What happens when the baby boomers die?

[LargeSquareRock]

Sorry about the title, but that’s literally it. I’ve wondered this since I was a child.

Obviously we are about to enter a 20 year spike when a smaller number of tax payers support a higher number of elderly people in healthcare and elder care.

What happens in 20 years when the spike is over? Do we have empty care homes, plentiful housing and easily available health care?

I really have no evil agenda asking this- demographics has always fascinated me.

I HOPE SO.

Because she has asked a theoretical question about demographics and the economy, has repeated over and over that she respects and admires boomers as a generation and individuals, yet the vast majority of replies from boomers have been defensive twaddle responding to non-existent insults so they get to self righteously feel victimised by younger generations. So she's probably frustrated.

You pose a good question Op. I fall into the - dead in the next 20-30 years category- I am 63.
I think future generations will have different things to worry about than elderly care. I would expect however that AI, if managed/ developed appropriately could assist in taking over some tasks, to help balance the diminished population.

But the question is how that develops to support an economy and provide the human citizens with the income/ inputsthey need to support themselves.

If AI does what the boffins suggest it should, a massive rethink / rebalance will be needed to define how people are rewarded for their contribution to society. Perhaps rewards around societal good rather than basic output.

That said, I have not seen the talent in successive governments for moving forwards to such a transition. So good luck you guys!

Anyway, apologies for my stream of conscientiousness comment. It is as I say, a fascinating subject.

Houses will be inherited so not necessarily sold. There will be less people paying into the economy, meaning health and education are strained, and also grants and development that fund innovation and business. A typical response to this is to raise taxes, so overall the economy is less productive and people less happy and less well off.

Well this explains my frustrations much better than my “shouting”

@Houseplanter

But the state pension? For many of us it's what we signed up for 40 years ago.. the goal posts are moving for us too.

No one "signed up" for anything. For most people NIC is just another tax that workers have no choice but to pay.

Yes, granted, a minority of people will have voluntarily paid class 2 contributions (the old "stamp") to qualify for a state pension, if they weren't earning credits in other ways such as paying NICs, or getting exemptions due to caring responsibilities, unemployment etc. But very few will have paid the required 35 years of voluntary NICs - they'll have qualified in other ways usually, even if just a few years of working upon leaving school!

But the vast majority have just paid all their taxes as they fall due. No "signing up" required nor offered.

State pension IS a state benefit.

This thread fascinates me.

I don’t think I realised how significant the numbers were?

I just assumed the cycle would continue.

So the birth rate in the late 40’s to early 60’s was so much more than later that there really will be fewer people in care homes, accessing pensions etc?

Don’t forget that unless there has been estate planning, if home owners go into care, in the majority of cases the home is sold at some point to pay for that care.

The ONS projects an increase in people over 85 from 1.6m to 2.6m by 2040. Those boomers are not leaving us anytime soon!

Forgive my ignorance.

Surely the fact that there are less people paying in to the pot is offset by the fact that there will also be less people being paid out of the pot for pensions, healthcare etc?

This is also my understanding; unless birth rates stabilize at replacement level we will always have insufficient working age people to support those who are too old to be economically active.

There will be more grandparents on average per grandchild in the future, (and far more great grandparents per grandchild) so that's helpful.

The question is how the mechanics of age of motherhood vs retirement age vs morbidity will interact to determine whether there is an available grandparent retired/semi-retired and in decent health at the time when childcare is needed.

That makes a lot of sense. So naturally it will never be adopted by any UK government !!

@Dearg

That said, I have not seen the talent in successive governments for moving forwards to such a transition. So good luck you guys!

Most governments in most countries are woefully failing to plan for the future. We've had a couple of decades of many countries "struggling" with the effects of the internet and cross border trade, i.e. tax avoidance across continents, virtually uncontrolled proceeds of crime funding across borders, etc. We're always behind the curve and let things happen and get out of hand, causing problems, before we even think of starting to tackle things.

It's easy to blame UK governments, but the "global" economy is a problem for most countries.

AI will be the "next big thing", but I really don't see how any Western government has the ability nor capability to deal with the inevitable consequences.

The people with the foresight and ability will be the ones driving AI, and won't be the politicians trying to deal with it who will, as usual, be barely capable of understanding nor foreseeable the undesirable consequences.

And after WWII
1946 to 1964 according to Wikipedia.

I would like this. I also think, this is anecdotally and based on my social circle, we will downsize more. I would be surprised if our generation follow the patterns of our parents staying on in the big family homes into their 60s/70s. The cost will be so high and this CoL time will be giving us practice of getting by with less 😆

Ok @Badbadbunny 'signed up' was a poor choice of words.

But it is what we expected. We anticipated a state pension if we paid national insurance. We willingly paid in to a 'plan' that we'd work all our lives and then when we were old we would receive a state pension.

We contributed what was asked of us. We worked and paid up.

I've paid tax and national insurance since I was 16. I've had 2 short mat leaves, and child benefit. Nothing else. How much else should I have contributed to society? Or are we aiming for a society that doesn't help the elderly?

Most people don't go into care though. And hardly any spend more than two years in residential care.

I`ve been pondering this. They have built a lot of expensive houses in my town. Here's the thing. If a couple own a house worth over 1 million then unless their kids earn enough to buy houses worth half a million there won't be enough of an inheritance to buy a house worth 1 million (unless an only child). So at some point there is going to be a glut of these really expensive houses because nobody will be able to afford to buy them.

We don’t have appropriate infrastructure to support the levels of elderly people now. Even if the government try to address this now - it is too late. In 20 years time we may have adequate infrastructure to support gen x as the crisis may have required the government to act. It’s the same in every part, prisons, schools etc. governments are reactive. But society will be a lot less colourful and concerningly individuals a lot more isolated due to the way our social communication has gone in recent generations.

Threads like this one are fascinating so thank you @LargeSquareRock for asking the question.

We're 68, and DH is still running a business but receiving the state pension. As of a couple of weeks ago, I have one surviving parent (estranged and NC) and one GenZ DC. We're in the process of transferring money to DC for property purchase, which will be everything I inherit from DM, plus most of DH's inheritance from his DM, whose care needs absorbed half his parents' estate in four years. Provided we survive another seven years, this will fall outwith our estate for IHT but whatever we don't manage to spend will also end up in DC's account, including our home equity and savings.

What about gen X? Surely most boomer assets will go to gen X and not millennials? I thought gen X were the children of boomers (boomers having children at a younger age than now so the 1970s babies).

@Houseplanter child benefit has been means tested for years. I imagine you know, but I would like to make the point to the thread.

This but people have forgotten everyone pays tax in the form of VAT.

There will be more grandparents on average per grandchild in the future, (and far more great grandparents per grandchild) so that's helpful.

Another demographic issue that get rarely thought or talked about is the generations are getting further apart - as parental age increases.

So instead of being parental in 20s it's creeping up to mid 30s - but many have kids in 40s now - depending on how old their own parents are this means older and frailer grandparents and increasingly likelihood of young kids and elder care happening at same time.

2 generation waiting till late 30/early 40s - GP can easily be in 80s.

Plus retirement is pushed back to 70s younger ones may well still be working.