# £10k free for all 25 year olds!



## Kazza61 (Jun 14, 2008)

A think tank is proposing older people start paying higher National Insurance in order to fund a free £10k payment to all 25 year olds to help them 'get a foot on the property ladder or start a business'. What do you reckon? I'd be happy to pay a little bit extra if it was truly used to build a better society but I can't help thinking most 25 years old I know would blow it on a car or a holiday (or go 'travelling' which apparently is different to a holiday!)


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

Kazza61 said:


> A think tank is proposing older people start paying higher National Insurance in order to fund a free £10k payment to all 25 year olds to help them 'get a foot on the property ladder or start a business'. What do you reckon? I'd be happy to pay a little bit extra if it was truly used to build a better society but I can't help thinking most 25 years old I know would blow it on a car or a holiday (or go 'travelling' which apparently is different to a holiday!)


 Fvck that. Charity starts at home.


----------



## AestheticManlet (Jun 12, 2012)

I'm 26 so they can fvck right off :lol:


----------



## Jonk891 (Dec 17, 2016)

We were all 25 once so they should owe us 10k


----------



## empzb (Jan 8, 2006)

I'm 30. Did it the hard way. it's character building. Save it for those really in need instead of some over entitled w**kers who think it should be handed to them.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Kazza61 said:


> but I can't help thinking most 25 years old I know would blow it on a car or a holiday (or go 'travelling' which apparently is different to a holiday!)


 If wanted it would be possible to restrict the use of the money to house payments, like the interest from HTB ISAs. The trouble with this is the effect is just likely to inflate house prices and so be of no meaningful benefit to anyone.


----------



## Toranator (May 2, 2016)

f**k right off... Lol


----------



## JohhnyC (Mar 16, 2015)

Kazza61 said:


> A think tank is proposing older people start paying higher National Insurance in order to fund a free £10k payment to all 25 year olds to help them 'get a foot on the property ladder or start a business'. What do you reckon? I'd be happy to pay a little bit extra* if it was truly used to build a better society *but I can't help thinking most 25 years old I know would blow it on a car or a holiday (or go 'travelling' which apparently is different to a holiday!)


 To do this Europe needs another Hitler


----------



## Test-e (Mar 26, 2014)

I'm 25 next year


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Test-e said:


> I'm 25 next year


 That's you out then - no way this would happen that fast!

I think it's very unlikely to ever happen to be honest.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Kazza61 said:


> A think tank is proposing older people start paying higher National Insurance in order to fund a free £10k payment to all 25 year olds to help them 'get a foot on the property ladder or start a business'. What do you reckon? I'd be happy to pay a little bit extra if it was truly used to build a better society but I can't help thinking most 25 years old I know would blow it on a car or a holiday (or go 'travelling' which apparently is different to a holiday!)


 Got a link?

And no, absolutely not.

fu**ing ridiculous idea!

We pay too much tax as it is.

They want on the ladder or to start a business? Put in the work like everyone else had to.

Striving is important.

Younger generations are lazy enough as it is. Have too much handed too them.

And passing uni with a 40/% mark doesn't help either.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Totally unworkable.

Guaranteed it's been thought up by one of Corbyns lot, he probably got Dianne Abbott to do the maths and she's worked out that it will take twelvety years of tax hikes to pay for it.

:lol:


----------



## Kazza61 (Jun 14, 2008)

simonboyle said:


> Got a link?


 Tax on pensioners proposed to heal inter-generational divide http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44029808


----------



## jjtreml (Dec 13, 2016)

All dumb ideas like this just reinforce the fact that the leaders and elites are running out of ideas to appease the younger generations. How about creating real jobs and careers, not just a nation of shop workers on minimum wage. Anyone under the age of thirty should seriously consider leaving the UK.

ps.....I'm leaving the UK if Corbyn is elected pm.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Smitch said:


> Totally unworkable.
> 
> Guaranteed it's been thought up by one of Corbyns lot, he probably got Dianne Abbott to do the maths and she's worked out that it will take twelvety years of tax hikes to pay for it.
> 
> :lol:


 Nope. A conservative called David Willets.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

jjtreml said:


> All dumb ideas like this just reinforce the fact that the leaders and elites are running out of ideas to appease the younger generations. How about creating real jobs and careers, not just a nation of shop workers on minimum wage. Anyone under the age of thirty should seriously consider leaving the UK.
> 
> ps.....I'm leaving the UK if Corbyn is elected pm.


 The UK is already looked on as a soft touch and a laughing stock, i love the UK but the loonies really are running the asylum right now.


----------



## Matt6210 (Feb 15, 2018)

Smitch said:


> Totally unworkable.
> 
> Guaranteed it's been thought up by one of Corbyns lot, he probably got Dianne Abbott to do the maths and she's worked out that it will take twelvety years of tax hikes to pay for it.
> 
> :lol:


 lol I used to love league of gentlemen.


----------



## S1dhu82 (Dec 30, 2015)

thats awful id be disgusted when we still have kids and adults on the streets homeless. we giving 10k to anyone under 25 it baffles me. lets make sure everyone has a bed and 3 meals a day b4 handing 10k to under 25


----------



## spod (Mar 25, 2010)

I don't think the housing market needs propping up, and whenever you do, it always benefits rich property owners more than the people it claims to want to help.

I'd be much happier if, instead of paying the rents of housing benefit claimants to private landlords, the government guaranteed mortgage repayments for the people who actually lived in these houses, allowing them to build up equity instead of just paying off the mortgages of people who are lucky enough to be able to afford multiple properties and rent them out.

Like most people, i was a silly kid at 25. I can't think that giving young people this amount of money without restriction is a good use of hardworking taxpayers' money.


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

The problem is, the average pensioner earns more than the average person in there 30s. Which is great for the pensioner but its the working people who have to pay the large chunk of the tax to keep the NHS going for the old people. Surely that does need balancing out a little.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Denied said:


> The problem is, the average pensioner earns more than the average person in there 30s.


 Is that a genuine statistic?


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> Is that a genuine statistic?


 I may have got it slightly wrong but more pensioners are in the 40% tax bracket than people in there 30s.

Add that to the fact, people born in the 70s are richer than people born in the 80s at the same point in life. First time that's happened in in recent times and looming to get even worth for 90s and 00s


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

I know I likely won't be as well off in retirement as my parents but I've pretty much accepted that this is a necessary adjustment rather than feeling hard done by. I do think an expectation that each generation should be better off than the last is unreasonable.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Kazza61 said:


> Tax on pensioners proposed to heal inter-generational divide http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44029808


 Jesus f#cking Christ.

Someone needs slapped for even suggesting this!


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> I know I likely won't be as well off in retirement as my parents but I've pretty much accepted that this is a necessary adjustment rather than feeling hard done by. I do think an expectation that each generation should be better off than the last is unreasonable.


 Systems should improve over time.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

simonboyle said:


> Systems should improve over time.


 Not sure what you mean by that.


----------



## JUICE1 (Jan 28, 2016)

Ultrasonic said:


> I know I likely won't be as well off in retirement as my parents but I've pretty much accepted that this is a necessary adjustment rather than feeling hard done by. I do think an expectation that each generation should be better off than the last is unreasonable.


 It's only unreasonable in a system where wealth is siphoned off to the few at the expense of the many. If the country is getting richer I don't know why it's unreasonable to expect better quality of life and better financial health for the average citizen.


----------



## lewdylewd (May 18, 2015)

Ultrasonic said:


> Is that a genuine statistic?


 Lol no couldn't be more wrong really.

However pensioners do tend to have less outgoings (mortgage, other debt etc) so they can often have a decent standard of living on a lower income.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Denied said:


> The problem is, the average pensioner earns more than the average person in there 30s. Which is great for the pensioner but its the working people who have to pay the large chunk of the tax to keep the NHS going for the old people. Surely that does need balancing out a little.


 NHS isn't just for old people though is it, and by pension age people have paid in to the NHS their whole life so have as much right to use it, if not more right, than anyone else

And how will giving free money to people that have likely only been paying tax themselves a few years (if at all) balance anything out, other than making the benefactors momentarily feel better?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

JUICE1 said:


> It's only unreasonable in a system where wealth is siphoned off to the few at the expense of the many. If the country is getting richer I don't know why it's unreasonable to expect better quality of life and better financial health for the average citizen.


 Why should it be assumed that a country is going to keep getting richer though?

Another important factor is that we have to deal with the combination of more people living longer and declining birth rates.


----------



## AncientOldBloke (Dec 11, 2014)

EpicSquats said:


> Fvck that. Charity starts at home.


 Where I come from, we don't feed strays.

I ain't paying no ****king ten grand to improve the life of someone else's kid. Unless I'm fukking his/her mom.

That's the deal.

If there's no money in it or sex in it, why the fvuck would I do it?


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

They can't even fix the potholes in the roads round Manchester, the country's falling apart. And they spend money on unnecessary shite like painting rainbows on police cars to show support for the LGBT community. w**kers.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

Ultrasonic said:


> Not sure what you mean by that.


 You think it's unreasonable to think things should improve. I do not.


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

JUICE1 said:


> It's only unreasonable in a system where wealth is siphoned off to the few at the expense of the many. If the country is getting richer I don't know why it's unreasonable to expect better quality of life and better financial health for the average citizen.


 Wealth isn't siphoned off though.

There is no "1%". It's a fluid group.

They earn money. They don't just sit there and it's handed to them. They start businesses and services that people use from which they profit.


----------



## Henda83 (Mar 3, 2018)

f**k that I'd they do that s**t I'll do my best to never pay another penny in National insurance again. Vast majority of youngins know are already useless lazy work shy entitled cu**s who would cry if you made them do days real work and think they are owed everything on a plate, now we have to pay a deposit on their house or fund their business start up also? Whoever thought of that idea deserves beaten within an inch of his life


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

Smitch said:


> NHS isn't just for old people though is it, and by pension age people have paid in to the NHS their whole life so have as much right to use it, if not more right, than anyone else
> 
> And how will giving free money to people that have likely only been paying tax themselves a few years (if at all) balance anything out, other than making the benefactors momentarily feel better?


 I don't agree with just giving the young 10k, but I do feel the older rich pensioners should be made to pay a bit more towards care. As what we have at the moment, is the last of the generation of finally or average salary pensions sat there enjoying life, on 30k+ pensions and in houses worth 500k that they paid peanuts for. Even the one's not on final salary pensions, had their pension pots sitting there earning 10% plus a year during good times.

Fast forward 30 years, we'll probably having people retire 5-10 years later than the previous generation, with pensions of 10k and still paying mortgages or rent.

I think its fairly certain, we'll be worse off in retirement, than the current crop of pensioners. Would it be unfair, to bring down there standard of living slightly so the next generation, can get by? You can't punish people for making good decisions and making money in there lives, but is it fair, that the older generation, has sucked up all the wealth through the housing markets and are sitting on it?


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

simonboyle said:


> You think it's unreasonable to think things should improve. I do not.


 My point is I don't see why we should treat it as guaranteed. I also don't see quality of life improvements as something that is purely reflected by incomes.


----------



## ScottyS (Jan 22, 2017)

It would just drive up property prices with more demand so be all for nothing in the end


----------



## JUICE1 (Jan 28, 2016)

simonboyle said:


> Wealth isn't siphoned off though.
> 
> There is no "1%". It's a fluid group.
> 
> They earn money. They don't just sit there and it's handed to them. They start businesses and services that people use from which they profit.


 Sure but the economy has consistently grown while wages have been stagnant for decades. The only demographic that are actually progressing in society are the 1%.


----------



## JUICE1 (Jan 28, 2016)

Ultrasonic said:


> Why should it be assumed that a country is going to keep getting richer though?
> 
> Another important factor is that we have to deal with the combination of more people living longer and declining birth rates.


 We shouldn't assume but it's a fact that it has over the last 25 years while the average person has not benefited.


----------



## EpicSquats (Mar 29, 2014)

Dad: Get a fvcking job so you can save up for a mortgage.

Kid: Fvck that, I'm getting 10 grand for free off the government. I'll get a job next year.

This 10 grand idea will just mean young people doing 10 grand's worth less work.


----------



## Henda83 (Mar 3, 2018)

Is there anywhere officially we can voice our disgust and say what stupid fu**ing cu**s we think the creators of this idea are where they will actually read it?


----------



## benji666 (Apr 18, 2015)

This is the tories trying to compete with labours plan to give all young people free bus passes and free tuition fees. Why not sort out the out of control housing market and by to let landlords and social housing? Instead of just giving a load of people ten k for doing nowt? what does that teach? The tories are as fu**ing s**t as labour these days, f**k them both.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Denied said:


> I don't agree with just giving the young 10k, but I do feel the older rich pensioners should be made to pay a bit more towards care. As what we have at the moment, is the last of the generation of finally or average salary pensions sat there enjoying life, on 30k+ pensions and in houses worth 500k that they paid peanuts for. Even the one's not on final salary pensions, had their pension pots sitting there earning 10% plus a year during good times.
> 
> Fast forward 30 years, we'll probably having people retire 5-10 years later than the previous generation, with pensions of 10k and still paying mortgages or rent.
> 
> I think its fairly certain, we'll be worse off in retirement, than the current crop of pensioners. Would it be unfair, to bring down there standard of living slightly so the next generation, can get by? You can't punish people for making good decisions and making money in there lives, but is it fair, that the older generation, has sucked up all the wealth through the housing markets and are sitting on it?


 FWIW I'm 41 and fully expect to retire on a pension of over £30k, with over half of the contributions coming from a scheme open to new entrants today (in the NHS). To put this in some context I currently pay 9.3% of my salary in pension contributions, and this will jump to 12.5% when my salary exceeds £48k (and that's 12.5% of the total salary, not the bit over £48k). These figures are far more than most people pay into private pensions. I also earn less working for the NHS than my university peers who followed private sector career paths and to some extent I view a better pension as some compensation for this. One of my concerns is actually that I may end up essentially subsidising other people who fail to fund their own retirement properly.

Note that people pay income tax on pensions so people with larger pensions are already contributing more.

I do though think it's reasonable for older people to effectively fund some of their healthcare costs from their assets such as property, provided they are not forced from their homes in their lifetime. To put that another way, I would prefer my parents wealth was spent on providing them with high quality care when they need it rather than to provide me with a large inheritance.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Henda83 said:


> Is there anywhere officially we can voice our disgust and say what stupid fu**ing cu**s we think the creators of this idea are where they will actually read it?


 Write to your MP.

This is just an idea that has been proposed by a 'think tank' though, not an idea that any political party is advocating. Personally I think the chances of it happening are tiny.


----------



## Henda83 (Mar 3, 2018)

Ultrasonic said:


> Write to your MP.
> 
> This is just an idea that has been proposed by a 'think tank' though, not an idea that any political party is advocating.* Personally I think the chances of it happening are tiny*.


 That's good to hear mate I hope this is the case


----------



## Haunted_Sausage (Jan 2, 2015)

If I was 22-23 I've be in full support of this. I'm 30 now so whole heartedly oppose it!

Pretty sure if I was given 10k at 25 (or 30) it would look something like this


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> FWIW I'm 41 and fully expect to retire on a pension of over £30k, with over half of the contributions coming from a scheme open to new entrants today (in the NHS). To put this in some context I currently pay 9.3% of my salary in pension contributions, and this will jump to 12.5% when my salary exceeds £48k (and that's 12.5% of the total salary, not the bit over £48k). These figures are far more than most people pay into private pensions. I also earn less working for the NHS than my university peers who followed private sector career paths and to some extent I view a better pension as some compensation for this. One of my concerns is actually that I may end up essentially subsidising other people who fail to fund their own retirement properly.
> 
> Note that people pay income tax on pensions so people with larger pensions are already contributing more.
> 
> I do though think it's reasonable for older people to effectively fund some of their healthcare costs from their assets such as property, provided they are not forced from their homes in their lifetime. To put that another way, I would prefer my parents wealth was spent on providing them with high quality care when they need it rather than to provide me with a large inheritance.


 To put that in perspective, I'd have to have a pension pot of £2.2 million to get that income for life, retiring at 65. Or in other words, if I had an average paying job, I'd have to contribute 40-50% of my salary, not the 15% I do now. Outside the public sector, pensions are a whole different ball game, that's if you are lucky enough to get one, past the statuary minimum they've just introduced. Your more likely to get around 10k a year from a private pension.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Denied said:


> To put that in perspective, I'd have to have a pension pot of £2.2 million to get that income for life, retiring at 65. Or in other words, if I had an average paying job, I'd have to contribute 40-50% of my salary, not the 15% I do now. Outside the public sector, pensions are a whole different ball game, that's if you are lucky enough to get one, past the statuary minimum they've just introduced. Your more likely to get around 10k a year from a private pension.


 That £2.2M figure is way off. Even earning no interest someone could be paid £30k a year for 73 years on that figure.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Denied said:


> To put that in perspective, I'd have to have a pension pot of £2.2 million to get that income for life, retiring at 65. Or in other words, if I had an average paying job, I'd have to contribute 40-50% of my salary, not the 15% I do now. Outside the public sector, pensions are a whole different ball game, that's if you are lucky enough to get one, past the statuary minimum they've just introduced. Your more likely to get around 10k a year from a private pension.


 £500k would buy you 5 terraced houses in some parts of the country, rent off these can be £600PCM each so £3000PCM which is £36k PA with my shocking maths. Allow £6k PA for upkeep of houses and insurances.


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

Ultrasonic said:


> That £2.2M figure is way off. Even earning no interest someone could be paid £30k a year for 73 years on that figure.


 Its from a telegraph article. When it says 30k, it will be the equivalent to 30k in 40 years time, which I assume your pension will be based on.


----------



## Kazza61 (Jun 14, 2008)

Denied said:


> I think its fairly certain, we'll be worse off in retirement, than the current crop of pensioners. Would it be unfair, to bring down there standard of living slightly so the next generation, can get by?


 Although I voted to remain, I thought a significant argument for Brexit was that the country would prosper far more outside of Europe so maybe you're wrong and are just around the corner from the greatest retirement benefits Britain has ever had? No, I don't think so either. But if today's retirees have to give up part of their wealth to help today's younger generation to prosper, won't that just set a precedent for the future and when the next lot retire, they will end up donating even more to an even less successful generation than those who went before. The eventual message being don't bother aspiring because it will be taken off you in the end. Or don't bother aspiring because you'll just get what you can out of the older generation. Unless we decide we are a communist state I think it better that good old hard work continues to get rewarded without fear of any earnings and savings suddenly being redistributed.


----------



## Rhinoceros (Mar 24, 2018)

Would an unreal help now as it's taking years even saving for a mortgage. Guess I just need a new career haha


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

JUICE1 said:


> Sure but the economy has consistently grown while wages have been stagnant for decades. The only demographic that are actually progressing in society are the 1%.


 The 1% is fluid. People drift in and out 9f it, it isn't a secret society, boom and bust just like everyone else.

Wages have also increased. Minimum wage has also increased.

Average income has increased.

So.......those that progress may end up in the 1% but they aren't some mythical, society that exist outside of everyone else.


----------



## NoGutsNoGloryy (Jan 7, 2013)

No way should they. I never expect my family to be paying for sh1t like that for me. Work for it ourselves... there are alot of lazy cvnts my age now who i've worked with who are INCREDIBLY lazy no doubt they would agree with this. Thick fvckin lazy stupid cvnts


----------



## UK2USA (Jan 30, 2016)

It's a ridiculous idea, period.

I laugh at people over here when they talk about the "free" stuff they get from the government - stupid fcuks!

What they're too stupid to realize is that the government doesn't have a job, the government doesn't earn any money, the government doesn't even have any money, they're actually trillions of dollars in debt, because even with their hands in the pockets or every hard working soul, they still spend more than they take! What the government gives you for free, is what it takes from hard working people who actually do have jobs, who bust their butts to make a few bucks so they and their family can have a better standard of living. The government "takes" money from those people so they can pay your stupid, lazy, fcuking ass, because you don't have a job and don't ever intend to get one. It isn't the government's money, it's mine, you ungrateful, undereducated, lazy s**t.

My kids already have well over 10k towards whatever they want - you know who gave it to them? - yup, me. As of today, they each have about 21k ($), and they are 6 and 4 years old. MY goal for MY kids is for them to have well over 100k each by the time they are 18 and each own one rental property. MY goal for some STRANGER"S kid? - that he gets off his lazy ass and finds a job, and works as hard, as long, and as responsibly as I did.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Denied said:


> I don't agree with just giving the young 10k, but I do feel the older rich pensioners should be made to pay a bit more towards care. As what we have at the moment, is the last of the generation of finally or average salary pensions sat there enjoying life, on 30k+ pensions and in houses worth 500k that they paid peanuts for. Even the one's not on final salary pensions, had their pension pots sitting there earning 10% plus a year during good times.
> 
> Fast forward 30 years, we'll probably having people retire 5-10 years later than the previous generation, with pensions of 10k and still paying mortgages or rent.
> 
> I think its fairly certain, we'll be worse off in retirement, than the current crop of pensioners. Would it be unfair, to bring down there standard of living slightly so the next generation, can get by? You can't punish people for making good decisions and making money in there lives, *but is it fair, that the older generation, has sucked up all the wealth through the housing markets and are sitting on it?*


 That last bit isn't true though is it, i bought property cheap nearly 20 years ago, should i subsidise the next generation due to the fact i bought property at the right time?

I know plenty of young people working hard, making decent money and getting on in life not moaning about what a sh1t hand they've been dealt, i also know young weekend millionaires driving round in cars on PCP going in holidays they can't afford while living at home with their parents.

How about people just start working hard and stop moaning about what they haven't got and blaming it on others, it's all everyone seems to do nowadays. Wealthier people who have larger pensions and live in bigger houses have obviously made good life choices and also will have paid a higher rate of tax meaning they have paid more in to public services over their lifetime so they are the last people that should be penalised.

The government gets enough money in taxes but it is just very badly managed, the benefits system is a shambles, the NHS is a black hole which is just used by all and sundry who come over as health tourists and bleed it dry along with all the blood sucking consultants it pays thousands of pounds a day to and we have huge corporations paying no tax at all. Until all that is sorted out i dont think the tax paying general public should have to foot any more bills for anything.


----------



## Denied (Sep 25, 2008)

Smitch said:


> That last bit isn't true though is it, i bought property cheap nearly 20 years ago, should i subsidise the next generation due to the fact i bought property at the right time?
> 
> I know plenty of young people working hard, making decent money and getting on in life not moaning about what a sh1t hand they've been dealt, i also know young weekend millionaires driving round in cars on PCP going in holidays they can't afford while living at home with their parents.
> 
> ...


 Can't really see how you can claim this not to be true. House rises 267% in the last 20 years, wage rises 68% or over 7 times your annual salary.

Where do you think this extra money comes from, if it doesn't come from first time buyers having to put in more money than the previous buyers.


----------



## 39005 (Nov 25, 2013)

10k wont buy s**t these days and it would just be spent on the same s**t they spend their uni loans on (coke and booze) ,****in snowflake millennials need a backhander not 10k .


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Denied said:


> Its from a telegraph article. When it says 30k, it will be the equivalent to 30k in 40 years time, which I assume your pension will be based on.


 I remain extremely sceptical about that figure. Interest on an investment that size won't be that different to inflation, and as I pointed out above it seems geared towards paying out for about three times as long as might be expected on average. I'm not going to spend looking into this in detail though. Note I recognised above that state pensions were better than private sector and that this is a factor for many in the career choices they make, in many cases at the expense of lower salaries during their working lives.

The point of my initial post BTW was that the sort of pensions mentioned weren't imminently disappearing, although they are already significantly worse than what my parents' generation got.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

Denied said:


> Can't really see how you can claim this not to be true. House rises 267% in the last 20 years, wage rises 68% or over 7 times your annual salary.
> 
> Where do you think this extra money comes from, if it doesn't come from first time buyers having to put in more money than the previous buyers.


 These are all national averages which are massivley skewed by london and the home counties, you can still buy cheap property all over the country, it's out there if you really want it.

I have mates who rent in london and have bought cheap properties up north that they rent out, sit on them for a few years then sell them and use the equity as a deposit, it's not that hard, again, if you really want it.


----------



## Ultrasonic (Jul 13, 2004)

Denied said:


> Can't really see how you can claim this not to be true. House rises 267% in the last 20 years, wage rises 68% or over 7 times your annual salary.
> 
> Where do you think this extra money comes from, if it doesn't come from first time buyers having to put in more money than the previous buyers.


 I believe one factor in house price inflation is homeowners dying and leaving property in their wills. When sold this then allows parents to give large cash assistance to their children to purchase their first home. This will of course lead to a greater disparity between families with a history of home ownership and those without.


----------



## JUICE1 (Jan 28, 2016)

simonboyle said:


> The 1% is fluid. People drift in and out 9f it, it isn't a secret society, boom and bust just like everyone else.
> 
> Wages have also increased. Minimum wage has also increased.
> 
> ...


 No they're not a secret society they're just a society that doesn't include the vast majority of your country.. I'm not sliding into the 1% anytime soon no matter how hard I work.

None of those things mean anything against rise of cost of living and inflation. People are poorer now relatively than they were 25 years ago while the 1% are much better off, I'm not sure how you can argue that this is not a bad thing for society as a whole.


----------



## AncientOldBloke (Dec 11, 2014)

EpicSquats said:


> Dad: Get a fvcking job so you can save up for a mortgage.
> 
> Kid: Fvck that, I'm getting 10 grand for free off the government. I'll get a job next year.
> 
> This 10 grand idea will just mean young people doing 10 grand's worth less work.


 This 10 grand idea will just mean young people doing 10 grand's worth of snow, safe in the knowledge that their inheritance is intact.


----------



## AncientOldBloke (Dec 11, 2014)

aqualung said:


> 10k wont buy s**t these days and it would just be spent on the same s**t they spend their uni loans on (coke and booze) ,****in snowflake millennials need a backhander not 10k .


 Thus spake UK-M's resident Victor Meldrew.


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

Denied said:


> Can't really see how you can claim this not to be true. House rises 267% in the last 20 years, wage rises 68% or over 7 times your annual salary.
> 
> Where do you think this extra money comes from, if it doesn't come from first time buyers having to put in more money than the previous buyers.


 There are a few things missing from your calculations IMO as house prices haven't gone up in value just due to supply and demand.

The first thing touched on is that 20yrs ago, in the town where I was brought up was that we were not only coming out of a recession but also the jobs market changed massively. In my area all the pits had closed, the interest rates were around 8% or more and the standards of the houses were very low.

The cheaper houses needed UPVC windows(this was relatively new), new roofs, re-wiring, new plumbing, new kitchen and bathroom(some houses didn't even have a bathroom). A lot of houses in the last 10yrs have had driveways put in along with dropped kerbs as roadside parking is very high.

I'd say that if you remove the value(today) off these modernising jobs from the value of the houses and inflation, the actual house price increase wouldn't be as great as you think. Make the mortgage rate 8% or so and you won't be too far off 20 years ago. I could mention lots more things that could be taken into account.

I think the biggest issue is that people want their cake and eat it for the minimum effort.


----------



## empzb (Jan 8, 2006)

JUICE1 said:


> No they're not a secret society they're just a society that doesn't include the vast majority of your country.. I'm not sliding into the 1% anytime soon no matter how hard I work.
> 
> None of those things mean anything against rise of cost of living and inflation. People are poorer now relatively than they were 25 years ago while the 1% are much better off, I'm not sure how you can argue that this is not a bad thing for society as a whole.


 I do hear this about being poorer now, but back then there were no iPhones. No flatscreen tvs. no ps4s. no nice cars. few eating out places. few decent shopping places. people did 1 holiday a year at Butlins or Spain if they were lucky.

Times change. Priorities change. if I didn't do all the above iD have have a house much sooner (actually I had a deposit and pulled out of a house buy 6 years ago to get a nice car, handbags and holidays :lol: )


----------



## BLUE(UK) (Jan 9, 2008)

empzb said:


> I do hear this about being poorer now, but back then there were no iPhones. No flatscreen tvs. no ps4s. no nice cars. few eating out places. few decent shopping places. people did 1 holiday a year at Butlins or Spain if they were lucky.
> 
> Times change. Priorities change. if I didn't do all the above iD have have a house much sooner (actually I had a deposit and pulled out of a house buy 6 years ago to get a nice car, *handbags* and holidays :lol: )


 Are you @vetran's Papi?


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

JUICE1 said:


> No they're not a secret society they're just a society that doesn't include the vast majority of your country.. I'm not sliding into the 1% anytime soon no matter how hard I work.
> 
> None of those things mean anything against rise of cost of living and inflation. People are poorer now relatively than they were 25 years ago while the 1% are much better off, I'm not sure how you can argue that this is not a bad thing for society as a whole.


 Because you're still acting like the 1% is an exclusive club.

It's people who are successful.

People float in and out of it all the time.

Boom and bust.

It's not some conspiracy.

They are not responsible for anything outside of their own wealth.

If you have an understanding of economics you'd also understand that they are huge contributors to society.

Jobs, finance, resources, products.

They keep their money in banks, which in turn gives banks more money to play with and lend etc.

They inevitably provide services through business that they own and operate.

Providing resources and jobs and......tax!


----------



## simonboyle (Aug 5, 2013)

BLUE(UK) said:


> There are a few things missing from your calculations IMO as house prices haven't gone up in value just due to supply and demand.
> 
> The first thing touched on is that 20yrs ago, in the town where I was brought up was that we were not only coming out of a recession but also the jobs market changed massively. In my area all the pits had closed, the interest rates were around 8% or more and the standards of the houses were very low.
> 
> ...


 Also, just as something is more expensive now, does not mean that the young should be subsidised.

Tough s**t.

It was more expensive for me than my parents. Same for them.


----------



## dazzaturbomad (Feb 1, 2014)

Fcuk them work and basterd earn it.i worked 7 days a week and call outs at night for a year to get a deposit for my first house at 23 and I'd already been saving since 19.no fukcer told me I was doing too much.i wanted it I earned it through hard work and giving up my social time.


----------



## Smitch (Dec 29, 2008)

empzb said:


> I do hear this about being poorer now, but back then there were no iPhones. No flatscreen tvs. no ps4s. no nice cars. few eating out places. few decent shopping places. people did 1 holiday a year at Butlins or Spain if they were lucky.
> 
> Times change. Priorities change. if I didn't do all the above iD have have a house much sooner (actually I had a deposit and pulled out of a house buy 6 years ago to get a nice car, handbags and holidays :lol: )


 When i bought my first place nearly 20 years ago none of my mates were out buying Rolex watches, brand new cars or going on really expensive holidays, even though most of us we're earning £25-35k a year on average which was a decent amount back then. The only people who knew what you had was your mates, nowadays people are more bothered about showing off on social media than sorting their lives out.

I've just emigrated and have a large chunk of cash in the bank, I'm not gonna go and buy a brand new car or bike, i bought a 6k bike when i got here and it does me, I'm using it as a deposit for another property cos long term thats gonna make me more money.

It's a different mindset, people now want all the nice stuff but don't wanna graft for it.


----------



## MR RIGSBY (Jun 12, 2007)

empzb said:


> I do hear this about being poorer now, but back then there were no iPhones. No flatscreen tvs. no ps4s. no nice cars. few eating out places. few decent shopping places. people did 1 holiday a year at Butlins or Spain if they were lucky.
> 
> Times change. Priorities change. if I didn't do all the above iD have have a house much sooner (actually I had a deposit and pulled out of a house buy 6 years ago to get a nice car, handbags and holidays :lol: )


 Exactly right.

The problem is expectations have changed, if you take a look around the amount of people living in real poverty is low.

When I grew up the only people driving BMWs and Mercs were solicitors, architects, people on very good money. Got minimum wage kids now driving around in a 40k motor while whinging they can't get on the property ladder ( can buy a house in the North East for 40k).


----------

