Have baby boomers stolen the family silver

I don't think it serves any useful purpose entering into this "blame game" because it invariably omits the very people who are probably the most responsible for the massive injustices that exist and which are increasing.

It also means that sweeping generalisations are made: all old people are living in the lap of luxury at the expense of the young; all young people are irresponsible and spend their money on clubbing, drink and foreign holidays. It's ridiculous, but such blaming is encouraged so that while people take up a position which advocates that some other group - the old, the young, the immigrant, the houseowner, the unemployed, etc. etc., is responsible for any particular social or economic deficit no-one is considering whether there is something structurally lacking in the way things are organised.

We too have given significant financial assistance to our children re housing, etc., even though we never had an ounce of help from our own parents. If you resent helping your children, then don't do it but my feeling is that times are tough for young people these days and, whatever anyone says, it is now much harder to find reasonably affordable and decent housing, whether it be to purchase or to rent.

Some of the posts on this thread are a bit silly.

What is the point in saying "I only earned £2 a week in 1955 or £44 a week in 1985 " or whatever.

We live in 2017 ! guess what automatic washing machines have been invented. I even have one. In fact you would probably be hard pushed to even buy a "twin tub" these days and as for black and white TV's well......

Times have changed and everything is relative. The only fair way to compare is wages minus rent or mortgage.

Agree with your last paragraph Eloethan although I have not been able to help either of my children financially , I do a lot of childcare for my DS and DDiL which i suppose has enabled them to work.

It is much harder for young people today to get on the property ladder, of that there can be no doubt, but this isnt caused by baby boomers 'stealing all the pies' but by a population explosion and house building not keeping abreast of it.

The population explosion is in part due to people living longer but in the main due to mass immigration. However most of those young people moaning now will be sorted when they are in their forties and fifties and their parents pass on leaving them an inheritance. Some are lucky sooner if left a legacy by grandparents.

Sorry, but I don't feel responsible for anything! What on earth could any of us have done about the things you mention trisher?
Most of us were coping with, endless strikes, three day weeks, extortionate interest rates, winter of discontent, need I go on. Our lives at times were pretty difficult to say the least, not being able to bury the dead was a bit of a downer!!!!
A lot of us war babies, particularly fatherless ones, had a difficult early life, some more than others. Difference is, that as we grew up we didn't moan and feel hard done by, and we certainly didn't blame our parents (for not avoiding that dreadful war and making OUR lives a misery?) and we mostly got on, did the best we could with the little we had, (there wasn't actually much TO have!)and certainly we didn't even remotely wish that our parents or grandparents were dead because they were stupid, pathetic, old and yesterdays people whose opinions weren't worth a light - How wicked is that?!

There are other things to be considered here.
In the past people married other people from the local area and they got homes close to both sets of parents. As children arrived in the marriage the grandparents helped with child care and with advice. Then as the grandparents got old and ill the children now parents of somewhat older children helped the old folks.
Now people move away from their local areas and are not able to have the parents help with children, and from what I have read elsewear, the grandparents can not do anything right with the grandchildren anyway.
When the grandparents get old their children are not around to give help. The children expect to inherit but do not expect to have to help in old age. Therefore the old grandparents have to sell the home to pay for care and the children lament the loss of inheritance.
Young people expect more these days. My first house only had 2 rooms and a toilet (not a bathroom) but we thought we had done well. Our parents had put the fear into us about how we would manage. One DC says that they only house they would consider would be a detached 3/4 bed house. That to me is the kind of house you get after years of work and house buying to get up the ladder. When 2 of my DCs were expecting babies they got huge Tvs new computers and kitchen gadgets. I would have thought babies needed bottles nappies and tiny clothes not electrical stuff.
I am fairly comfortable now but only because I cared for family members and this was acknowledged by inheritance. I had every intention to trying to make my DCs lives more comfortable but rather than being grateful for what was on offer i.e. large flats so they live in less salubrious areas which apparently is their own choice. They expected to dictate the area in which money would be invested in property for their benefit. They were then offered a holiday, but when some went on holiday together it ended up World War 3 so I was glad that I was not the one who arranged and paid for that.
I doubt if my DCs would want to care for me but I know they resent my financial position. I have already been tried for financial demands. As a result of their attitudes and demands I do not feel inclined to live frugally in order to leave them in comfort.
The younger people cant expect their bread buttered both sides.
SPF

Well said Nigglynellie. All encompassing, eloquent and accurate for many of us. Thank you

Agreed nigglynellie.

Trisher
What you are not allowing for re higher education is that far far fewer school leavers were going to university then so the cost of keeping us, borne by tax payers, was a tiny proportion of treasury costs. With about half of all school leavers going the costs would b substantial.

Which would you prefer, small numbers only and free or available to most but at a cost?

Mair you have fallen for the biggest con ever perpetrated on the public. Loans are not as you suggest so much more affordable, in fact they will probably cost more, depending upon the repayment rate. Indications at present show that this is falling and the costs will rise accordingly. Also many people took advantage of grants and further education later in life so it wasn't just school leavers. That route is now closed to them. Grants opened up education to many while asking the more affluent to contribute, loans just tie people into a lot of debt.

there are houses/flats available but like sugarpuffairy says they are not "good enough" for many young folk.My son just moved into a flat ,it cost just over £40.000 and that was INCLUDING decorating and fitting a new kitchen ( with his fathers help)Its an ex local authority one bedroom flat in a nice wee estate ,his best friend however thinks he should just have asked us for a deposit on a "decent" house as he and his girlfriend have just done,,£18,000 off his mum so he can have a private estate and a driveway ...he has just bought a car costing £25 ,000 and they've been abroad twice since September !!!They are how WE make them ,I'm glad mine want to work their way up the ladder in the same way we did

Well said Nigglynellie.

What is more, we took any job we could get that put food on the table and a roof over our heads. We didn't turn our noses up at anything.

I think a big problem with the millennials is that they expect instant gratification. Not helped by the media who push the latest gadgets, cars and fashions on them. Oh, but that same media says consumerism drives our economy, so I guess that isn't going to change marketing. They will still target whomever has the £££s.

Every generation has its own challenges. Jalima is right, mortgages were high-interest for a very long time, especially in the 80s. Then came the 00's and for a while it was easy to get a mortage at say 5-7%, then came the crash. Much of that crash was because of sub-prime lending!

Even in the mid-90s in the US we had to put 20% down and our interest was 5-6%. Then we moved here and got a mortgage way too easily based on the value of the property as the bank did not count my US pension. Doh?

Now things seem to be more moderate for qualifying. It's the shortage of housing that is driving prices. That is up to the government to sort with builders.

Life is not fair. Did our parents ask to be caught up in WWII? Now that was hardship. My parents were hard-working and thrifty. They saved, and in their later years sold their home for a good price, then built another which upon its sale funded my dad's care in a good quality care-home. He was almost entire blind by then from AMD and confined to a wheelchair.

My husband and I try to emulate these things and save. But we also help his sons and our DGD now, too. Mostly with our personal help vs money. They were late bloomers, but now work hard and save.

Not everyone is in the position to help their children (or grandchildren) financially, though are they paddyann? There were times I would have given anything to get my DS,DDiL and the children out of their ex council house but I was not in the position to do anything.

When I got my first rented flat in 1980 I had nothing new in it except for a lounge carpet that my parents signed the credit for (I couldn't get credit). But times have changed and why would we want to go back?

Trisher
What I am saying about loans is that they are more "affordable" to the treasury, because the cost doesnt all fall on tax payers but on the students themselves.

Surely you agree it seems unfair that those who don't go to uni should pay towards the cost of those who do? That is effectively what grants and no tuition fees would mean. We could also of course load some of the costs on to overseas students, but push that too high and theyll stop coming!

I certainly do not subscribe to the view that it is all the fault of the so called baby boomers. When my husband and I married in 1973 our weekly income was £15 per week and our rent was £45 per month! It was tremendously difficult to manage but we were very happy. Four children and almost 44 years later we are still working hard, running a small business and we do not have a big pension waiting for us. We could never afford pensions (and sadly the employers that we worked for over the years didn't provide pensions). All of our cash went into providing a home, and providing for our family and we didn't have expensive holidays, cars or lifestyle.
Getting onto the housing ladder was very difficult and at times the interest payments on the mortgage were eye-wateringly painful, leaving very little for other essential bills. Looking back I don't know how we managed it. I suspect each generation has its own challenges. Now we still help our children and our grandchildren both financially and in practical ways and will probably need to do so for sometime to come.

Oh and we didn't inherit anything from parents either!

There's no blame involved. But yes, there's a generation that has benefited from the rise in house prices, even if all they can do is sit on it as a 'paper gain'. There's a bubble and, as all bubbles eventually do, it will burst. Maybe catastrophically by a collapse of the financial system (do you really feel your £75,000 guarantee will have any meaning after the system has failed enough to trigger it?). Maybe by a period of high inflation, so you'll still have your nest-egg but it won't buy much any more.
Having said that, I know plenty of young families who AREN'T on the street or living with Mum. And so, probably, do you.

I come for working class stock, we lived in a council house and money was short because my father was injured in a workplace accident (this in the days before compensation) so was unable to work on a regular basis. When I married we moved into a rented flat with a shared bathroom, our first house was almost derelict and all our furniture was second hand. I never had the opportunity to go to university and never inherited anything - all I have we worked hard for. I worked full time and my husband would do a day's work, come home for a meal and then go back out to work another 3 hours. So, no I don't feel guilty.

I accept that the younger generation today have difficulties and problems but I did find myself getting angry when I heard a young man on local radio stating that "old" people should sell their houses and donate the money to a fund for students so they wouldn't have to take out loans. He had no suggestions as to where we "old" people would live or how we should support ourselves, probably wanted us to go to some centre where we could quietly be euthanised!

Maggiemaybe

His parents use their 5 bedroomed house actively and entertain guests

I believe that Angus himself is a 'baby boomer' so his parents must be quite ancient.
Shame on them for refusing to downsize whereas the rest of us are supposed to huddle in one room and never have visitors! I bet they have a houseful of solid (not plated) silver too!

The arrogance of the 'do as I say not as i do brigade' knows no bounds.

Like most of you, I am totally fed up with this baby boomers blame game. Hands up if you are:

still paying taxes
providing free childcare
helping your adult children out financially
proving money, clothes, treats for your grandchildren
doing essential voluntary work

Lots of you doing at least one of these I'll bet.

We sold our last house and large garden to a developer who was going to build 12 affordable homes on it. 8 years later, and it is still mouldering away untouched. Our current property was bought when DD and her little son were living with us so isn't a great deal smaller but we still need to accommodate visiting family on a regular basis.

I refuse to be placed into the ready to be euthanised category!

nigglynellie well said

spf people have always moved around for work - many of them emigrated and never had the opportunity to come home or see their families again.

It is surprising to read the census that may be available for, say, the late 1800s for large properties - sometimes the NT make them available at their properties. People came from all over the country to work in these houses.
Very few of my family or of DH's stayed in one place when they were young and many emigrated overseas.

Are we greedy property hogging baby boomers the same people that were dubbed the sandwich generation, the ones that are caring for out elderly relatives because they can't afford/find careers and are helping our children by housing them or giving them money to house themselves?? Would that be us? ???

What I am saying about loans is that they are more "affordable" to the treasury, because the cost doesnt all fall on tax payers but on the students themselves.
And what I am saying is you are wrong Mair. The latest evidence is that if people had been given grants on the same basis that our generation were i.e. parents' incomes the cost would not be that different to the cost of student loans- administration costs, failure to pay, for all sorts of reasons including lower than estimated salaries, and other costs means the cost of student loans is higher than any politician expected (of course they don't want you to know this or you might start to question the system). In other words our children and grandchildren are caught in a debt trap that has benefitted no-one and remains simply a bit of PR work that made people think they weren't paying when in fact they are. Just not in as clear and accountable system as student grants were.
This is old but basic info www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-2558667/Taxpayers-facing-larger-expected-losses-Student-Loans-track-borrowers-MPs-warn.html
The original intention was that the student debt would be sold on to a private company and the money raised used to fund a tax cut, unfortunately no one wants the debt because it's toxic.

administration costs, failure to pay, for all sorts of reasons including lower than estimated salaries, and other costs means the cost of student loans is higher than any politician expected (of course they don't want you to know this or you might start to question the system).

I realise that many students (especially EU) dont pay their loans back and I am sure you are correct that costs are far higher than politicians anticipated. However grants wouldn't be admin free either and it flies in the face of all reason to suggest that generous grants coupled with tuition fee free education wouldnt be far far more costly still!