Boomer Wealth

Lillyfae

The generation of 60+ didn’t exactly have it easier, but the path was definitely simpler and they seem to have pulled the ladders up after them, that’s for sure. I don’t begrudge anyone a living inheritance. If it’s your money, do whatever you want with it.

On the other hand, I’ve watched and am watching a lot of people wait for “boomer” inheritance, it’s incredibly sad. That generation will live until they’re 90 or more. If I was to wait for that, I’d be nearly 70. F**k that. I can make my own money, my life, my achievements, belong to me and me alone.

Lillyfae

Harry lyme wrote: »

My story.

After my father got his redundancy (a redundancy he wanted) from his job in the early 2000's they instead of doing the sensible thing of using the money to clear our mortgage (which only an idiot wouldn't do) they remortgaged our house and bought a house in a neighbouring village and rented it out.They somehow managed to sell this house in around 2007 and then despite having a warning already ( by just barely being able to sell the house) they once again refused to pay off the mortgage and then bought an investment property in Spain.Of course this investment tanked as it was almost certainly a scam and it means that despite living in the house since 1997 the full value of the initial mortgage still has to be repaid .

This means I have to pay the mortgage or my parents are homeless and therefore I am stuck living with my parents until they are dead and their sheer idiocy and selfishness has ruined my life and caused my enourmous amount of stress and hopelessness. What exacerbates this is we live in a very rural area and I'm very shy individual so whatever chance I had to grow as a person is not helped by being stuck in a very rural area with little scope for social interaction compared to being in a urban area. What they have done to me is a disgrace (the fact the banks allowed them to so is incredible) and the fact that they even asked me to pay the mortgage now is incredibly selfish and really makes me very angry.

Just thought I'd share this as an example of the boomer generation getting carried away during the Celtic Tiger and expecting the next generation to pick up the pieces for them.

My parents tried to swindle myself and another sibling in a similar way around the same time by locking us into a mortgage that kept them debt free and us credit shagged. I got very good guidance at the time from an outsider. I will be forever grateful for that. I’m sorry you’re going through this.

Wanderer78

alias no.9 wrote: »

Public expenditure had been expanded massively on the back of tax windfalls that came from transactions funded by cheap credit, mainly relating to property. When the credit tap was turned off, the taxes disappeared and we were left with a massive budget deficit. The debt accrued to finance the budget deficit was much greater than the debt accrued from bank bailouts. While it may be strictly true that public expenditure did not cause the last crash, it made the impact of the crash much worse.

we re only truly now understanding, rising deficits really arent much to worry about, as they are a critical element of our money supply. id argue the credit tap wasnt turned off via private sector financial institutions, the bubble simply burst, and the demand for new credit collapsed, and rest was history.... id also argue the majority of our current debt, in fact, is of a direct consequence of the bailouts, from the offloading of the sh1te debts from the crash, from the same private sector financial institutions that simply created the credit/debt in the first place, causing everybody to panic, and the banks pulled a fast one, and the rest is history there also..... public debt is nothing to be truly concerned about, as rising private debt, historically, has caused far more serious crashes, as we ve just experienced

Harry lyme

Harry lyme wrote: »

My story.

At least make sure your name is on the house title, so you don't spend years paying for it and then have siblings appear out of nowhere when they want "their share" of the house when the parents die.

Lillyfae

[Deleted User] wrote: »

At least make sure your name is on the house title, so you don't spend years paying for it and then have siblings appear out of nowhere when they want "their share" of the house when the parents die.

There’s always one entitled f**k that gets a bit transparent at family gatherings, isn’t there

Victor

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

Remember, they were paying double digit interest rates on their mortgages and loans.

This wasn't quite so much a problem when you could buy a decent house for £25,000.

arccosh

Victor wrote: »

This wasn't quite so much a problem when you could buy a decent house for £25,000.

also, double digit barely hit 20% (20% number from a family member)..... so 25k at worst (20% full term) meant 30k to pay back..... I'd take that today:pac:


rate max mid teens in this link

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/history-of-mortgage-rates-in-ireland.html

alias no.9

Wanderer78 wrote: »

we re only truly now understanding, rising deficits really arent much to worry about, as they are a critical element of our money supply. id argue the credit tap wasnt turned off via private sector financial institutions, the bubble simply burst, and the demand for new credit collapsed, and rest was history.... id also argue the majority of our current debt, in fact, is of a direct consequence of the bailouts, from the offloading of the sh1te debts from the crash, from the same private sector financial institutions that simply created the credit/debt in the first place, causing everybody to panic, and the banks pulled a fast one, and the rest is history there also..... public debt is nothing to be truly concerned about, as rising private debt, historically, has caused far more serious crashes, as we ve just experienced

The majority of our current debt eh?

The bank bailout has been estimated as having a net cost of €41.7bn according to the C&AG in 2019
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/financial-services/was-it-worth-paying-41-7bn-to-bail-out-irish-banks-1.4036792

Irish National Debt went from €47.1bn in 2007 peaking at €215.4bn in 2013, settling at €204.0bn in 2019.

https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y=gd_pc_gdp&idim=country:ie:fi:uk&hl=en&dl=en#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=gd_mio_eur&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=country_group&idim=country:ie&ifdim=country_group&hl=en_US&dl=en&ind=false

If we take the 2019 figure of €204.0bn and subtract the 2007 figure of €47.1bn and the bank bailout figure of €41.7bn, we're left with €115.2bn of national debt resulting from deficit spending from 2008 through to 2019, that's 275% of the cost of the bank bailout. It's directly a consequence of the expansion of public spending on the back of precarious tax revenues. Bertienomics is best characterised as the running of illusory budget surpluses by using private individuals and companies to borrow with the Government taking a cut through transaction taxes on the credit funded transactions. The bank bailout did little more than bring this budgetary sleight of hand onto the balance sheet.

You can argue the toss about the bondholders having been forced to take a bigger hit (I don't think they should have got off so easy) but the shareholders were totally wiped out, senior executives were cleared out, Anglo and Irish Nationwide were wound down, hardly what I'd call pulling a fast one.

As for nothing to be concerned about, Ireland couldn't refinance existing debt, never mind issue new debt at a time they were running a huge budget deficit, the result was the so called Troika dictating budgetary policy.

Gregor Samsa

Victor wrote: »

This wasn't quite so much a problem when you could buy a decent house for £25,000.

You’re missing out one salient piece of information...

My dad bought his house in 1970 for about ten grand. A bargain, eh? Who couldn’t afford a 10 grand house?

Except he was on £1000 a year. And he was paying double digit interest rate.

That’s the equivalent of being on €40k today, and buying a €400k house, with a 10% mortgage rate (that went up to 16% over the next decade).

s1ippy

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

You’re missing out one salient piece of information...

My dad bought his house in 1970 for about ten grand. A bargain, eh? Who couldn’t afford a 10 grand house?

Except he was on £1000 a year. And he was paying double digit interest rate.

That’s the equivalent of being on €40k today, and buying a €400k house, with a 10% mortgage rate (that went up to 16% over the next decade).

Yes but his wage increased as time went on but the mortgage would have remained the same as it was.

Plus he didn't need to present over a year's salary upfront.

Edit: Jesús Viera that is an insanely long post!

Gregor Samsa

s1ippy wrote: »

Yes but his wage increased as time went on but the mortgage would have remained the same as it was.

Plus he didn't need to present over a year's salary upfront.

People’s wages increase now too, and mortgages stay the same. Thats no different to now.

The deposit issue is a valid difference. Not sure what deposit he had to put up, but it most likely wasn’t the same percentage as one would have to stump up now.

s1ippy

Applying your logic about wage increases, I'll be earning six figures, possibly seven, if it's proportionally the same rate of increase now as it was then I hope you're right!

Actually no, because that would mean that people starting out on the career ladder would be at even more of a disadvantage when I'm retiring, and I can't see it being possible for people to survive if there is that big of a gulf.

screamer

I think that for those of that generation who got into state and semi state jobs, they are/ were minted. With defined benefit pensions etc they had a lot better chance to live well in working and retirement. I also think that mediocrity got you further then, people straight into jobs with leaving cert, if that, and working their way up to highest ranks. Compared to the rat race that college has created these days. I think it’s just going to be worse for future generations, fewer jobs, more people in the world, automation of work and a dearth if debt to repay.

My own parents haven’t accumulated wealth, they are ok for money, but there’ll be no inheritance. I’ve been financially independent since I was about 19 and put myself through college. I’ve not had a cent off them for any kind of life purchases, weddings, cars, houses. I am totally self sufficient. I see adult children who put their hands out to parents regularly and being honest, I have zero respect for people like that milking their parents dry, and in many cases, planing what they’ll do with their inheritance. I’d much rather have my folks around than look forward to deathly dividends.

Dual wheels

Smee_Again wrote: »

I’d love it if my parents left us kids nothing, it’d mean they enjoyed their well earned retirement.

Ungrateful feckers

El Tarangu

Tony EH wrote: »

And yet people still had roofs over their heads and adults weren't forced to live with their elderly parents because being in their own home was merely a pipe dream.

We didn't have the issue of people living with their parents because huge numbers of our young people emigrated; I'd say that having their own home was a pipe dream for most of the 17% who were unemployed, too.

El Tarangu

s1ippy wrote: »

Yes but his wage increased as time went on but the mortgage would have remained the same as it was.

Plus he didn't need to present over a year's salary upfront.

Sure, if you were not among the 100,000s who had emigrated, or the 17% who were unemployed, it's true, houses were a bit more affordable - but that's a big 'if'.

Gregor Samsa

s1ippy wrote: »

Applying your logic about wage increases, I'll be earning six figures, possibly seven, if it's proportionally the same rate of increase now as it was then I hope you're right!.

Inflation was at almost 21% in 1975. It was under 1% last year. The “wage increases” in the ‘70s didn’t make average people wealthier. You’d get your six or seven figure earnings fairly soon with inflation like that, but you’d still be no better off than you are now.

My point is that you can’t just look at that generation and say “they could all afford houses, and we can’t. Therefore it was easier for them” or “house prices were lower then” or “wages increased at a higher percentage then” You need to look at the totality of the economy at the time. But also at society at the time.

They lived differently, in very challenging economic times. They put buying a house over almost everything else, and suffered for it. That investment has paid off now, as their property is often worth good money in today’s market, but they suffered for it at the time. There’s no comparison between lifestyles in the 70s and now.

Tony EH

El Tarangu wrote: »

Sure, if you were not among the 100,000s who had emigrated, or the 17% who were unemployed, it's true, houses were a bit more affordable - but that's a big 'if'.

So was renting. Even if you were unemployed, you could still rent, whether that was privately or through the council.

The difference is not "emigration". It's the cost of living and access to housing.

suicide_circus

Harry lyme wrote: »

My story.

After my father got his redundancy (a redundancy he wanted) from his job in the early 2000's they instead of doing the sensible thing of using the money to clear our mortgage (which only an idiot wouldn't do) they remortgaged our house and bought a house in a neighbouring village and rented it out.They somehow managed to sell this house in around 2007 and then despite having a warning already ( by just barely being able to sell the house) they once again refused to pay off the mortgage and then bought an investment property in Spain.Of course this investment tanked as it was almost certainly a scam and it means that despite living in the house since 1997 the full value of the initial mortgage still has to be repaid .

This means I have to pay the mortgage or my parents are homeless and therefore I am stuck living with my parents until they are dead and their sheer idiocy and selfishness has ruined my life and caused my enourmous amount of stress and hopelessness. What exacerbates this is we live in a very rural area and I'm very shy individual so whatever chance I had to grow as a person is not helped by being stuck in a very rural area with little scope for social interaction compared to being in a urban area. What they have done to me is a disgrace (the fact the banks allowed them to so is incredible) and the fact that they even asked me to pay the mortgage now is incredibly selfish and really makes me very angry.

Just thought I'd share this as an example of the boomer generation getting carried away during the Celtic Tiger and expecting the next generation to pick up the pieces for them.

Christ. My folks would rather die than saddle me with their mortgage. Sorry but not only were your parents reckless, not to say stupid, but then compound their stupidity by f*cking with their son's life.

Hellotonever

Gregor Samsa wrote: »

You’re missing out one salient piece of information...

My dad bought his house in 1970 for about ten grand. A bargain, eh? Who couldn’t afford a 10 grand house?

Except he was on £1000 a year. And he was paying double digit interest rate.

That’s the equivalent of being on €40k today, and buying a €400k house, with a 10% mortgage rate (that went up to 16% over the next decade).

Some people had it harder than others, no one is arguing that. But empirical data shows that boomers did have it easier. Just because we have 4k TVs and OLED iPhones doesn't mean things are better so to speak. In fact, we are in the era where many authors, directors and anthropologists thought was the nightmare scenario.

El Tarangu

Hellotonever wrote: »

Some people had it harder than others, no one is arguing that. But empirical data shows that boomers did have it easier.

Which empirical data, relating to which countries?

Hotblack Desiato

myshirt wrote: »

when they should have been cut and young teachers employed.

There were three rounds of public sector pay cuts, which over ten years later still haven't been reversed.

Go to any thread in Work & Jobs about public sector recruitment, most people regard the wages on offer as pathetic for the skillsets demanded.

NB the pay cuts for new entrants were never negotiated with or agreed to by the unions, they were imposed unilaterally by FF.

Our education system was and is set up to churn out public servants

You seem to have some sort of issue with the public sector, some sort of irrational hatred.

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Instead it sees it's role as maintaining the privileged pay and conditions of those with the connections to get a job within it.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Public sector recruitment is open and transparent. If you want nepotism and connections then the private sector is your only man.

arccosh wrote: »

I think it may come back to bite them in their elder years when there is a political age demographic shift

Not going to happen. The 65+ proportion of the population is going to get bigger and bigger, and they vote.

"boomer" ffs tho, on an irish discussion board

every generation has a set of circumstances and challenges. the betrayal narrative that the set of graduates from around 2008 onwards feeds itself is a damaging and divisive rhetoric that will serve those that embrace it poorly in life.

Hotblack Desiato

Deleted User wrote: »

"boomer" ffs tho, on an irish discussion board

I know, it's ridiculous in an Irish context, we were reproducing to beat the band until well into the 80s, it was a non-stop "baby boom" because contraception was illegal, and after that still hard to get. You had to know which doctor to go to and which pharmacist to go to. Fertility rate didn't drop below 2 until 1992.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Population_statistics_from_1900

every generation has a set of circumstances and challenges. the betrayal narrative that the set of graduates from around 2008 onwards feeds itself is a damaging and divisive rhetoric that will serve those that embrace it poorly in life.

Well yeah. The reason rents are so high is because there are so many of that generation in very well paying jobs all competing with each other. There's a supply issue but that's no surprise when fcuk all was being built for ten years.

sasta le

nthclare wrote: »

My dad's retired from the top of his scale department of justice mum worked in health care and their house is paid for.
Mum and himself have a good pension pot and savings.
They don't owe a cent and never bought into the property bubble like some of their friends did.

He's a shrewd Kerry man and lives within his means.
If they pass away there's enough cash for myself and my brother and sister to retire and live quite comfortably.

I've no interest in gambling with pension funds, at 45 my house is paid for from inheritance I got in 2003.

I enjoy life as best I can.

You'll get people saving thousands and work their arses off to retire so they could enjoy coastal drives, have weekends away and maybe fish in river's and off the rocks, go hiking, visit historical sites etc and buy a camper van and tour the country side.

You can do that at a young age too, it's all an illusion of grandeur if you can break the barrier of being addicted to the rat race for the sake of what you can enjoy at a young age...

At 27 I gave up drug's and alcohol in 2003 and it's the best thing I ever did.

It doesn't make me a better man than people still drugging and boozing, but I feel much better in myself that I no longer make stupid decisions and get into self inflicted anxiety, guilt and watching my back and losing memory.

It's a long hangover kicking the drug's and alcohol but I'm living today and I really enjoy the peace of mind and self awareness.

I'm still a rogue, can be arrogant opinionated but I'm able to live with my contradictions....

But being well off and handed wealth has deffo helped i would so?

sasta le

screamer wrote: »

I think that for those of that generation who got into state and semi state jobs, they are/ were minted. With defined benefit pensions etc they had a lot better chance to live well in working and retirement. I also think that mediocrity got you further then, people straight into jobs with leaving cert, if that, and working their way up to highest ranks. Compared to the rat race that college has created these days. I think it’s just going to be worse for future generations, fewer jobs, more people in the world, automation of work and a dearth if debt to repay.

My own parents haven’t accumulated wealth, they are ok for money, but there’ll be no inheritance. I’ve been financially independent since I was about 19 and put myself through college. I’ve not had a cent off them for any kind of life purchases, weddings, cars, houses. I am totally self sufficient. I see adult children who put their hands out to parents regularly and being honest, I have zero respect for people like that milking their parents dry, and in many cases, planing what they’ll do with their inheritance. I’d much rather have my folks around than look forward to deathly dividends.

Great comment...if anything the dirty jobs are becoming the better paid..no lad is laying blocks or labouring now and there price is going up across the trades

CrankyHaus

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

This is complete and utter nonsense. Public sector recruitment is open and transparent. If you want nepotism and connections then the private sector is your only man.

When I raised this issue before I had people falling over themselves to inform me that all of their family work in the PS and every one of them can attest that recruitment and promotions are open, transparent and meritocratic :pac:. Self-awareness was clearly never the PS's strong point.

El Tarangu

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

I know, it's ridiculous in an Irish context, we were reproducing to beat the band until well into the 80s, it was a non-stop "baby boom" because contraception was illegal, and after that still hard to get. You had to know which doctor to go to and which pharmacist to go to. Fertility rate didn't drop below 2 until 1992.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_Republic_of_Ireland#Population_statistics_from_1900

I don't want to keep harping on the point, but a high fertility rate != population boom; Ireland's population continued to decline, due to high emigration, until the 1960s (when the 'baby boom' in the States was hitting its peak).

Although the point still stands: the demographic and economic benefits of being part of a 'baby boom' demographic don't apply in an Irish context

Dizzyblonde

For anyone with delusions about the 80s - houses were a lot cheaper all right but interest rates went over 17% and stayed there for for some time. In the middle of a horrific recession. A recession so bad that we couldn't afford a takeaway even once a fortnight. We rented our televisions. A huge amount of us starting out then were the first generation in our families to buy our own homes. Remember, the majority of Irish people are no more than a couple of generations removed from very hard times.
What we did was stay living at home until we'd saved a deposit, going out once a week at most. Nobody moved out of home and rented somewhere just because they wanted to, it was wasted money. We didn't go on holidays much. We'd never even been to a hotel for a weekend until our kids were a good few years old, it was just too expensive. Very few of us had cars. In our case it took almost three years to reach a point where we could apply for a mortgage. My husband worked long hours while studying and got a professional qualification when our kids were young, and as a result we're enjoying the fruits of it now he's retired. We're supportive of our family and have had them living back with us while saving for a mortgage when needed, we'll have something to leave them though they're all independent and wouldn't care if there's nothing left when we die.
I think the point I'm making is that no generation has it easy, but our expectations of life were lower and we didn't question having to do without in order to achieve what we wanted. And for the vast majority of us, the level of comfort we have now was hard earned. I do feel sorry for young people starting out now though, it's really tough. Some things are easier, but others are much harder.

Bandana boy

arccosh wrote: »

also, double digit barely hit 20% (20% number from a family member)..... so 25k at worst (20% full term) meant 30k to pay back..... I'd take that today:pac:


rate max mid teens in this link

http://www.moneyguideireland.com/history-of-mortgage-rates-in-ireland.html

25K @20% over 20 years will cost you 100K not 30K