Inter generational fairness

lisyloo

Amazing what we're seeing on the news right now when everyone could simply just go back and stay with mum and dad when they are down on their luck.

GreatApe

lisyloo wrote: »

Amazing what we're seeing on the news right now when everyone could simply just go back and stay with mum and dad when they are down on their luck.

crying about it certainly isn't going to fix their problems

mwpt

GreatApe wrote: »

crying about it certainly isn't going to fix their problems

That sort of talk isn't necessary. What you call crying is actually vocalising the problems and getting attention on them. After enough attention and when the politicians deem it a big enough vote winner, something will be done.

Do you have alternate suggestions? Keep quiet and accept everything you don't like? Take to the streets for some good old fashioned pillaging? Turf oldies out their homes and occupy them?

missbiggles1

GreatApe wrote: »

Is it that big a burden to let you kids live with you until the age of 26?
Is it that big a burden to live at home with your parents until the age of 26?
Are the alternatives, a grotty HMO, better?

I suspect many people do not kick their kids out at 16 or 18. I wouldn't. many kids probably do stay past 18.

Maybe the house prices are too expensive cheerleaders are the ones who want to rent the grotty HMO and look down on the kids staying in their parents house saving to buy a house outright at age 26 rather than complaining at age 26 that they are broke and have £30k in debt and life is impossible?


Also it does not have to be age 26 that is just the time it would take to save £100k. If they buy a more modest home for £80k they can reduce the age to 24

Nothing wrong in staying at home for that long if it suits both parties but your financial assumption was that someone would be living off (not with) their parents until their mid 20s, which, to my mind, is very wrong.

missbiggles1

GreatApe wrote: »

unemployment for 16-17 year olds in the uk is currently about 25% which means 75% of them do have jobs.

Like with all age groups, if you exclude short term unemployment the unemployment percentage number falls to about half or less of the headline figure

Kids of that age shouldn't be in work, they should be in education or training.

steampowered

Masomnia wrote: »

Do you think it's a step forward that people are now more reliant on inherited wealth (ie good fortune), than in the past where more people were self funded?

Exactly. I agree 110%.

This, in a nutshell, is what I think is going wrong with our economy. We are fast moving towards a situation where people's position in life is determined by their inheritance and their unearned property wealth; rather than by what they earn through wealth.

We seem to be moving away from a meritocracy.

[Deleted User]

steampowered wrote: »

Exactly. I agree 110%.

This, in a nutshell, is what I think is going wrong with our economy. We are fast moving towards a situation where people's position in life is determined by their inheritance and their unearned property wealth; rather than by what they earn through wealth.

We seem to be moving away from a meritocracy.

We seem to be moving in the direction of multi-generational mortgages - http://paulwallbank.com/2013/03/10/australia-has-multi-generational-mortgages-to-prolong-their-property-bubbl/

I took out a 33 year mortgage on my current home. I maxed it out so it would be paid off when I'm 65, with the view that any inheritance would then be used to shorten it (And my own overpayments when I'm able to). Are mortgages in the 'property bubble areas' going to need to spread further out, so that my kids eventually inherit them along with the property?

GreatApe

mwpt wrote: »

That sort of talk isn't necessary. What you call crying is actually vocalising the problems and getting attention on them. After enough attention and when the politicians deem it a big enough vote winner, something will be done.

What problem?

The main problem I see is that those who are from poorer parts of society who have not worked harder, not worked more skilled and not worked more hours&years are unhappy that their lot in life in not in the top one third but rather in the bottom one third. There is no way for the bottom one third to vote themselves up because there will always be a bottom one third.

Do you have alternate suggestions? Keep quiet and accept everything you don't like? Take to the streets for some good old fashioned pillaging? Turf oldies out their homes and occupy them?

Yes I do have suggestions but they are often not well received.

If you are from the poorer portion of society you simply have to work harder longer better to move up. There are some shortcuts for those who really want it like finding and marrying a richer spouse/family but for the majority it really is working longer better and smarter

The example of someone starting work at 16 and saving almost all they can until 26 is such an example of how someone from a poor family can become a middle income/asset family and how they themselves can set up their own children to start off from a higher level.

GreatApe

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Nothing wrong in staying at home for that long if it suits both parties but your financial assumption was that someone would be living off (not with) their parents until their mid 20s, which, to my mind, is very wrong.

Well it seems 57% of those age 16-26 do live with their parents so it is the majority.
They would pay for their own things (food,cloths,etc), they just would not be paying rent which I would guess is what the majority of this 57% are doing. I dont see why a parent would think a child from 0-16 can live for free in their room but come 16 + 1 day they need to pay rent for the room else its living off them. Seriously who hates their kids that much to think that the kid living with them is a burden and the 16 year old is taking the !!!!?

Maybe there is a social divide. I dont know any middle class families that kick their kids out at 16/18 most of them support their kids throughout their lives including often leaving a significant inheritance. but I have known some working class kids who did move out at 16/18 one particular one sticks out in my mind the girl left at 16 and was pregnant before 17 and her older brother who left at the same age was rough as *** how is the tax system or house prices going to mean these two or groups like them are going to do as well or better than the group of kids that get continuous support from their parents?

GreatApe

missbiggles1 wrote: »

Kids of that age shouldn't be in work, they should be in education or training.

Why?
Why cant a kid of 16 work and still learn or train?
When 85% of kids left school age 15/16 in years gone by did that mean 85% of the population was in crap jobs and had no future or were making a mistake?

Forget 16, I would allow parents and kids to leave school as early as 14 if they obtained a full time work/apprentice contract.