Boomers Pension Gravy Train Finally To Be Derailed

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I see now you're pouring scorn on the"Heroic Generation", also known as the Forgotten Generation because so much emphasis was placed on the Boomers.

Why do you disparage your parents?

I honour all decent people but it is a fact (foreign territory for you, I know) that free TV licenses go to the 75s and older.

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

boomers pay for the BBC: it's those people you admire of the WW2 generation that get free TV licenses
and not many under 70s bed block either.

The ratio of bedrooms to boomers is about 3:1

Meanwhile the young struggle in crowded houseshares where front rooms are converted into bedrooms.

Loanranger

Very sweeping statements here from the Young One. I note that stereotyping is alive and well along with abusive posts such as they all should die. About time this thread was closed.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The ratio of bedrooms to boomers is about 3:1

Meanwhile the young struggle in crowded houseshares where front rooms are converted into bedrooms.

it is indeed so that people who live alone or as a couple in multi bedroom houses do have a higher ratio of rooms to people than people living in house share
in many situations this a natural consequence of children growing up and leaving the family home
some people consider the 'soultion' to this is to import 8 million more people into the country but I don't really see how this helps.

MobileSaver

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Meanwhile the young struggle in crowded houseshares where front rooms are converted into bedrooms.

You mean exactly like my girlfriend and I did 25 years ago? Guess what, it's what a lot of us did when we were "young", it's all part of growing up!

Your fundamental problem is jealousy; you see people older than you with nicer homes and totally ignore that they've worked and saved for literally decades longer than you to get to where they are now. You want what they've got but simply don't want to put the time or effort in to get there; like so many younger people you just want everything now.

ruggedtoast

MobileSaver wrote: »

You mean exactly like my girlfriend and I did 25 years ago? Guess what, it's what a lot of us did when we were "young", it's all part of growing up!

Your fundamental problem is jealousy; you see people older than you with nicer homes and totally ignore that they've worked and saved for literally decades longer than you to get to where they are now. You want what they've got but simply don't want to put the time or effort in to get there; like so many younger people you just want everything now.

And do you live in a shared rented house now?

No. That's the difference.

mwpt

MobileSaver wrote: »

like so many younger people you just want everything now.

Exhibiting the very prevalent trait here where it is ok to label and entire generation. Remember, you guys raised this generation.

Cornucopia

mwpt wrote: »

Exhibiting the very prevalent trait here where it is ok to label and entire generation. Remember, you guys raised this generation.

So you are saying that you don't even have the support of the majority of your own generation in this?

Ultimately, you (as a group) need to go much, much further to persuade the rest of society and Government that this is more than not accepting the truism that young people are poorer than old people.

I think you (as a group) need to be much clearer about what it is that you want and expect. If it is a house for £50, then that isn't going to happen, but if you are realistic in your demands, then who knows what could be possible?

I'd certainly like to see land reform in the face of land-banking by developers. I'd also like to see not-for-profit development (particularly of ex-public sector land) so that low-cost eco-housing can be provided both for rent and for sale.

Building more housing is the only way to tackle that aspect of the inter-generational issue. The idea that BTL somehow restricts housing supply is nonsense, as I think you must know.

ruggedtoast

Cornucopia wrote: »

So you are saying that you don't even have the support of the majority of your own generation in this?

Ultimately, you (as a group) need to go much, much further to persuade the rest of society and Government that this is more than not accepting the truism that young people are poorer than old people.

I think you (as a group) need to be much clearer about what it is that you want and expect. If it is a house for £50, then that isn't going to happen, but if you are realistic in your demands, then who knows what could be possible?

I'd certainly like to see land reform in the face of land-banking by developers. I'd also like to see not-for-profit development (particularly of ex-public sector land) so that low-cost eco-housing can be provided both for rent and for sale.

Building more housing is the only way to tackle that aspect of the inter-generational issue. The idea that BTL somehow restricts housing supply is nonsense, as I think you must know.

The thing you appear to have missed is that most people don't see young people being poorer than old people as a job well done on the part of the old people.

I don't know why I am bothering to continue pointing this out because its like slamming ones head into a brick wall but here goes, again.

Boomers are not sharing the wealth out, young people will live through their working lives being poorer than boomers and paying for all the blank cheque promises the Thatcher, Major, Blair, Cameron and May governments have made to boomers to get votes from boomers.

Who is paying for older people's triple locked pensions, free tv licenses, bus travel, unlimited NHS care, housing that is now so unaffordable that if a supermarket chicken had followed the same trajectory since the 70s it would now cost £500? Younger people.

Who is not going to get any of those things when they retire themselves? Younger people.

There is nothing sustainable about the economy British boomers have created. Its like an entire generation of people who have had an enormous restaurant meal, ordered bottles of the most expensive wine and then skipped out the back leaving the last person there to pick up the check, even though that person only arrived at the dessert course and barely had anything.

steampowered

Cornucopia wrote: »

That definitely makes me a net contributor.

As I say, I am a net contributor so far, possibly 2 or 3 times over. I had no real say in what everyone else did. That makes it somewhat unfair and unintelligent to try to brand us all as being somehow part of a malign group with consistent behaviours that we never had.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Ultimately, you (as a group) need to go much, much further to persuade the rest of society and Government that this is more than not accepting the truism that young people are poorer than old people.

When you were presented with evidence dealing with the boomers as a generation, you seemed to tell us that it doesn't apply to you because you are a net contributor. You told us that it was - I quote - "unfair and unintelligent" to brand boomers with the behaviour of their generation.

Yet, you are perfectly happy to talk about the young generation as a group.

I am confused. Can we use generational averages to inform policy making or not?