Boomer Wealth

Naos

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

No they couldn't - I was an adult in the 80s and that wasn't possible, certainly not in Dublin. It wasn't a doom laden apocalypse but times were very hard. We lived frugally and were happy to do it in order to own our home so our children would have security growing up.

Part of it is absolutely a willingness to do without in order to buy a home, and my own kids did the same when they were saving their deposits.

Without sounding like I'm prying, just genuinely trying to understand:

What age were you when you bought your first house?
How much were you earning annually?
Did you buy with a partner and were they working full-time as well?

Yurt2

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

You must be from the Michael O’Leary ‘pull up your britches’ school of Irish diplomacy and debate.

Gnarly post dudebro. Don't forget to smash that FG retweet button today Flashmeister.

Dizzyblonde

Naos wrote: »

Without sounding like I'm prying, just genuinely trying to understand:

What age were you when you bought your first house?
How much were you earning annually?
Did you buy with a partner and were they working full-time as well?

I was 22, and a hairdresser so not earning a huge amount. Himself was 29 and had an "office job". Pretty average couple at the time. We saved and bought together, the house was £27,500. Not only was the mortgage interest rate through the roof, income tax rates were much higher then than they are now. So disposable income was proportionately lower.

Tony EH

My sister and her hubby, who was on a modest wage working in a warehouse, bought their home in Dublin, in their 20's and knocked out three kids. Only he had an income.

You couldn't even dream of that now.

CrankyHaus

Tony EH wrote: »

My sister and her hubby, who was on a modest wage working in a warehouse, bought their home in Dublin, in their 20's and knocked out three kids. Only he had an income.

You couldn't even dream of that now.

Yeah but people have mobiles with AMOLED screens now, so it all works out.

Naos

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

I was 22, and a hairdresser so not earning a huge amount. Himself was 29 and had an "office job". Pretty average couple at the time. We saved and bought together, the house was £27,500. Not only was the mortgage interest rate through the roof, income tax rates were much higher then than they are now. So disposable income was proportionately lower.

.. that kind of proves the point, right?

You were on a low income and your husband was on an average income (that's what I am inferring from the 'office job').

You were able to purchase at the age of 22, how many years savings did you have? The majority of 22 year olds now are only leaving college around the time you bought a house.

arccosh

Naos wrote: »

.. that kind of proves the point, right?

You were on a low income and your husband was on an average income (that's what I am inferring from the 'office job').

You were able to purchase at the age of 22, how many years savings did you have? The majority of 22 year olds now are only leaving college around the time you bought a house.

times were tough, only being able to afford a house during high interest rates at the age of 22

markodaly

Yurt! wrote: »

It's not really though is it?


Sowell is from the Bill Cosby 'pull up your breetches' wing of American race relations with a thin veneer of Ivy League patter. 2D, patronizing and utterly useful to the economic right in America to peddle out every now and then.

Well, if that was your attempt at a rebuttal that your comment was not racist, then you just doubled down on it and made it worse.

It seems you cannot argue the point apart from bringing their race into the equation.
Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, all in an effort to prove some point that I have no idea what it is?
Do you think all African-Americans are one homogenous group?

Yurt2

markodaly wrote: »

Well, if that was your attempt at a rebuttal that your comment was not racist, then you just doubled down on it and made it worse.

It seems you cannot argue the point apart from bringing their race into the equation.
Thomas Sowell, Bill Cosby, all in an effort to prove some point that I have no idea what it is?
Do you think all African-Americans are one homogenous group?

No.


And Sowell equated Obama policies to Hitler. He's a numpty as well as a useful idiot. He's not 'profound' he's the same partisan hack littered throughout America, just with an Ivy-League graduate degree, and yes, off-the-wall right-wing think tanks have him on speed-dial because he's conveniently African American.

Enjoy trying to paint me as racist, I've broken bread with all colours and creeds more than you've had hot dinners, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

flynnlives

There needs to be a rapid redistribution of wealth in this country from the over 55's to the younger demographics.

There is vasts amounts of wealth in this country locked away in property and gold plated public service pensions. Majority held in the older demographic.

The economy is unsustainable for Housing to continue to be unaffordable for young people. Never mind it being immoral.

What gets me most is this im alright jack attitude from the 55+ generation. Oh we had it bad in the 80s etc.
Thing is despite the high interest rates and income tax back then they could still afford a house on one income. They fail to mention that part.
You would need to be earning in the 1% today to get a single income mortgage in a Irish city.

Dizzyblonde

Naos wrote: »

.. that kind of proves the point, right?

You were on a low income and your husband was on an average income (that's what I am inferring from the 'office job').

You were able to purchase at the age of 22, how many years savings did you have? The majority of 22 year olds now are only leaving college around the time you bought a house.

And so would I have been, if I'd been able to go to college. I'm not sure many 22 year old nowadays would want to settle down, it's a different world and there are so many opportunities to travel etc.

We had to have around £5,000 which was a huge amount back then. It took around three years. I've never implied that it's as easy or easier nowadays, but made the point that in order to save for a house, and to pay a mortgage, we had to do without a lot of luxuries and live very frugally.

I'm well aware of how hard it is nowadays, having seen my own children save and buy their houses. And some friends tell them how 'lucky they are' to have a house, when they could have theirs too if they'd been willing to save as hard and do without holidays etc for a year or two.

In the 80s we felt hard done by because houses were much cheaper in the 70s but so what? That's life, unfortunately.

WrenBoy

flynnlives wrote: »

There needs to be a rapid redistribution of wealth in this country from the over 55's to the younger demographics.

There is vasts amounts of wealth in this country locked away in property and gold plated public service pensions. Majority held in the older demographic.

The economy is unsustainable for Housing to continue to be unaffordable for young people. Never mind it being immoral.

What gets me most is this im alright jack attitude from the 55+ generation. Oh we had it bad in the 80s etc.
Thing is despite the high interest rates and income tax back then they could still afford a house on one income. They fail to mention that part.
You would need to be earning in the 1% today to get a single income mortgage in a Irish city.

What if people don't want to give away their earnings and savings ?

Dizzyblonde

flynnlives wrote: »

There needs to be a rapid redistribution of wealth in this country from the over 55's to the younger demographics.

There is vasts amounts of wealth in this country locked away in property and gold plated public service pensions. Majority held in the older demographic.

The economy is unsustainable for Housing to continue to be unaffordable for young people. Never mind it being immoral.

What gets me most is this im alright jack attitude from the 55+ generation. Oh we had it bad in the 80s etc.
Thing is despite the high interest rates and income tax back then they could still afford a house on one income. They fail to mention that part.
You would need to be earning in the 1% today to get a single income mortgage in a Irish city.

You're cracking me up :pac:

We had it hard, you have it hard - it's not a competition. We're not "all right Jack" we've only got what we worked hard for. I suggest you do the same, and see how you feel when you're 55+ and someone begrudges it to you. Some of us have more, some of us have less, we're not all the same now just as we weren't all the same back then.

Nobody is going to 'redistribute wealth', you're away with the fairies

Wanderer78

flynnlives wrote:

There needs to be a rapid redistribution of wealth in this country from the over 55's to the younger demographics.

We need to de-personalise these debates, its only causing bigger problems, even though there is an element of truth to your debate. the lack of wealth re-distribution is now extremely dangerous, we need action now, it will be difficult to do what you say, but this is a serious global problem, change has to occur, and we ve already begun

flynnlives

WrenBoy wrote: »

What if people don't want to give away their earnings and savings ?

Younger people are currently subsidizing the older generations healthcare.
A contributory healthcare tax on certain incomes over x is a good start.

An increase of Residential Charge on houses with x amount of rooms and only 2/3 occupants is another to encourage old people to downsize.

These proposals might seem harsh but the majority of younger people are now entering their 3rd recession. Something has to give.

flynnlives

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

You're cracking me up :pac:

We had it hard, you have it hard - it's not a competition. We're not "all right Jack" we've only got what we worked hard for. I suggest you do the same, and see how you feel when you're 55+ and someone begrudges it to you. Some of us have more, some of us have less, we're not all the same now just as we weren't all the same back then.

Nobody is going to 'redistribute wealth', you're away with the fairies

Just look at the distribution of wealth in Ireland. The majority of wealth is held by the older demographic.
Im simply pointing out the reality of the situation.

Wanderer78

Dizzyblonde wrote:

We had it hard, you have it hard - it's not a competition. We're not "all right Jack" we've only got what we worked hard for. I suggest you do the same, and see how you feel when you're 55+ and someone begrudges it to you. Some of us have more, some of us have less, we're not all the same now just as we weren't all the same back then.

There's no question older generations worked extremely hard for what they have, but conditions are radically different nowadays. generational differences are effectively incomparable, what worked for older generations, more than likely won't work for younger generations, the game has changed, radically, we re now at a point whereby, it's virtually impossible for younger generations to gain access to their most critical of needs, if things don't change soon, we all could fall

Dizzyblonde wrote:

Nobody is going to 'redistribute wealth', you're away with the fairies

Oh famous last words, it's coming, it won't be easy, and sadly, it may not be peaceful

Dizzyblonde

flynnlives wrote: »

Just look at the distribution of wealth in Ireland. The majority of wealth is held by the older demographic.
Im simply pointing out the reality of the situation.

Yes, because they've been working for longer. Who do you think paid for your schooling with their taxes? And your healthcare before you were earning - and your mother's children's allowance?

It works both ways, you see.

The trouble with Socialism is that at some point you run out of other people's money

Wanderer78

Dizzyblonde wrote:

Yes, because they've been working for longer. Who do you think paid for your schooling with their taxes? And your healthcare before you were earning - and your mother's children's allowance?

Again, what has worked for older generations, is now failing for younger generations, it's time for a new game, and urgently

Dizzyblonde wrote:

The trouble with Socialism is that at some point you run out of other people's money

We actually need a new form of capitalism, as our current one is slowly collapsing. we have figured out how to create effectively endless amounts of money, without any really serious problems(debatable), but..... so there's no need for other people's money, we can just more or less leave it where it is, and create more new money

Tony EH

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

The trouble with Socialism is that at some point you run out of other people's money

Dizzyblonde

Wanderer78 wrote: »

There's no question older generations worked extremely hard for what they have, but conditions are radically different nowadays. generational differences are effectively incomparable, what worked for older generations, more than likely won't work for younger generations, the game has changed, radically, we re now at a point whereby, it's virtually impossible for younger generations to gain access to their most critical of needs, if things don't change soon, we all could fall



Oh famous last words, it's coming, it won't be easy, and sadly, it may not be peaceful

Good luck with that :pac:

I agree that things are radically different nowadays, and that's a huge challenge for governments. Of course I want to see a better world for my children and grandchildren but nobody is going to tell us we haven't worked hard to have a roof over our heads and a pension. And nobody will be taking it away from us.

Dizzyblonde

@TonyEH - You do love your labels nowadays :pac: :pac: :pac:

Yurt2

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

Yes, because they've been working for longer. Who do you think paid for your schooling with their taxes? And your healthcare before you were earning - and your mother's children's allowance?

It works both ways, you see.

The trouble with Socialism is that at some point you run out of other people's money

On the contrary, 'boomer' (I hate that word) wealth is mostly in generous pension entitlements and housing. These are the precise things that younger generations are paying through the nose for (not to mention healthcare premiums). A lot of the wealth enjoyed by that demographic is in-fact cross-subsidized by the young. And a dignified afforable propery and a dignified pension are things that a hell of a lot of young people will never see through no fault of their own.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/07/generation-y-pay-price-baby-boomer-pensions

I agree that it is a contentious issue, but I don't think it's helpful for older generations to thumb their nose at those coming behind them telling them 'they earned everything they got.' The reality is a lot of the goodies you enjoy is the result of politicians buying your votes and sending the invoice to your children to a large extent.

flynnlives

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

Yes, because they've been working for longer. Who do you think paid for your schooling with their taxes? And your healthcare before you were earning - and your mother's children's allowance?

It works both ways, you see.

The trouble with Socialism is that at some point you run out of other people's money

have you seen the price of schooling? child care? etc.
Have you noticed many are having families later on in life, some even not bothering cause they cant afford it. Why is that?

They cant even afford a deposit for a house let alone childcare. This is on top of effectively paying the same rates of tax as our parents paid. Why? because salaries have not increased in line with inflation, yet dozens and dozens of stealth taxes have appeared.

Im afraid your not cognizant of the realities of Ireland today. And that reality is about to get significantly worse. This recession is only beginning.

im sorry but my generation is coming into power and we see were the wealth is. Its inevitable that older generations are going to need to contribute more.

And your point about socialism is funny. In the 60s,70s,80s the councils built massive amounts of social housing. That generation reaped that reward. Neo-liberalism stopped all that in the 90s.
That generation who got free housing voted to end it. And now look at the mess we are in. So im sorry, that generation, the older generation benefited quite nicely from socialism.


The truth is the older generation got their goodies on credit. Then pulled the ladder up. Now its the younger generation stuck with the tab.

Tony EH

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

@TonyEH - You do love your labels nowadays :pac: :pac: :pac:

I felt it was appropriate.

I might be getting a "cease and desist" letter from Gen Z HQ though. Gen X'ers aren't allowed to use Gen Z terms, or so I believe.

Smee_Again

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

And so would I have been, if I'd been able to go to college. I'm not sure many 22 year old nowadays would want to settle down, it's a different world and there are so many opportunities to travel etc.

We had to have around £5,000 which was a huge amount back then. It took around three years. I've never implied that it's as easy or easier nowadays, but made the point that in order to save for a house, and to pay a mortgage, we had to do without a lot of luxuries and live very frugally.

I'm well aware of how hard it is nowadays, having seen my own children save and buy their houses. And some friends tell them how 'lucky they are' to have a house, when they could have theirs too if they'd been willing to save as hard and do without holidays etc for a year or two.

In the 80s we felt hard done by because houses were much cheaper in the 70s but so what? That's life, unfortunately.

Between €15K-€18K in today's money if you calculate by inflation or bench mark against average industrial wage.

Tony EH

Smee_Again wrote: »

Between €15K-€18K in today's money if you calculate by inflation or bench mark against average industrial wage.

And it wouldn't even get you a sniff of a deposit for a house in Dublin.

recyclops

Tony EH wrote: »

And it wouldn't even get you a sniff of a deposit for a house in Dublin.

Which is a large part of the problem, a lot of people want to live in the same places. I grew up in Dublin and always thought I would live there. But soon realised that there was too many people wanting to do the same and this drove prices up.

Realistically I could have done if I saved more but i didn't, i decided the time was right to buy a house in north Wicklow, so I did and it was affordable, neither myself or my now wife earned more than 30000 at the time (which was in the last 4 years)

we can still get out to nights out in Dublin, still get night-links home still see our friends, still go to gigs and football matches etc.

But between 2013-2016 very little of those things happened except having friends over, we didn't stay overnight at friends weddings as that was 200 we could have saved, no holidays and lunches brought to work.

like I said if you want to live in Dublin you save just for a little longer, same reasons above is why I dont drive a Tesla regardless of how much I would want too.

Dizzyblonde

Listen lads - I'm not going to keep defending myself, and I'm not a spokeswoman for my age group. I'm not going to hang around where I'm being told that the tough years I lived through were actually a Utopian experience. I'm very in touch with the realities of life in these tough times, and I'm not wealthy. Don't forget that what my generation worked hard for was a better life for your generation growing up. So many of us had very little as kids ourselves. We weren't all just lining our pockets for the hell of it, and we're not all sitting on pots of cash.

I wish you all the best.

markodaly

Yurt! wrote: »

No.

OK, so African Americans can also be conservative and have different thoughts and politics than you or I or your run of the mill Democratic.

Therefore the rest of your argument is Null and void based on this very principal.

Enjoy trying to paint me as racist, I've broken bread with all colours and creeds more than you've had hot dinners, it doesn't bother me in the slightest.

Would you have attacked his race if someone quoted a white-man instead of a black man?