Boomer life according to the economist
Discussion
The Leaper said:
SunsetZed said:
mwstewart said:
NRS said:
...data..
On a similar theme I read a staggering statistic yesterday: 54.4% of the UK population receive more in benefits than they pay in tax. ONS data.I do blame weak government leadership for that one.
R.
havoc said:
Steve H said:
Really interesting discussion 
Just on the old people outvoting the young, it not just happening because they are the bigger number of voters. This is the participation levels in recent elections across different age groups.
It looks like the tendency to vote is changing but certainly needs to! If things like the triple lock are an issue to young people then they need to make themselves more important by using the vote they have available to them.
There's the headache - utter disillusionment with politics. If Starmer could find a way to engage with younger people, he'd be a shoe-in.Just on the old people outvoting the young, it not just happening because they are the bigger number of voters. This is the participation levels in recent elections across different age groups.
It looks like the tendency to vote is changing but certainly needs to! If things like the triple lock are an issue to young people then they need to make themselves more important by using the vote they have available to them.
Edited by SunsetZed on Friday 5th April 17:22
Steve H said:
Really interesting discussion
It looks like the tendency to vote is changing but certainly needs to! If things like the triple lock are an issue to young people then they need to make themselves more important by using the vote they have available to them.
Probably disillusioned. I was never really that into politics and I'm 50, I have only voted once ever and that was the EU referendum.It looks like the tendency to vote is changing but certainly needs to! If things like the triple lock are an issue to young people then they need to make themselves more important by using the vote they have available to them.
I've lived almost exclusively in one Tory stronghold, where your vote regardless of persuasion was pretty pointless. Defeatist perhaps (if I'd been minded to vote for another party) but the setup doesn't lend itself to your vote counting evenly (whereas the referendum did), that UKIP got so many votes that time and so few seats shows it's rigged to the bigger two parties and then they have drifted closer together (than perhaps ever?) on policy over the years?
Who is talking to youngsters about possible Student loan reductions, perhaps for certain fields, perhaps even abolition, who is coming up with housing solutions for them, talking about how they wish to see college/University leavers have a realistic pathway to creating a family household of their own, talking about the burdens those have now that they didn't have to endure.
Perhaps they think the youth are all climate fanatics, but boil it down they are no different to us when we were young in that, if possible, they want to work/have a career and settle down with a family, with the odd bit of fun along the way. Really that's what life is about, you just have different types and frequencies of cars, holidays, clothes, meals, etc etc but now we are endangering this possibility of even having a simple life.
Run the numbers on a single guy trying to become a bread winning homebuyer with a 'stay at home mum' wife, just on our gut feel we know this will be hard, nigh on impossible without assistance) and the youth aren't so stupid as to realise this......for the 'carrot and stick' to work you have to believe the carrot can be reached.
Scootersp said:
...but boil it down they are no different to us when we were young in that, if possible, they want to work/have a career and settle down with a family, with the odd bit of fun along the way. Really that's what life is about, you just have different types and frequencies of cars, holidays, clothes, meals, etc etc but now we are endangering this possibility of even having a simple life.
Run the numbers on a single guy trying to become a bread winning homebuyer with a 'stay at home mum' wife, just on our gut feel we know this will be hard, nigh on impossible without assistance) and the youth aren't so stupid as to realise this......for the 'carrot and stick' to work you have to believe the carrot can be reached.
This is what every commentator is saying, each with a different inflection / starting point.Run the numbers on a single guy trying to become a bread winning homebuyer with a 'stay at home mum' wife, just on our gut feel we know this will be hard, nigh on impossible without assistance) and the youth aren't so stupid as to realise this......for the 'carrot and stick' to work you have to believe the carrot can be reached.
What no one is saying out loud is that if you take all hope away from people, you'd better have a good escape plan...
havoc said:
What no one is saying out loud is that if you take all hope away from people, you'd better have a good escape plan...
Well, I guess that's where we are. Conservatives unelectable and Labour prudently saying very little about what they might or might not get up to once in power.Lest ye forget: the same electorate voted for Boris Johnson a few year back. Do they feel let down? Well, maybe just a tad. Those sunny uplands he promised seem strangely far away.
Has there ever, ever, been a greater political comedy/tragedy than "The Department for Levelling up"?
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/depart...
Slow.Patrol said:
n someways the younger generation do have more.
I think we all know that a 100 quit did get you further in the 1980 than 2024. So a larger income is like a smokescreen
havoc said:
The even sadder thing is in the UK that the wealth divide is bigger than at any point since the Victorian era, and the government has WASTED tens of £billions on stupid schemes and corrupt Covid procurement. All this aggro between Boomers and Gen-Y should be directed at those at the top who are f
king the remaining 99% of us over - fix that problem and the Boomers can retire quietly while Gen-Y will actually be able to afford stuff.
Wealth divides and inequality are not that bad, bad is the the resignation. Envy is an engine driving you to commit to an higher effort to make it. In kids it works, in adults less as violence comes into play. king the remaining 99% of us over - fix that problem and the Boomers can retire quietly while Gen-Y will actually be able to afford stuff.Edited by NickZ24 on Sunday 7th April 23:52
NickZ24 said:
havoc said:
The even sadder thing is in the UK that the wealth divide is bigger than at any point since the Victorian era, and the government has WASTED tens of £billions on stupid schemes and corrupt Covid procurement. All this aggro between Boomers and Gen-Y should be directed at those at the top who are fking the remaining 99% of us over - fix that problem and the Boomers can retire quietly while Gen-Y will actually be able to afford stuff.
Wealth divides and inequality are not that bad, bad is the the resignation. Envy is an engine driving you to commit to an higher effort to make it. In kids it works, in adults less as violence comes into play. king the remaining 99% of us over - fix that problem and the Boomers can retire quietly while Gen-Y will actually be able to afford stuff."Resignation" - yes, to a degree. But that only applies where people feel like they've got a shot - it needs hope alongside the envy. And if you look at (in particular) housing prices now, there's an entire generation or two who have no hope unless their families are able to give them a leg-up...which is essentially going back to Victorian/Edwardian lack of social mobility. The combination of largely stagnant wages vs inflation over the last 15+ years and rapidly growing real house prices is essentially pricing many of the young - not just singles or single-income families - out of the housing market. And before you say "save up" - look at rental costs, which have also grown at the same rate. The only way the young can save up is to live with their parents - something Boomers and Gen-X were NEVER forced to do, and something which isn't great psychologically.
Ref. the rest of your point, I'm not sure how you can say wealth divides and inequality aren't that bad.
This is a good website, and note in particular our Gini-coefficient vs the rest of the world (fig 3).
https://ifs.org.uk/articles/income-and-wealth-ineq...
IFS said:
...it is largely the degree of inequality between high- and middle- income people that sets the UK apart from many of its comparators."
i.e. the very-rich are raking it in vs everyone else.Also here, and note the share of the Top-1%, which is approximately the same as the remaining 99%!
https://www.ft.com/content/d52743ca-c669-4c71-941f...
More here too:-
https://equalitytrust.org.uk/scale-economic-inequa...
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunit...
In particular - note how the 20th century trend towards MORE equality stalls then reverses c.1990:-
I'm an accountant, and a decently successful one - I'm no left-wing socialist loony. But being an accountant means I can see what's happening. And none of this s
t is good for British society.For those interested in a few statistics, this is an interesting blog
https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/somethings-got-to-g...
It seems the over 85s are the problem and not the Boomers.
I quite like Neil O'Brien. He seems well informed for a Conservative MP.
https://www.neilobrien.co.uk/p/somethings-got-to-g...
It seems the over 85s are the problem and not the Boomers.
I quite like Neil O'Brien. He seems well informed for a Conservative MP.
I am not an accountant or a left wing looney but before we eat the rich we should probably consider how much is being funded by them………
The bottom 50% of earners only pay 10% of the income tax. The top 1% pays over 25%.
My simple maths says that a top earner is paying around 125 times the amount that someone in the bottom half does, up from around 20 times in the late 70s
.
This may just be policy, it may be an inevitable consequence of the gap widening; either way, a lot of the rich are paying their share (and the share of 124 others).
The bottom 50% of earners only pay 10% of the income tax. The top 1% pays over 25%.
My simple maths says that a top earner is paying around 125 times the amount that someone in the bottom half does, up from around 20 times in the late 70s
. This may just be policy, it may be an inevitable consequence of the gap widening; either way, a lot of the rich are paying their share (and the share of 124 others).
Steve H said:
I am not an accountant or a left wing looney but before we eat the rich we should probably consider how much is being funded by them………
The bottom 50% of earners only pay 10% of the income tax. The top 1% pays over 25%.
My simple maths says that a top earner is paying around 125 times the amount that someone in the bottom half does, up from around 20 times in the late 70s.
This may just be policy, it may be an inevitable consequence of the gap widening; either way, a lot of the rich are paying their share (and the share of 124 others).
This is a chart that justifies the Economist article. The bottom 50% of earners only pay 10% of the income tax. The top 1% pays over 25%.
My simple maths says that a top earner is paying around 125 times the amount that someone in the bottom half does, up from around 20 times in the late 70s
. This may just be policy, it may be an inevitable consequence of the gap widening; either way, a lot of the rich are paying their share (and the share of 124 others).
Remember - the chart is for income, not for wealth.
The top taxpayer group will be very light on retired people - because their income drops when they retire.
The top earners and taxpayers will be full of people in their 40s and 50s; the younger ones mortgaged to the eyeballs, without a DB pension to look forward to, and perhaps some student loan repayments to add to the monthly PAYE bill.
You can see why some of those people might be mildly resistant (to say the least) at the prospect of even more tax, to fund another year of triple lock on their parents’ pension.
havoc said:
I'm an accountant, and a decently successful one - I'm no left-wing socialist loony. But being an accountant means I can see what's happening. And none of this st is good for British society.
Me (and some peers) too (well I'm not decently successful) and through work we know how a high % of people glaze over when any numbers are discussed, or struggle to apply simple percentages etc etc but the numbers don't lie if you can be bother to do some projections. t is good for British society.Yes it'll have generalisations/averages/assumptions, but just working pushing yourself harder is not the overall societal answer, sure it can be for an individual as they can earn/battle/leapfrog their way nearer the top and make that pathway work, yes we should all try our best, that doesn't mean you can have a country of top Lawyers/Doctors etc etc?
For every Heston Blumenthal there are hundreds of Chefs up and down the country, and this can be applied for most sectors, it's a pyramid isn't it, with the majority at the base, the relative individual talent/effort can take you nearer the peak, but overall it's a like a sports league table, you are all doing approximately the same thing with however success is measured in your line of work, yes achieving that success gets you more money, but being average/competent or dare I say it even choosing a worthy but lower paid vocation, should still give you a living in a reasonable and well balanced society?
havoc said:
And if you look at (in particular) housing prices now, there's an entire generation or two who have no hope unless their families are able to give them a leg-up...which is essentially going back to Victorian/Edwardian lack of social mobility.
Indeed. Property ownership becoming mostly hereditary is a disturbing trend, splitting us into a nation of serfs and landlords. In the fullness of time there may either be a rebalancing/redistribution that addresses this, or the whole edifice will be pulled down in a revolutionary zeal.Slow.Patrol said:
I'm not sure their income will drop substantially. The top tax payers will be maxing out their pension contributions while they are working.
If they are relying on their pension it will. Until the abolition of the LTA this year pensions were to some extent capped at just over a million. That doesn’t yield a vast income.GT03ROB said:
If they are relying on their pension it will. Until the abolition of the LTA this year pensions were to some extent capped at just over a million. That doesn’t yield a vast income.
Pension itself wasn’t capped though was it , just the limit from which the individual would then pay a large chunk of tax at some point. alscar said:
GT03ROB said:
If they are relying on their pension it will. Until the abolition of the LTA this year pensions were to some extent capped at just over a million. That doesn’t yield a vast income.
Pension itself wasn’t capped though was it , just the limit from which the individual would then pay a large chunk of tax at some point. Olivera said:
havoc said:
And if you look at (in particular) housing prices now, there's an entire generation or two who have no hope unless their families are able to give them a leg-up...which is essentially going back to Victorian/Edwardian lack of social mobility.
Indeed. Property ownership becoming mostly hereditary is a disturbing trend, splitting us into a nation of serfs and landlords. In the fullness of time there may either be a rebalancing/redistribution that addresses this, or the whole edifice will be pulled down in a revolutionary zeal.Can't wait for Vlad to bomb the place into Gazian/Damascene rubble followed by the reconstruction of society and its infrastructure by the noble low-waged and disadvantaged who are currently so downtrodden and disenfranchised!
Hail Mediocrity!
f
k the high ability achievers! Take the high ability high achievers down a peg or three, and get the useless and incompetent levelled up a few steps!!
Then we'll all feel better when we're all bang average..........won't we?
Steve H said:
I am not an accountant or a left wing looney but before we eat the rich we should probably consider how much is being funded by them………
Income tax ALWAYS gets trotted out. And I don't know many rich people who begrudge paying 40% IT (the 67.5% marginal rate at £100k is a joke though). Yes, they will find ways to wriggle around it, but ultimately most pay a decent rate and accept it's part of the societal contract.Where I think there should be more focus is wealth. (Increasing) Wealth inequality has been the main issue over the last 20-30 years, not just driven by land/house prices but by ability to invest and the returns available to investment not available to labour. And yet wealth is still almost untaxed...CGT is a bit of a joke, IHT likewise.
BUT...you're missing my point. We don't TAX the inequality out, we legislate it out, we policy it out. We encourage behaviours that drive labour /income growth and eschew those which drive asset-value growth (i.e. the opposite of everything post-1997). You never know, we might actually see some productivity improvements that way too.
Scootersp said:
...or dare I say it even choosing a worthy but lower paid vocation, should still give you a living in a reasonable and well balanced society?
This. 100% this.How boring would our country be if no-one could afford to be an actor anymore, or a musician? I wouldn't want to live somewhere like that.
...and how the **** are all the rich, selfish "just work harder" bods on here going to get their skinny lattes in the morning or their latest gadgets delivered to them without people "lower down the food chain" (sic).
GT03ROB said:
Correct & thats why I said “to some extent”. It was always a balancing act as to if it made sense to continue contributing. If you had significant enough employer contributions it could still make sense.
Absolutely. Be interesting to see if Labour do try and reverse its abolition.
Olivera said:
havoc said:
And if you look at (in particular) housing prices now, there's an entire generation or two who have no hope unless their families are able to give them a leg-up...which is essentially going back to Victorian/Edwardian lack of social mobility.
Indeed. Property ownership becoming mostly hereditary is a disturbing trend, splitting us into a nation of serfs and landlords. In the fullness of time there may either be a rebalancing/redistribution that addresses this, or the whole edifice will be pulled down in a revolutionary zeal.Apart from the stupid south east of England i dont think prices are crazy here.
Aberdeen 2 decent areas westhill and culter 1 bed and 2 beds are cheaper than they were 2008/2009
Gassing Station | Finance | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff