More evidence of increasing wealth gap

ruperts

cells wrote: »

they wont go anywhere because most of them are in line for a share of the ANNUAL £200 billion a year that is gifted and inherited.

Also bear in mind only really one or two generation needs to buy a house and pay it off, all subsequent generations effectively get it for free.

Yeah I'm sure young people are all going to write off the prospect of making a decent life for themselves and just sit and wait for their parents to die instead.

What kind of ill mindset do you need to even consider writing these things?

cells

ruperts wrote: »

Yeah I'm sure young people are all going to write off the prospect of making a decent life for themselves and just sit and wait for their parents to die instead.

What kind of ill mindset do you need to even consider writing these things?

No one is asking you to count the clock just to know the fact that something on the order of £200 billion a year is inherited or gifted. Plenty of 20 somethings and 30 somethings get substantial gifts from their parents often when they get married so it isn't about waiting for death.

This generation has it good and the next generation will have it even better

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

No one is asking you to count the clock just to know the fact that something on the order of £200 billion a year is inherited or gifted. Plenty of 20 somethings and 30 somethings get substantial gifts from their parents often when they get married so it isn't about waiting for death.

This generation has it good and the next generation will have it even better

presumbaly this shows itself in the ever increasing proportion of 30 years olds who are owner occupiers and in their proportion of the wealth of the nation

Apodemus

Interesting discussion but we are assuming that the "generational" difference quoted for thirty-year-olds across the last ten years is restricted to that age category and I am not sure that is correct.

If I compare my circumstances (in my mid fifties) to those ten years older, I might find a comparable gap. Many of those above me retired at 55 on private pensions, whereas i certainly won't. Even those who worked on contract terms managed a thirty year career, while I have had to change career twice. Salary progression tended to continue in later career for them, while it has tended to stall for my age cohort.

I'm not complaining, I just think we need to look at whether the data being presented for thirty-somethings is actually a thirty-something phenomenon or simply a wider economic trend, before we assume that the older generation is attacking the younger.

mrginge

Once again cells comes up with a number that bears no relation to reality.

cells

CLAPTON wrote: »

presumbaly this shows itself in the ever increasing proportion of 30 years olds who are owner occupiers and in their proportion of the wealth of the nation

I'm not sure limiting it to 30 is a good idea I would limit it to newly married to take into account that people seem to be getting married later.

The last three people to get married in their late 20s I know of all receives substantial gifts. One a whole house no mortgage and the other two in the region of £100-150k which they used as deposits to buy homes. Of course this will not apply to everyone but it does apply to a significant proportion. I also know a landlord who is in his 70s and will likely gift each of his grand children an unencumbered house this decade and he has quire a few >10 grandchildren

As I said before I would look at what people in their 40s have today vs people in their 30s had a generation ago. The difference due to starting life later (starting working age 15 rather than 22 and life expectancy up nearly a decade). Overall the country certainly has much more wealth than a generation ago and that wealth does get passes down.

If anything this discussion is really about timing of gifts and inheritances not about wages or house prices. In the past people got those about a decade sooner which probably accounts for most possibly all the differences you may note in a certain age group

ruperts

Apodemus wrote: »

Interesting discussion but we are assuming that the "generational" difference quoted for thirty-year-olds across the last ten years is restricted to that age category and I am not sure that is correct.

If I compare my circumstances (in my mid fifties) to those ten years older, I might find a comparable gap. Many of those above me retired at 55 on private pensions, whereas i certainly won't. Even those who worked on contract terms managed a thirty year career, while I have had to change career twice. Salary progression tended to continue in later career for them, while it has tended to stall for my age cohort.

I'm not complaining, I just think we need to look at whether the data being presented for thirty-somethings is actually a thirty-something phenomenon or simply a wider economic trend, before we assume that the older generation is attacking the younger.

First generation in modern British history where wealth has fallen.

ruperts

cells wrote: »

I'm not sure limiting it to 30 is a good idea I would limit it to newly married to take into account that people seem to be getting married later.

The last three people to get married in their late 20s I know of all receives substantial gifts. One a whole house no mortgage and the other two in the region of £100-150k which they used as deposits to buy homes. Of course this will not apply to everyone but it does apply to a significant proportion. I also know a landlord who is in his 70s and will likely gift each of his grand children an unencumbered house this decade and he has quire a few >10 grandchildren

As I said before I would look at what people in their 40s have today vs people in their 30s had a generation ago. The difference due to starting life later (starting working age 15 rather than 22 and life expectancy up nearly a decade). Overall the country certainly has much more wealth than a generation ago and that wealth does get passes down.

If anything this discussion is really about timing of gifts and inheritances not about wages or house prices. In the past people got those about a decade sooner which probably accounts for most possibly all the differences you may note in a certain age group

If recent reports about more than half of people not having more than £100 savings are to be believed then I'd consider the idea that a significant proportion of people are getting wedding gifts of hundreds of thousands of pounds somewhat unlikely.

CLAPTON

cells wrote: »

I'm not sure limiting it to 30 is a good idea I would limit it to newly married to take into account that people seem to be getting married later.

The last three people to get married in their late 20s I know of all receives substantial gifts. One a whole house no mortgage and the other two in the region of £100-150k which they used as deposits to buy homes. Of course this will not apply to everyone but it does apply to a significant proportion. I also know a landlord who is in his 70s and will likely gift each of his grand children an unencumbered house this decade and he has quire a few >10 grandchildren

As I said before I would look at what people in their 40s have today vs people in their 30s had a generation ago. The difference due to starting life later (starting working age 15 rather than 22 and life expectancy up nearly a decade). Overall the country certainly has much more wealth than a generation ago and that wealth does get passes down.

If anything this discussion is really about timing of gifts and inheritances not about wages or house prices. In the past people got those about a decade sooner which probably accounts for most possibly all the differences you may note in a certain age group

and this shows clearly in the ever increasing number of people (all ages ) that live in owner occupier properties.

obviously I know that every single person you know live in 5 bed detached house which they bought at agae 21 from their 4 million inheritance supported by their 150,000 pa salary.

Apodemus

ruperts wrote: »

First generation in modern British history where wealth has fallen.

That's really interesting. (It does also show up my suspicion about the relativity of my own situation, with the flatter 60s graph dipping below the 50s graph in later career.)