's not a bunch of people complaining, as you put it. So why slag off a generation based on this article? You've gone straight into battle with a whole generation based on an research by an institute.0 -
How much longer is their life expectancy - are they actually going to be worse off than the generation above or is it just that because proportionately their life expectancy has gone up faster than their total lifetime consumption? Thus on a per year basis they are slightly worse off, probably because on average the ratio of productive to unproductive years has fallen with more time spent in education and retirement.
I also thought those born in the 60s and 70s got on to the housing ladder when you could buy a house and still have change for a packet of chips, I didn't realise the priced out generation(s) went back so far!I think....0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »See, this is what I find so frustrating about these discussions, hence why I rarely partake in them.
This is research by the IFS.
It's not a bunch of people complaining, as you put it. So why slag off a generation based on this article? You've gone straight into battle with a whole generation based on an research by an institute.
why do you avoid the substantive point rather than focus on a manner of speech and rhetoric?0 -
why do you avoid the substantive point rather than focus on a manner of speech and rhetoric?
That manner of speech and rhteoric creates an argument that wasn't even there. Its sole aim is to slag off a generation before you even put a point across.
That's what creates the resentment and arguments on both sides.
It seems a little hypocritical and silly to ask why I focus on your words instead of the point, when it was you who made the point instead of focusing on the points the IFS raised.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Not boomer bashing, simply laying out the findings of the IFS.
Neither the IFS or the BBC mention boomers - that's your prejudiced take.
They didn't mention boomers because about half the people born in the 60's and 70's will have been boomers themselves and their parents will have consisted of plenty of pre-boomers.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »That manner of speech and rhteoric creates an argument that wasn't even there. Its sole aim is to slag off a generation before you even put a point across.
That's what creates the resentment and arguments on both sides.
It seems a little hypocritical and silly to ask why I focus on your words instead of the point, when it was you who made the point instead of focusing on the points the IFS raised.
The point was to illustrate that this generation will at the very least have the second best standard of living in the history of the world
but in reality have a better standard of living.
Wouldn't make the same headline would it?0 -
The point was to illustrate that this generation will at the very least have the second best standard of living in the history of the world
but in reality have a better standard of living.
Wouldn't make the same headline would it?
The point is the return to decline, not who won the race.0 -
Why do people assume they have some sort of god given "right" to a higher standard of living than their parents?
Because that is the social contract. The social contract that boomers were very happy with when it was benefiting them.
If the social contract is broken then there is not much point in the disadvantaged party continuing to honour it. I.e. who will pay all the taxes to fund the upcoming pension liabilities?0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »Because that is the social contract. The social contract that boomers were very happy with when it was benefiting them.
If the social contract is broken then there is not much point in the disadvantaged party continuing to honour it. I.e. who will pay all the taxes to fund the upcoming pension liabilities?
I didn't sign a social contract with either my parents or my children: so we're ok I suppose.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards