[Politics] Are baby boomers taxed enough?

[dsr-burnley]

Solutions never are, but we have to start somewhere or the problem continues completely unaddressed.

I would argue that we’ve made a start on the very worst of poverty in this country, albeit regressing slightly under current government, but we know it’s a problem and it’s undesirable. I would argue that governments of all stripes seem curiously blind to the problems caused by our failure to address the other extreme of society.

I’m also aware that I’m commenting on a football forum, not presenting an electorate ready policy concept to a party realistically trying to form the next government.

Limits could be set sector by sector, have conditions attached that allow them to be increased or decreased according to whether the organisation displays desirable or undesirable behaviours, or whatever was needed to make something workable, but I stand by my belief that totally limitless private wealth is a terrible idea to allow or encourage in any truly democratic form of society. The two are incompatible.

I’m not arguing for equality, I want the smart and hardworking to thrive, but in the same way there’s a floor for poverty, there should be a ceiling for wealth.

I think we've done more than just make a start.

My father (born 1928) lived in a rented house with an outside toilet and had to leave school at 16 to get a job. He married at 27 and, because he was a chartered accountant and my mother a qualified teacher, could afford to buy a house with a mortgage. Buying a car had to wait a year or two because two professional salaries weren't enough to run a car on at that age.

His father (born c. 1890) probably went to school, and he was the one who moved up in life to get the house without a toilet. He died quite young, 50 or so.

His father (born c. 1855) certainly didn't go to school, was working in the mill at a very early age, and had two days' holiday per year - Christmas Day and Boxing Day. He became eligible for a pension at age 70 but turned it down because "Pensions are for them as can't work, not them as don't want to". He took the pension at 75 and died aged 88.

The progress over just three generation (admittedly long generations) is more than "just a start".

 

[clapham_gull]

This post is the epitome of the insufferable boomer generation that has absolutely no sympathy for the struggles of younger people.

House prices aside, I worked in London on a wage of £9,500 in the 90s and took me years to get somewhere in my career.

I also self financed a masters to improve myself.

I'm surrounded by young people who want everything on a plate and want it now. Moaning about everyone else but unable to see with any perceptive that it is Government policy that has got us where we are.

As an aside the most "Thatcherite" people I meet are the ones who grew up under New Labour.

 

[chickens]

I think we've done more than just make a start.

My father (born 1928) lived in a rented house with an outside toilet and had to leave school at 16 to get a job. He married at 27 and, because he was a chartered accountant and my mother a qualified teacher, could afford to buy a house with a mortgage. Buying a car had to wait a year or two because two professional salaries weren't enough to run a car on at that age.

His father (born c. 1890) probably went to school, and he was the one who moved up in life to get the house without a toilet. He died quite young, 50 or so.

His father (born c. 1855) certainly didn't go to school, was working in the mill at a very early age, and had two days' holiday per year - Christmas Day and Boxing Day. He became eligible for a pension at age 70 but turned it down because "Pensions are for them as can't work, not them as don't want to". He took the pension at 75 and died aged 88.

The progress over just three generation (admittedly long generations) is more than "just a start".

And I’m sure you are rightly proud of your family’s work ethic and achievement, yet there remains more to do. We currently have a cost of living crisis leaving kids without food in their bellies.

It is well known in the medical community that if individuals don’t get sufficient nutrition in their formative years, it affects how they grow and develop, and can often lead to more complex health issues in later life.

We are effectively “spoiling the ship for a ha’porth of tar.” Potentially reducing our future workforce (in a time of declining birth rates) and costing the NHS billions in a few decades time.

Fewer fit and able workers, will of course, mean that we require more immigration in order to fill vacancies.

This is as true and straightforward as day following night, why do we keep electing governments who can’t think further forward than the next electoral term? I agree that we make progress over a generational timeline, but we are far from “there” just yet.

 

[chickens]

Do you really think most of Gen Z will have any kind of wealth in 30 years time?

Those with property and decent pensions will be the minority.

Most of them will be, for want of a better word, f***ed.

Honestly, I don’t feel you’re ill-intentioned, but I do worry that you are perhaps being weaponised into opening yet another front on a continually and deliberately stoked culture war.

Don’t fall for it. When somebody was born does not tell you anything about them, their financial status, their beliefs, politics or intentions.

The Telegraph ought to know better, but is becoming increasingly adept at keeping its readership feeling either angry or threatened.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I suspect you might be wrong there. What is often forgotten is that thin, healthy-living people suffer disproportionately from cancer and other illnesses, and especially all forms of dementia, than the fatties. Take a look round in a nursing homes next time you have the sad experience of visiting one. The people in there, especially the ones with dementia, are disproportionately the thin ones who looked after themselves. The fatties tend to die before they get to that stage.

Being underweight is a risk factor for some cancers…but this is all.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

We had both just come out of the Navy, so employment record not satisfactory to building societies.
Coffee bars were so early 60s.

But moving up North satisfied the building societies?....

Clearly much easier times.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

But moving up North satisfied the building societies?....

Clearly much easier times.

Easier to borrow £3K than 6K. That was the difference in house prices. 2.5 times the husband's salary and the wife's salary ignored. In addition, he was entitled to be housed by his local council, as just having left the armed forces.

 

[Uh_huh_him]

Easier to borrow £3K than 6K. That was the difference in house prices. 2.5 times the husband's salary and the wife's salary ignored. In addition, he was entitled to be housed by his local council, as just having left the armed forces.

Yeah as I said.
Far easier times

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Yeah as I said.
Far easier times

No, it wasn't. It was different but no easier unless you moved around. Wages were poor.

 

[The Clamp]

There an almost infinite factors that determine the ease of your path through life.
Background
Education
Training
Luck
Connections
Aptitude
Attitude
Resilience
Race
Gender
Health
Government of the day
Family circumstances
Etc etc


The generation that you were born into is just one of many, many things to consider. Try telling a kid born in a tenement block in Glasgow in 1945 that they are part of the “lucky generation”.

 

[heathgate]

To be fair his post said parents and families of these so called boomers had to go through in WW2. not the Baby Boomers themselves.
For example, my Dad was 19 when war broke out and 25 when it finished. His youth was stolen from him. He didn't marry until 1

How much, in your view, should a young person need to earn to live a decent enough life?

£30k? £40k? £100k?

What are their options if they are in a £40k job working a 45 hour week and all their money is going on rent? Get a 2nd job? Even then, how long would it take them to save £50k for a deposit on a shitty basement flat? How old will they be, 30, 40? How can they ever expect to move on to a house and make a family.

Eat less avocados and cancel their Netflix subscription?

You lot really need to accept the young generation have hopeless lives. There's nothing they can do - they're powerless. The only solution is a radical redistribution of wealth.

As I said before, your little bubb

There an almost infinite factors that determine the ease of your path through life.
Background
Education
Training
Luck
Connections
Aptitude
Attitude
Resilience
Race
Gender
Health
Government of the day
Family circumstances
Etc etc


The generation that you were born into is just one of many, many things to consider. Try telling a kid born in a tenement block in Glasgow in 1945 that they are part of the “lucky generation”.

I wouldn't bother trying to moderate Mustapha,... his mind is set, he takes, it seems, his view of the world from his own very left wing bubble of like minded associates, then extrapolates that to mean it must be the consensus..... life in a bubble can be a bit limiting.

 

[Bakero]

No, it wasn't. It was different but no easier unless you moved around. Wages were poor.

In the 60s the average first time buyer was in their early 20s. In 2023 it's 34. Lifestyle factors play a part, but the key issue is rocketing house prices.

Average house price in 1963 was £2788 and the average annual wage for a manual worker was apparently £728. So a house was 3.6 years salary.

Average house price today is £288,000 but the average person is not earning 80 grand.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

Averages are just that, generalisations.
i was posting from experience. My experience meant I had to move away to be able to afford a house, which was the point of my original post.

 

[Bakero]

Averages are just that, generalisations.
i was posting from experience. My experience meant I had to move away to be able to afford a house, which was the point of my original post.

Your personal experience is quite a small sample. I'm not questioning the fact that you had to work hard and make sacrifices, but the evidence suggests it's significantly harder for young people to get on the housing ladder today. Not just "different" as you suggested.

 

[beorhthelm]

In the 60s the average first time buyer was in their early 20s. In 2023 it's 34. Lifestyle factors play a part, but the key issue is rocketing house prices.

Average house price in 1963 was £2788 and the average annual wage for a manual worker was apparently £728. So a house was 3.6 years salary.

Average house price today is £288,000 but the average person is not earning 80 grand.

in 60's we where building about twice as many houses. it's really the simiplest problem to solve in this country, let building commence.

taxing the over 60's home owners as the OP would like wont create a single property. maybe if we applied punitive taxes to older homeowners they'd be forced to sell, freeing up that stock for families. in process you create a new problem of housing these pensioners, in smaller or lower value property stock that competes with first time buyers looking for flats, smaller homes. moves the problem elsewhere, when the core problem of needing half million homes built goes unaddressed.

 

[Weststander]

In the 60s the average first time buyer was in their early 20s. In 2023 it's 34. Lifestyle factors play a part, but the key issue is rocketing house prices.

Average house price in 1963 was £2788 and the average annual wage for a manual worker was apparently £728. So a house was 3.6 years salary.

Average house price today is £288,000 but the average person is not earning 80 grand.

One important point to add. Most people were unable to buy a home in the 60’s, over half of families rented one way or another. Government and building society lending rules were rigidly draconian.

Renting was the reality. The majority were not accumulating equity.

 

[A mex eyecan]

In the 60s the average first time buyer was in their early 20s. In 2023 it's 34. Lifestyle factors play a part, but the key issue is rocketing house prices.

Average house price in 1963 was £2788 and the average annual wage for a manual worker was apparently £728. So a house was 3.6 years salary.

Average house price today is £288,000 but the average person is not earning 80 grand.

But when people wanted a mortgage back then I think I’m right in saying that wives income was not allowed into the affordability calculations whereas todays are.

 

[fly high]

In the 60s the average first time buyer was in their early 20s. In 2023 it's 34. Lifestyle factors play a part, but the key issue is rocketing house prices.

Average house price in 1963 was £2788 and the average annual wage for a manual worker was apparently £728. So a house was 3.6 years salary.

Average house price today is £288,000 but the average person is not earning 80 grand.

I was 35 when I bought my first house, could only do it because of the prices crash & yes I benefited because of someone else's bad luck caused by very high interest rates & high unemployment, 15% interest at the time. Thousands of people lost there homes & negative equity was very common. Sadly no lessons were learned so as interest rates fell prices started rising again up to the utterly ridiculous heights we have now. While it is good that prices are falling I wouldn't want anyone to suffer because of a similar situation. There are multiple reasons why prices are high, very low interest rates, stamp duty holidays, shortage of housing. Developers have a big hand in this. The very last thing they want is for house prices to drop so they restrict supply to keep it high.

 

[Weststander]

I was 35 when I bought my first house, could only do it because of the prices crash & yes I benefited because of someone else's bad luck caused by very high interest rates & high unemployment, 15% interest at the time. Thousands of people lost there homes & negative equity was very common. Sadly no lessons were learned so as interest rates fell prices started rising again up to the utterly ridiculous heights we have now. While it is good that prices are falling I wouldn't want anyone to suffer because of a similar situation. There are multiple reasons why prices are high, very low interest rates, stamp duty holidays, shortage of housing. Developers have a big hand in this. The very last thing they want is for house prices to drop so they restrict supply to keep it high.

Developers, I have extensive professional knowledge of this, want to develop. Nimbies fight tooth n nail to oppose every development proposal for years. I’m not talking about havens for flora and fauna, instead green and brownfield sites including in cities.

 

[Bakero]

One important point to add. Most people were unable to buy a home in the 60’s, over half of families rented one way or another. Government and building society lending rules were rigidly draconian.

Renting was the reality. The majority were not accumulating equity.

In the 60s we were still in the early stages of the cult of home ownership. By 1971 the balance had shifted though and over half the population were owner occupiers, presumably thanks to those affordable house prices.