PM Boris forms a government

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

Grow up. There was a baby boom when world war 2 ended and large numbers of conscripts were demobbed and sent home. The infants born to the generation who fought the war are, and have always been, known as baby boomers. It’s a fact of history and it’s utterly hilarious of you to claim it’s discriminatory. If you’re of that generation, and especially if you’re white, male and middle class, you have been best placed of anyone in that generation to benefit from being
the first born into the welfare state and, as a young adult, among the ones who fought for, and achieved, social liberation, and also among the ones who saw housing cheap and mortgage values shrink almost by the month. You of all those who have lived in this country since the war are the most economically privileged and least discriminated against in our entire history.

I have never claimed that all of these circumstances were brought about deliberately by boomers. Some indeed were the deliberate and direct outcome of policies boomers campaigned and voted for; others were not.

However, the massive wealth pile this generation now sits on, and votes to ensure it retains, is a problem that boomers as a generation are obviously unwilling to easily part with, even though they are clearly intelligent enough to understand the negative consequences their second homes and triple-locked pensions are having on their children and their grandchildren’s own future prospects.

Observe the way Teresa May crashed and burned for daring to suggest that this generation ought to pay back a little, which it could well afford to pay, out of its pension pot. That tells you everything you need to know about the priorities of this generation.

Didn't the Nazis decide that the Jews were too privileged to be allowed to keep their wealth?

You'll no doubt rail against me for making the comparisons with the Nazis - but it's valid in terms of bemoaning the possessions of those who had no control over the times in which the lived, worked and saved.

And what do you mean that these so-called 'boomers', a term I deplore, that the should pay something back out of their pension pot? That's the politics of envy and criticises people who have lived, worked and saved in good society faith. To want to dip into their savings is disgraceful.

Society is struggling with mixed cultures, over-population and poor government. There is no reason to attack the 1964-64 cohort.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

Didn't the Nazis decide that the Jews were too privileged to be allowed to keep their wealth?

You'll no doubt rail against me for making the comparisons with the Nazis - but it's valid in terms of bemoaning the possessions of those who had no control over the times in which the lived, worked and saved.

And what do you mean that these so-called 'boomers', a term I deplore, that the should pay something back out of their pension pot? That's the politics of envy and criticises people who have lived, worked and saved in good society faith. To want to dip into their savings is disgraceful.

Society is struggling with mixed cultures, over-population and poor government. There is no reason to attack the 1964-64 cohort.

I call Godwin’s law.

I’m also disappointed that someone who comments so forthrightly as you do on economic matters apparently doesn’t understand that pensioners are not being paid the money they have saved. Current pension liability is paid out of current income, whether that be tax in the case of the state pension, or contributions and investment income in the case of private pensions.

You did not save for your pension, you paid out for your parents’ and your grandparents’, and in return the benefits you would get when the time came were defined for you. Defined, as it turns out, in a way that was totally unsustainable.

The baby boom generation has, by a mixture of luck and design, contrived to have its welfare and its pension benefits defined, whereas those coming up afterwards have only their contributions defined, and lack the inflationary circumstances and the access to the housing market that might make up some of the shortfall.

Much of the financial well-being experienced by boomers was the result of the politics of their generation. Redressing the balance must be the politics of the present generation. I would dearly love to see a genuine, one-nation Tory government lance that boil, because if it doesn’t, all it will take will be a lot of young, angry people suddenly to realise they might try voting for someone else to have a go. Then you’ll properly understand what the politics of envy looks like.

Benefits people born post ‘64 have, that we "baby boomers" didn’t have when we were your age.

Vastly improved access to Higher Education (50% vs <10%)
Better Healthcare - people bitch about waiting times, but the range of services, medication, and operations available would have been unimaginable in the 50s and 60s
Reasonable mortgage rates (I still shudder thinking about when my first mortgage, in the mid-80s, went up from 9% to 15%)
Access to technology and media that were Science Fiction when we were growing up
Reasonably cheap travel to countries, near and far
No 3 day weeks or rolling power cuts
Low unemployment rates (not the 10-12% peaks in the 80’s and 90s)
Not worrying about the constant likelihood of thermonuclear war

A thing about Final Salary pensions - not all companies offered these, even in the 70s and 80s; small/medium companies often didn’t offer pension schemes, usually only the large Corporates/Government/Local Government did. I have 8 pensions, 4 Final Salary, 4 Contribution based - my 4 Contribution based are from jobs in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, whilst the Final Salary ones are from the 70s (RAF, a whole £1400 pa), and the others are from the 00s and 10s, so those schemes were available to people born after the ‘baby boom’.

Not every "baby boomer" has gold-plated pensions, just like not every millennial eats crushed avocados on toast or can’t afford a mortgage.

Whilst I agree about the house prices point (pointing out that 80% don’t have second homes), remember when we shuffle off this mortal coil, our kids will inherit this...

[pip08456]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Benefits people born post ‘64 have, that we "baby boomers" didn’t have when we were your age.

Vastly improved access to Higher Education (50% vs <10%)
Better Healthcare - people bitch about waiting times, but the range of services, medication, and operations available would have been unimaginable in the 50s and 60s
Reasonable mortgage rates (I still shudder thinking about when my first mortgage, in the mid-80s, went up from 9% to 15%)
Access to technology and media that were Science Fiction when we were growing up
Reasonably cheap travel to countries, near and far
No 3 day weeks or rolling power cuts
Low unemployment rates (not the 10-12% peaks in the 80’s and 90s)
Not worrying about the constant likelihood of thermonuclear war

A thing about Final Salary pensions - not all companies offered these, even in the 70s and 80s; small/medium companies often didn’t offer pension schemes, usually only the large Corporates/Government/Local Government did. I have 8 pensions, 4 Final Salary, 4 Contribution based - my 4 Contribution based are from jobs in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, whilst the Final Salary ones are from the 70s (RAF, a whole £1400 pa), and the others are from the 00s and 10s, so those schemes were available to people born after the ‘baby boom’.

Not every "baby boomer" has gold-plated pensions, just like not every millennial eats crushed avocados on toast or can’t afford a mortgage.

Whilst I agree about the house prices point (painting out that 80% don’t have second homes), remember when we shuffle off this mortal coil, our kids will inherit this...

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Chris

I call Godwin’s law.

I’m also disappointed that someone who comments so forthrightly as you do on economic matters apparently doesn’t understand that pensioners are not being paid the money they have saved. Current pension liability is paid out of current income, whether that be tax in the case of the state pension, or contributions and investment income in the case of private pensions.

You did not save for your pension, you paid out for your parents’ and your grandparents’, and in return the benefits you would get when the time came were defined for you. Defined, as it turns out, in a way that was totally unsustainable.

The baby boom generation has, by a mixture of luck and design, contrived to have its welfare and its pension benefits defined, whereas those coming up afterwards have only their contributions defined, and lack the inflationary circumstances and the access to the housing market that might make up some of the shortfall.

Much of the financial well-being experienced by boomers was the result of the politics of their generation. Redressing the balance must be the politics of the present generation. I would dearly love to see a genuine, one-nation Tory government lance that boil, because if it doesn’t, all it will take will be a lot of young, angry people suddenly to realise they might try voting for someone else to have a go. Then you’ll properly understand what the politics of envy looks like.

I've paid into my pension(s) all my working life. The only pension that is not entirely funded by me is the state pension. However the SERPS supplements have been funded by me. Thus the bulk of my pension (I still work, btw) is occupational.

I don't disagree with you that the balance must be redressed, but not by any form of confiscation (however it is dressed) on people who are here by reason of the date they were born.

No political party in present circumstances can redress this balance unless wealth is created to fund taxes that fund public services.

And, btw, if I were to have contracted Alzheimers pre 1992, the state or NHS would have taken care of me. Now it won't; who can tell what will happen to the next generation if the balance does ever get redressed.

What I won't stand for is an implicit criticism of my generation. It is profoundly unfair and I'ms surprised that it comes from you above most in this debate.

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

I don't disagree with you that the balance must be redressed, but not by any form of confiscation (however it is dressed) on people who are here by reason of the date they were born.

No one is talking about confiscation. But if people think they've paid into the state pension then they might perceive the removal of the triple-lock as such.

No political party in present circumstances can redress this balance unless wealth is created to fund taxes that fund public services.

Some policies to redress the balance will see voters punish them at the ballot box. Chris has already pointed out what happened to the Tories when they said house value should be used to help pay for social care, rather than the taxes of the following generations. If the government were to do anything to stop inflating house prices, drastically increasing supply for example, they would be punished too.

[Sephiroth]

Originally Posted by Damien

No one is talking about confiscation. But if people think they've paid into the state pension then they might perceive the removal of the triple-lock as such.


Some policies to redress the balance will see voters punish them at the ballot box. Chris has already pointed out what happened to the Tories when they said house value should be used to help pay for social care, rather than the taxes of the following generations. If the government were to do anything to stop inflating house prices, drastically increasing supply for example, they would be punished too.

I have a plan for that which would lead to praise for the government.

Swathes of government land can be used to build homes. They would sell it to developers with strict conditions on quality, price and margin for the developers. That would take land prices out of the equation and bring land prices down, etc.

Ib one of Boris' lot cares to contact me .....

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Sephiroth

It says little for you that you cast that age-group as akin to villains who are gorging on their fortunate situation.

They were born when they were born; schooled in the system of the day; worked in the available jobs; bought houses as per the market of those times and managed to see a doctor same day.

To characterise them as having ridden a wave of which they were unaware at the time is disgraceful.

The following generation are the victim of poor government and wider circumstances that I have described in this debate.

As to the insulting term "baby boomer", it's only ever used in a denigratory sense and it is discriminatory.



---------- Post added at 15:54 ---------- Previous post was at 15:51 ----------



I thought more highly of you than to applaud what Chris has said. It saddens me that I'm wrong.

The people born after the war were completely unaware that the future would disadvantage the cohort born in the 1980s.

To characterise them as priviliged and by implication villains is grossly unfair.

I am really not sure what books you are reading but "Baby Boomer" is just used to identity a specific generation. Nothing more .. The facts do speak for themselves as Chris has reinforced and I, for one, feel that my generation, having gained more than most generations have done, have a duty to help the current one.

---------- Post added at 22:49 ---------- Previous post was at 22:48 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

I call Godwin’s law.

I’m also disappointed that someone who comments so forthrightly as you do on economic matters apparently doesn’t understand that pensioners are not being paid the money they have saved. Current pension liability is paid out of current income, whether that be tax in the case of the state pension, or contributions and investment income in the case of private pensions.

You did not save for your pension, you paid out for your parents’ and your grandparents’, and in return the benefits you would get when the time came were defined for you. Defined, as it turns out, in a way that was totally unsustainable.

The baby boom generation has, by a mixture of luck and design, contrived to have its welfare and its pension benefits defined, whereas those coming up afterwards have only their contributions defined, and lack the inflationary circumstances and the access to the housing market that might make up some of the shortfall.

Much of the financial well-being experienced by boomers was the result of the politics of their generation. Redressing the balance must be the politics of the present generation. I would dearly love to see a genuine, one-nation Tory government lance that boil, because if it doesn’t, all it will take will be a lot of young, angry people suddenly to realise they might try voting for someone else to have a go. Then you’ll properly understand what the politics of envy looks like.

Strange times but I totally agree with Chris again His last sentence is prophetic:

Redressing the balance must be the politics of the present generation. I would dearly love to see a genuine, one-nation Tory government lance that boil, because if it doesn’t, all it will take will be a lot of young, angry people suddenly to realise they might try voting for someone else to have a go. Then you’ll properly understand what the politics of envy looks like.

---------- Post added at 23:06 ---------- Previous post was at 22:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Hugh

Benefits people born post ‘64 have, that we "baby boomers" didn’t have when we were your age.

Vastly improved access to Higher Education (50% vs <10%)
Better Healthcare - people bitch about waiting times, but the range of services, medication, and operations available would have been unimaginable in the 50s and 60s
Reasonable mortgage rates (I still shudder thinking about when my first mortgage, in the mid-80s, went up from 9% to 15%)
Access to technology and media that were Science Fiction when we were growing up
Reasonably cheap travel to countries, near and far
No 3 day weeks or rolling power cuts
Low unemployment rates (not the 10-12% peaks in the 80’s and 90s)
Not worrying about the constant likelihood of thermonuclear war

A thing about Final Salary pensions - not all companies offered these, even in the 70s and 80s; small/medium companies often didn’t offer pension schemes, usually only the large Corporates/Government/Local Government did. I have 8 pensions, 4 Final Salary, 4 Contribution based - my 4 Contribution based are from jobs in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, whilst the Final Salary ones are from the 70s (RAF, a whole £1400 pa), and the others are from the 00s and 10s, so those schemes were available to people born after the ‘baby boom’.

Not every "baby boomer" has gold-plated pensions, just like not every millennial eats crushed avocados on toast or can’t afford a mortgage.

Whilst I agree about the house prices point (pointing out that 80% don’t have second homes), remember when we shuffle off this mortal coil, our kids will inherit this...

Hugh, really?

Vastly improved access to Higher Education (50% vs <10%)

Access yes but at what cost? Lifetime of debt for most and significantly lesser prospects of getting the same vocational career we enjoyed

Better Healthcare - people bitch about waiting times, but the range of services, medication, and operations available would have been unimaginable in the 50s and 60s

Thats a given, technology & science will always improve but when most people wanted to access common services e.g. GP, Dentist, A&E, Outpatients, the quality of service (appointment waiting times) available in that period was much better from my recollection.

Also add in social care during retirement. Also add in more available social housing ...

Reasonable mortgage rates (I still shudder thinking about when my first mortgage, in the mid-80s, went up from 9% to 15%)

Massive deflection. The cost of a mortgage relative to the house price and salaries was highly favourable. You then factor in the elephant in that room and that is the actual ability to buy a flat/house in the SE in the first place.

Try and repeat what you did then now ...

Reasonably cheap travel to countries, near and far

Not sure how relevant this is to the wealth disparity of the generation in question

No 3 day weeks or rolling power cuts

See above

Low unemployment rates (not the 10-12% peaks in the 80’s and 90s)

Employed at what salary, with what prospects and job security?

Not worrying about the constant likelihood of thermonuclear war

Again not related to the point in question

You fall in the trap of 'Not all ...." Not the point here. The issue is the combined wealth disparity of this generation compared with those that followed. It is a cheap trick to deflect with the "Not every "baby boomer" has gold-plated pensions". Of course not. Not every one bought a house .. so what?

[Carth]

Back in the day we didn't waste our money on a TV in every room, a new car every 3 years, a £700 mobile phone that you 'upgrade' every year, a foreign holiday every 4 months, and superfast broadband (whut? ) in order to moan that we're skint

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Carth

Back in the day we didn't waste our money on a TV in every room, a new car every 3 years, a £700 mobile phone that you 'upgrade' every year, a foreign holiday every 4 months, and superfast broadband (whut? ) in order to moan that we're skint

No car in this household as our cousin is very helpful on that score , a monthly tariff mobile phone which one can upgrade every 2 to 3 years , Foreign holiday what the hell is that?? and reasonable broadband speeds split three ways financially.

Three TV's though although one is as ancient as the ark.

Budgeting the finances of the household does work wonders though.

Originally Posted by Carth

Back in the day we didn't waste our money on a TV in every room, a new car every 3 years, a £700 mobile phone that you 'upgrade' every year, a foreign holiday every 4 months, and superfast broadband (whut? ) in order to moan that we're skint

You also had affordable housing. Pretty big advantage.

House prices used to be around 3 or 4 times annual salary rather than 7 or 8 times. Cutting out the iPhone isn't going to make up that difference.

There’s been some interesting discussions about generational changes in our economy and expectations but we have rather drifted away from the topic...

[Carth]

Originally Posted by Damien

You also had affordable housing. Pretty big advantage.

House prices used to be around 3 or 4 times annual salary rather than 7 or 8 times. Cutting out the iPhone isn't going to make up that difference.

We (the boomers) didn't do that though. We just lived & worked in the environment that the Government gave us.

Gov't giveth, Gov't taketh away

I just lived my life. However after seeing my mother widowed at 44 struggling to make ends meet on a very miserly widow's pension of £40 a month and in the situation of only being able to take low paying jobs because if she earned more than £10 each week her widows pension would be docked I decided I was never going to be in that situation.

So I got as good an education as I could relying on the fact that I was from a single parent family so I got a full free grant,worked at a variety of low paying jobs during my summer vacations so as to support myself and not be a burden on my mother.Not all baby boomers had it easy.

I'm still living in the first house I and my husband bought in 76. Apart from child benefit I have never taken another penny from the state and I only took that because I was a stay at home parent while my husband was away serving in the Royal Navy and wanted to make sure that my NI was paid so I would be entitled to an pension.

[OLD BOY]

Originally Posted by denphone

No car in this household as our cousin is very helpful on that score , a monthly tariff mobile phone which one can upgrade every 2 to 3 years , Foreign holiday what the hell is that?? and reasonable broadband speeds split three ways financially.

Three TV's though although one is as ancient as the ark.

Budgeting the finances of the household does work wonders though.

Which, of course, demonstrates that this country is not full of rich pensioners. There are still many who are worse off and can't even afford to heat their houses properly.

This ageist nonsense that we are hearing from some on here has got to stop.