Ageism should we tolerate it?

Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
16,334
Location
Gloucestershire
I would imagine most people have bought their own home.

Those that made a good deal was under Thatchers right to buy. When people were buying their council houses at a reduced rate and then went on to sell them for a higher premium. A lot of that went on in my town. Most people did it. I think all of the semi-detached houses on my road used to be owned by the council. But today only one is owned by the council.
Bro, I've made nearly a quarter of a million quid on my house in a decade just for owning it. I did nothing to earn that, nor did I pay for it. Purely unearned.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
12,160
Location
5 degrees starboard
Yet another click bait thread, OMG the old have all the money. The Who wrote a song about it in 1970 and it played at the Isle of Wight Festival that year. I was there. I was an impoverished student.
In 20 odd years most people posting here are likely to be fairly well off. It took me until my fifties to be comfortable, kids away from home, less outgoings, better salary. It happens all the time.
 
Soldato
Joined
9 Mar 2012
Posts
13,841
Most were working instead of going to Uni.

Now we have mass unpaid loans. You want to have a go at older people yet you give that situation a pass.

Why should I pay for your childs school dinner? I hope that was your joke?

Why should you pay for it? Well the older lot got theirs for free so how about they start paying that back? As for mass unpaid loans, thats ridiculously dramatic. Inflated tuition fees which need a student loan at silly interest isnt a benefit is it especially when its to pay for something that was free until 98.

You're acting like the younger generation have struck gold by being born when they were.
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2002
Posts
7,404
Location
Near Cheltenham
Re: Child Poverty

The subject is fraught with definitions of terminology. Poverty in all financial definitions seems to be be <60% of the median salary/income.. It does not include any measure of hardship or other.. If we all got given a 500% pay rise next week, we'd still have the same levels of 'poverty' as we do now..

People throw the word around because it's politically convenient.. This is why most children growing up in 'poverty' are simply not..

Destitute is the word you are all looking for.. that is defined in most cases as "as people who went without 2 or more essentials in the past month because they couldn't afford them, or their income is extremely low"

I grew up in a very poor (sometimes destitute!) family.. but my parents clothed/fed and looked after us.. Aside from some harsh comments from other school kids, I wouldn't have changed a thing, we found lots of cheap things to do and I only see it as a positive.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Jun 2003
Posts
88,618
Location
Falling...
How does it create financial insecurity? If they sold an additional property it turns speculative funds in to liquid funds. Far more useful.
If they sell their main property to downsize again, more security. Access to liquid cash for immediate needs. Lower council tax bill. Lower energy usage.

Wait you're suggesting the pensioners have more than 1 property? Because that's an exception rather than a rule I'd have thought. If they do then I agree with you entirely they're not in a bad shape. However the 65+ I know only have 1 property more often than not worth less than 500k.

If that's all the money you have in the world, and you live another 20 years at least, that's a lot of worry to put on your shoulders. Especially if you still want to be able to host family and friends etc... and live a decent quality of life. Remember you're not receiving income other than pension - generally, of course some 65+ still work and so on.

I mean I'm not totally against your point, most older people are drawing down a pension and can survive / exist. But who wants to survive and exist when you've worked hard all your life. 60+ should be a time to enjoy life a bit more and having to worry about money again is a fairly exhausting thing to have to do. Furthermore, you will likely use some of your cash to support grandkids etc... at least that's what I plan on doing with some of my retirement plans. Travel, relax, and support my children and/or their children.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Jun 2003
Posts
88,618
Location
Falling...
Bro, I've made nearly a quarter of a million quid on my house in a decade just for owning it. I did nothing to earn that, nor did I pay for it. Purely unearned.

But you'd have to either get a mortgage or equity release and go into debt again or downsize to get that money. Now if you have multiple properties, then yes you're living the high life, but 1 property that you live in that accrues value doesn't necessarily mean you have a huge amount of wealth to spend. It's a last chance security blanket from my perspective - if it all goes to **** you can get some equity release or remortgage but it's not as if you're then out of the woods in the long term.

I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree - I just have a different perspective. :) Perhaps I'm wrong (happens more than I'm right! :D )
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Dec 2012
Posts
16,334
Location
Gloucestershire
But you'd have to either get a mortgage or equity release and go into debt again or downsize to get that money. Now if you have multiple properties, then yes you're living the high life, but 1 property that you live in that accrues value doesn't necessarily mean you have a huge amount of wealth to spend. It's a last chance security blanket from my perspective - if it all goes to **** you can get some equity release or remortgage but it's not as if you're then out of the woods in the long term.

I'm not saying you're wrong or that I disagree - I just have a different perspective. :) Perhaps I'm wrong (happens more than I'm right! :D )
But it's an unearned wealth disparity with following generations.

It may be that the elderly homeowner doesn't benefit by things getting better for them but, in generational terms, they benefit by standing still whilst younger people become worse off.
 
Soldato
Joined
1 Mar 2010
Posts
12,160
Location
5 degrees starboard
I mean I'm not totally against your point, most older people are drawing down a pension and can survive / exist. But who wants to survive and exist when you've worked hard all your life. 60+ should be a time to enjoy life a bit more and having to worry about money again is a fairly exhausting thing to have to do. Furthermore, you will likely use some of your cash to support grandkids etc... at least that's what I plan on doing with some of my retirement plans. Travel, relax, and support my children and/or their children.

No, we should be punished for having the temerity to be born when we were. We should wear sackcloth and ashes, walking around crying 'mea culpa' beating ourselves with hazel sticks.

Most people of all ages are reasonably well off and are able to support a family, hold down a job and find somewhere to live. This all gets easier as you grow older. Some would have it that everybody is on the breadline.
 
Permabanned
Joined
12 May 2022
Posts
284
Location
In the cloud
Wouldn't it be more the children of the older gen that will reap the benefit though?
Not the Older gen as it's not their fault there has been a massive increase in population while there being a lack of affordable housing being built
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Jun 2003
Posts
88,618
Location
Falling...
But it's an unearned wealth disparity with following generations.

It may be that the elderly homeowner doesn't benefit by things getting better for them but, in generational terms, they benefit by standing still whilst younger people become worse off.
Isn't that just how it is though? The young and able work, you grow old, you stop working and enjoy retirement? Although I know plenty of 65+ who still do work.

It's always been like that hasn't it? The young have to work their arse off to "make it" and then relax? I mean I'm sure in 40 years time the young will also be having a go at us gen x'ers (or millenials too I guess) for not contributing to society etc... and just being lucky to have been born when we were.

That's one thing you can't change - when you're born so it seems a little ridiculous to castigate a generation because of something that was out of their control.

victims of circumstance, sure... but you just have to deal with the cards you're dealt.

Again I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm just cogitating whilst I sit on a train. :)
 
Soldato
Joined
22 Oct 2002
Posts
7,404
Location
Near Cheltenham
And yet your mother now owns a £285k house?

You think the current 'destitute' parents will get that opportunity?
Yes,

They decided that being poor wasn't fun, so do you know what, they Moved.. moved where the work opportunities where better, retrained and got better jobs.. That wasn't until I was mid-teens

And this is the thing, sometimes you have to help yourself..

No surprise I've also moved around to find the right job/salary and lifestyle, I got that drive from my parents..
 
Last edited:
Soldato
Joined
14 Jan 2018
Posts
10,595
Location
Hampshire
Isn't that just how it is though? The young and able work, you grow old, you stop working and enjoy retirement? Although I know plenty of 65+ who still do work.

It's always been like that hasn't it? The young have to work their arse off to "make it" and then relax? I mean I'm sure in 40 years time the young will also be having a go at us gen x'ers (or millenials too I guess) for not contributing to society etc... and just being lucky to have been born when we were.

That's one thing you can't change - when you're born so it seems a little ridiculous to castigate a generation because of something that was out of their control.

victims of circumstance, sure... but you just have to deal with the cards you're dealt.

Again I'm not saying you're incorrect, I'm just cogitating whilst I sit on a train. :)

No, what people moan about is having opportunities removed which the older generations took for granted and then being castigated by those older people for not buying a house because they seem to think the reason young people cant buy houses is because they buy too many coffees and avocados.
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
11,947
Wouldn't it be more the children of the older gen that will reap the benefit though?
Not the Older gen as it's not their fault there has been a massive increase in population while there being a lack of affordable housing being built
No because they are living longer.

Also, older gen were the folk responsible for today. You know, seeds planted prior and all that.
 
Caporegime
Joined
23 Dec 2011
Posts
29,567
Location
Northern England
Wait you're suggesting the pensioners have more than 1 property? Because that's an exception rather than a rule I'd have thought. If they do then I agree with you entirely they're not in a bad shape. However the 65+ I know only have 1 property more often than not worth less than 500k.

If that's all the money you have in the world, and you live another 20 years at least, that's a lot of worry to put on your shoulders. Especially if you still want to be able to host family and friends etc... and live a decent quality of life. Remember you're not receiving income other than pension - generally, of course some 65+ still work and so on.

I mean I'm not totally against your point, most older people are drawing down a pension and can survive / exist. But who wants to survive and exist when you've worked hard all your life. 60+ should be a time to enjoy life a bit more and having to worry about money again is a fairly exhausting thing to have to do. Furthermore, you will likely use some of your cash to support grandkids etc... at least that's what I plan on doing with some of my retirement plans. Travel, relax, and support my children and/or their children.

Read the stats. It is beyond dispute that statistically those beyond working age are wealthier than those within it. Even to the point they are earning more. Let that truly sink in. Those not directly contributing to economic production are benefitting from it more than those that are. That's insane and completely unsustainable. That's why we need exponential migration just to keep our economy going. That's why those working are now having to pay new and higher taxes. They're facing further punitive measures to support the poor decision making of the generations that are now better off than ever before.
These are the same people that have had two years of massive restrictions to protect those generations.
Additionally you say these people have worked hard all their life to afford x or y, the problem is they didn't pay enough in to get what they are receiving. That is the fundental problem.
Yours and my taxes aren't paying to support you or me. We're paying to prop up the pensions of the previous generations who did not pay enough. They often paid what was asked of them, yes, but it simply was not enough.
They reaped the benefits of taxes that were far lower than they should have been.

Another couple of points for you, other incomes do exist, there are both state and private pensions as well as returns on investments including dividends, interest payments and the direct sale of shares etc. These are taken in to account in the stats posted.

You are, like too many others, focused on a limited window of people in their 60s, the poorer ones. The rest of us are discussing the demographic as a whole vs the other demographics as a whole.
Iceland aren't just providing a discount for the poor, they're providing a discount for everyone based on just one discriminatory characteristic.

Also as someone has just said, they and their family moved to better their life due to economic pressures. That goes both ways. Move to a cheaper area. Move to a smaller house. Free up stored wealth.
I'll use myself as an example, I pay a decent wedge in to my mortgage which allows me to live in a nice big house in a nice area.
I could invest this money differently.
Does this give me a more of a right to continue living in the same home when I'm old vs someone who is putting their savings in to say bullion?
 
Permabanned
Joined
12 May 2022
Posts
284
Location
In the cloud
Why do stats , chart and graphs mean more that people lived experience of situation in life?
They all come across much like posting a tweet from an unknown stranger being used to prove a point.
We can't take stats on face value as it shows what you want them to show can we?
Who was behind the creation of said stats and what are their political motivations?
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Jun 2003
Posts
88,618
Location
Falling...
No, what people moan about is having opportunities removed which the older generations took for granted and then being castigated by those older people for not buying a house because they seem to think the reason young people cant buy houses is because they buy too many coffees and avocados.
Those avocados won't eat themselves!

I find it funny how avocados are a "thing". But as you say, I took it for granted growing up in the Med where they were plentiful and normal...

Each generation has its challenges. Whether its inflation, economic crashes, world wars, pandemics, climate change etc... It's always easy to try and find something/someone to blame.

With regards to OAPs getting a bit of a discount in a bargain basement store, it really isn't all that big of a deal. If it helps people eat cheaply (regardless of quality) then surely that's worthwhile?
 
Soldato
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Posts
11,947
With regards to OAPs getting a bit of a discount in a bargain basement store, it really isn't all that big of a deal. If it helps people eat cheaply (regardless of quality) then surely that's worthwhile?
Corporate discounts aren't just Iceland making less margin. The slack is picked up by their other products. Ergo the people below 60 are subsidising those over 60, yet again.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Jun 2003
Posts
88,618
Location
Falling...
Read the stats. It is beyond dispute that statistically those beyond working age are wealthier than those within it. Even to the point they are earning more. Let that truly sink in. Those not directly contributing to economic production are benefitting from it more than those that are. That's insane and completely unsustainable. That's why we need exponential migration just to keep our economy going. That's why those working are now having to pay new and higher taxes. They're facing further punitive measures to support the poor decision making of the generations that are now better off than ever before.
These are the same people that have had two years of massive restrictions to protect those generations.
Additionally you say these people have worked hard all their life to afford x or y, the problem is they didn't pay enough in to get what they are receiving. That is the fundental problem.
Yours and my taxes aren't paying to support you or me. We're paying to prop up the pensions of the previous generations who did not pay enough. They often paid what was asked of them, yes, but it simply was not enough.
They reaped the benefits of taxes that were far lower than they should have been.

Another couple of points for you, other incomes do exist, there are both state and private pensions as well as returns on investments including dividends, interest payments and the direct sale of shares etc. These are taken in to account in the stats posted.

You are, like too many others, focused on a limited window of people in their 60s, the poorer ones. The rest of us are discussing the demographic as a whole vs the other demographics as a whole.
Iceland aren't just providing a discount for the poor, they're providing a discount for everyone based on just one discriminatory characteristic.

Also as someone has just said, they and their family moved to better their life due to economic pressures. That goes both ways. Move to a cheaper area. Move to a smaller house. Free up stored wealth.
I'll use myself as an example, I pay a decent wedge in to my mortgage which allows me to live in a nice big house in a nice area.
I could invest this money differently.
Does this give me a more of a right to continue living in the same home when I'm old vs someone who is putting their savings in to say bullion?
Similar to you I'm ploughing most of my earnings into pension so that I can retire earlier than normal and have a high quality of life once I retire. Though as you say, I will probably not be in the country when I do. Free up some space for the next generation and put some cash back into the economy etc...

They paid enough at the time, the value of money changes. If I had £1m now, in 30 years time if I still had £1m it wouldn't be worth the same, i.e. my buying power decreases over time (usually).

It doesn't bother me paying taxes to have a more equitable life for everyone, I mean don't get me wrong I hate paying taxes but I don't mind if they're well invested and offer those that need it with a framework that provides a minimal standard of quality of life.

As I said, you're probably right, but I dont' think the data/stats are that black and white a picture of what actually someone's wealth/lifestyle actually means. I do agree, about moving where you have to to succeed, I've done the same (globally), and would do it tomorrow if the opportunity came up. I'm happy not to have my cake and eat it just because, but I do want to eat my cake if I've done enough to deserve it - which I think the majority of OAPs probably have? Perhaps I'm too optimistic and forgiving and blindly trusting of the societal construct we have.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Jun 2003
Posts
88,618
Location
Falling...
Corporate discounts aren't just Iceland making less margin. The slack is picked up by their other products. Ergo the people below 60 are subsidising those over 60, yet again.

Can't say it bothers me. But I guess I can understand why people feel neglected by the focus on the older generations - "what about me" is not surprising.
 
Top Bottom