… to think that no one wants to speak up for the younger generation?

[SnowBells]

I don't know what it is. Maybe political correctness gone mad.

Pensioners who are already wealthy get winter fuel allowance, etc. Each time this kind of stuff gets mentioned on things like Question Time or something, people shout and whistle, showing complete disregard for the subject, and no real debate can happen.

I am not talking about the pensioners who aren't well off. But a huge proportion of pensioners did profit from the higher house prices - something not likely to happen for the younger generation.

Our kids have to pay to go to uni. My generation will retire much, much later. We also have to pay for inflated house prices.

And yet, there will be people who say 'but we've paid our taxes'. Well, we pay taxes and our kids will, too, but we are likely to get A LOT less back. I just feel there's a huge generational wealth divide. And I wonder why no one wants to discuss this properly? Why do people want to stop a debate before it has even had a chance to happen?

Everyone will die. Your legacy is the next generation. So why not speak up for what essentially will be your only legacy?

Snowbells what do you want to be means tested? The basic state pension isn't enough to live on. People on that are already means tested for extra benefits to bring them up to a basic standard of living. Are you saying that people who took out private pensions shouldn't get the state pension at all? No government would be so unfair as to do that. Getting old isn't a lifestyle choice.

I think each generation has it's own problems and other generations find it difficult to understand them.

My parents (late 70's) benefited from final salary schemes but grew up in the war (air raid shelters, evacuation etc. etc.) and there was no concept of anti-discriminaton legislation, whether on the grounds of class, sex or race.

My IL's are late 60's and again have benefited from final salary schemes but their childhoods were blighted by things like parents having TB.

Although they were all professionals, I don't think any of them went to university - there were full grants but hardly any places - their higher education would have involved college and on the job training.

They have 'made' a lot of money in the property market on paper, but they still have to live in their houses. Assuming all their money isn't spent on care, the ultimate beneficiaries will be their children and grandchildren. This is an issue because the housing market becomes distorted and people buy property on the basis of inheritance, not earnings. However, it doesn't mean that they are living in luxury or can afford to mend holes in the roof when they appear.

I think the current generation has been sold a lemon with university though. I don't think successive governments have thought through what a university degree actually is.

Sorry, haven't read the whole thread, only the first 6-7 pages. I got too annoyed at the ridiculous DM-type assertion that all old people have second homes in Spain, paid-off mortgages and vote Tory.

Firstly, I wonder what proportion of posters on this thread actually bother to go and vote. The last time I voted, my local polling station was full of over-sixties, actually queueing to vote. I didn't see anyone below forty there. Obviously this is just a quick snapshot/anecdotal, but I asked around at work, too, and not a single one of my younger colleagues had gone to vote, either because they 'didn't have time' or 'it's not worth it.'

Secondly, I agree with other posters who have pointed out that this is divide and rule rhetoric. Don't look at pensioners/baby boomers (they aren't necessarily the same thing, you know) and blame them for this mess, blame the culture of tax avoidance. If people like Philip Green paid the tax he should, instead of stuffing money into offshore havens in his wife's name, that would probably cover the whole country's winter fuel allowance!

There were no 100% mortgages either.

I don't know specifically about 1990, but plenty of 100% mortgages were given out in the 1980s and 1990s. Its a myth that they are a new concept.

I didn't buy my first house until I was 30 and feel that's quite late but maybe that's how the current generation will have to do things.

The average FTB age is already higher than that and has been for some time, especially for those who do not get parental help.

Firstly, I wonder what proportion of posters on this thread actually bother to go and vote.

I voted lib dem. Won't be making that mistake again. Its probably hard to understand for somebody who has had a lifetime of politicians eager to please them, but if you're not in a demographic that forms a major voting block (young people are heavily outnumbered by older voters), nobody will represent your interests, so there really is no point in voting, as politicians will always sell you out if it buys votes from the major voting blocks.

Snowbells wrote: DH and I are in our 30s. We have VERY good jobs that pay really well compared to most people in the UK (combined income is higher than 95% of UK households apparently). Isn't it weird that our income is higher than 95% of the population, and yet, we can't afford to buy a house without parental help... yet baby boomers who had jobs that never paid as well could?

If you're really earning more than 95% of UK households, I would politely suggest that you're not managing your income very well. Why are you blaming 'baby boomers' for your financial woes? Does the fact that you write about 'treating yourself' to a Hermes scarf, insist on dressing a particular way for work (what on earth will happen if you don't) and spend £80 on haircuts not tell you anything? Seriously, after looking at some of your other posts, I just can't take this thread seriously.

House prices have risen but that isn't the fault of any generation. Why blame wrinklies or even the young ones for this?Those who have income are entitled to the comforts from it.
I do blame the govt for pricing higher education out of the reach of most.
But then I blame the young ones for being too cool for school.
It is down to the young to change their world. The young can learn to do without cars and bling and stuff and lead simpler lives in the country and grow their own veg just like their parents did in the sixties. I have come across legions of young people who want to do a 9 to 5 job (and with the opportunity to skive off) in the city and earn millions and live a life like Simon Cowell with no qualifications and a culture of sneering at hard working foreigners all the while being unprepared to actually do any work at school or when employed. There is a serious culture issue in terms of what the youtube loving minecraft playing generation think is going to get them a home when they grow up. They seem to think it is their right to move their parents out so they can move in without actually having a career or doing anything that might be boringly like a job. Sorry to rant but I think the problem is going to get worse over the next decades not better.

More seriously even, I have a theory that we are observing the demise of the English middle class.
In future there will be the wealthy and the poor.

The reason there was enough money for government to pay for university fees from general taxes for previous generations was that not many people went to university.

Now there is an effective graduate tax of 9% on income over £21K until you repay the loan/the loan is written off after 25 years.

The majority of the population have not benefited from a university education. I think the right way to pay taxes is the way that every body agrees is fair, and if the majority vote for the burden of university fees to be shared equally, I don't have a problem with that.

However, I think sometimes people aren't very clear about the link between more university places and the need to raise extra money and when that money needs to be repaid.

Also, the reason the retirement age was set at 60/65 was because for many years people were expected to pop their clogs shortly after.

" i think the whole "baby boomers got free uni education" thing is rubbish. The vast, vast majority of them did not get anything of the sort."

Not read full thread- not got time right now, but may I just say that
my dad went to University in the 70's/80's as a married man with 2 kids.
He got a decent grant, and all his fees paid, and worked in the holidays. My mum worked in the local supermarket. They had a mortgage on their house (bought for 10k), and managed quite well.
Can you imagine a married man with 2 kids and a wife who works in Tesco being able to go to University and get a degree now?
University should be free to all, and bloody hard to get into. It should be based on academic merit, not how much your parents can afford it.
Yeah, you can get loans, which will be around 50k in total, but only the kids without rich parents will need them, thus starting out their working lives with a debt it will take them well into middle age to clear.
The way things have become for young people, they are entering into adult life with the economic circumstances they have grown up in affecting their whole lives at the outset.
It's about as far from a level playing field as you can get.
They also can't just leave school and get into an apprenticeship, or get on the lowest rung of the industry they want to work in.
If you wanted to work in the creative industries-TV, theatre, newspapers, music industry, you used to be able to find runners jobs, or tea-boy/girl type things, where you would earn a pittance, but it was something.
Now these industries use unpaid "interns".
Entry level jobs have all but ceased to exist, replaced by unpaid "internships" that only people supported by willing and able parents can afford to do.
Entry level jobs have all but ceased to exist, replaced by unpaid "internships" that only people supported by willing and able parents can afford to do.
These days the media is even more heavily staffed by people who have been privately educated, and grown up with money and connections than ever before. The door has well and truly slammed on the very idea of "working class kids done good".
And if I hear one more over 50 whinge on about interest rates on the 80's/90's I will scream. As someone else said-12% of 30 k is a hell of a lot easier to manage than 2% of 250k.
I could pay a mortgage, but I can't get one in the first place, as house prices have rocketed to the extent that I would need a massive deposit.
And I actually don't think people now have more, and don't understand what it's like to struggle.
Yes, we might have flat screen tellys and tablets now, but those things are relatively cheap. I work nearly full time, and my rent and bills take up 70 % of my income. I can't save for the vast deposit, because by the time I had saved enough I would be too old to get a mortgage.
So yeah, I do sort of mind that pensioners get these universal benefits, yet people who are under 25 are stuffed in all sorts of ways, with those of us in our 30's who didn't get it together to get on the housing ladder basically doomed.

Ooh look, one of my sentences somehow got doubled ^ well, it does bear repeating!

And as for the whole "Oh but we didn't have heating and couldnt afford a bed when we bought our first house" stuff that always gets trotted out-so what? I couldn't afford a bed when I rented the first flat I ever lived in on my own, when I was pregnant with ds. I slept on a lumpy futon mattress on the floor, which was not fun at 8 months pregnant!
I got furniture from skips, and I had central heating, but I couldn't afford to have it on!
I pay more in rent on my own than most of my friends who have mortgages that they have had since their twenties (all with parental help initially)do as couples.

Yeah, we didn't have a microwave, a mobile, etc. No one did! They didn't exist!

and as for the university education argument you didn't need a degree for many jobs at all, including professions. My lazy df (and he wouldn't disagree) did sweet fa for his a levels left school with DDEN (one of the Ds being general studies btw) and walked straight into a trainee accountant job!

According to an email I received from Oxfam this week, 85 of the worlds richest people posses the same amount of wealth as 3.5 BILLION of the worlds poorest people. The problem we have is that all of our governments are filled with members who are of or aspire to the 85 richest. Huge corporations and banks are yanking massive profits out of companies who are making ordinary workers redundant. The very banks our taxes bailed out are now paying ridiculous bonuses to their employees...

The biggest issue? We allow ourselves to be subdued by tv and materialistic sideshows. If you want things to change then get politically active. It's the only way of making a difference.

Hi all, im probably a bit to join the debate, and have only read half the thread, but this is an argument ive had a couple of times with my parents over the last few years!

i particularly like the question of what would the baby boomers get if they were born later. I am pretty certain my parents would not be anywhere near where they are today but when i have tried to explain the simple maths they have got offended and gone on about 15%interest.

the facts as i see them are that my dad bought a house (nice three bedroom detached bungalow with 100ft garden in commuting distance to London) in say 1975 for £10k. Yes, wages were obviously lower and interest rates were higher, and the value of money was different but it therefore stands to reason his maximum mortgage was £9k.
and yes they struggled to pay it and had a period of extreme frugality, especially given my mum didn't work for around seven years as a sahm, (which today would be considered a luxury).
however, in 1989 they sell that house for £185k. And then they "overstretch" to buy a bigger house for £200k. It is a work relocation so all their moving costs, stamp duty etc are paid. It therefore stands to reason that their absolute maximum mortgage at that point, even if they had only been paying interest only and not put in any more savings, is £24k, a maximum ltv of 12%!!! So yes during those difficult times of 15% interest they might have struggled, but my heart doesn't bleed as 15% of 24k is £3,600 pa, whereas my first 80%mortgage on a flat worth 200k at only 5.9% cost over £9k in interest pa!

in 2002 they had already paid off their tiny mortgage on said massive house, when they sold it for £600k, banked £200k and spent £400k on a mansion in a rural area, again with a fully paid for relocation.

so completely ignoring everything else in their lives, they paid 10k plus 15k plus 20years interest to end up with £200k in the bank and a house now worth £500k. As far as im concerned they don't know they were born- interest rates would have had to be more like 200% for them to have ended up with that much equity in that period if house price inflation was non existent as it is now.

I am absolutely not saying times were not hard, but i think my parents in particular have absolutely no concept of todays economy and don't recognise how lucky they were. It is not a question of blaming the older generation for anything, just wanting them to recognise that house price inflation was a massive gift that future generations will never receive.

perhaps the govt should abolish inheritance tax if the main asset is a dwelling left to a first degree relative.

twofingerstoGideon

It's all about house prices having gone up and up and up landlords charging so much (the same as a mortgage) that it's impossible to save. And our jobs not really existing outside of the SE.

Basically, even if you earn more than 95% of the population, it doesn't get you a decent property here. A 2-bed TINY house that's smaller than most houses on our street is currently on the market for 400k. It is not a family home - it's the type of house grandparents might downsize to. We are not in London.

Obviously, if we had house prices of 20 years ago, even given smaller wages, we would have been able to get on the property ladder easily (a friend bought a 2-bed flat in Fulham (London) for 95k in 1995.

Its interesting my parents acknowledge it. Dad did have an equitable life pension so he worked up to 65 having planned to retire earlier.

I don't know about inheritance tax. I think it's a mixed blessing as a lot of people's assets will go towards their care. I'm late 30s and actually ok - why should I inherit for free when someone earning 20k and desperately trying to save is taxed?

"and walked straight into a trainee accountant job!"

and then presumably had to pass professional exams while working for his employer and gaining on the job experience.

You can still get entry level jobs that will pay for you to get AAT exams and then become a fully qualified accountant. I don't know the details, but many of these professions also now run schemes that are part of the new apprenticeship qualifications.

The problem is that many degrees are now neither very academic nor best able to prepare people for work, yet people are still encouraged to do them and some employers use 'has degree' as a simple screening process, despite the fact that being a graduate doesn't really mean anything.

"It is not a question of blaming the older generation for anything, just wanting them to recognise that house price inflation was a massive gift that future generations will never receive."

That really depends on the parents - my experience is that parents who have profited on the housing ladder use the money to get their children and grand children on the housing ladder. I also think that was always the case. I think the housing boom has caused a split between those who inherit wealth and those who don't, not the generations.

(Although the "oblivious to the lives of others" characteristic does seem to be genetic…)

Yes that's correct merry. He took aca though, not aat which according to him was much easier in those days. .......

Of course you probably don't actually need a degree to be an accountant but that's a different argument as the vat majority of entrants would have one.

I'm quite aware of all that, Snowbells. I live in the south east myself, earn LESS than the national average, am a single parent and bought my first property only ten years ago. I have no inherited wealth - not a penny and come from a traditional WC background. I was born towards the end of the 'baby boom years' ('officially' they ended around 1964), so am well aware of the issues and myths, thank you. I have a 17 year old DD, so have concerns about her future work prospects, etc. and the amount of debt she'll accrue should she choose to go to university. What I refuse to do, however, is buy into this bullshit that pitches one generation against another/the employed against the unemployed/ north against south/ workers vs so-called 'shirkers', or any other Daily Mail rhetoric. I think you need to take your blinkers off TBH and see where the real fault lies.