Resolution foundation report: highlighted on bbc website

chiefie

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/02/IC-intra-gen.pdf

No real mention that intergenerational issues are probably being dealt with within families.

It would be good if government policy were influenced to help the young rather than suggest the baby boomers must now pay for their current apparent wealthy position.

woolly_wombat

chiefie wrote: »

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2017/02/IC-intra-gen.pdf

No real mention that intergenerational issues are probably being dealt with within families.

Indeed, although Figure 8 clearly shows that approx 30% of millennials are adult children still living in their parent's house.

It would be good if government policy were influenced to help the young rather than suggest the baby boomers must now pay for their current apparent wealthy position.

Yes blaming the boomers is becoming worryingly fashionable, but a glance through the report throws up some interesting observations:

• Figure 2 illustrates generation X well ahead of the boomers by age 30, and gen X must surely be the generation who have benefitted the most from ZIRP.
• Figure 2 also illustrates that incomes for boomers are peaking at approx 54 before starting to decline quite steeply, whereas for the silent generation (born 1926-1945) they did not peak until 65 before slowly declining. If that trend continues then I would expect to see 70-something boomers' incomes declining below those of the silent generation at that age.
• Around 28% of boomers own their own homes but still have mortgages, which I thought was surprisingly high when taking into account incomes peaking at around 54 and still housing adult children.

In conclusion, I don't think the outlook for boomers is as bright as many are suggesting, and it concerns me that they are now becoming the 'scapegoat' generation.
.

PensionTech

Figure 2 also illustrates that incomes for boomers are peaking at approx 54 before starting to decline quite steeply, whereas for the silent generation (born 1926-1945) they did not peak until 65 before slowly declining. If that trend continues then I would expect to see 70-something boomers' incomes declining below those of the silent generation at that age.

I think you would be hard pressed to claim that the trend will continue downwards. The income data for baby boomers doesn't go beyond age 64. More than half of the state pension payable to that generation will kick in at age 65. You should see a significant income effect at that age.

woolly_wombat

PensionTech wrote: »

I think you would be hard pressed to claim that the trend will continue downwards. The income data for baby boomers doesn't go beyond age 64. More than half of the state pension payable to that generation will kick in at age 65. You should see a significant income effect at that age.

I was surprised to see that as recently as 2014 "Only 36 per cent of women age 65-69 received the full state pension".

.

xylophone

I was surprised to see that as recently as 2014 "Only 36 per cent of women age 65-69 received the full state pension".

I wasn't. A woman aged 69 in 2014 may well have married and started a family when she was 18 or 19 (say 1963/64). Her SPA (age 60) would have been 2005 and she would have needed 39 years paid or credited for a full BSP.

HRP didn't kick in until 1978.

At that time it was much more common for mothers not to work outside the home or if they did, to work on a very part time basis.

Some mothers would have taken the view that full time work was only possible after the youngest child reached secondary school age and so was "grown up" enough to not need constant supervision after school and during holidays.

It was also very much the expectation that they would also care for their own parents/grandparents if this was required.

Under these circumstances it is not surprising that many women were not eligible for a full state pension.