my baby boomer parents are selfish and ungrateful

[yoofoftoday]

Had lunch with parents yesterday and left so fuming.

Mother complains about not being able to get a new car on finance and that her retirement income is only 28k after she retired early. Her current car is only 4 years old and she often uses her free bus pass (only free to her take payers have to pay for it along with the rising bus fares) as she doesn't was the BMW to get scratched in town. I barely can afford the bus and can't even afford a car.

Dad who gets his state pension but still works was complaining that he has to pay Ni and then wait till the end of the year to claim it back. Also complqains that now he gets his state pension has to up the amount in his private pension to avoid 40% tax. He only keeps doing this job as its easy and he works from home not doing much.

Uncle who sold a building plot to developers for a fortune ages ago and hasn't worked since said "oh your poor dad still working". When my dad is in perfect health and works from home paid a lot for easy work, basically on call 9-5.

Then my parents say they are putting their winter fuel allowance towards a 3d DVD player while I go home to my cold house where I only put the heating on if it goes below 16.

Nc but regular.

Like a lot of their generation they very firmly believed in living frugally, within their means and always saving for a rainy day. I don't think alot of people live like that now, if they have a choice.

Are they baby boomers? Because frugal is rally not one of the characteristics that have defined their generation at all.

You make them sound like an alien species, the Borg. That they all grew up rolling in money and luxury. Most of them would have had much tougher, austere childhoods compared to what the younger generations have experienced and expected.

Sure, but from a demographic perspective the trends are pretty clear.

I think a lot of them grew up in austere circumstances compared to how they live now. However they didn't count themselves as living austerely because it was the norm, there was less TV, there were less adverts, there was less comparing themselves to others and so on. When they grew up and took advantage (and who wouldn't?) of all the things their generation was so lucky enough to have available, many of them changed.

My FIL is a perfect example. He didn't go to University, but went to work in a in a local branch of a well known company where he was among the first generation to work with newfangled computers. After many years he was made redundant and received a massive payout plus pension. He then set up on his own as a consultant with an enviable skill set from having been lucky enough to have been in the right place at the right time plus having a hard work ethic and natural intelligence and affinity with this kind of technology. He was head hunted by a major company and has been consulting for them ever since. He earns an absolute fortune and is now thinking about retiring. When he does, through his various pensions he will be netting about £70,000 pa. He will be the outright owner of a house which he bought for £60,000 or so in the 80s and which is now worth about £400,000. He spends money like water on so many things he wants - his money, his choice. But calling him frugal and so on is simply not accurate. He has got very used very quickly to the way the world has changed and the amount of stuff which there is to buy - he wants (and buys) it all.

Giving people like him free bus passes and heating allowances is ludicrous.

And before people call me judgey or jealous or horrible, I'm none of those things. I like him very much most of the time.

Hester Your lucky (and hard-working) FIL is not a perfect example, he's an unusual one.

Means-testing anything is an ugly and intrusive process. Please don't support it.

But it is ludicrous!

My own parents are not in as fortunate a position as FIL though they are comfortable enough, and my dad always gave his winter fuel allowance to Age Concern. He thought it was daft that he got it when there were so many people who needed it more.

That was his choice, Hester, like every charitable gift.

Wow I've been supportive of babyboomers experiences but 'means testing is ugly and intrusive, please don't support it'. That's pretty shocking. Have you thought about what this means for society or do you mean it's ugly and intrusive for a certain type of person and a certain type of benefit?

The final salary pension schemes largely obsolute bar the public sector are the ones that have really made a difference. My FIL has retired on one and he still a higher rate tax payer.

I look at what I contribute and what my DH does (at least twice what I do) and is on three times my salary. We have recently had some predications regarding our two pensions. He and I will get the same pension!

I am a higher rate tax payer and will have been with the same employer for years and years but still...

Hester - yes your FIL was lucky but he is also spending and being taxed accordingly. What about all the people who have never worked. it wasnt as common in our parents time for the women to work yet they are all getting state pensions, free bus passes etc.

Should your FIL be supporting the lazy as well?

When people have money they employ cleaners, they book holidays, they buy Sky TV, they go out for meals. All of which is taxed from their already taxed pay.

Of course it was his choice! I'm not saying it wasn't. I'm saying that as a modestly well off person, he knew he didn't remotely need it and it was daft him getting him, and that others needed it far more.

I would hope that when it came to pensionable age, there would be a form and people declared their income honestly which decided whether or not they needed it. That way people who need it could get more and people like my FIL who doesn't remotely need it, don't.

But no doubt that will be declared impossible or right wing or something.

Ah....I don't know. Yes he has paid lots of tax and yes he is only getting a tiny amount back.

I just know that there seem to be quite a lot of people I know or I know of like him. People who have more disposable income than their children. I'm not saying it's fair or unfair....just that the world has changed quite a lot for many reasons.

I mean for certain benefits and for certain people.

Take free travel: it would mean rain forests of forms, intrusive questions about income (and expenditure?), and then grossly unfair results near the borderline.

Instead, being universal (as in London it is for youngsters, incidentally) it promotes the health and welfare of the entire echelon who get it - all of whom paid taxes for previous generations to get it.

That's what I mean by ugly and intrusive, beingsuper.

Hester occupational pensions for which the pensioner has paid are theirs by right even if they have private wealth.

One of my headmasters came from a very wealthy family. I don't know what his share of the family wealth was but his car was not what headmasters usually drove in the Sixties, and we all knew that on Friday night he turned left out of the school gates, away from his home in the town, presumably to a second home. But he drew his pay and in due course his contributory pension. Are you saying he should have filled in a form and not got his pension?

No. That is not what I am saying.

Take free travel: it would mean rain forests of forms, intrusive questions about income... and then grossly unfair results near the borderline.

Yet if you substitute 'free travel' for 'child benefit' the government thinks that's perfectly ok.

Universal benefits make no sense when money is tight. It's all very well that Hester's FIL gave his WFA to Age Concern (and good for him) but its a lot easier to be charitable with money that you've been given for no reason and with no need.

It was my dad actually. My FIL wouldn't dream of it :)

Andrew many of those in final salary pension schemes have in reality paid nowhere near the amount required to fund their pension payments, this is why many are now closed. FRS17/IAS19 caused utter chaos when adopted by companies. The pension schemes made many look insolvent.

LittleBearPad The government was wrong to means-test CB, and the wrong should not be repeated.

Hester you said I would hope that when it came to pensionable age, there would be a form and people declared their income honestly which decided whether or not they needed it.

My old headmaster did not need it. It probably did not affect his standard of living much whether he got his salary, let alone his pension. So if you did not mean that he should have filled in a form and not got his pension, what did you mean?

Yes means testing child benefit seems perfectly acceptable and doable. It would be perfectly possible to do exactly the same for free travel and fuel surcharges.

I was talking about winter fuel allowance. Did you not read my posts?

Sorry - on phone and didn't check

Or fuel surcharges or whatever they are calling it. Of course I didn't mean a pension. Oh I see where the confusion came from: I used the phrase "pensionable age".

Re the bus passes, I wonder how difficult it would be to check DVLA records to see if a car is registered there, or whether vehicle tax is being paid. I am not saying that all pensioners with a car should have to drive everywhere and never use the bus obviously, before anyone suggests I am.

Actually means testing child benefit isn't intrinsically wrong. The way the government did it was wrong and the level of income chosen but not all parents needed it.

Not you LittleBear.