House Price Increase Is A Transfer Of Wealth From

[DEATH]

Help people who can't afford to buy a house, buy a house?

I was thinking the other day, what if the government wants this bubble (they did drop the interest rates and keep them there), what does it mainly achieve? It transfers the wealth to mainly older people from younger people. The older people need this wealth or they wont be able to eat when they stop working these days.

With state pensions linked to a dodgy inflation figure, no stock market growth and the fact people keep living longer.

(You know how these guys fiddle the inflation figure, they "weight" it. So if steak becomes too expensive, they say you will eat offal instead, because you can't afford steak. Will it eventually go to dog food?)

It's all just another way for taxing the workers, forcing the young people starting out pay for the old people now! I wonder who will pay for us when we get old?

Now, adjusted for inflation, houses are 60% more expensive than 10 years ago, they have done away with the tax relief on mortgage interest, they are making us retire later, they have linked the pension increases to a faulty inflation figure causing the pension's real value to drop 40% in the last few years (would it buy a loaf of bread in 2040?)......

I don't blame the government, it's a fact of life, people live longer. But what isn't fair is to shift the problem onto younger generations like this, making them pay for the old people's retirement through inflated house prices. It's obvious they want to keep this going, now the government has stepped in and wants to loan us all money, which ends up in the pocket of someone over 40.

They should take responsibility for living longer themselves as we will have to when we get there. It's not the governments "fault". Maybe they could sign a form saying they will kill themselves at 70 for an earlier retirement age?

I think the welfare state, the housing market and the stock market these days, are all just a ponzi scheme. Look up the definition and think about it. Unfortunately, the young people today are the suckers at the end, just before it all collapses.

Love

D

[laurejon]

I dont see young people paying any more than older people.

I think you are forgetting the retired today worked for 44 years, and payed tax. They come from a Generation whereby it was socially unaceptable to be unemployed, where a woman was just that at 18 and expected to sacrifice herself to a life of stinking nappies and housework.

I am afraid the real reason we are paying so much in tax today, is not the retired. Its to support societies ills, the extra public services that are required because the new generations cannot tie their shoe laces without suing someone for compenstation.

Those people who you criticise for drawing pensions today, despite the fact they paid for them ten times over, also are the only reason you have your liberty today.

If Adolf Hitler surfaced today, how many young people would have the backbone to go and do something about it?. Probably none, they would rather watch Big Brother, look at Abi Titmus's tits, and search the net for the new line of super cool trainers with matching shell suit.

[OnlyMe]

Laurejon,

We are seeing the generations(s) that never contributed enough to their own savings, voted for and took all the tax breaks going expecting the next generation(s) to pick up the tab.

It is as simple as that. Question is can the drawbridgers pull up the planks before the younger generation vote with their feet first?

Edited May 22, 2005 by OnlyMe

[Warwickshire Lad]

If Adolf Hitler surfaced today, how many young people would have the backbone to go and do something about it?. Probably none

Whilst large numbers of our young soldiers have recently died in Iraq, sent to their deaths by Tony Blair, I hardly think that comment is appropriate.

[laurejon]

I think its very appropriate, how many people would defend this nation. They cant even be bothered to vote, I am sure they would not lay down their lives.

We are seeing the generations(s) that never contributed enough to their own savings

Really, then you should be aware that in past years taxes have been higher, and war costs have been paid off.

It might suprise you but saving money when you do not have enough to feed and clothe yourself is quite difficult, and even harder when you are paying taxes on poverty pay.

You have been suckered into the spin of new labour, face facts. People who earn 19K are not going to have spare cash for savings, not least because they are heavily taxed on a wage that does not support them.

[OnlyMe]

Larejohn,

200,000 active forces have not had a vote. will those 200,000 come back home to housing house building programme or or a scheme to prop prices?

No comparison.

Would you sign up to fight a war of false pretences?

[Casual Observer]

I dont see young people paying any more than older people.

I think you are forgetting the retired today worked for 44 years, and payed tax. They come from a Generation whereby it was socially unaceptable to be unemployed, where a woman was just that at 18 and expected to sacrifice herself to a life of stinking nappies and housework.

I am afraid the real reason we are paying so much in tax today, is not the retired. Its to support societies ills, the extra public services that are required because the new generations cannot tie their shoe laces without suing someone for compenstation.

Those people who you criticise for drawing pensions today, despite the fact they paid for them ten times over, also are the only reason you have your liberty today.

If Adolf Hitler surfaced today, how many young people would have the backbone to go and do something about it?. Probably none, they would rather watch Big Brother, look at Abi Titmus's tits, and search the net for the new line of super cool trainers with matching shell suit.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good for you Laurejon. I'm personally really annoyed when people on this forum blame us older people for their troubles. I can assure you that I had nowhere near enough as much disposable money as today's youngsters when I was young. I've been paying a high proprtion of my hard earned salary in tax and pension contributions since the age of 16, and had very, very little left after basic living costs, until I was about 35 years old. No youngster has ever sacrificed himself for me. Binge drinking? One of the reasons for it is the obscene amount of wealth many youngsters have. When I was a teenager I could only afford to socialise art weekends, and 3 or 4 pints a night left me skint! Get your rose coloured glasses off, and talk to someone who was there.

High house values? So what - you all agree these are meaningless, and as a father of 3 children who will one day need to house themselves I would be happier if prices halved - that's why I'm a bear on this forum. Leave us old gits alone - find the real people to blame instead!

[MrB]

Good for you Laurejon. I'm personally really annoyed when people on this forum blame us older people for their troubles. I can assure you that I had nowhere near enough as much disposable money as today's youngsters when I was young.

High house values? So what - you all agree these are meaningless

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

!

Older people were paid by the state to go to university - now we pay the state for the privilege!

Older people left the parental nest before they were 20 and bought houses, or were housed by the state.

Disposable income! If I could actually get a mortgage on even the scabbiest hovel, I would not be able to eat let alone binge drink.

Yes high house values are meaningless, i wont bother with that one.

Edited May 22, 2005 by MrB

[Bluelady]

!

Older people were paid by the state to go to university - now we pay the state for the privilege!

And only 5% of them went.  Paid for by those who didn't

Older people left the parental nest before they were 20 and bought houses, or were housed by the state.

Yes they did leave the parental nest before they were 20 because they were more independent than today's parasitic youth.  And they didn't buy houses or get housed by the state; they rented privately.

Disposable income!  If I could actually get a mortgage on even the scabbiest hovel, I would not be able to eat let alone binge drink.

Yes - disposable income.  Binge drinking, mobile phones, designer clothes - nobody had those things 30 years ago, their money went on putting a roof over their heads and feeding themselves.  You weren't there so don't make stupid assumptions, it just makes you look foolish and naive.

Yes high house values are meaningless, i wont bother with that one.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Edited May 22, 2005 by Bluelady

[David from Oz]

Is this the grumpy old men thread?

So your generation fought five world wars and lived through three depressions? So what! The 20-something, designer clothes wearing, big brother watching, mobile phone users will have to buy the baby boomer's houses when they retire in a few years ... and it doesn't matter how many luxuries they forgo, they simply won't be able to afford these insane prices.

[Casual Observer]

Is this the grumpy old men thread?

So your generation fought five world wars and lived through three depressions?  So what!  The 20-something, designer clothes wearing, big brother watching, mobile phone users will have to buy the baby boomer's houses when they retire in a few years ... and it doesn't matter how many luxuries they forgo, they simply won't be able to afford these insane prices.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's a bit rich. Read the whole thread (and the title's a bit of a give-away too) and you'll see it's more like a grumpy young man's thread.

I never moaned about any other generation; good luck if that's how they want to spend their money - just pointing out a few home truths.

And If young people can't afford the high prices they'll all drop wont they? Isn't that the basic tenet of the bear argument?

[right_freds_dead]

well said DEATH.

i agree and think this is also going on - by design.

the government are not stupid. they know whats going on. they love this. and its exactly what you describe. a forced transfer of wealth.

[MarkG]

I think its very appropriate, how many people would defend this nation.

A lot of people would fight to defend this nation. However, unlike the 'greatest generation', very few would fight to save the French or the commies... WWII was a war for communism, not to 'defend this nation'.

They cant even be bothered to vote, I am sure they would not lay down their lives.

Why would they vote for parties that are determined to _destroy_ this nation and hand over control of our lives to the French and Germans?