to feel pissed off with selfish 'baby boomer' generation

[hermionepotter]

this was in response to a newspaper article where people surveyed wanted interest rates to go up. I could be BU I know. But it won't be those paying massive mortgages and debts who'll be wanting rates to go up, will be older people wanting interest on their savings and sod everyone else. So am I BU?

ioughttobecosier, I'm not claiming to know whether it is true of boomers or any other group, I just put forward a small subset of the facts and personal observations that may provide a case for consideration of the premise as a possibility. Of course there should be doubts about the premise, as nobody has presented anything approaching proof that it is true, but neither can you say it definitely isn't the case.

Pretty nobody said to me at the time, 'here is affordable housing, but your children and your grandchildren will pay the price for it'. We bought our houses thinking that things would keep on getting better. That was the model that we'd been shown. Things just kept getting better. We thought we'd earned it by going through the rough times, not that we'd make our children pay for it at some point in the future.

Of course, you could hate all BB's for not having a crystal ball and for not making the most sensible options for them at that time, but I hardly think that's fair.

We all take steps with our finances that suit us at that time. I have never been financially savvy so my choices were always simple ones made on the information at hand. I went for the maximum mortgage I could afford when I was mid twenties and I've stayed with that house since.

Depending on which government you want to blame dictates whether or not I am responsible for voting them in. I certainly didn't vote this shower of shites in. The current government seem to be targeting the weak, the poor, the old and they are very good at scapegoating certain sectors of society. Teacher bashing anyone? Or public sector workers? Or baby-boomers. Completely circumventing the real villains of the piece, the Bankers and the politicians, for example. I've voted labour all my life. I believe that we have to support the vulnerable in society and set up a structure in society that isn't based on pure greed. Sadly, I haven't seen a political party yet that offers the right things. Labour came nearest insomuch as they put money into health, education, etc. But let's face it, they made their own fuck ups too.

You can hate certain people for doing certain things. Hating a generation as if they have an homogenous approach to life, as if they consciously went out of their way to fuck things up for the younger generation? That's sad and not very logical.

no one is hating or blaming for past choices - I'm talking about the here and now, and where the rise in interest rates will generally hit most

I think the OP has a very fair and valid point. It is easy to point to examples that flout the general truth. Because the general truth is that our children's generation will be poorer than ours. My children will have to pay through the nose for a university education whilst I had it for free. And the university education they will have to pay for will be worth less than mine - because graduates are ten a penny now. I bought my first house at 24. The average age at which my children will be able to afford a house will be in their late thirties. I could go on ... Generational inequality is a fact. I absolutely despise the way in which we are governed that means that resources are not directed to the young, to our future.

I am not sure why those with houses paid off are bothered about IRs etc and prices falling Even if prices in the SE halved they would still be in a better position than most.

I think the point that is being missed here is that raising interest rates WILL cause repossessions - not because people are feckless and over-borrowing, but because some people are now in jobs that pay much less and so can only keep their house because of the low interest rates. These are also people that are currently finding it difficult to feed themselves and their family, don't have flashy cars and never take holidays. If they lose their houses they will be out on the street and there is no requirement for local councils to provide social housing, so they will end up in B&Bs, or staying with friends and family if that's at all possible until they have managed to save up/beg/borrow the money needed for a deposit to rent a house. That is if they can actually get one because landlords and letting agents do credit checks and someone who has just had their house repossessed is hardly going to pass one of those.

If a person manages to have the spare cash to save, then I'm presuming that they are able to pay their rent/mortgage (if they have one still), feed themselves, heat their house. They will just have a bit less spare cash.

That's the difference.

But rates are ridiculously low and even a tiny rise causing a repossession shows that you are living in a house you can't afford. The country cannot keep rates low just to 'save' a few who over borrowed.

There is a requirement for LAs to provide social housing but unfortunately they are denied the funds to provide it. It is a ridiculous situation.

arguments I agree with you that the older generation have taken more out of the system than they have put in, whereas for the young the reverse will be true BUT I don't think low interest rates are necessarily the panacea - that is a pretty blunt tool and there are better ways economically of shifting wealth.

Chunderella - the examples of discrimmination I gave were not from the 60s or the 70s but 1986 to 1989.

People don't seem to understand that equality in the workplace is a relatively recently won thing.

I would argue that equality in the workplace hasn't even happened yet! but that's a whole 'nother thread...

I'd agree Hermione. What I was trying to show that without the equality legislation and awareness we have these dats, the discrimmination was blatent - and it wasn't seen as 'wrong'.

Every repossession adversely affects families, often for many years. People cannot be punished because unforseen circumstances (like unemployment, divorce, bereavement) has meant that their income has dropped and something that they have been able to afford - like their mortgage - has suddenly become impossible to manage - all because a few people who have a house, have food, heating etc want a few more pence on their savings.

Tudor thats not how it works. It is not a few people at all. If you need rates to be as low as they are to afford your house then you have borrowed too much. It isn't about job losses because the people I know who say they wont be able to afford their mortgages with a rise are in work.

Another problem with the low savings rates (exacerbated by sad returns on private pension plans ) is that people with some capital feel BTL is the only option for providing future income.

Leaving interest rates low indefinitely though causes more long-term harm to the young who have yet to reach house-buying age, since it will cause house prices to be higher. It's a very shite situation at the moment where you have group A - people who bought before about 2003 and are sat on a lottery-win style unearned housing profit, group B - people who through fear, ignorance or a feeling of no other choice have borrowed far more than they really should have to buy a house because prices are so obscenely high, and group C - people who have yet to purchase. Helping group B by keeping rates low screws group C who need lower prices, and helping group C screws group B who need things to stay where they are to avoid financial catastrophe.

For some reason though the needs of group A, who quite frankly should be told to fuck off as they're sat on a massive unearned profit anyway, are the ones who seem to get all the press, ie "what about interest on our savings". I only hope there is a more equitable situation by the time my children are old enough to want homes of their own.

I'd like interest rates to rise a little but not to the extent that interest rates are excessive. There should be a happy medium - at the moment, rates are being kept excessively low and I don't think it's fair that savers have a miserably low rate of interest (and are losing money in real terms).

Noddyholder - with all due respect. You don't know what you are talking about. If you read what I said properly I was talking about a change in circumstances which is happening to a hell of a lot of people all over this country.

We are talking about people's lives here. I know several people in this situation including my own sister who tried to commit suicide because of it last year.

On that note I am going to leave this thread before I say things that will get me banned.

Why is there a presumption here that everyone who owned a house pre 2003 is a baby boomer? I'm "generation x", born in 75 and bought first flat in 2000 at 3 times my income with a 10% deposit. We moved to the house we live in now in 2003 and stayed . It is worth double what we paid but if we were to move to anywhere bigger it'd be the same again which I just wouldn't dream of doing.

It was really hard to manage financially in the early years but we always saved something. I totally get that you would struggle today to do something similar. However, I also don't think I should fuck off because I would like to earn interest on my savings. As I said before, you can be a borrower and a saver. I too have a child who will face these problems and I have no idea how she will get onto the property ladder.

Why is there a presumption here that everyone who owned a house pre 2003 is a baby boomer

I'm not sure anybody is saying that, but regards to housing that's roughly the cut off between the very comfortable and the precariously placed. With regards to other non-housing inequalities though (pensions, university costs) boomers have had the majority of the benefit so tend to the be 'target' in these sorts of discussions. There is of course a sliding scale between those who have had massive benefit of these inequalities and those who've been screwed over at every turn. Generation X sit mostly in the middle I would suggest.

I don't really understand why repossessions would be significant if interest rates rose tbh. Fixed rate mortgages have never reflected base rate- anyone buying in the last 5 years has been looking at late 4-early 5% fixed rates. The people benefitting are on trackers, but their mortgages would've been taken out pre crash when interest rates were 6,7% anyway for the fixed period, so at one point at least, they could afford that.

So the people facing repossession will be those who could afford 7% but their circumstances have changed so much in 5 years they no longer can. I absolutely can see many reasons why this could happen but i can't really see this being common?

Tudor I wasn't referring to people losing jobs that can happen to anyone with or without mortgages. I am talking about a simple rate rise not a job loss. I am sorry about your sister that is a terrible thing to happen but I really wasn't talking about that. If you read what I said you would see that the people I know who would struggle have jobs but just over borrowed while rates have been low. It is a different situation. Job losses is a whole other thing. And I have worked in property since 1999 and have seen how it can destroy people as well as make them rich.