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.

And that will only get worse as younger people have poorer diets and do less exercise, hence the sheer number of clearly severely overweight/obese people you see everywhere, even at primary schools, which was far rarer 40-50 years ago. We're already seeing the effects of the more sedentary lifestyles along with ease and cheapness of processed foods, takeaways, etc.

Yup. I'm a tail-end baby boomer. Worked and cared for both my parents and then my husband. Reluctantly took early retirement at 58, but still do occasional supply teaching.

I pay the BR of tax on my reduced teaching pension and the Scottish 21% tax rate on any supply earnings. I'm 64. I'll never not be paying tax.

One thing that should be borne in mind is that the UK baby “boom” is a bit different to the American one. The American baby boom has tended to dominate popular understanding, and there has perhaps not been sufficient attention paid to the UK’s demographic differences.

The US baby boom was huge! It started almost immediately after the end of WWII and went on until the late 60s, so more than 20 years. And people were having genuinely big families - at the peak of the American boom, US families were having almost four children each, somewhat higher than most Sub-Saharan African countries today. This was fueled by the immense growth in wealth in the post-war United States.

The UK was in a terrible state after WWII - victorious but utterly shattered. Rationing went on for years afterwards, and in 1947 the UK actually came very close to outright famine. Births did go up sharply in the first year after WWII but then crashed straight afterwards. They didn’t even start to recover for years, until the mid 50s. When it did come, the “boom” basically consisted of about 2.5 children each on average, not really all that many in the great scheme of things. And it all faded out after about 15 years.

So the UK baby “boom” was really more of a baby blip, and it came significantly later than the US one. Most people born before about 1955 in the UK shouldn’t actually be considered part of the baby boom at all.

This means that the “peaks” of people retiring, people needing care, and deaths, will all happen later than in the United States, and also be a lot less dramatic in scale. On the other hand, the poverty of the UK compared to the US may also mean that the impacts of these fiscal shock feel magnified in some way.

I know statistically my personal experience doesn't matter- both my BB parents are dead (one for almost 40 years).

I'm a very late Gen x (actually from the micro generation 77-80 known as xennials)

I'm watching this with interest because it's fascinating.

In terms of what will happen to my generation - the first to shrink - I suppose it will depend where you are on the curve.

Legacy fundraisers are predicting the biggest transference of wealth since they started collecting data about trends.

Some families will have inheritance and no care costs. I imagine this wealth will be used for family.

Some families will get a smaller inheritance due to care costs.

Some families (mine) inherit nothing even with no care costs!

Anyway statistically speaking and from a legacy perspective there is going to be a big transference of wealth. This will shape what happens for Gen Z and Gen Alpha I think.

Many cultures look after their own elderly, who in turn contribute to childcare.

Many elderly people carry on working, Mil was working into her 80's.

Round here many larger homes are being converted into multiple flats or knocked down completely and multiple homes/flats built on the same plot with little outside space.

Farmland is also being built on at an exponential rate.

If you have to earn £41k+ to be a net contributor, the majority of people you rely on to service your needs are not contributors. Do you think you could do without them? Do you feel you are part of their exploitation or are you payed more because your work is so essential compared to theirs?

The American baby boom has tended to dominate popular understanding, and there has perhaps not been sufficient attention paid to the UK’s demographic differences.

A very good point.

If I prove that I've paid tax for the last 40+ years, am I allowed to avoid the carousel for another wee while?

(It may be that only Boomers will understand that reference...)

Even after this generation of pensioners die we will have the same (or worse) imbalance with plummeting birth rates.

Planners nowadays have an unprecedented
'planning refused' mentality which then requires the applicant to alter plans giving the planners welcome extra work. This along with the hideous time it takes to even consider applications is the reason for a lack of progress in housing development within all categories. If planners were efficient in this respect they would need less staff which would then jeopardise jobs in the council. People need to demand change in this department if they want progress in housing development.

Obviously I can't rule it out but it seems quite a long shot to reverse the extensive organ damage which has occurred when there is dementia. We would be talking about a way to regenerate the brain wouldn't we?

You can only "live" in an inherited house if it's located where the beneficiaries live. It's now pretty common for children to leave home and set up their own lives elsewhere, away from their family home town due to lack of opportunities, the London centric nature of large organisations/businesses these days, etc.

Someone living at the other end of the country, who has a job there, children in school there, a social life there, isn't just going to up sticks and move back to their family home, potentially hundreds of miles away to live in their inherited home.

OK if your "adult" life is just around the corner from your parents, but that's pretty rare these days!

As for renting, for "accidental landlords", it can be more trouble than it's worth. The houses of elderly people, especially those with ill health, can often be run down and not in a fit state to rent out without lots of rectification and modernisation. Then you need a good letting agent and solicitor to get the legalities and bureaucracy right. And if you're not local, you need your letting agent to manage the place, arrange for inspections and deal with tradesmen for repairs, etc., which is costly. It may work for some, but not for the majority, particularly those who aren't close enough to manage it themselves or don't want the stress/hassle. (Not to mention those who don't have ready cash to upgrade and renovate to the standard required if it's run down!).

I agree. But I do hope that research bears fruit as to finding lifestyle changes to defer and slow down the effects of dementia, and likewise drugs to slow down it's progress. But, yes, highly unlikely for there to be a drug to reverse it once someone is suffering.

It’s gone up! A bone of contention for older retirees, who got the state pension before 5th April 2016. The old basic is £169.50 per week. For those who reach state pension age on 6th April 2016 or later, it’s £221.20. Over £50 a week more.

The oldest pensioners needed 44 years of contributions to get the full pension, now its 35 years.

Well whether that is true or not re the state pension why are you venting your ire on the wrong people. lobby and campaign to influence those who are making these decisions ( and news flash no.one is talking about abolishing the state pension as far as I know ) . It is not the older generations fault and yet there is a constant barage of negativity towards them just for existing. Imo it suits those in authority to keep us all fighting amongst ourselves .

Lots of us boomers started work at 15 as I did, I retired at 70 so 55 years working and paying tax, still paying tax now although less and no NI. Remember we were paying 38% income tax in the 60s although it dropped gradually to 30% by the mid 70s. Not sure how any of that affects your calculations but presumably it does.

I don't think it's so much the council themselves, as there seem to be a lot of "contracting out" of some planning and building regulation decisions to private firms who seem to be given such powers by councils, presumably/hopefully working under a set of guidelines as to what they can approve! Of course, those private firms "can" make more money by initially refusing applications/plans and then charging more for altering plans and applying again.

Japan has a large number of elderly.

I understand that as large numbers pegged out and moved into care homes, availability of homes increased.

In China, entire villages have been abandoned.

It's more complicated than that though, on the old £169.50 pension you could have S2P or had tax benefits to your pension contributions. I'm in the age group to get the old pension but in fact my SRP is higher than the new pension of £221.20 because I had a few years with no private pension (working part time when I had young children and a disabled husband so couldn't afford it.)

Yes, but back then VAT wasn't as high as 20%, NIC was far lower, as was all the other taxes/duties such as fuel duty, VAT on electric and gas, insurance premium tax, alcohol and tobacco duties, etc. Over that period, income tax has indeed fallen, but virtually all other taxes have risen and new taxes introduced. We've moved from a "tax on income" business plan to a "tax on spending" business plan. That makes sense as it gets "something" out of people who have no taxable income, i.e. visitors from abroad, rich people living on trust funds, and also from people living on benefits - it's not political acceptable to tax unemployment nor disability benefits, so they tax what those benefits are spent on instead!

I think the private pension becoming mandatory was a way to move away from state pension. In future (I dont know when but you can guarantee the government at the time will fuck it all up) there will be no state pension, that money will be redirected, because theres no way we will pay less tax.
And everyone "should" have a private pension.
Plenty of people will be in pension poverty, but I'm certain the government of the day wont care, or you'll get minimum top up benefits.

As for OP it's a good question, I think more automation of jobs, so fewer jobs, more working from home. Wages will increase soon, no one will be better off.
Housing stock, well a lot isnt suitable for current day living, so itll either be knocked down and rebuilt or revamped inside.
Healthcare spending will skyrocket. As others have said, obesity and related. And mental health, we cannot keep ignoring mental health issues.

I think schools will be built bigger, and a bigger catchment area, there are savings to be made in scaling up school buildings. I'm not a fan of this btw.

Self driving cars will be normal, public transport might actually get joined up.
Flights will be a thing only very very wealthy people can have. And we will be super pissed off about it, because they rant on about climate change to the many who can't afford to fly, but then they fly every week.

Smokers will die out, but the vaping scandal is just 20 years away.
Children the world over will no longer be exploited as cheap labour in mines and factories, this is of course pie in the sky thinking.

I think even with mass immigration there will still be fewer people in the UK, so the current monetary system will have to change. But what to, I dont know. Hopefully a fairer system whatever that looks like.

I think we will find ways to detect dementia (or pre-dementia) in its earliest stages and also identify those who are most at risk. I think the best prevention will always be exercise and healthy eating though and this will be the case for health generally.
But really anything could happen- what if we find conclusive proof of life after death and people stop bothering with life?

Perhaps you’re right. My husband and I are both millennial children of boomer parents but maybe we’re not the norm. I always assumed Gen X parents had Gen Z children. Probably not that cut and dried.

As I understand it China is completely fucked in many ways, demographically economically.

Japan has a very low rate of immigration though.

@StarrySkiesAtMidnight , anywhere around here (outer SW London) you’ll be lucky if £500k will buy you a reasonable 2 bed flat!