Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
juvenal

Baby Boomers On Trial Bbc R4 8Pm Analysis

Recommended Posts

Radio Times:

Should the generation born after WW11 bear the brunt of cuts in government spending? Conservative Minister David Willetts...believes that the baby boomers have led a privliged life at the expense of their children's future. He wants them to give it back....

EDIT: 8.30 PM R4

Edited by juvenal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

Radio Times:

Should the generation born after WW11 bear the brunt of cuts in government spending? Conservative Minister David Willetts...believes that the baby boomers have led a privliged life at the expense of their children's future. He wants them to give it back....

EDIT: 8.30 PM R4

Can I put an old caravan on your allotment?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radio Times:

Should the generation born after WW11 bear the brunt of cuts in government spending? Conservative Minister David Willetts...believes that the baby boomers have led a privliged life at the expense of their children's future. He wants them to give it back....

EDIT: 8.30 PM R4

great call. thanks. will listen in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

is it a caravan of love?

No definitely not, I like being very single and very alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Radio Times:

Should the generation born after WW11 bear the brunt of cuts in government spending? Conservative Minister David Willetts...believes that the baby boomers have led a privliged life at the expense of their children's future. He wants them to give it back....

EDIT: 8.30 PM R4

Translation - Willetts wants to sequester the pensions of the boomers to pay for his banking buddies bonuses.

Nobody born post WW2 is yet drawing a State pension....and only a priviliged few who worked in the public sector and retired early are drawing "luxury" pensions at the expense of all. Most boomers are still paying tax, including tax on what they may have saved to avoid lumbering their offspring with unnecessary financial burden.

Hands up on here, those boomers which neither

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you can love yourself you know

That's enough of that sort of talk. The only hand pump Noodle is interested in is the one he waters his vegetables with.

Edited by juvenal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Noodle

That's enough of that sort of talk. The only hand pump Noodle is interested in is the one he waters his vegetables with.

Damn right, I was beginning to chaffe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nobody born post WW2 is yet drawing a State pension....and only a priviliged few who worked in the public sector and retired early are drawing "luxury" pensions at the expense of all. Most boomers are still paying tax, including tax on what they may have saved to avoid lumbering their offspring with unnecessary financial burden.

Correction , no MAN born post WW2. Women retired at 60 before April this year, i.e. born before 1949. It is slowly being adjusted now towards 65.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction , no MAN born post WW2. Women retired at 60 before April this year, i.e. born before 1949. It is slowly being adjusted now towards 65.

Yes, but because of the way we lived back in the 60's, not many women are eligible for the full State pension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Translation - Willetts wants to sequester the pensions of the boomers to pay for his banking buddies bonuses.

Nobody born post WW2 is yet drawing a State pension....and only a priviliged few who worked in the public sector and retired early are drawing "luxury" pensions at the expense of all. Most boomers are still paying tax, including tax on what they may have saved to avoid lumbering their offspring with unnecessary financial burden.

Hands up on here, those boomers which neither

I think that the criticism leveled at boomers is not about the state pension (which is relatively small), but their stranglehold on assets (houses).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the criticism leveled at boomers is not about the state pension (which is relatively small), but their stranglehold on assets (houses).

So, by accident, we bought homes at a time when they were affordable, and it's now seen as moral to snatch them away (or somehow grab "wealth") to distribute to those, who as yet, have paid little or nothing into the "system"? If you force boomers to give up their homes*, where are they going to live?

Two wrongs, do not make a right. Target your weapons at those who engineered and gamed the system - the moneylenders and commission takers, not those who lived honestly and prudently. One day, you will be 65 too.

* I use the word "homes" instead of "houses", because I do not want to confuse multiple properties with the house you live in. I'll shed no tears if BTL and holiday home owners get stung.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the criticism leveled at boomers is not about the state pension (which is relatively small), but their stranglehold on assets (houses).

Yep, you see even the poorest of boomers living in 3 bed houses, which are way out of the reach of almost all twenty something people. The average boomer house around here (3/4bed detatched) seem like mansions that i'll never be able to afford even though I earn well over the average salary. It also doesn't help when my GF can't get a job even though she has a LPC from a top law school

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They haven't mentioned the unionised workforce that boomers started with, the governments focused on full employment providing very high levels of employment and the lack of globalised competition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it came down to,

The boomers had free education.

Low house prices, eroded by inflation.

Higher wages for their age than the previous generation.

Jobs.

Large, unfunded pensions.

Shorter working lives.

And the other side gets...

Central heating. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep, you see even the poorest of boomers living in 3 bed houses, which are way out of the reach of almost all twenty something people. The average boomer house around here (3/4bed detatched) seem like mansions that i'll never be able to afford even though I earn well over the average salary. It also doesn't help when my GF can't get a job even though she has a LPC from a top law school

I share your frustration. Both of my children, now in their late 20's, are in this position. The situation wasn't created by the boomers, it was created by the moneylenders and a wave of financial trickery and cheap credit, available to all provided you lied a bit about your income. See one E. Pebbles for details.

The only solution is to get house prices back to where they should be, 3 or 4 times a single salary. Willetts (Thatcher's old right-wing advisor) has a simple agenda. Keep house prices high, to save his mates the bankers. Put the blame on any group that looks to be vunerable enough, or might have some savings (sorry about the dirty word) that can be stolen, or are in receipt of "benefits" that they have paid for in tax over a working career of forty or more years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it came down to,

The boomers had free education.

Low house prices, eroded by inflation.

Higher wages for their age than the previous generation.

Jobs.

Large, unfunded pensions.

Shorter working lives.

And the other side gets...

Central heating. :lol:

And

Good p!ss up at Uni for four years, sh@ggin everything that moves, every conceivable nick nack growing up, more than likely foreign holidays every year (inclusing Disney for most), plus pretty nice gear to wear, full belly, probably ate out with your parents at least a couple of times a year. I could go on but you get my drift. As a "boomer" meself (we gotta find a new word as that is so played) I didn't have any of those. I didn't have a passport till my mid twenties and trust me that although I was no Einstein I wasn't thick either. So don't give me the one way traffic of house price increases and "free" education. Some of us had no choice matey-we had to work at sixteen. I am not coming the old sodier here, just pointing out one or two "inaccuracies" shall we say. Most of you young uns have grown up in the age of spin and trust me you are all pretty well versed in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, by accident, we bought homes at a time when they were affordable, and it's now seen as moral to snatch them away (or somehow grab "wealth") to distribute to those, who as yet, have paid little or nothing into the "system"? If you force boomers to give up their homes*, where are they going to live?

Two wrongs, do not make a right. Target your weapons at those who engineered and gamed the system - the moneylenders and commission takers, not those who lived honestly and prudently. One day, you will be 65 too.

They engineered a system that benefited some people massively at the massive expense of others. This engineering was politically defended by a demographic that benfited from it. What you want is for that not to be adresssed; which simply isn't practical or remotely just.

Edited by Stars

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So it came down to,

The boomers had free education. --- my grant didn't cover my rent, ISTR

Low house prices, eroded by inflation - and 17% mortgage interest

Higher wages for their age than the previous generation - as now, of course. My children earn about 20x the amount I did at their age..

Jobs. made redundant three times. I'm a southerner, speak to anyone up North about their experience

Large, unfunded pensions. my father's pension was far better than my generation (except public sector) hope to get. He was a factory worker.

Shorter working lives. because you get "gardening leave" and cannot find a job after 40

And the other side gets... everything I can think of is about a factor of 10 cheaper compared to wages now, with two exceptions. beer and houses.

Central heating. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They engineered a system that benefited some people massively at the massive expense of others. This engineering was politically defended by a demographic that benfited from it. What you want is for that not to be adresssed; which simply isn't practical or remotely just.

The boomer demographic haven't benefited the way you imply. The only people who did benefit were those who either invested speculatively in property or MEWED for personal consumption, and there's not many boomers in that demographic.

If the credit had not been available for those purposes, then house prices would not have risen to where they are now. I WANT my house to be worth 25% of what it is now. It's not my pension, it's where I live, it's not a realisable asset. All of my boomer acquaintances feel the same. It is not to our advantage to have children in their 20's who cannot make the leap to independence.

How it is done, I don't know. But it should not be done at the expense of those who have, as I said in an earlier post, lived prudently and honestly. As it is now, I feel ripped off, my savings pay feck-all interest, but a BTL landlord I know pays just £200 on an IO mortgage taken out in 2007, and gets nearly £900 in rent. No - he's not a boomer.

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...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 260 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.