GBdamo

Or they could rebalance some of the retirement promises that the current batch of retirees made to themselves (without fully funding) and they could tighten tax law to ensure big corporates and the uber-rich pay their fair share. Their pension funds are the major shareholders in most of the large corporations. Wages and working conditions are constantly squeezed to prop up share prices. The old national companies were sold off and again are held in the majority by pension funds as a result we are all having to pay larger and larger utilitl bills. Local councils, in the majority, use 30-40% of their budgets paying pensions and that figure is increasing meaning higer council tax and poorer services. Housing costs are kept artificially high through NIMBYism and VI lobbying along with the 'It's me pension' BTLers. The only reason imigrant workers will work for the money they do is because they often have much higher domestic densities. It would be an interesting excersise to see what portion of takehome pay is used supporting these extended, and relatively comfortable, retirements. When all the rebalancing is done the benefits of working might look a little more inticing.

These questions don't appear to follow logically from what I have posted but what the hell, i'm bored. I have said nothing about times/dates and will continue not to do so. I respectfully refer the gentleman to my first answer. Why? What's the point? I mean is this a serious question? Do you see yourself fitting the description of an Evil Boomer or something? I'm struggling to understand where you're taking this conversation and why.

I guess in the same way as a murder victim contributed to a murder, i.e. by being there. The banks needed a receptive victim, the government provided that through education and the lax controls on advertising standards coupled with television programming. This was a long play by both banks and government, they both had their own agenda and goals. Full time should have been called in 2005 where we would have seen the usual fleecing of the people by the banks but governments had got too used to the tax take and had started to believe their own 'no more boom and bust' rhetoric.

The weakness of human nature has been known throughout history and when you throw in crowd behaviour people become very easy to control. Kings, Popes, Dictators and despots throughout history have managed to get a mass of people to do what one sane individual would not do, it's easy and proven. On an individual level ordinary people are not aware of this as they are not taught it so when the strings are pulled they are not aware they are being manipulated. And it is a criminal offence to sell intoxicating liquor to a person who shows signs of excess intoxication, section 141 of the licensing act 2003. You keep looking at this from the point where these products are available. Before the deregulation of the City the banks had to hold on to their loans and as a result they self regulated. There was a time when these products were not available, not out of any social conscience on the part of the banks but because they knew that when it went TU they'd be left holding the baby. When that risk went they went uber-preditor on the public by introducing products they knew to be highly questionable. Only in that it should not be 'new found'. Absolutely, on an individual level people are responsible for themselves and their actions. When that greed is stoked by total media immersion aimed at creating a hive-like response as happened, and is still happening, with property porn on TV and the press the individual has two choices - be ostracised or become included - You don't want to miss the boat now do you? Many, in fact I was out last night with a couple who have had the credit rug pulled from underneath them. They were guilty of most the things you list above and are now having to repay. Do I blame them? Absolutely. I also know they were given more credit than they could repay, then sold consolidation loans by their banks that then went on to offer them more credit cards. The money they borrowed will still be around their necks in ten years time, they're almost certainly in big negative equity and they freely admit they were fools. They were fools but as with the licensing act 2003 the banks should have a legal responsibility to lend sensibly. There is no question at all, the bankers. People are stupid and should not be taken advantage of. We may well have eaten together but the banks do not seem to be being held to account for their part, in fact it seems to be business as usual - back to pre 1997 days. The banks are acting like a dog that just smelt it's own fart, a glance back with a puzzled look then carry on as if nothing happened.

I think that is exactly the point I was trying to make.

Okay, this is going to take a while so bare with it, My first post on this thread was in response to this from Campervanman: - And I replied: - Now the two lines highlighted are the key, here I am trying to make the point, probably poorly, that on this forum the term Boomer has adopted a meaning all of it's own in that it doesn't only refer to those born of a certain generation. Yes they are of that generation but also have to fit the other criteria I listed. Others may have other criteria to add to the list, and feel free to do so, but when I see the term boomer used it is in the context of the, I will call them Evil BoomerTM from now on, Evil BoomerTM. Anyhow, Bruce Banner then jumped to the same conclusion that you did and prattled on for a bit before you piled in with this: - You say the boomer has to be born at a certain time. Well it would help if you shared that certain time with us as I'm sure everyone in the world was born at a certain time, including the dead from 4,000 years ago.. You then go onto "disproportionate amounts of unearned wealth". Could you clarify here as well please because I have no idea where wealth becomes disproportionate. I'm thinking you store your cash under the mattress yes? I can't see how else you would have earned your own wealth. On your final point "and despise the younger generations for not 'working' as hard as you did" , I think you may need to see a doctor. You honestly think old people despise young people for not working as hard as they did? From the 3 points you made on what constitutes a Boomer (in your mind), I would say I would have every right to call you a Boomer See, I do describe a certain type of Boomer - the Evil BoomerTM and they do walk amongst us. And no I didn't say they had to be born at a certain time, I was pointing out that being born at a certain time is not the only criterion required to fit the Boomer caricature of this forum - the Evil BoomerTM. Disproportionate wealth is really easy and can be described as more wealth that your physical efforts have earned. Whether that be though cronyism, job squatting, underfunded pensions or house price inflation it is all unearned. And yes I know there are Evil BoomersTM out there that despise the younger generations as I hear it on a regular basis, of course it's never their grandkids it's all the other feckless youth. Basically I was making the point in my original post that we, on this forum, have singled this pantomime villain Evil BoomerTM out from all the other Boomers. People who have done very well out of the collapse of our economy, think they earned that wealth and belittle younger generations for not being able to do the same.

Would not like to be threi next door neighbour Stuart Street Clayton Looks like next door went for 120K at 2007 peak

Redlam Blackburn More 100K peak madness for a two up two down terrace in a northern town

Gower Street Oldham Street Ave. 75K at 2007 peak.

Flat 7 rothwell lodge Peak seemed to be c.45K

501 Chamber Road going around the 100K mark at peak

32 Domett street Blakely 57K in 2005, 100K at their 2007 peak

2 Ridge Road Burnley, no match – 4 went for 65K in 2004 but now fire damaged.

Mortimer Street Oldham one went for 86K in 2008 , Ave. At 2007 peak was 65K

The average person in the uk is pertty dumb, and 50% are more dumb still. You should be crediting yourself with the fact your in the upper 50% not assume everyone is of the same interlect. Do you honestly believe that if some simpleton walked into a bank with an 'I a financial retard' card that bankers would refuse them or rub their hands together? They are predators, we are the prey.

Agree but you're looking five years further on than me. It should never have happened in the first place and politicians should not have allowed banks to prey on the public.

+1 You can no more blame the public for buying into media hype than you can a dog for licking it's gonads. Rather than blaming the public for not seeing through it we should be patting ourselves on the back for doing so.

Not this nonsense argument again. If you went to the doctor and he prescribed you medication, would you take the 'we're all in this together' approach if that medication was wrong and caused serious complications? As with doctors and medicine very few people are knowledgeable enough to understand all the intricacies of government and economies and defer to elected representatives who claim to know what's best. There may be a few people that knew and played the game but the vast majority just did as they were told. If they were properly educated they may have known things couldn't last but they weren't. The blame for this mess lies with the politicians and the bankers.

It'd help if you read the full thread, if you still haven't figured it out - then i'll draw you a picture...

Seconds out, Round 1...........Ding,Ding............

ok then precious.

You see now we've come full circle, I described a certain type of boomer, which you didn't bother to read, then you went off half cocked... Or are you saying all boomers are the same? And your elephant would still be an elephant just distinguishable by a certain criterion - one tusk - some do have one tusk you know. Re-read what I actually posted You're either being deliberately obtuse or stupid, your pick.

I got my first teeth in 1973..

I'm going to shamelessly steal that one. thx

Sorry, now I've caught my breath I'll explain. You see, when I first commented I laid down the following criteria for what I believe makes up a boomer:- "Not only do you have to have been born at the correct time" "you also need to have disproportionate amounts of unearned wealth" "and despise the younger generations for not 'working' as hard as you did" And then ended my post with To which you replied I asked "Why?" You replied Which is about as far from a valid argument as you can get, never mind sound. All children are not stupid. Stupid children are stupid. You Judge people by their age. Therefore you are stupid. Most certainly not QED Anyhow now you can see that my original statement has three separate criterions and that only when all three are met do I form my judgement we can let that one lie. Whether that judgement is sound, or the criteia for that matter, is an entirely different debate which I am more than willing to enter into. To plumb the depths of your incorrectness still further, to judge people by age is not stupid or else we would let 12 year olds drive, vote and marry. You're probably best sticking to pomp and bluster.