to ask if you're pissed off with the Baby Boomers?

[DamFineBeaver]

Because people who are currently young-ish adults (MN's main demographic?), and younger, will be paying for the lavish lifestyle they've enjoyed?
The money borrowed for their nice big pensions will be paid back by us and our children.

Does this mean they shouldn't spend so much time in Tenerife?

Yes -go Wooly!

'our' limit sorry.

The comments here rip to shreds this argument
www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-life/11406588/Want-my-vote-Build-houses-over-giving-rich-people-free-bus-passes.html

One big nasty difference today for those buying in London is stamp duty means making intermediate moves as your wages increase is harder as it's £10k stamp duty for your starter flat etc etc A lot of other things are easier now than they were in the past.

Yeah the baby boomers did all their washing by hand and mangle . This thread is brilliant.

Having a washing machine in the 60s was a matter of pride for my grandmother......

It was a twin tub and mangle here til 1984....

It was mangles for us in the 60s, we used to love to turn the handle! Mum was pleased as punch when she got a twin tub in the early 70s. The automatic came a long time after that though.

I agree that there were washing machines and vacuum cleaners but a lot of people still had carpet sweepers rather than vacuums and twin tubs rather than automatics. You couldn't just pop a load of washing in and leave it, it was certainly much more labour intensive. So a sahm would probably need to spend more time doing the laundry and vacuuming even if the children were at school.

I think this thread has amazed me. I'm quite saddened to think that I am part of a whole group of people who seem to be despised by another group. I can't say sorry as I don't really know what I could have done differently. We haven't made a fortune, whether through hard work or any other means, we have our health and our family which is great. We have financial worries about the future and can't see when we will retire. We will do our best to give our children our support. I was just born in the early 60s. Perhaps I should blame my parents' generation for that.

I am grateful for the things I have. In many ways I am lucky.
But I do work hard. And neither I nor my children will experience the social benefits that were afforded ppl like my parents.
Im glad they lived in a time where ppl had good social mobility. And that they were mortgage free by the time they were in their 40s.
But I get pissed off when dm (and her peers) can't see that their success involved some good fortune outside of hard work. Many of the women in her position never even went out to work. And yes, for their early married lives they didnt own a washing machine. Or a dishwasher bla bla bla
Big deal! Neither did any of their peers. Thats what is significant.
Until the 80s they didnt have luxuries. But that was the norm. So there was not the misery of relative povety.
Plus, many of them were married t men in what would these days be considered quite menial work. Families with thise jobs are now living in much smaller homes with less ecurity than they had/ have.
The assertion that young ppl just dont work hard enough or spend too much money on coffee is, ime, mo common from the LMC families of my childhood.

I'm pissed off that the richest age group in our society are not bearing more of the burden of resolving our government deficit.

The cuts so far disproprtionately hurt the young.

We need to close the gap primarily with tax rises rather than cuts. For working age benefits, there is little more that can be cut.

Some of the unnecessary perks given to rich pensioners such as WFA and bus passes look ridiculously unfair when working age people have to go to foodbanks or starve.

However, individual baby-boomers (aside from those in the last goverment and this one) aren't to blame for this.

I urge baby boomers, older retired people as well as the young to vote to end this unfairness.

We all need to pay more tax, and we probably can't give as much to the old as we used to. As pensioners are half as likely to be in poverty than children at the moment they should be ok with less.

The more I think about it, the more I think that DH and I must have got something wrong somewhere! Tail end of the BB period so seemed to catch all the downsides and then having children later in life so we are now working through all the stresses and strains of that plus the aged parents.

I suppose that goes to show that we can't generalise.

I hate all sweeping generalisations.

Truffle, totally and utterly agree.

Well thats a fair point truffle
Technically dh is a bb. But not in the way that my parents are. He's only in his 50s so didnt benefit in the same way that some ppl nowin their 60s and 70s.
But lets not allow this to b too divisive. We arestill very fortunate.

handsoff - are you saying that its not possible for someone to survive with the benefits currently available if they work FT without resorting to food banks? I thought that was the point of working tax credits - to make lower paid work feasible?

I'm pissed off that the richest age group in our society are not bearing more of the burden of resolving our government deficit.

Probably because they are asset rich and cash poor, so they'd have to sell their homes to be able to give Cameron any money.

Why not make him wait until they die? He can have the whole house then?

Oh yes, cos their kids won't get their rightful inheritance!

As one lady sat here has just said to me... "When will these moaning beggars remember that the people they are happily bitching about are the same people who gave them a happy and comparatively wealthy childhood?"

To which the only response is that BBs are now reaping what they sowed!

The cuts so far disproprtionately hurt the young.

As they always have, as the retired population has no opportunity to replace any money with earnings, and so will taking more from them will make them become more of a burden on, well, on the young!

We need to close the gap primarily with tax rises rather than cuts. For working age benefits, there is little more that can be cut.

But as BBers/pensioners don't pay tax that too will be more burdensome on, well, on the young!

Some of the unnecessary perks given to rich pensioners such as WFA and bus passes look ridiculously unfair when working age people have to go to foodbanks or starve.

Nice, but how do those ideas really link? WFA and bus passes are not unnecessary or perks for all recipients - read back up thread for explanations! And plenty of older folks are fed for free by foodbanks, soup kitchens as well as meals on wheels! You could ban them form using such services, but what would that gain you? Ah yes, SS or LAs would have to pay for more making them become more of a burden on, well, on the young!

However, individual baby-boomers (aside from those in the last goverment and this one) aren't to blame for this.

Good grief, yes, you are right, there!

I urge baby boomers, older retired people as well as the young to vote to end this unfairness.

Bit unfair expecting anyone to vote themselves out of the money they need to survive. Get the young 'uns more politically savvy, focus on that!

We all need to pay more tax, and we probably can't give as much to the old as we used to. As pensioners are half as likely to be in poverty than children at the moment they should be ok with less.

Mmm! See above for the first bit! The reason fewer old people are living in poverty is that we now give a little more, focus benefits where needed etc etc - so there is no 'as much as we used to' - unless you wish to plunge pensioners back into poverty making them become more of a burden on, well, on the young!

I think you raise some good points Amanda. What seems so strange on this thread is that BBoomers are spoken about as if they are some different species and that anyone born on 1 January 1965 onwards will be post boomer and therefore a victim.

The BB period covers a whole generation, we aren't all the same any more than all the Post BBs are.

But as BBers/pensioners don't pay tax that too will be more burdensome on, well, on the young!

Well the prize for the stupidest remarks goes to that.

We pay tax on our pensions because, well, it's the law.

As written you are quite right, MythicalKings.

I should have expanded that sentence to include the words "as much"... and maybe even gone as far as to say, "those on only state pension won't pay tax" or any other variable based on the current tax limits you like.

But it still remains true that pensioners with limited income will not pay any/much tax, so any tax increase will fall disproportionately on the young... any other fix will be to plunge pensioners back into abject poverty, etc etc etc etc.

I am sure you got my point, before you got pedantic!

And you did realise that I am NOT one of the BB/pensioner haters, didn't you?

Seems odd to attack me for one badly written sentence and to swallow whole the weirdness that has gone before!

I've contributed a few times already, Nomama, and have become increasingly grumpy with the lies and false assumptions propounded on this thread.

Some people may well believe that pensioners pay no tax given the load of bollocks written by some earlier in the thread.

Bullshit makes me very pedantic.

the older generation completely miss the point. The house we are renting now was worth 4 average salaries 40 years ago, and people were actually moving here from even most deprived areas because it was doable with a bit a careful planning. Now the same house is worth NINE average salaries. It is a fantastic quiet area with good schools, parks etc. There is no hope in hell anybody from even an average area would be able to move here. The only people buying houses here are baby boomers or few families who had their BB parents provide a deposit for them. An average family with two working adults simply cannot afford to buy here anymore. Yet it is a good area to bring children up with low crime rates.

This is the younger generation's gripe. But obviously, if I did not get an occasional takeaway for 20 quid, by now I would have saved £80K needed to top up the mortgage based on our two full-time salaries.

40 years ago this area was full of families with young children, now the school cannot even fill a class. People who need to raise children in a safe environment are the ones pushed out!

BBs bleating on about incidentals like twin tubs and carpet sweepers just infuriate me! Of course, it is the cost of a £200 washing machine that is stopping me buying a house, silly me!

I have not mentioned the cost of bills these days, the utilities alone are 3-4 times more expensive in real terms than they were in my parents' day.

To add to this, a permanent job is increasingly becoming a dying breed. Most people of working age I know are either "self-employed contractors" on paper or employed on fixed term contracts. You do not know whether you will have a job and a salary tomorrow. Yet, even so, the cost of living is so high, majority of families are unable to put money aside for when that fixed term or a contract does come to an end. They know full well they need to save, but there is just no money left after the bills and essentials are paid for. And when the contracts does end, these families have to borrow and go into the red until the new contract comes along. Then it becomes even more difficult getting yourself back on the right track. Clearly, the modern fixed-term staff and contractors do not enjoy the employment benefits the older generations took for granted: sick pay, shorter working hours, smaller workloads etc. etc.

Ah, what's the point... people just can't see past the Iphone.

I used to make all my own clothes no buying for me.

I grow all my own vegetables in the summer. You see young people just wasting their money on pret and tesco instant meals.

I do have a washing machine, but no drier I always air dry. Although most people on my road have driers.

When I grew up I walked or got on my bike to go anywhere. Now you see teenagers with their bus passes just getting on for one stop.

summerworld - its not the BB's fault that demand for housing is higher than supply though. Apart, i guess from the fact that we had children.

No-one on here has considered care home fees. Granted my mother doesn't pay any tax, and if she was able to get out of bed would have a free bus pass.....but all her money is going on care home fees. who knows if this is right or wrong. All I'm saying is that she is no longer rich and actually only has £23 a week spending money - or whatever the rules allow her now she's in a self funding carehome.....so where you think all this extra tax some of you want should come from I'm not sure

We all need to pay more tax, and we probably can't give as much to the old as we used to. As pensioners are half as likely to be in poverty than children at the moment they should be ok with less.

Tell you what, handsoff, if you reimberse the money that Labour took from my modest self-employed pension fund in the form of tax on dividends on shares within my funds, a cut from which my pension savings have never recovered from, I will think about paying more tax. Because at the moment I am still tying to make up what was taken from me back in the nineties.

I am a very late boomer. I am not well-pensioned and I do not want to pay any more tax, either.

mythicalkings you pay tax on your pension because you didn't pay tax on it to start with!

Pensions esp higher rate ones are such a tax dodge!

summerworld yes to bbers not understanding the insecurity of work now. My mum always had a permanent job, nhs terms & conditions, same hours every week, free childcare from relative who retired at 60.

Nowadays in the same job, she'd have needed to go to uni, ran up debts, competed with lots of others for scarce jobs, maybe have to move cities, maybe work with an agency, definitely would have variable shifts, worse terms and conditions.

No way would people in my parents jobs now be able to buy the house they had.