The Old Get Richer As Under-34s Fall Behind

[Guest Charlie The Tramp]

c) it's not much help to be 'inheriting a fortune' when you're sixty.

It is if you have no future pension in place.

[Nick..]

well im <34, by quite a lot, I own a nice family sized semi in London, I was a savvy buyer, got a good deal, affordable mortgage, locked my rate at 4% and am enjoying overpaying quite substantially. Thanks to investment in career and making the most of my opportunities I am earning and securing my financial future.

Many of my peers are doing and have done the same. I know a number of examples of people who arent. The question is, does this generation really have more wasters than previous ones? This is obviously impossible to quantify in any meaningful way and so is often based on prejudice - for example most of our media pushes and pushes home the message that the 'young' are desperately in debt and incapable of doing up their show laces.

Its tempting to suggest that people who can only see things in such black and white terms are really the unsophisticated ones. Perhaps I should have a go at the pensioners who werent so lucky and havent cashed in on HPI, clearly they were lazy good for nothings - wasting all their money on bingo and tinned spam. One could also argue who's responsibility it is to shape society, from that point of view its the Boomers who have really messed up. Im a big believer in parental responsability - one has to ask what chance did generation x have when their parents were more interested in playing golf or working late etc?

The kids are OK. Dont let your prejudice get in the way of reality. Those of us who want to get on the property will, but like every generation there is a portion that will be left behind as they expect life to be mapped out for them. To write off an entire generation is about as sophisticated as the music of Scooch.

I'm probably classed as a waster in your eyes, but in my twenties I was far more concerned with just enjoying myself, worrying about money and "securing my financial future" couldn't have been further from my mind

Thats the time to do all the fun things you can't do when you're married with kids, in hock to the bank, and having to work to make ends meet

As hard as it is to buy now, given the oppurtunity I would never go back and swap the fun I had in my twenties with being sensible and buying a bloody house

[Ignorant Steve]

I'm probably classed as a waster in your eyes, but in my twenties I was far more concerned with just enjoying myself, worrying about money and "securing my financial future" couldn't have been further from my mind

You can chose to be an ant or a grasshopper.

Were you not read the Aesops fables when you were a child?

[Son of Taeper]

a) the boomers will spend much of it.

Sure will. On spam and bingo and holidays and ....i-pods

the government will tax most of the rest.

ok, so I'll do the bingo 24/7 and get the top of the range i-pod

c) it's not much help to be 'inheriting a fortune' when you're sixty.

True but the i-pod should have a good selection of classics on it

d) surely you can't believe a society where kids are just waiting around for their parents to die so they can have a house of their own would be healthy?

Sticking someone else's i-pod earphones into your ears wouldn't be healthy either, suggest buy own earphones.

To be serious though, I cannot see what is wrong with little Danny staying at home all his life if he wants to. Someone earlier said it was about good parenting. True, but what if the parenting is bad ? The kid is stuck with it. Maybe bad parenting is good because it allows independence.

[rsootarsing]

In the article it said the one downside for the older generation is that they will be hit with Inheritance tax, why the hell would it bother them, they have been blissfully cashing in on the crisis facing the kids why should they care that when the kids inherit the property they will have to sell it to pay off the 40% inheritance tax.

[BuyingBear]

The crinklies only have the money because the greedy 30 somethings have borrowed too much in order to give it to them.

Look at the board of the MPC, 'nuff said.

[BuyingBear]

In the article it said the one downside for the older generation is that they will be hit with Inheritance tax, why the hell would it bother them, they have been blissfully cashing in on the crisis facing the kids why should they care that when the kids inherit the property they will have to sell it to pay off the 40% inheritance tax.

All the IHT receipts in the world cannot change the fact the NHS is technically insolvent due to Excess Boomer Demand.

In policy terms the UK has a collective hatred of its young, that may sound harsh but look at the hard facts. The whole of the EU already has birth rates below replacement levels, and the miracle of the last half decade of house price inflation and its societal impact is yet to be reflected in the figures, the more property that churns at these levels the greater the 'fun' down the road in terms of demographics.

The British government thinks it can play a game of musical chairs by stealing people from the EU accession countries, hardly a sustainable strategy considering their demographics are in a worse state than our own. But this is Somebody Elses Problem, in 2025 a bunch of think tanks, select committees, royal commissions and media bods will be sitting there scratching their heads wondering where all the 18 year olds have gone, and the ability to pay the boomers precious pensions promises along with it.

Edited March 19, 2007 by BuyingBear

[time]

Many, many thousands will not sell to the next generation but hand their housing wealth down to them.

This is becoming one of the most popular investments for the older generation wanting to leave things behind for their own. They simply "Gift" a house to their grandchildren (very popular and easy) if they only have one grandchild or a favorite grandchild. Providing they do this within 7 years of them dying it completly TAX FREE. No inheritance tax to pay. No 40%

Gordon Browns lot are currently looking at closing this loophole as it is the most tax effecient way of avoiding the dreaded inheritance tax.

[MarkG]

Gordon Browns lot are currently looking at closing this loophole as it is the most tax effecient way of avoiding the dreaded inheritance tax.

Anyone who thinks that any future government are going to allow the old farts to give vast amounts of money to their kids without paying huge amounts of tax on it is deluding themselves.

Taxes are going up and up from here on until the welfare state collapses.

[Bear Goggles]

Sure will. On spam and bingo and holidays and ....i-pods

ok, so I'll do the bingo 24/7 and get the top of the range i-pod

True but the i-pod should have a good selection of classics on it

Sticking someone else's i-pod earphones into your ears wouldn't be healthy either, suggest buy own earphones.

To be serious though, I cannot see what is wrong with little Danny staying at home all his life if he wants to. Someone earlier said it was about good parenting. True, but what if the parenting is bad ? The kid is stuck with it. Maybe bad parenting is good because it allows independence.

It seems to me that the younger generation have slipped down a notch socially. Children of the former working classes whose parents got secure, affordable council accomodation have no chance whatsoever of getting on the housing ladder as it stands today and council houses are non-existant unless you are a single parent with addiction problems, so they would rather spend their disposable income on binge drinking and consumer gadgets (iPods) and live at home.

Middle class young people can afford to get on the ladder with parental help, but tend to only be able to afford ex-council housing in poor areas which doesn't match their asperations or that of their parents' generation who bought sizable family homes on a single income.

It's all relative of cause, but it seems that accepting the fact that you are poorer than you expected your social class to be is a little difficult to stomach for the younger generations.

[Guest Charlie The Tramp]

All the IHT receipts in the world cannot change the fact the NHS is technically insolvent due to Excess Boomer Demand.

Firstly, remember the oldest Boomers are now only 67, compared with their parents at that age they are 20 years younger in body and mind.

Visit any Private Hospital and you will find the vast majority of patients are Boomers. Maybe they are MEWing to pay for their treatment.

[BuyingBear]

Firstly, remember the oldest Boomers are now only 67, compared with their parents at that age they are 20 years younger in body and mind.

Yet the NHS already defunked, imagine what it will be like within two decades? Even putting the huge demand factors aside the introduction of new treatments and drugs over the coming years will bankrupt the service.

Health care will eventually be means tested, the shortfall will be paid for via direct MEW'ing or the NHS/local authority placing charges and claiming property upon death. Private health care is an interesting one, it doesn't matter about the means in which it is paid for, whether it be paid for out of a pension, savings account, equities or bonds, each is just a claim on future output, one that is likely to be inflated away.

You can print money, inject billions in "housing equity" yet you cannot print natural resources or labour, and fundamentally the latter two determine the fate of our economy, everything else is just IOU's and good intentions.

Edited March 19, 2007 by BuyingBear

[munro]

I'd like to see where all this "wealth" is, that I am supposed to have. If I sell my house I have to buy another, so where does that make me wealthy as regards property? Many of the older gen. are wealthy only in the fact that they own their own home outright and many others do not. If the price of houses fell to 50K for a 3 bed detached they would still be better off in terms of ownership.

Why does mere ownership make them 'wealthy'? Any oldie lucky enough to have amassed a pile of money atop of this - usually through hard work, shrewd investment, and careful spending - will soon find that when ill health strikes - as strike it does - they will pay through the nose for care, whilst their poorer counterparts get it all for free. Surely this "wealth" will free you and yours from having to provide for them, won't it?

I sometimes read the posts on here and think it is like reading stuff written by 'Martians'. They don't seem to have a grasp of human society, then I realise their callow remarks are down to a total lack of wisdom and insight, due to their tender years.

I'll give them another 20 years to get some, or will I see that they have just become more entrenched in their bitter resentful, "us and them" approach, clinging to an idea which allows them to focus their rage on another section of society.

If you want to maintain an 'us and them' mentality - a strong human tendency according to Freud, who taught us ....some of us! - much about in-groups and out-groups, try casting the protagonists in the 'drama' correctly.

There is more to this than housing wealth alone. There are other mechanisms whereby wealth is being transferred up through the generations, from young to old. The most obvious one is through pensions. Public sector pensions aren't funded at all, and it is hard to argue that private sector pensions are funded by the wealth built up by previous generations. The so-called "pension holidays" taken by companies in the 1980s, at the request of the Thatcher government, shows this.

FInal-salary pensions are a massive uncapped liability that acts as wealth transfer. The public sector liabilities are truly frightening and rising. It is rarely mentioned that one of the major reasons for increasing council tax is to pay the pensions of former council employees.

Second, in the last few years there have been massive cash injections into the NHS to try and compensate for decades of underfunding - which reduced the taxes paid by those working during this period. This is one of the causes of Brown's increasing tax take. You may think that people pay through the nose for care at the moment, just wait and see what it costs when peopel have to pay the true cost, rather than present costs which are heavily subsidised by current taxpayers.

The wealth of the present older generation is shown by the fact that they aren't selling and downsizing in significant numbers. It is shown by the success of cruise companies and Saga. There is a huge and increasing "grey market" which firms are tapping into - look at all the "lifestyle" stuff, this is sold to older people (50-plus) as they are the only ones who can afford it.

You say we should "get the protagonists right". It isn't a matter of blame, it is a matter of looking at the evidence. Whether you like it or not our society is becoming increasingly divided and one of the biggest fault-lines is intergenerational.

Obviously different people from different backgrounds have different experiences. It strikes me that the experience of those like myself, from middle-class backgrounds, is more stark than those from working-class backgrounds. It also perhaps depends on the field you work in. I did a PhD in pursuit of an academic career, and the differing experiences across generations in this world is extraordinary. I was taught by people whose qualifications would now be considered as a minor step in the educational process - with, when they got their first permanent posts, no publications. Now those very people demand a PhD and publications before even considering you for a contract position that pays, in comparative purchasing power, roughly a third of the money they started on. And you will NEVER catch them up.

Edited March 19, 2007 by munro

[RedMercury]

Yet the NHS already defunked

I blame the death of James Brown for all this de-funking

(Defunct?)

[Hope]

I don't know whether to find this resentment towards an entire generation laughable or worrying. Who knows how much things will be different in 50 years time, one thing is for sure though, should everything have come full circle and the now young happen to find themselves in a similar situation as the hated 'boomers' in 50 years time, I am sure you would immediately put your houses up for sale at half what you could get for it so the young could buy them and put yourself in a one bed flat, after all it would be the only decent thing to do right ?

Every generation has different things thrown at them to cope with and they just find a way to cope. I am well aware that those who retired a while back have alot more from their pension pots than we can ever now look forward to, am I peeved, of course I am but it is not their personal fault, so I won't waste my time moaning about THEM, IT maybe but not THEM.

When people I knew bought in the mid eighties and only had to save for 6 months, compared to my staying in and going nowhere for 2 years in the early eighties did I resent them, NO.

Oh and by the way, if you want to save for a deposit it will take alot more than giving up an i-pod and a holiday to Ibiza, as a previous poster said, not interested, it's called choice and everyone has it. Before the bleating starts, yes, I agree, at the moment it is harder to get on the property ladder than I can ever remember but blaming an entire generation for it is futile. Do I feel angered at the city traders who can buy umpteen swish apts in their mid twenties, or by the wealth of Jade Goody or Posh & Beck, no, but I don't think it reflects the work they do, in the same way that my home increasing in value by umpteen thousands has no reflection on how much work I have done. The world seems to have gone crazy but don't blame people who have done no more than work hard and pay their dues.

[Smell the Fear]

Err, did you mean credited

No, I would have said "credited WITH being full of sh*t".

Anyway, Freud and sh*t go together whichever way you look at it. That's Freudian.

[rnicoll]

I give this troll 3/10. Shows promise but you need to be a little more subtle if you want traction.

The kids are quite sophisticated these days, grandad.

Yeah... "If you want a house or a flat, then buy one ! Just where is your problem ?" I nearly had me convinced, have had too many people say that to me (and remarkably, they're all still alive), but the whole thing just seemed, well, exaggeratedly dumb...

Edited March 19, 2007 by rnicoll

[rnicoll]

I don't know whether to find this resentment towards an entire generation laughable or worrying. Who knows how much things will be different in 50 years time, one thing is for sure though, should everything have come full circle and the now young happen to find themselves in a similar situation as the hated 'boomers' in 50 years time, I am sure you would immediately put your houses up for sale at half what you could get for it so the young could buy them and put yourself in a one bed flat, after all it would be the only decent thing to do right ?

I'll settle for the elder generation living in a house they use most of. Do you have spare bedrooms? A separate dining room? Do you use them? Do you have rooms you just don't use at all most of the year? How about downsizing to a house you use all of? Not asking you to sell at below market price; people moving to smaller houses would start the slide in the market so we can get a hold on it.

Oh and by the way, if you want to save for a deposit it will take alot more than giving up an i-pod and a holiday to Ibiza, as a previous poster said, not interested, it's called choice and everyone has it. Before the bleating starts, yes, I agree, at the moment it is harder to get on the property ladder than I can ever remember but blaming an entire generation for it is futile. Do I feel angered at the city traders who can buy umpteen swish apts in their mid twenties, or by the wealth of Jade Goody or Posh & Beck, no, but I don't think it reflects the work they do, in the same way that my home increasing in value by umpteen thousands has no reflection on how much work I have done. The world seems to have gone crazy but don't blame people who have done no more than work hard and pay their dues.

Saving 35% of my net income enough for you? I did try 50% for a while, but was climbing the walls in frustration at how little spending money it left me with, especially after 20% goes on just paying the rent (before bills, sharing a 3 bedroom council house with two friends, would be 40+% for a one bedroom flat of my own).

Edited March 19, 2007 by rnicoll

[Smell the Fear]

It seems to me that the younger generation have slipped down a notch socially. Children of the former working classes whose parents got secure, affordable council accomodation have no chance whatsoever of getting on the housing ladder as it stands today and council houses are non-existant unless you are a single parent with addiction problems, so they would rather spend their disposable income on binge drinking and consumer gadgets (iPods) and live at home.

Middle class young people can afford to get on the ladder with parental help, but tend to only be able to afford ex-council housing in poor areas which doesn't match their asperations or that of their parents' generation who bought sizable family homes on a single income.

It's all relative of cause, but it seems that accepting the fact that you are poorer than you expected your social class to be is a little difficult to stomach for the younger generations.

We have politicians constantly fretting about guncrime and teenage hoodies. Their solutions are usually based on locking 'em up or trying to convince them that it is not worth getting involved in such activities.

The root cause of these problems is in fact intergenerational inequity. The young are expected to grow up without any hope of having a basic family life, and most people would agree that this transition from youth to adulthood and responsibility (with its rewards of respectability and a stable family home) is the bedrock of a happy and stable society.

The young feel little respect towards older people because older people have taken all the assets in society, and continue to do so. The young have no real means of getting their fair share of society's assets - the game is rigged against them.

This will translate into years of good quality of life for the boomers being paid for by years of declining quality for the young.

There will come a point, in maybe 10-15 years when the sheer weight of decrepit boomers will be unsupportable, their assets will crash in value (whether that be nominal or real) as they are forced to sell them to pay for health and social care. The care that they will receive will be of a poor quality as there won't be enough people or money to provide current standards.

Most of them will die miserably in a pool of their own sh*t, p*ss and vomit. If things get really bad, they will die in a pool of someone else's as well. Enjoy the good times while they roll, boomers, it can't last forever. If you're lucky euthanasia will be legalised allowing you a respectable exit.

Edited March 19, 2007 by Smell the Fear

[Sinking Feeling]

Seems to ignore the fact that the 55-64 age groups' pensions have been eroded to nothing by this bloody government. I saw something the other day showing that a pension that would have paid out over £20,000 a year in 1997 will only pay out just over £4,000- but hey why worry when you house is worth so much more...........for the moment!

[Guest Cletus VanDamme]

Most of them will die miserably in a pool of their own sh*t, p*ss and vomit. If things get really bad, they will die in a pool of someone else's as well. Enjoy the good times while they roll, boomers, it can't last forever. If you're lucky euthanasia will be legalised allowing you a respectable exit.

From what I've read in the media recently, I'd say this view is leaking out into the mainstream.

Many of the media's new or up-and-coming movers and shakers are in their early 30s and it's beginning to dawn on them that the nice Georgian terrace in Islington or Notting Hill that should have been theirs by now - just as it was for those that went before them, except that this time, it ain't gonna happen.

[Guest AuntJess]

There is more to this than housing wealth alone. There are other mechanisms whereby wealth is being transferred up through the generations, from young to old. The most obvious one is through pensions. Public sector pensions aren't funded at all, and it is hard to argue that private sector pensions are funded by the wealth built up by previous generations. The so-called "pension holidays" taken by companies in the 1980s, at the request of the Thatcher government, shows this.

FInal-salary pensions are a massive uncapped liability that acts as wealth transfer. The public sector liabilities are truly frightening and rising. It is rarely mentioned that one of the major reasons for increasing council tax is to pay the pensions of former council employees.

Second, in the last few years there have been massive cash injections into the NHS to try and compensate for decades of underfunding - which reduced the taxes paid by those working during this period. This is one of the causes of Brown's increasing tax take. You may think that people pay through the nose for care at the moment, just wait and see what it costs when peopel have to pay the true cost, rather than present costs which are heavily subsidised by current taxpayers.

The wealth of the present older generation is shown by the fact that they aren't selling and downsizing in significant numbers. It is shown by the success of cruise companies and Saga. There is a huge and increasing "grey market" which firms are tapping into - look at all the "lifestyle" stuff, this is sold to older people (50-plus) as they are the only ones who can afford it.

You say we should "get the protagonists right". It isn't a matter of blame, it is a matter of looking at the evidence. Whether you like it or not our society is becoming increasingly divided and one of the biggest fault-lines is intergenerational.

Obviously different people from different backgrounds have different experiences. It strikes me that the experience of those like myself, from middle-class backgrounds, is more stark than those from working-class backgrounds. It also perhaps depends on the field you work in. I did a PhD in pursuit of an academic career, and the differing experiences across generations in this world is extraordinary. I was taught by people whose qualifications would now be considered as a minor step in the educational process - with, when they got their first permanent posts, no publications. Now those very people demand a PhD and publications before even considering you for a contract position that pays, in comparative purchasing power, roughly a third of the money they started on. And you will NEVER catch them up.

I feel able to comment on both here: born into one class I aspired into another, through hard work and... genes!!( thanks Mum and Dad!!)

My career was also academic - for part of my life - and yes I agree that much more is demanded now in terms of quals. principally because the political agenda which decided to keep young folk at college until they were over 21 - to mask the unemployment figures - determined that the syllabi got watered down.

This is NOT a jaundiced opinion or a patronising stance, but one born of chalk-face experience in teaching. Here I learned that many difficult aspects of education were 'bumped up - to the next level. O level stuff got shoved up into A level, and A level stuff into degree.

Getting to Phd level is the only way these days for employers to ensure they have a brainy guy or gal on the staff. But it IS all hard work: time-consuming slog. 'bin' there - 'dun' that.

I think the only place one really needs a Phd is teaching in Uni. or research: The rest should be down to a first degree and specialised diplomas/ quals. in the chosen field.

But we digress.

I get annoyed reading the vitriole on here about the over 50's when I and ALL my friends have worked damned hard during our lives, and are far from rich. Many of us have/are trying to downsize, but in doing this you meet up with many "banana skins" , which are not apparent to those on the outside, whose eyes are glazed over with hatred and resentment. Some of them are so drowning in their own narcissistic feelings that they are deaf to all, save their own miseries - some self-inflicted.

Yes the younger gen. have had a raw deal in the last 6 years - but the pendulum is about to swing, so make sure you are standing by to act when it does. Making insulting cracks about age and infirmity does not put one in a good light. It just shows what unpleasantness lurks beneath the surface and supports the recent research that age-ism in the most prevalent of ALL the 'isms', despite the anti-racists hollering that 'racism is oh-so terrible.'... So is ageism and sexism, both of which I have witnessed on here, I am sorry to say.You have only to see the results of hoodlums beating up old people in wheelchairs - which is in the news a tad too often for comfort - to realise this disturbing trend.

Starts by depersonalisation and cruel jokes - ends in meaningless violence and cruelty.

As to purchasing power. I agree with your comments. My first posts on this forum were about the increase in the costs of living. When I got married we were able to survive on one salary...just. As a socialist at heart I have always lamented this is not still the case. I spoke of my husband's salary - then - (2K per year) and the cost of the house( 4.5K) and got shouted down as a troll. It gave a few nasty pieces of work on here the opportunity to show us who they really are. I guess they are too dumb to realise that it is a real giveaway to warm to such a theme with vitriole.

PS As to transfer of wealth. When I worked doing several jobs whilst studying, I had to serve sons and daughters of wealthy people, born with the proverbial silver spoon, spared no expense - fast cars, exotic hols. flashy cxlothes, whilst I worked at menial tasks, did not go away on holiday and made my own clothes. This is an argument for transfer of wealth from old to young. Throwing money at their kids to keep them ahead of their fellows. Teaching them to play the game of one-upmanship, like good 'ole' Mummy and Daddy.

This isn't about a generation, it is about a type of person who is greedy and would be greedy no matter what creed colour or age they were - I guess I am saying it is all down to child rearing. I just hope the filth spouters on here change their tunes before they fertilise/get fertilised, or the rot will perpetuate.

Edited March 19, 2007 by AuntJess

[Hope]

I'll settle for the elder generation living in a house they use most of. Do you have spare bedrooms? A separate dining room? Do you use them? Do you have rooms you just don't use at all most of the year? How about downsizing to a house you use all of? Not asking you to sell at below market price; people moving to smaller houses would start the slide in the market so we can get a hold on it.

Saving 35% of my net income enough for you? I did try 50% for a while, but was climbing the walls in frustration at how little spending money it left me with, especially after 20% goes on just paying the rent (before bills, sharing a 3 bedroom council house with two friends, would be 40+% for a one bedroom flat of my own).

It's not about whether it's enough for me is it, it's about whether it's enough for you to get what you want. I'm guessing it probably isn't but hopefully if things turn around it will be.

If people occupying large houses all sold up to buy smaller ones, then surely the demand for this type of property would shoot up further, so I don't quite see how that would be a guarantee and why should anyone give up something they worked for just on a maybe because lets face it no one knows. If there wasn't the demand and cheap credit I doubt prices would have gone up so much in the first place and for those things there are alot more places to point the finger at than one generation with increased value in their homes. The government and banks have far more to answer for in the whole mess than people who have done no more than worked and bought a home, yes, the very thing you all want to do and if you could, you wouldn't expect people to hate you for it would you ?

[bugged bunny]

It's not about whether it's enough for me is it, it's about whether it's enough for you to get what you want. I'm guessing it probably isn't but hopefully if things turn around it will be.

If people occupying large houses all sold up to buy smaller ones, then surely the demand for this type of property would shoot up further, so I don't quite see how that would be a guarantee and why should anyone give up something they worked for just on a maybe because lets face it no one knows. If there wasn't the demand and cheap credit I doubt prices would have gone up so much in the first place and for those things there are alot more places to point the finger at than one generation with increased value in their homes. The government and banks have far more to answer for in the whole mess than people who have done no more than worked and bought a home, yes, the very thing you all want to do and if you could, you wouldn't expect people to hate you for it would you ?

Who said they hated someone for working and buying a home?

That's not the point. The point is that too many boomers (and they're not the only demographic doing this by any means) are hoarding property for the principal purpose of capital gain (many boomers I know openly admit to doing this). Their parents' generation never did this - they downsized to retirement homes in their late fifties to make way for the younger generations.

There's a glut of retirement flats strictly for over-55s for sale in Bristol at up to 30% below market value because there's simply not enough demand for them. They're just about the only the only type of property in the city that's falling in value (even the newbuilds seem to be static).

At the same time NIMBY 50-60 somethings in their 3-4 bed city centre houses campaign against any new planning applications to convert nearby derelict warehouses to new homes because it might inconvenience them slightly by increasing local traffic. Where exactly do they expect young working people and families to live? These NIMBY boomers are too solipsistic and complacent to put two and two together.

[BuyingBear]

I blame the death of James Brown for all this de-funking

(Defunct?)