Boomer Wealth

Yurt2

beauf wrote: »

I think you'll find the boomers aren't dependent on the younger generation. The foundations of what they have was earned before the younger generation was born.

If the younger generations "check out" all they are doing stripping the security of their older selves. They may realise this too late however.

That's not even nearly correct, pension debts and shortfalls (be they state pensions which are paid for by current expenditure) or occupational pension liabilities. I recall pension liabilities a few years back were one and a half times GDP at one stage.

Let's not even get into housing, we'll be here all day.

Again I know this is a emotive topic, but you won't get away with the fiction that generous pension arrangements get paid by magic, or a windfall property sale doesn't mean a young couple paying through the nose for it.

acorntoast

The government usually gets the biggest cut of the average inheritance.

A family of three kids. Inheritance of 100 grand in total.

33% each. Government takes 33% of each of those cuts.

Result is kid 1 gets 22 grand, kid 2 gets 22 grand, kid 3 gets 22 grand, government gets 33 grand.

We should start with reducing the governments cut!

timetogo1

acorntoast wrote: »

The government usually gets the biggest cut of the average inheritance.

A family of three kids. Inheritance of 100 grand in total.

33% each. Government takes 33% of each of those cuts.

Result is kid 1 gets 22 grand, kid 2 gets 22 grand, kid 3 gets 22 grand, government gets 33 grand.

We should start with reducing the governments cut!

While I agree with your first sentence the rest is incorrect. The tax free allowance for a kid is about €300k. In your case above, those kids would not be taxed.

In general your right though. I've paid tax all my life on every aspect of earning and spending my money. If myself & my wife died my daughter (only child) would have to pay tax on the house she's currently living in. Now that I think of it I should look into that.

The inheritance tax was probably intended to only catch rich people but didn't inflate in line with general inflation.

Former Former

acorntoast wrote: »

The government usually gets the biggest cut of the average inheritance.

A family of three kids. Inheritance of 100 grand in total.

33% each. Government takes 33% of each of those cuts.

Result is kid 1 gets 22 grand, kid 2 gets 22 grand, kid 3 gets 22 grand, government gets 33 grand.

We should start with reducing the governments cut!

This isn't even remotely correct.

Each child gets 335k tax free. In a three child family, the estate will have to be worth 1 million before the government gets a penny.

Heres Johnny

acorntoast wrote: »

The government usually gets the biggest cut of the average inheritance.

A family of three kids. Inheritance of 100 grand in total.

33% each. Government takes 33% of each of those cuts.

Result is kid 1 gets 22 grand, kid 2 gets 22 grand, kid 3 gets 22 grand, government gets 33 grand.

We should start with reducing the governments cut!

Not even close to being correct

beauf

Yurt! wrote: »

That's not even nearly correct, pension debts and shortfalls (be they state pensions which are paid for by current expenditure) or occupational pension liabilities. I recall pension liabilities a few years back were one and a half times GDP at one stage.

Let's not even get into housing, we'll be here all day.

Again I know this is a emotive topic, but you won't get away with the fiction that generous pension arrangements get paid by magic, or a windfall property sale doesn't mean a young couple paying through the nose for it.

The solution to that is self fund your pension or create an income stream for yourself that will continue after you stop working, or plan to never stop working.

You avoid the rat race in housing by providing your own. But that may involve compromise in location, country and quality.

Few are prepared to do that.

Remember once you do get older the generations beneath you will want to asset strip you. That's quite the motivator.

beauf

timetogo1 wrote: »

While I agree with your first sentence the rest is incorrect. The tax free allowance for a kid is about €300k. In your case above, those kids would not be taxed.

In general your right though. I've paid tax all my life on every aspect of earning and spending my money. If myself & my wife died my daughter (only child) would have to pay tax on the house she's currently living in. Now that I think of it I should look into that.

The inheritance tax was probably intended to only catch rich people but didn't inflate in line with general inflation.

Interestingly one of the great incentives is to provide for your family and children.

If you were told no matter how much extra you work you earn that you will be paid the same That does not encourage you to work harder.

lainey_d_123

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

True - I was 22 when we bought our house. We'd been saving hard since I was 19 though. Not many 19-22 year olds nowadays would be willing to do the same, but they were different times. For most of us college wasn't an option because our parents needed us to be working and supporting ourselves, and that's another reason why we settled down so young.

Ooooh saving for three whole years and buying at the ancient age of 22, ...what a hardship indeed :rolleyes:

Have you any idea what it's like for people under 40ish, particularly those now in their mid thirties who like myself graduated into the 2008 crisis? I had to move out of home at 18 because of my family situation, went to college, worked hard, got a good degree and then graduated into a dumpster fire. I ended up emigrating (love how this is glossed over when it's millennials - the Boomers emigrated and that was so noble, but when millennials were forced to do the same it was, what , a piss up?) and was never out of work, but I was always just about getting by, could never save a penny, mostly because of astronomical rent costs.

It took me into well into my thirties to get on my feet after years of underemployment, and I can save now, but I'm 35 and still quite a few years off buying even a very modest small flat, simply because of how much of my paycheck is taken up with rent. My sister and her partner have only now just been able to buy, aged 33 and 35.

I'm really tired of Boomers acting as if millennials are just too lazy or too incompetent to buy houses, when their generation were lucky enough to be able to get houses relatively easily and at young ages, houses which then hugely increased in value and created lots of wealth without them doing anything at all. How is that anything but luck? Not content with having their own secure homes, lots of Boomers then bought additional properties to rent out, basically hogging the housing stock so that younger people who couldn't afford to buy them had to rent them, and for a huge proportion of their salary. And then they turn around and ask why younger people don't just work harder.

beauf

Boomers bought properties to provide a pension that the state wasn't going to. The vast majority bought one. Hardly profiteering. They are being hounded out of the market to be replaced by companies drivenb solely by profit with vast amounts of properties.

No one is forced to live here. You could move somewhere with a better cost to quality of life balance.

PokeHerKing

This thread reminds me of that Simpsons episode of the kids Vs adults. You're only here because marge forgot her pill. What a line!

Former Former

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

I'm really tired of Boomers acting as if millennials are just too lazy or too incompetent to buy houses.

Threads like this aren't helping that particular cause.

Dizzyblonde

lainey_d_123 wrote: »

Ooooh saving for three whole years and buying at the ancient age of 22, ...what a hardship indeed :rolleyes:

Have you any idea what it's like for people under 40ish, particularly those now in their mid thirties who like myself graduated into the 2008 crisis? I had to move out of home at 18 because of my family situation, went to college, worked hard, got a good degree and then graduated into a dumpster fire. I ended up emigrating (love how this is glossed over when it's millennials - the Boomers emigrated and that was so noble, but when millennials were forced to do the same it was, what , a piss up?) and was never out of work, but I was always just about getting by, could never save a penny, mostly because of astronomical rent costs.

It took me into well into my thirties to get on my feet after years of underemployment, and I can save now, but I'm 35 and still quite a few years off buying even a very modest small flat, simply because of how much of my paycheck is taken up with rent. My sister and her partner have only now just been able to buy, aged 33 and 35.

I'm really tired of Boomers acting as if millennials are just too lazy or too incompetent to buy houses, when their generation were lucky enough to be able to get houses relatively easily and at young ages, houses which then hugely increased in value and created lots of wealth without them doing anything at all. How is that anything but luck? Not content with having their own secure homes, lots of Boomers then bought additional properties to rent out, basically hogging the housing stock so that younger people who couldn't afford to buy them had to rent them, and for a huge proportion of their salary. And then they turn around and ask why younger people don't just work harder.

Yes I do. Both my daughters are in their 30s and have bought homes in the past few years - and worked bloody hard to do it.

I've said all along how difficult it is today, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was difficult for us too. You're just going to have to take my word for that - or not, I don't care.

I'm not so naive as to think that anyone in your generation could save and buy a home, but that is not the fault of my generation. You are the one who's generalising and tarring all of my age group with the same brush.

I'll tell you one difference between my generation and a lot of yours - we didn't whinge and blame all our woes on others.

Yurt2

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

Yes I do. Both my daughters are in their 30s and have bought homes in the past few years - and worked bloody hard to do it.

I've said all along how difficult it is today, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was difficult for us too. You're just going to have to take my word for that - or not, I don't care.

I'm not so naive as to think that anyone in your generation could save and buy a home, but that is not the fault of my generation. You are the one who's generalising and tarring all of my age group with the same brush.

I'll tell you one difference between my generation and a lot of yours - we didn't whinge and blame all our woes on others.

Without turning this into a generation v generation thing, you and I know too many people of your vintage to know that's utter b*llocks

PokeHerKing

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

Yes I do. Both my daughters are in their 30s and have bought homes in the past few years - and worked bloody hard to do it.

I've said all along how difficult it is today, but that doesn't take away from the fact that it was difficult for us too. You're just going to have to take my word for that - or not, I don't care.

I'm not so naive as to think that anyone in your generation could save and buy a home, but that is not the fault of my generation. You are the one who's generalising and tarring all of my age group with the same brush.

I'll tell you one difference between my generation and a lot of yours - we didn't whinge and blame all our woes on others.

I'm sure many did, only difference was the only people listening were sitting near them in the boozer.

Now you can get on the Internet and tell the whole world.

Former Former

The thrust of this thread is that people who came into the workforce in Ireland in the 70s and 80s had it easy.

That alone should be enough to tell you that it's all a load of bollocks.

(I came into the workforce in 2002 btw.)

Dizzyblonde

beauf wrote: »

Boomers bought properties to provide a pension that the state wasn't going to. The vast majority bought one. Hardly profiteering. They are being hounded out of the market to be replaced by companies drivenb solely by profit with vast amounts of properties.

No one is forced to live here. You could move somewhere with a better cost to quality of life balance.

Another point that a lot of people are either unaware of, or ignoring - in the last recession a huge amount of pensions that so-called Boomers had been paying into for decades were wiped out practically overnight.

We're a generation who thought that because we'd worked hard and not lived beyond our means, that we'd be resting on our laurels by the time we were in our 50s and 60s. Very few people I know are in that happy position. We're supporting our children and providing free childcare etc in order to help them to pay their mortgages.

The J Stands for Jay

coinop wrote: »

Can we please stop romaticising the 1940s and 1950s? Horrible, grim, depressing times to live in, especially in Ireland. Today's millennials begrudging the older generation's ability to buy a house on one income is downright disrespectful. Maybe if you sacrificed your biannual holiday trips to Lanzarote and New York, cooked at home instead of ordering Dominos pizza, and cut out your childish videogame addiction, then maybe you could afford to buy a home too. Today's youth have a massive sense of entitlement to a life of comfort. No WiFi for a couple of hours is considered an unbearable hardship (this is becoming increasingly evident too in the Direct Provision system where ungrateful (bogus?) asylum seekers turn their noses up at food they consider inferior to five star cuisine, but we'll leave that for another thread). Our grandmothers did not have washing machines and doing the laundry was a whole day affair. Modern household appliances such as the vacuum cleaner, dishwasher, microwave etc. have made life immeasurably more convenient for today's youth and they take it all for granted because they've never known a world without it. Grow up.

All these things you mention that should be given up to fund a house cost **** all. And that's before you compare them to the cost of a house.

Dizzyblonde

PokeHerKing wrote: »

I'm sure many did, only difference was the only people listening were sitting near them in the boozer.

Now you can get on the Internet and tell the whole world.

Maybe so - I wouldn't know because I wasn't in the boozer

beauf

If you were to look at some of these houses that are now unaffordable.

They were probably built with one bathroom, no Central heating, single glazing, basic kitchen. Basic materials and finishes. Often in the middle of nowhere with no facilities near them.

Could you buy something similar today at a reasonable price. Then upgrade it over 20 yrs and gamble that it's a good investment? Probably.

Feisar

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

I get it all right. I'm not sure what you're actually looking for here - we saved, we bought a house, we lived hand to mouth for years while interest rates were through the roof and income tax was high. You might not think that's anything to be proud of but I do. I'm also proud of my kids who struggled and bought their own homes too, in the past few years.

It's difficult today, more difficult in some ways. Nobody is disputing that.

Yea but yer supposed to be able to swam around the globe, "find" yerself in Bali and come home at thirty and buy a house!

Dizzyblonde

McGaggs wrote: »

All these things you mention that should be given up to fund a house cost **** all. And that's before you compare them to the cost of a house.

You're wrong, it's precisely that sort of sacrifice, among other bigger ones that is needed.

lainey_d_123

blanch152 wrote: »

The people growing up in the 1980s didn't have foreign holidays, many families didn't own even one car, they didn't have gym memberships, they didn't get a latte on the way to work in the morning, they had hand-me-down clothes and certainly didn't have NIKEs etc. and lost more besides. A meal in a restaurant, even a chipper was a once a year occasion.

To buy that three up/two down house, a lot of sacrifices therefore had to made and they were often in their early 30s before they could afford it. The same sacrifices today would make it possible, it's just that people aren't prepared to make them. And that's ok, them's the choices, I don't have a problem with them making those choices, it's the whinging about it afterwards that's the problem.

This argument is just silly. They didn't have any of those things because they mostly didn't exist. It's not as if there were lattes and great restaurants and they were choosing to go without - they didn't exist.

Talking about today's 'luxuries' and giving them as a reason why young people can't afford houses is just silly. Things like broadband aren't a luxury - you need an internet connection to do almost anything these days. It's every bit as essential as a landline was in the 80s. So are mobile phones, because most people no longer have landlines.

Also, the things which did use to be luxuries are now far far cheaper than they were, while the things which used to be essentials are far more expensive. I can get a week in Lanzarote for under £300 all in, but I need £40,000 for a flat deposit. See the difference? The holiday is a drop in the ocean.

The pandemic has shown me once and for all that this idea that all us millennials waste our money on rubbish is utter sh1te. I've been stuck at home for 6 months, have barely gone out at all or ordered anything to the house. 6 months of solid saving almost every penny I earn. You know how much extra I've managed to save every month? About £200. That was my whole disposable income after essentials, because I was already very frugal, already bringing my own coffee to work, packed lunch, second hand clothes, etc.

So I live like a hermit and have no social life and nothing nice in my life to save an extra £2400 a year...6% of what I need for a deposit, and the Boomers wonder why so many of us just stop trying.

Wanderer78

Dizzyblonde wrote:

We're a generation who thought that because we'd worked hard and not lived beyond our means, that we'd be resting on our laurels by the time we were in our 50s and 60s. Very few people I know are in that happy position. We're supporting our children and providing free childcare etc in order to help them to pay their mortgages.

Be wary of statements such as 'living beyond our means', it's generally used by economic conservatives to justify the unjustifiable

PokeHerKing

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

Maybe so - I wouldn't know because I wasn't in the boozer

Touché

lainey_d_123

Dizzyblonde wrote: »

Another point that a lot of people are either unaware of, or ignoring - in the last recession a huge amount of pensions that so-called Boomers had been paying into for decades were wiped out practically overnight.

We're a generation who thought that because we'd worked hard and not lived beyond our means, that we'd be resting on our laurels by the time we were in our 50s and 60s. Very few people I know are in that happy position. We're supporting our children and providing free childcare etc in order to help them to pay their mortgages.

But only because your generation voted for policies which created this situation in the first place!

And what about those of us who can't rely on family to provide free childcare because parents are still working or unwilling? That means paying out another fortune in creche fees every month on top of the astronomical rent costs and everything else.

osarusan

I'm seeling a lot of variations of the 'avocado on toast' agrument - that if the pampered youth of today gave up their luxuries they'd be able to afford homes too.

The argument ignores the reality of the changes in the cost of housing relative to salaries and the cost of living, and consequently that the pampered youth of today could make all of the sacrifices their apparently uncomplaining stalwart parents and grandparents did and still be nowhere near buying a home for themselves.

Wanderer78

osarusan wrote:

The argument ignores the reality of the changes in the cost of housing relative to salaries and the cost of living, and consequently that the pampered youth of today could make all of the sacrifices their apparently uncomplaining stalwart parents and grandparents did and still be nowhere near buying a home for themselves.

Reckon if they gave up everything, including eating and clothing themselves, they probably still couldn't manage it

Feisar

osarusan wrote: »

I'm seeling a lot of variations of the 'avocado on toast' agrument - that if the pampered youth of today gave up their luxuries they'd be able to afford homes too.

The argument ignores the reality of the changes in the cost of housing relative to salaries and the cost of living, and consequently that the pampered youth of today could make all of the sacrifices their apparently uncomplaining stalwart parents and grandparents did and still be nowhere near buying a home for themselves.

I'm sort of tossing this debate back and forth in my head. I remember growing up and there was nothing extra in the house. A Vienetta was a big treat as a birthday cake. XMas prezzies were small, hand-me-downs the norm. I don't know if bottled water was a thing, I certainly don't remember it. Meals out? Never happened. I don't remember it but talking to my parents, interest rates were mental. We used to rent the VCR along with tapes. I remember Dad buying one second hand one time, it was a big deal. Steak for dinner was a big treat.

Now on the other hand the basics seam to be much higher. One needs Netflix/broadband/whatever. Chai Lattés the norm. It seems there are far more avenues to spend money these days and also when one looks around everyone else is at it. I remember a few years ago a lad crying about a deposit in one breath and talking about his skiing trip in the next.
The thing is though, who is buying these houses, only so many power couples about.

Limpy

A boomer family I know had the Apartment they lived in paid off, a 2 acre site used as an allotment and a steady Pension.

One day they signed a Loan Gaurantee for the Son who Borrowed over his head, business went bust and the banks came looking. Now the bank sold the apartment & site and take a cut of the pensions untill they die. Sad situation.

Wanderer78

Limpy wrote:

One day they signed a Loan Gaurantee for the Son who Borrowed over his head, business went bust and the banks came looking. Now the bank sold the apartment & site and take a cut of the pensions untill they die. Sad situation.

Jesus, some really got hammered, it does happen, unfortunately