Will Releasing Pensions lead to a lot more BTL

bigheadxx

CLAPTON wrote: »

High population is not a recipe for high GDP per head.

There are numerous countries all round the world that prove that high population isn't a recipe for per capita income and welfare.

There is no economic analysis that has shown that consumption per immigrant is higher than consumption per native.
If it were so would you be happy that immigrants were getting more out of the UK that native born (per capita of course)? i.e. immigrants having more consumption of housing, medical services, cloths, utilities etc than native born. Why ever is that a good thing?

Obviously you welcome the growth in population, whilst I do not want a great increase in our population.
Essentially a ponzi scheme where the only solution to longer life is exponentially increasing population.

Many of our daily requirements have to be imported; we are not self sufficient in food, gas, fuel etc and an increasing population will
require ever higher levels of essential imports.


I'm also amused by your concern that boomers will consume LESS; most people are concerned by their over consumption and greed rather than their being willing to add to the UK savings pool.

I'm still amased that you expect a 20-30 year old to have accumulated the same wealth as a 50-60 year old.

I think you are deliberately misinterpreting my posts. I did not day that higher population would lead to higher GDP per head, quite the reverse in fact.

I also did not say that immigrants would consume more per head but that they would "consume" and replace the spending as the boomers age and generally consume less (pensions are lower than salary, kids left home, one car not two etc)

You hit the nail on the head and completely blow a hole in your argument with your "ponzi scheme" comment. It is a ponzi scheme and the boomers are at the top level. Pay as you go pensions mean that the baby boomer generation has not set aside enough money to pay for its retirement. That burden falls to the rest of us who are propping up the Ponzi triangle. However the Ponzi is being dismantled, pensions, health and education are being reformed so that the next generation will pay the costs as they go and probably work well into their seventies to do so.

Immigration is not the answer for the young, 80,000,000 is about as much as these islands can take. It is perverse that the people who will benefit most from inward migration are the ones most opposed to it.

bigheadxx

Baby boomers consumption relates to the last thirty years and particularly 1997 to 2007. Debt fuelled growth fuelled wage rises that bore no reality to what was happening in the real economy. The assets belong to the boomers but the cost will be borne by their kids in the form of higher house prices, lower wages and less state support.

CLAPTON

bigheadxx wrote: »

I think you are deliberately misinterpreting my posts. I did not day that higher population would lead to higher GDP per head, quite the reverse in fact.

I also did not say that immigrants would consume more per head but that they would "consume" and replace the spending as the boomers age and generally consume less (pensions are lower than salary, kids left home, one car not two etc)

You hit the nail on the head and completely blow a hole in your argument with your "ponzi scheme" comment. It is a ponzi scheme and the boomers are at the top level. Pay as you go pensions mean that the baby boomer generation has not set aside enough money to pay for its retirement. That burden falls to the rest of us who are propping up the Ponzi triangle. However the Ponzi is being dismantled, pensions, health and education are being reformed so that the next generation will pay the costs as they go and probably work well into their seventies to do so.

Immigration is not the answer for the young, 80,000,000 is about as much as these islands can take. It is perverse that the people who will benefit most from inward migration are the ones most opposed to it.

I really can't understand what you are trying to say.

You seem to want immigration and not want it.
You seem to resent boomer spending and resent them not spending.


The clear reality is that we in the UK are all very rich by any historical standard and virtually any world standard.

It may or may not be true that one section is a bit better off that another but all have riches beyond anything people could dream of when the first boomers were born.

Economics is not a zero sum game: because some-one gains doesn't mean that anyone has lost.
Go travel the world and see what real poverty is like.
Then rejoice you live in such a wonderful country and have such excellent opportunities, health care, education etc and stop being envious because you have read some garbage about inter generational inequalities.
And yes, even rejoice that people are living longer and in better health even if it does throw up some minor, easy to solve issues.

CLAPTON

bigheadxx wrote: »

Baby boomers consumption relates to the last thirty years and particularly 1997 to 2007. Debt fuelled growth fuelled wage rises that bore no reality to what was happening in the real economy. The assets belong to the boomers but the cost will be borne by their kids in the form of higher house prices, lower wages and less state support.

1997 boomers were aged 31 to 51
and in
2007 between 41 and 61

so in this period they probably made up about 25% of the whole population and probably more than 50% of the working population.


One would expect them to have been a major economic factor in this period : how could it be otherwise?

House prices can be reduced by building more houses: this is not technically difficult and other countries have managed to do that without all the agonising in the UK

Just build more houses.

Now a growing majority of of the economic active people are no longer boomers so these 'new' people can magically show how clever they are and solve all the 'problems ' you perceive we have.


Boomers have already past considerable assets to their children and as they die off their huge assets will pass to their children or grandchild: doubtless there will be a new no hope generation declaring war on them for inheriting the earth.

ruggedtoast

Blessed are the offspring of the boomers. For they shall inherit the earth.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Blessed are the offspring of the boomers. For they shall inherit the earth.

Mine won't do to bad they are already in a better position that I was at their age and they haven't had my money yet.

bigheadxx

CLAPTON wrote: »

1997 boomers were aged 31 to 51
and in
2007 between 41 and 61

so in this period they probably made up about 25% of the whole population and probably more than 50% of the working population.


One would expect them to have been a major economic factor in this period : how could it be otherwise?

House prices can be reduced by building more houses: this is not technically difficult and other countries have managed to do that without all the agonising in the UK

Just build more houses.

Now a growing majority of of the economic active people are no longer boomers so these 'new' people can magically show how clever they are and solve all the 'problems ' you perceive we have.


Boomers have already past considerable assets to their children and as they die off their huge assets will pass to their children or grandchild: doubtless there will be a new no hope generation declaring war on them for inheriting the earth.

Just because they were economically active does not mean that they were productive. The ten years to 2007 were the least productive in UK history yet wages, especially in the public sector were pushed higher and higher. Those workers were also the last to get anywhere near a final salary pension scheme, even the public sector schemes are now career average.

It just seems very convenient that now final salary pensions are closed and the boomer generation (admittedly mainly in the public sector) have pension based on those very high final salary's we have got wage freezes and real pay not set to increase until 2020. Maybe if the boom hadn't been orchestrated, pay would have risen in line with real GDP and pension incomes based on fair final salary?

It is also quite convenient that the house price boom worked very much to the advantage of the boomers. There parents, into there sixties and seventies sitting in a paid for house and probably zero debt. Suddenly that house is worth three or four times what it was in 1997 just as the war time generation are popping their cloggs or beyond the time of life for actually spending the money themselves?

I also doubt very much that my generation will see much by way of inheritance. Care fees and the likelihood that parents will simply run out of money and have to sell up make that unlikely and I aren't pinning my hope on it. Plus it is likely that people will live into their nineties as the norm meaning that GX will be close to retirement too.

ukcarper

bigheadxx wrote: »

Just because they were economically active does not mean that they were productive. The ten years to 2007 were the least productive in UK history yet wages, especially in the public sector were pushed higher and higher. Those workers were also the last to get anywhere near a final salary pension scheme, even the public sector schemes are now career average.

It just seems very convenient that now final salary pensions are closed and the boomer generation (admittedly mainly in the public sector) have pension based on those very high final salary's we have got wage freezes and real pay not set to increase until 2020. Maybe if the boom hadn't been orchestrated, pay would have risen in line with real GDP and pension incomes based on fair final salary?

It is also quite convenient that the house price boom worked very much to the advantage of the boomers. There parents, into there sixties and seventies sitting in a paid for house and probably zero debt. Suddenly that house is worth three or four times what it was in 1997 just as the war time generation are popping their cloggs or beyond the time of life for actually spending the money themselves?

I also doubt very much that my generation will see much by way of inheritance. Care fees and the likelihood that parents will simply run out of money and have to sell up make that unlikely and I aren't pinning my hope on it. Plus it is likely that people will live into their nineties as the norm meaning that GX will be close to retirement too.

How many boomers have final salary pensions I do but none of my friends have. Property prices boomed in the 90s and early 00s but depending on when in the past you bought the increase in real terms has been smaller and even smaller if you compare them to earnings.


The whole Boomer GenX thing is ridiculous as early GenX have more in common with late boomers than late GenX.

grizzly1911

ukcarper wrote: »

Is that figure correct though according to CML there are 11.2 million mortgages in total.

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Office for national statistics estimates that 350,000 over the age of 65 still have a mortgage.

Over the next decade 40,000 a year will hit retirement with an outstanding mortgage.

Current balance owing is around £30k. Which is forecast to increase as the trend of rising house prices impacted the amount people borrowed.

@uk - I don't know, was a headline in a discussion on potential pension release. I guess it depends on the definition of pensioner to some extent.

CLAPTON

bigheadxx wrote: »

Just because they were economically active does not mean that they were productive. The ten years to 2007 were the least productive in UK history yet wages, especially in the public sector were pushed higher and higher. Those workers were also the last to get anywhere near a final salary pension scheme, even the public sector schemes are now career average.

It just seems very convenient that now final salary pensions are closed and the boomer generation (admittedly mainly in the public sector) have pension based on those very high final salary's we have got wage freezes and real pay not set to increase until 2020. Maybe if the boom hadn't been orchestrated, pay would have risen in line with real GDP and pension incomes based on fair final salary?

It is also quite convenient that the house price boom worked very much to the advantage of the boomers. There parents, into there sixties and seventies sitting in a paid for house and probably zero debt. Suddenly that house is worth three or four times what it was in 1997 just as the war time generation are popping their cloggs or beyond the time of life for actually spending the money themselves?

I also doubt very much that my generation will see much by way of inheritance. Care fees and the likelihood that parents will simply run out of money and have to sell up make that unlikely and I aren't pinning my hope on it. Plus it is likely that people will live into their nineties as the norm meaning that GX will be close to retirement too.

In what way was the period before 2007 the least productive in UK history?

obviously you have facts and figures to show that


most boomers did not work in the public sector, so I'm absolutely amazed they used their awesome power to manipulate the system to boost the public sector workers' pay and conditions.


I would suggest you read a economic textbook and stop reading internet conspiracy theories.