Do the elders laugh at the yoof

floridaman

Power to the young

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

As the older generation voted "democratically" ( if that is possible in a plutocracy) for decades which particular governments screwed up as you suggested. No party repeals, substantively, previous changes just nudges the ship in the prevailing current. Each government delivers its own short term policies largely dictated by large business enterprise,the markets and the media in an effort to keep the plates spinning long enough for reelection.

There's a lot of truth in that of course. Certainly both the major parties have let the country down big time, and we are incredibly badly governed at all levels.

But you can't entirely blame governments for a generation being brought up in large part to have what they wanted when they wanted it, thus developing a sense of entitlement that is out of kilter with the realities of the modern world.

In addition the boomer generation very predominantly voted with its pocket (all electorates tend to do so but never more so than here). They shut their eyes and ears to the woeful inadequacies of state education, the folly of open door immigration and of subsidising people to have more children, and to welfare policies which made working for a living an optional extra for millions. As long as the value of their houses kept going up and up, and they deluded themselves that they were continually becoming better off, they carried on voting fairly unquestionably and undemandingly for whoever they thought was delivering that for them.

GeorgeHowell

floridaman wrote: »

Of course the boomers are responsible for this mess. Boomers helped boomers end of. The only silver lining is that the boomers will leave their wealth to the young.

The ones unlucky enough to have go into long term care at £5 grand + a month won't.

BobQ

Jason74 wrote: »

Up until "I did buy a BTL as an ivestment", I would have completely agreed with your post. However, in going down the BTL route, you become part of the problem. Whether you choose to acknowledge it or not, a significant side effect of BTL investment is that it pulls up the ladder from young people, and in doing so, adds to the problems facing young people.

This is particularly the case given that the boomer generation enjoyed the most helpful environment for building wealth of any generation. As you say, you didn't create those circumstances, and good luck to you for making the most of them. But it does leave you as a generation with some responsibility towards futuire generations in terms of at least not making things more difficult to those who do (whether you acknowledge it or not) face a far less favourable environment than you did. Investing in BTL certainly does make life harder for younger people to get on the property ladder, even though I acknowledge that this is not the intention of most people who invest in this way, and it is in practice something of a side effect.

You, and probably the majority to be fair, would probably argue that you have no responsibility to future generations (beyond your own family), such side effects are not your concern. I respectfully disagree with you.

I take your point about BTL, but I never set out with that intention. Circumstances have meant that I have had to live in a property I did not own, so I wanted to make sure that I owned a home rather than have to buy one in my fifties.

As to future generations, I would never argue that generations have no responsibility to those that follow. It is the majority (of all generations) who vote for policies that disadvantage your generation, that believe in an unregulated, free market, that encourage individual freedom at the expense of collective freedom, do not believe in society, prefer tax cuts to public investment, believe vulnerable groups should rely on charity, and want personal funding of education, healthcare, etc. Personally, I believe in none of this. But as an individual I make my decisions based on world as it is not how I think it ought to be.

So me choosing not to own a BTL property when it is regarded as a legitimate legal investment is not the same as me supporting an electable party that say limits individual letting of a property to 3 years or taxes rental income at 60%, or stops mortgage interest being a legitimate expense.

BobQ

wotsthat wrote: »

I know you have an issue with BTL but we should be looking at treating the disease rather than the symptom.

The disease is a lack of housing.

I agree. In fact if BTL were made less attractive, my belief is that those controlling the market would reduce the number of houses we build and find other ways of maintaining prices.

grizzly1911

AvQUOTE=GeorgeHowell;65054485]There's a lot of truth in that of course. Certainly both the major parties have let the country down big time, and we are incredibly badly governed at all levels.

But you can't entirely blame governments for a generation being brought up in large part to have what they wanted when they wanted it, thus developing a sense of entitlement that is out of kilter with the realities of the modern world.

In addition the boomer generation very predominantly voted with its pocket (all electorates tend to do so but never more so than here). They shut their eyes and ears to the woeful inadequacies of state education, the folly of open door immigration and of subsidising people to have more children, and to welfare policies which made working for a living an optional extra for millions. As long as the value of their houses kept going up and up, and they deluded themselves that they were continually becoming better off, they carried on voting fairly unquestionably and undemandingly for whoever they thought was delivering that for them.[/QUOTE]

If the only electable parties are roughly aligned in those core areas difficult to achieve much else.

Perhaps a "Not Any Of The Above" should have been/be available. It may be the strongest vote.

GeorgeHowell

grizzly1911 wrote: »

Perhaps a "Not Any Of The Above" should have been/be available. It may be the strongest vote.

I think it is available now ... it's called UKIP. I shan't vote for them because I think it's a wasted vote but probably millions will.

Jason74

BobQ wrote: »

I take your point about BTL, but I never set out with that intention. Circumstances have meant that I have had to live in a property I did not own, so I wanted to make sure that I owned a home rather than have to buy one in my fifties.

As to future generations, I would never argue that generations have no responsibility to those that follow. It is the majority (of all generations) who vote for policies that disadvantage your generation, that believe in an unregulated, free market, that encourage individual freedom at the expense of collective freedom, do not believe in society, prefer tax cuts to public investment, believe vulnerable groups should rely on charity, and want personal funding of education, healthcare, etc. Personally, I believe in none of this. But as an individual I make my decisions based on world as it is not how I think it ought to be.

So me choosing not to own a BTL property when it is regarded as a legitimate legal investment is not the same as me supporting an electable party that say limits individual letting of a property to 3 years or taxes rental income at 60%, or stops mortgage interest being a legitimate expense.

Thanks for the well reasoned reply, it's much appreciated. One thing for the record though, it's not "my" generation who are particularly disadvantaged. I'm just coming up to 40, and own a modest home outright in a part of London that I really like. I might want to trade up at some point, but if I did (and given that I'm happy where I am, there's a good chanbe I wont) would be doing so with a mortgage of about 25% of any new home's value, and only slightly more than the combined income of my wife and I. I can't claim to be someone who is disadvantaged based on when I was born.

My concern is about the next generation down. I see the life chances of people in their 20s and younger being heavily damaged by a "tripple whammy" of obscene housing costs for someone starting out, a dramatic lack of good "middle income" job opportunities, and huge costs for accessing a level of education to access even most mid paying jobs. If the youngest adults are continually disadvantaged in this way, eventually we'll have a major social problem on our hands. Imho it's a credit to the younger generation that we don't already.

I'm certainly not "blaming" older people for this state of affairs, and I think that only those at the extreme end of the spectrum that would go down that route. I actually think your second paragraph sums it up rather well, and yes, everyone ultimately needs to look after themselves and their families too. I think in terms of the "world as it is rathen than I think its ought to be" argument, Gandhi had it about right when he said "be the chage you wish to see in others". That one's easier said than done for all of us though !.

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

In your day 'O' levels were considered a mark of distinction and the ticket to a decent job, which could be achieved from school.

Young people now have to have a university degree to be barely qualified for a job filing.

You lot all laugh at the ex poly Media and Pop Music degrees - do you really believe that actually academically oriented students are doing them because they can't be bothered to do that PhD in Chemistry at Imperial?

They're doing them because they are non academic students who are trying for a qualification that they can actually get, that will at least allow their CV not to be binned when they apply for the 'Filing clerk needed, £10,000 per annum with no benefits, must be a graduate.' adverts on Reed.

I know plenty of young people who have wasted precious months and years following plumbing qualifications at FE colleges that peter out the moment they have to do an apprenticeship and there aren't any. In the boomers time if you wanted to be a plumber you went to a plumber and said - 'can i be your apprentice' and he either said yes or no and if he said yes, then you had a career, and if he said no you went and found something else to do.

I agree with you. This is largely the "confidence trick" that has been perpetrated on the generation who paid for their higher education. Fundamentally, the proportion of jobs needing a firm academic grounding has not changed that much.

ukcarper

Jason74 wrote: »

Thanks for the well reasoned reply, it's much appreciated. One thing for the record though, it's not "my" generation who are particularly disadvantaged. I'm just coming up to 40, and own a modest home outright in a part of London that I really like. I might want to trade up at some point, but if I did (and given that I'm happy where I am, there's a good chanbe I wont) would be doing so with a mortgage of about 25% of any new home's value, and only slightly more than the combined income of my wife and I. I can't claim to be someone who is disadvantaged based on when I was born.

My concern is about the next generation down. I see the life chances of people in their 20s and younger being heavily damaged by a "tripple whammy" of obscene housing costs for someone starting out, a dramatic lack of good "middle income" job opportunities, and huge costs for accessing a level of education to access even most mid paying jobs. If the youngest adults are continually disadvantaged in this way, eventually we'll have a major social problem on our hands. Imho it's a credit to the younger generation that we don't already.

I'm certainly not "blaming" older people for this state of affairs, and I think that only those at the extreme end of the spectrum that would go down that route. I actually think your second paragraph sums it up rather well, and yes, everyone ultimately needs to look after themselves and their families too. I think in terms of the "world as it is rathen than I think its ought to be" argument, Gandhi had it about right when he said "be the chage you wish to see in others". That one's easier said than done for all of us though !.

I must admit I share the concerns you expressed in your second paragraph but we are recovering from worse financial crash since war and we can only hope things improve.