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.

They are between 59 and 77, so some will have retired and over the next 10 years most of the rest will be also retiring. Only 40% of Boomer women ever worked full time, so the chances of them being net contributors is very low.

My parents are pretty typical - born 1958 and 1960 (so, boomers) and had their kids 1987 and 1989 (so, millennials). Millennial is from 1980.

The epitome of how not to think. My Grandmother was wild swimming and running a local charity at 82 and was fitter than many local people half her age.There are people who are less fortunate regarding health and fitness at this stage of life but you can't generalise. I for one although a long way to go am aiming to be like my grandmother, health permitting.

People who contribute so much to society all through their lives should never be seen as a drain on society when they become infirm & in need of care. There is not one living person who doesn't face this eventually if they are fortunate to live until old age, that is unless they go suddenly. Time flies so my message to young people is treat your eldery as you would wish to be treated because it's not that far away.

I was born in 1965 and am 59, I missed being a baby boomer by 1 year so I am Gen X instead, my DSIS was born in 1963 and retired at the age of 50 (stressful job that encourages early retirement, think along the lines of pilot but not that), Her DH is 8 years older than her so definitely a baby boomer and retired even earlier than she did due to being given early retirement for a work related health issue (public sector)

Anyway in contrast I cant afford to retire and can see myself working well into my seventies so I guess it all balances out in the end. (also public sector worker)

I volunteer somewhere and the whole place is run by people in their 80s, they’re brilliant. A few joint replacements between them but other than that , they’re going strong. Part of the place is a cafe, every week we see the same people in their 90s coming along with friends, chatting with eachother, doing crafts etc.

Whilst obviously some people are struck by ill health, it’s not a given that life as we know it is over once you’re 80.

Im going to keep going as long as I can, I’m planning a very long and active retirement if I can possibly help it.

As far as the OP goes, you raise some good points which seemed to get lost in the early pages (I haven’t read all of them). I guess that there will be a period of excess housing, shorter hospital waiting times etc. Active ageing is certainly more common from what I can see though so perhaps life expectancy will increase too?

The IHT the Boomers' estates will have to pay as they start to die off will probably more than cover the costs to govt of those remaining .

Yes, I agree although recently meeting up with my DSIS and her DH, who are 61 and 69 (I am 59), we laughed as we noticed that we seemed to spend a lot of our time comparing health conditions with each other on our NHS accounts, all 3 of us have high cholesterol, I am diabetic, my DSIS has osteoporosis and I am beginning to develop it. Also both have the start of Glaucoma and my DSIS is now deaf in one ear. Having said that she goes cold water swimming and on long rambling hikes, so although old age ailments seem to creep in on everyone they dont affect all the same. (Some details changed but you get the jist)

Yes but you battle on and do your best to enjoy life with all the changes that come with having the privilege of getting older 😁

There are always old people coming up and up you know. Also new babies being born, no matter what you label them

Everyone in my family seems to have been lucky enough to retire early, with the exception of my grandpa who was born in 1889 and worked until he was 75 as a painter and decorator, (he lived until nearly 1989 but missed his 100th birthday by 2 months!) I will be like him and work for many more years than the pension age of 67 (health permitting as sadly there are 3 generations of Alzheimer in my family)

Keep on keeping on.We should all take one day at a time regardless of age or health. Nobody is guaranteed tomorrow.

@ButterAsADip it's funny because I guess as a gen X with boomer parents I guess I've only ever really thought of boomers as the post war birth boom generation ie 1945-55 and thinking of someone classified as a boomer who was born at the time of the Beatles etc seems a little strange to me. I guess that's like saying someone born in 1980 is the same generation as someone born in 1965 also seems a bit strange but I guess that's how it is organised.

Our estate is nowhere near IHT level, the house is more likely to lose value than gain as we don't bother with it apart from essentials. It's mainly people that live in the SE and London, our house is at most £300k, though at auction where it will probably end up it will be a lot less. We don't have these investments that people keep banging on about, just our pension and a couple of ISAs, there must be loads of older people like us that don't have much, DS is far better off than us as he has a good job and he is a millennial. Though obviously that may change after the budget but even at 40% on the lot it won't be a huge amount.

Exactly & well said 👏

And resell

As a boomer, I still have a 16yo at home, I work full time and am a single mum. It doesn't stop me volunteering.

Not unusual meddowfinch & well done. Nowadays middle age & older stages often entail children still living at home, full time jobs, elderly to look out for & grandchildren to help with. I say make the most of the easier stages in life as in many cases it gets harder the older you get not easier.

"Your parents (unless they are currently higher rate tax payers) and the majority of people will never pay enough tax in their life to make up for pensions and healthcare costs.

You need to earn 41k a year to be a net contributor."

This is a fatuous argument used to support the equally fatuous viewpoint that there are "people who deserve" and people who don't. It is also an attempt to measure the contribution that people make to society purely in financial terms - something that Conservative ideology constantly attempts and constantly gets wrong.

Where does this measure the "net contribution" made by low-paid or unpaid carers who stay at home to look after a loved one rather than having them in a care home or hospital, where their care will be "costing" society?

Where does this measure the non-financial contribution made by a low-paid teacher who inspires her pupils to study and become highly paid scientists, entrepreneurs, engineers etc.? What about all of the people who voluntarily "contribute" their time (and often their own money) to youth clubs, sports clubs, charity shops, food banks etc.? How is this "contribution" measured - and if it is saving society money, how is this acknowledged and accounted for?

Great thread OP asking a genuine intellectual question about one of the most pressing issues - and despite the many posters using it as an excuse to take something personally and get on their high horse!

I think we’ll see more countries belatedly trying to incentivize citizens to have more children - like Japan, Italy, Korea. Immigration will be needed of course due to rapidly falling native populations and this will exacerbate existing social tensions especially as more immigrants come in from different cultures and religions, and with different values to what people are used to in their country.

I think this push for people to have children - birth rate currently 1.4 in the UK - replacement rate is 2.1 - will be needed but will inevitably take a greater toll on women’s equality and social gains.

I wont have much to pass on to my DC. I did have a large family home but sold it when I split with my ex after 28 years together, and now have a modest 2 bed flat, I own it outright but it was only about 230k when I purchased it and although in the SE it hasn't increased much in value, It had 98 years on the lease when I purchased in in 2016 so if I live to the same age as my parents did (both died at 80) my flat will have less that 60 years lease left on it so be devalued yet again, so not sure what I will pass on to my lovely DC. Having said that, my DC are all in better paid careers than me and have their own homes so are better off then me anyway :) I actually get panic palpitations when I read about how much people need before they retire, I worked most of my life but in low to average paid employment and actually am scared of how I will afford to feed myself if my service charges go from £40 to £400 a month like they did a couple of occasions (once for resurfacing the carparking for the flats and once for some roof repairs) I asked what would happen if I cant afford to pay and they said they would take our an attachment to my flat so when I sell it they would claw it back then! its a scary old world at times isnt it, especially to be a single woman approaching retirement on a low income but not low enough for benefits.

Only 4pc of UK estates are worth enough to pay IHT. This is expected to rise to 7pc by 2032.
The vast, vast majority of estates are not subject to inheritance tax. When you take residence nil band into account (assuming the person dying owns a home and not just other assets) then effectively you have 500k before your estate becomes liable. And then you have transferable nil band to a spouse which would mean the surviving spouse can then roll both those together and the heirs have close to £1million allowance.

Lots of great facts and figures here:
https://ifs.org.uk/publications/reforming-inheritance-tax#:~:text=In%20terms%20of%20the%20number,7%25%20by%202032%E2%80%9333.

What it will mean is a significant transfer of wealth between generations, widening the gap between those who have parents with property and those that don't. A lot more people will inherit than in previous generations as 70pc of boomers own a house so will likely have some assets to leave, even after paying care costs (unless unfortunate enough to need many years of intensive dementia care).

The gen x/millennials who inherit from boomers will be middle aged - they can then fund their children's university education/property deposits from that inheritance, further perpetuating the gap into the next generation. The grandchildren of boomers with property will have a significant advantage of those that don't.
Social mobility will reduce on a national level.

Those who are related to the 30pc of boomers without property will struggle over a few generations to catch up regardless of how hard they work at school etc. They will graduate with large debts and no deposit for property so may never own property or will only do so much later than those related to the 70pc that have something to leave behind.
The playing field is not level and it will become been less level.

We don't need to push to have more children - there are always many different ways of managing things

Continual growth is physically impossible however - and the problems that brings with infrastructure , housing , all the growth model does is leave us forever chasing our tails

so the historic way of doing things needs to change - we can't just try to patch around the edge s

I thought that I'd paid enough to get my full pension. (I had more than 35 yrs at the time. I had to retire at 58 because of my late husband's ill health: my headteacher said he couldn't reduce my hours.)

I asked for a forecast of my pension and was told that the rules had changed and I now needed more contributions. I paid over £800 to "pay back a missing year", but the way things are going, I'll not be making any more voluntary contributions: I'm already paying tax on my reduced teaching pension and I'm not sure that it'll be worthwhile to pay in more for my state pension.

Nope. Don't ask me to explain it: I can't. I have the letter lying about the house somewhere.

In the meantime, I'm doing bits of supply teaching when I can.

I'm also a Boomer.

I almost wish I could come back, just to see how subsequent generations will feel when it's their turn to be told that they're a drain on society.

Once us boomers die off, life will be a dream, we have ruined the last few decades, buying up all the houses, voting for Brexit, voting Conservative therefore for austerity, burning all those fossil fuels, ruining the climate etc. clogging up hospitals, over using the NHS.
We really are devils incarnate, I think we probably brewed up covid on purpose, just so we could have a bit of peace, and respite from grandchildren! 😂