Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
doogie

The Ipod Generation

Recommended Posts

I wouldn't normally wipe my ar$e with the Daily Mail, but I couldn't help agreeing with the sentiment of this article yesterday:

People in their twenties and early thirties are getting a raw deal from the welfare state, a report claims. Researchers have warned that the IPOD generation - Insecure, Pressurised, Over-taxed and Debt-ridden - are carrying an unfair burden of taxation but do not reap any of the benefits.

Under-35s are paying for huge increases in NHS spending, and are expected to pay for their own higher education and pensions.

While they may enjoy cheap travel and have all the latest gadgets, such as DVDs, iPods and flatscreen TVs, they are financially worse off than their parents were at the same age. They face more debts, greater difficulty in buying a first home, fewer returns on higher education and fierce competition in finding work.

To add insult to injury, politicians ignore their interests, targeting older people who are more likely to vote. The think-tank Reform accused the Government last night of "mortgaging the future of a generation". It has called for a programme of tax reductions and spending discipline to redress the balance. It also called on Tony Blair to abandon his aim of getting 50 per cent of school-leavers into further education because it says the benefits of higher education are diminishing.

A Government study has suggested that graduates earn £400,000 more over their working lives than peers with two A-levels. But Reform says the figure is more likely to be £140,000 for men and £160,000 for women. Students embarking on a university course this year are expected to leave with debts of £20,000, and find work in a much more competitive market. In 1961, there were less than 200,000 undergraduates compared with nearly 1.6million today.

The economic squeeze means the average age of a first-time buyer is now 34 and almost half of 20 to 24-year-olds still live with their parents. Andrew Haldenby, director of Reform, said: 'In today's Britain, it is more attractive economically to be 55 than 25.

"But the tendency of political parties is to ignore the interests of young people in favour of appealing to pensioners and those more likely to vote.

"Young people must be freed from the burden of high taxation if they are to make their vital contribution to economic growth and enterprise."

Nick Bosanquet, the think-tank's consultant director, said: "Young people are not getting a fair deal. Separate policy decisions are having the cumulative effect of mortgaging the future of a generation. People under 35 could be described as a cross-over generation who are paying the cost of the welfare state without being able to expect many of the benefits."

Edited by doogie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't normally wipe my ar$e with the Daily Mail, but I couldn't help agreeing with the sentiment of this article yesterday.

its a reporter for the daily mail - not The Daily Mail newspaper, and besides, you ll get more truth from the Mail than Fuc*ing To55 5hit left wing rag bag of a paper like the Mirror (formerly owned and run by dishonest left wing shi7 bags)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Young people 'worse off' than parents

I can’t believe it was a Labour Government that introduced tuition fees? :(

Why !!! they wanted every school leaver to go to uni, the demand to go to university has risen so demend for places outstripes supply. When they leave, they can work for the bloated overweight public sector, become a labour voter (coz lets face it most public servants are lefties),

Social engineering

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And still the 'Ipod' generation get sh*t music. I believe Itunes you download

songs ripped at 96Kbps - crap!!!

Edit: spelling :rolleyes:

Edited by OzzMosiz

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
its a reporter for the daily mail - not The Daily Mail newspaper, and besides, you ll get more truth from the Mail than Fuc*ing To55 5hit left wing rag bag of a paper like the Mirror (formerly owned and run by dishonest left wing shi7 bags)

I take it then, that you are one of the terribly polite, nice silent majority type of people who agree with the Daily Mail that the English language is not what it was. :D

VP

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't normally wipe my ar$e with the Daily Mail, but I couldn't help agreeing with the sentiment of this article yesterday.

its a reporter for the daily mail - not The Daily Mail newspaper, and besides, you ll get more truth from the Mail than Fuc*ing To55 5hit left wing rag bag of a paper like the Mirror (formerly owned and run by dishonest left wing shi7 bags)

Thank Goodness for purpose made toilet paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nothing wrong with tuition fees. If people don't think their post graduate career prospects are worth the financial investment they don't have to go to University., they can get a job instead

A ) Doing a degree is not only about getting a job. It's about stretching your mind, maturing, studying something you're interested in, etc. Which leads me onto my next point:

B ) How come the babyboomers got free higher education and grants (and the right to claim benefits during the holidays) while today's students have to take out massive debts and pay through the nose? Yet another example of "shaft the young" Britain: shaft the young with the exorbitant cost of housing, shaft the young with exorbitant cost of higher education while the babyboomers sit on their free uni education, their pensions and healthcare paid by today's taxpayers (ie the IPOD generation) while the welfare state will likely not exist by the time they retire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pioneer31
Nothing wrong with tuition fees. If people don't think their post graduate career prospects are worth the financial investment they don't have to go to University., they can get a job instead, can't they?

they may as well

Dergees, Post Grads etc are fast becoming worthless.

Did you ever met someone who failed one?

I know 2 post grads who really aren't very bright at all (but then they are doing mickey mouse subjects)

I'm a grad myself, wish I hadn't bothered, I should have been a plumber or a sparky, I'd be writing my own cheques now

Edited by pioneer31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pioneer31
A ) Doing a degree is not only about getting a job. It's about stretching your mind, maturing, studying something you're interested in, etc. Which leads me onto my next point:

B ) How come the babyboomers got free higher education and grants (and the right to claim benefits during the holidays) while today's students have to take out massive debts and pay through the nose? Yet another example of "shaft the young" Britain: shaft the young with the exorbitant cost of housing, shaft the young with exorbitant cost of higher education while the babyboomers sit on their free uni education, their pensions and healthcare paid by today's taxpayers (ie the IPOD generation) while the welfare state will likely not exist by the time they retire.

You can think New Labour for all this mess. Tax, tax, tax and Political correctness by the lorryfull, add a heap of youth crime and binge drinking and voila!

In my mind they make the Tories look like Father Christmas.

Edited by pioneer31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A ) Doing a degree is not only about getting a job. It's about stretching your mind, maturing, studying something you're interested in, etc.

The only reason why the government wants more people doing a degree is because it suits their purposes. Personally I would characterise these as:

a) Cannon and factory fodder doesn't quite cut it in today's workplace.

B) A workforce that is heavily in debt is likely to take any work going at rubbish wages.

c) Training risk and cost is transferred from employer to employee.

Edited by greencat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest pioneer31
The only reason why the government wants more people doing a degree is because it suits their purposes. Personally I would characterise these as:

a) Cannon and factory fodder doesn't quite cut it in today's workplace.

B) A workforce that is heavily in debt is likely to take any work going at rubbish wages.

c) Training risk and cost is transferred from employer to employee.

I'd add another reason

i) millions at Uni keep the Unemployment figures down and keep the Uni staff in work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember Blair saying tuition fees needed to be made fair!

After all he got his free, so it’s only fair that the young of today pay for theirs.

What’s the currant drop out rate? something like 30% isn’t it?

NuLabour are trying to compete with Europe on Bums on seats.

The average student owes ???? too much compared with yester-years .

and that’s before they go house-hunting.

They did warn us, if you tolerate this then your children will be next!

Education, Education, Education more like bull**** bull**** bull**** !

Nation of debt slaves. :angry:

Both my children will go through uni and come out debt free I’m going to

make sure of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B ) How come the babyboomers got free higher education and grants (and the right to claim benefits during the holidays) while today's students have to take out massive debts and pay through the nose? Yet another example of "shaft the young" Britain: shaft the young with the exorbitant cost of housing, shaft the young with exorbitant cost of higher education while the babyboomers sit on their free uni education, their pensions and healthcare paid by today's taxpayers (ie the IPOD generation) while the welfare state will likely not exist by the time they retire.

My guess is their parents paid higher taxes, then once the babyboomers got to working age they started voting for tax cuts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I remember Blair saying tuition fees needed to be made fair!

After all he got his free, so it’s only fair that the young of today pay for theirs.

What’s the currant drop out rate? something like 30% isn’t it?

NuLabour are trying to compete with Europe on Bums on seats.

The average student owes ???? too much compared with yester-years .

and that’s before they go house-hunting.

They did warn us, if you tolerate this then your children will be next!

Education, Education, Education more like bull****  bull****  bull**** !

Nation of debt slaves. :angry:

Both my children will go through uni and come out debt free I’m going to

make sure of that.

1. Regardless of the fact that Blair's generation didn't have to pay, it was patently unfair that a plumber who started work at 16 should pay taxes to fund someone else through university. The present system is fair, the previous one wasn't.

2. If this generation didn't have tuition fees to pay back, guess what would happen. They would have more disposable income and property would inflate further. Prices are determined by the money available to house buyers, and I'd rather money went on education than house prices.

3. If university was free at the point of use guess what would happen. Many more useless degree courses would spring up, and useful degrees would be further devalued because everyone would want to go. If you have to pay for it you'll think seriously about the value of your degree, whether it be economic value or its "mind-stretching" benefits.

Edited by Casual Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wouldn't normally wipe my ar$e with the Daily Mail, but I couldn't help agreeing with the sentiment of this article yesterday:

People in their twenties and early thirties are getting a raw deal from the welfare state, a report claims.  Researchers have warned that the IPOD generation - Insecure, Pressurised, Over-taxed and Debt-ridden - are carrying an unfair burden of taxation but do not reap any of the benefits.

Under-35s are paying for huge increases in NHS spending, and are expected to pay for their own higher education and pensions.

While they may enjoy cheap travel and have all the latest gadgets, such as DVDs, iPods and flatscreen TVs, they are financially worse off than their parents were at the same age. They face more debts, greater difficulty in buying a first home, fewer returns on higher education and fierce competition in finding work.

To add insult to injury, politicians ignore their interests, targeting older people who are more likely to vote. The think-tank Reform accused the Government last night of "mortgaging the future of a generation". It has called for a programme of tax reductions and spending discipline to redress the balance. It also called on Tony Blair to abandon his aim of getting 50 per cent of school-leavers into further education because it says the benefits of higher education are diminishing.

A Government study has suggested that graduates earn £400,000 more over their working lives than peers with two A-levels. But Reform says the figure is more likely to be £140,000 for men and £160,000 for women. Students embarking on a university course this year are expected to leave with debts of £20,000, and find work in a much more competitive market. In 1961, there were less than 200,000 undergraduates compared with nearly 1.6million today.

The economic squeeze means the average age of a first-time buyer is now 34 and almost half of 20 to 24-year-olds still live with their parents. Andrew Haldenby, director of Reform, said: 'In today's Britain, it is more attractive economically to be 55 than 25.

"But the tendency of political parties is to ignore the interests of young people in favour of appealing to pensioners and those more likely to vote.

"Young people must be freed from the burden of high taxation if they are to make their vital contribution to economic growth and enterprise."

Nick Bosanquet, the think-tank's consultant director, said: "Young people are not getting a fair deal. Separate policy decisions are having the cumulative effect of mortgaging the future of a generation. People under 35 could be described as a cross-over generation who are paying the cost of the welfare state without being able to expect many of the benefits."

I am positive this article appeared in the Metro newpaper, virtually word for word many months ago.

The only thing that appears different is the IPOD acronym which didn't appear in the Metro article.

NDL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
B ) How come the babyboomers got free higher education and grants (and the right to claim benefits during the holidays) while today's students have to take out massive debts and pay through the nose? Yet another example of "shaft the young" Britain: shaft the young with the exorbitant cost of housing, shaft the young with exorbitant cost of higher education while the babyboomers sit on their free uni education, their pensions and healthcare paid by today's taxpayers (ie the IPOD generation) while the welfare state will likely not exist by the time they retire.

The "young" get screwed because they vote less as a group than the "old". If they voted more, they would be listened to more. I am 27 and always vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Regardless of the fact that  Blair's generation didn't have to pay, it was patently unfair that a plumber who started work at 16 should pay taxes to fund someone else through university. The present system is fair, the previous one wasn't.

A plumber benefits from others going on to higher education even if he doesn't. He wants doctors, scientists, engineers etc as their work benefits society as a whole (as well as themselves).

From a state taxation point of view, if peopl really do earn more after going to uni, then they get to tax them more, so uni should be free as it pays for itself in the long run.

Although both these arguments carry soem weight I think tuition fees (with appropriate help for the poor) is a fairer system (though still not perfect)

All of this will impact the housing market as if you leave uni with debt you are going to either have to pay lower rent, stay at home or make lower offers on houses. All of which has a deflationary effect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A plumber benefits from others going on to higher education even if he doesn't. He wants doctors, scientists, engineers etc as their work benefits society as a whole (as well as themselves).

But he already pays for these people, through the taxes and prices he pays for their high-priced services once they've qualified.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am positive this article appeared in the Metro newpaper, virtually word for word many months ago.

The only thing that appears different is the IPOD acronym which didn't appear in the Metro article.

NDL

One major problem is that you need a degree for a job that requires no more than decent high school skills, and technical skills have all be academicised (Think nurses. In the good old days part of the job was to change a bedpan. Now they have degrees and its not a professional expectation. Nobody seems to have bothered to invent a role to replace that function! Bizarrely their wages haven't increased markedly with this professionalisation and a good secretary can earn more than most nurses.)

The rest of it, I don't really think we are that much worse off apart from housing - we just don't have anything to compare it unless you are old enough to remember it. We just "need" more things. In the 1970s a landline was not even considered essential. Now we "need" a landline and a mobile and an iPod and home computer. Funny that we feel poorer?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 301 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.