This may be the LAST pitch the Baby Boomers Bludgers

by veya_victaous Fri Mar 23, 2018 3:20 am

Surrounded by yachts, Malcolm Turnbull made his pitch to retirees.

"We've come here to meet the people that Bill Shorten wants to rob," the prime minister said in picturesque Port Macquarie.

More than 3.6 million Aussies are 65 or older, and that number will keep growing as more baby boomers pass retirement age.

That's a lot of votes.

But right now Shorten isn't actively wooing those millions of retirees, many of whom are pensioners who will probably vote Labor regardless.

He's going after almost 16 million voting-age Australians who can't yet retire to a life of overseas cruises, golf, and long lunches.

"What we want to do is make sure that the government has enough money to pay for hospitals, to pay for education," Shorten told reporters.

"Our population is getting older and, whilst we grow older, we need health services more than ever."

The youth strategy worked for Labor in New Zealand, where Jacinda Ardern won an election in part because of her promise to make things fairer for young people.

Shorten's plan to end cash handouts for share investors is just one of his arguments to young and middle-aged Australians struggling to deal with a high-cost economy.

He's also going after negative gearing, which has allowed wealthy people to get significantly more wealthy at taxpayers' expense.

And he's targeting multinational companies which bring in huge revenue but use complex financial arrangements to avoid paying tax.

Meanwhile Turnbull stuck to his "trickle down economics" plan to cut corporate tax.

"We have to have a competitive company tax rate to attract investment, which will drive jobs," Turnbull said.

But younger Australians have lived through 25 years of uninterrupted economic growth, and watched dozens of multinationals set up shop in Australia despite the allegedly high tax rate.

At the same time they've seen their wages stagnate, job security shrivel, and the rise of the gig economy.

And at the banking royal commission they've heard bankers admit they screwed over mortgagees and didn't play by the rules.

"How can you justify a five per cent tax cut to the big banks when there's a royal commission into their misconduct?" Senator Derryn Hinch told Sky News.

Shorten is banking on a mood for change.

The ACTU this week set out ambitions to shift the economy towards letting the people who create value (the workers) enjoy more of the benefits (the capital).

Unions want industry-wide bargaining, more protections for casual workers, and a stronger industrial umpire.

They say flat wage growth is holding back the economy - and the head of the Reserve Bank agrees.

Maybe the mood for change among those 16 million voters will be enough to get Shorten into The Lodge.

Turnbull can cut through to his retiree base who have lived large off Howard-era welfare for 18 years, but how will he go with middle Australia?

Electricity prices are up. Gas prices are up. Private health insurance is up. School fees are up.

Swinging voters are sitting at home wondering how they will pay their bills, what a corporate tax cut will do for them and why should they care if some people lose a tax break.

Turnbull told the story of a couple in their 80s who would lose $3500 a year if Labor's dividend tax scheme was made law.

"Do you know what they said they'd have to do? Cancel their private health insurance," he told reporters.

Eyebrows raised around Australia.

Families have been going without private health insurance for years, better sorry than safe when they count the cost.

And the federal government has some responsibility for private health premiums, which have risen dramatically in the past decade.

Turnbull's government has been generally pragmatic, and it might be time for him to use that pragmatism once again.

If the mood for change is there, he can make some changes himself rather than let Labor do it.

Because you don't need to be a wealthy retiree to understand 16 million beats 3.6 million, and a Shorten government will have a mandate to make the tax changes it believes people want.

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/comment-libs-woo-retirees-shorten-everyone-else/ar-BBKxFka?ocid=ientp

Time for Change, Time For Boomers to Pay THEIR Bill

by Vintage Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:57 pm

What have they being paying tax for the last 40 odd years? Paying the previous generations pension, putting the younger generation through education, policing, defence etc. So some may take advantage of tax breaks or whatever, do you think the younger generation won't if they will have the opportunity.

by nicko Fri Mar 23, 2018 4:59 pm

Snowflakes are selfish !

by Raggamuffin Fri Mar 23, 2018 5:18 pm

He's going after almost 16 million voting-age Australians who can't yet retire to a life of overseas cruises, golf, and long lunches.

I'm quite interested in this bit. It's nice to know what I'll be getting up to when I retire. cheers

by Syl Fri Mar 23, 2018 6:29 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
He's going after almost 16 million voting-age Australians who can't yet retire to a life of overseas cruises, golf, and long lunches.

I'm quite interested in this bit. It's nice to know what I'll be getting up to when I retire.

I'm retired...its brilliant. cheers

We paid in a damn site more than we are getting paid out. Hard work and good luck have seen us through.
Millions of so called baby boomers have helped their kids and now their grandkids get on by helping them pay for education and mortgages.
If there is any over, good luck to them....don't spend it wisely. Wink

by 'Wolfie Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:51 am

The idea that "3.6 million babyboomers" here in Oz are somehow all enjoying private yachts, annual overseas holidays and investment housing portfolios is a complete crock of shit, rolled out every year by a few bone-lazy and disenchanted Y-Gen' and "Millenial" snowflakes, who want to live in $$million$$ houses in Sydney without actually earning enough to pay a mortgage...

My brother and I were born at the tail-end of the "Babyboom" era (1960 and 1958, respectively..), and I know for a fact that neither of us fit that fantasy-based demographic fallacy regularly bandied about -- nor would 80 --> 85% of the people we know and associate with..

While I do know a few millionaires with property portfolios and healthy superannuation policies, they have always been a small minority, in reality.

by Raggamuffin Sat Mar 24, 2018 8:59 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The idea that "3.6 million babyboomers" here in Oz are somehow all enjoying private yachts, annual overseas holidays and investment housing portfolios is a complete crock of shit, rolled out every year by a few bone-lazy and disenchanted Y-Gen' and "Millenial" snowflakes, who want to live in $$million$$ houses in Sydney without actually earning enough to pay a mortgage...

My brother and I were born at the tail-end of the "Babyboom" era (1960 and 1958, respectively..), and I know for a fact that neither of us fit that fantasy-based demographic fallacy regularly bandied about -- nor would 80 --> 85% of the people we know and associate with..

While I do know a few millionaires with property portfolios and healthy superannuation policies, they have always been a small minority, in reality.

Eh? You mean I'm not going to go on cruises and have long lunches when I retire? Sad

I don't mind about the golf so much though. Razz

by nicko Sat Mar 24, 2018 12:05 pm

Golf,-------a nice walk wasted Laughing

by Syl Sat Mar 24, 2018 2:02 pm

The best thing about the baby boomer generation, many have now retired so they have lots of spare time to do the things they always wanted.

Not everything has to cost money, like Nicko said....leisurely walking is a great way to idle hours away, specially in summer. sunny

by veya_victaous Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:44 am

Vintage wrote:What have they being paying tax for the last 40 odd years? Paying the previous generations pension, putting the younger generation through education, policing, defence etc. So some may take advantage of tax breaks or whatever, do you think the younger generation won't if they will have the opportunity.

Down here they have NEVER paid enough tax to cover their expenditure on themselves
Which is probably the same in the UK hence the Deficits Wink

they made cuts to education(they got everything including uni free) and public health, expect both the Pension and the Super scheme tax breaks.
Younger generations WILL NOT GET PENSIONS already a policy voted for By them as long as it didn't start till after them that is Rolling Eyes

Wolf is right it is not exactly even but either is the tax refund on untaxed income which benefits the rich baby boomer only.

And that's the POINT no one else has ever had or will have the opportunity because the baby boomer sold off the public resources to pay for their extravagance and them Borrowed money that could never be paid back in their working life time.

Like the Op says the examples of a 'hardship' the retiree will face if the tax rort is removed, is ALREADY REALITY for the majority of tax paying families now.

by veya_victaous Sun Mar 25, 2018 6:53 am

WhoseYourWolfie wrote:

The idea that "3.6 million babyboomers" here in Oz are somehow all enjoying private yachts, annual overseas holidays and investment housing portfolios is a complete crock of shit, rolled out every year by a few bone-lazy and disenchanted Y-Gen' and "Millenial" snowflakes, who want to live in $$million$$ houses in Sydney without actually earning enough to pay a mortgage...

My brother and I were born at the tail-end of the "Babyboom" era (1960 and 1958, respectively..), and I know for a fact that neither of us fit that fantasy-based demographic fallacy regularly bandied about -- nor would 80 --> 85% of the people we know and associate with..

While I do know a few millionaires with property portfolios and healthy superannuation policies, they have always been a small minority, in reality.

A million dollars barely buys a 3 bedroom fibro in blacktown 35 km from the CBD, and who is getting the massive windfall.... that would be baby boomers Rolling Eyes

most generation y (now in the 30's with a family) can't afford a mortgages on a 1 bedroom apartment, forget about a house Rolling Eyes

they are less of a minority than you make out (yes in RURAL areas they are) but any with a family home in Sydney or Melbourne are Millionaires, in less than 40 years prices went up over 3000% that is 3 thousand!!!! percent. fuck tonne more than wages have.

so It's not fair to Keep subsidizing those that gained more than any other generation in our history WHILE putting our nation further in debt than any other generation in our history.

by nicko Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:03 am

by veya_victaous Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:10 am

nicko wrote:

Why do you bother posting Snowflake?

When you read a truth you don't want to hear you go to sleep Cool

typical baby boomer, can't hack it when it's not handed to them on a platter. Talk about a snowflake generation, you'd have got now where in today's competitive world Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:16 am

veya_victaous wrote:
nicko wrote:

Why do you bother posting Snowflake?

When you read a truth you don't want to hear you go to sleep
typical baby boomer, can't hack it when it's not handed to them on a platter. Talk about a snowflake generation, you'd have got now where in today's competitive world

The above is so embarressing it shows you have no comprehension what it was like for the older generation, when they were young growing up. They certainly never had it on a plate. Nicko was born into a time when the country still had rationing. This did not end until 1954. People had it far much harder then.

To claim they are snowflakes, is laughable. When they were harden by the conditions and time they live in.

They certainly were not still living in Mummy and Daddies home, into their 20's. Many went out to work and were proud of the work they did.

by veya_victaous Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:41 am

LOL Yeah they could move out an buy a house on Laborers Wage
That is Exactly WHY they got it handed to them, A laborer could not do the same today.

That is literally a dream fairytale scenario today to have it so easy.

by Guest Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:46 am

veya_victaous wrote:LOL Yeah they could move out an buy a house on Laborers Wage
That is Exactly WHY they got it handed to them, A laborer could not do the same today.

That is literally a dream fairytale scenario today to have it so easy.

Really, my parents could not? They had to rent for years.

So again you have no idea what you are talking about. Young people back then were told to move out and be independent and thus learnt very early on to fend for themselves. My father was told to move to Canada, when he was 14, by my Grandmother and work there. Which he sent home half his money to her back in Malta

Any more revisionist history you want to add here?

by 'Wolfie Sun Mar 25, 2018 8:54 am

"Baby boomers" were born between 1946 and 1963/'64 -- that means they are aged between 72 and 54...

Which also would make nicko and a couple of others on here pre-baby boomers (more correctly, they would be "wartime/war years babies"..).[/i

The 1950s and 1960s were hard years for many workers, with many barely being able to buy a basic house. Land was relatively cheap, though -- for those smart enough to grab a block for a years wages, and then sit on it until they could afford to build a house..

Uni' education only became 'free' in Oz in 1973, and then some uni' fees were re-introduced in the late 1980s, increasing again under the Howard guvm'nt in the 1990s -- less than 20% of Baby boomers have a uni' education, compared with nearer 30% of younger generations today...

It was more the governments and corporations who "wasted" and misspent monies, while it was a very small minority of property speculators who were responsible for driving up property prices, riding along on the coattails of the prolonged "resources boom" of the 1990s and early noughties..

Even a lot of "Baby boomers" have been shut out of local real estate markets, having to move out an hour or two away from where they grew up.

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 25, 2018 10:54 am

It's absurd to blame a whole group of people for economic woes anyway. "Baby boomers" are just people who happen to be born between certain years. There's a massive difference between 54 and 72 anyway. Those who are 72 will have been drawing their pensions for years, and those who are 54 have another 12 years or so before they retire. People at those ages will have completely different lifestyles, different incomes, and different personalities, so why lump them all together and blame them for everything?

I'm a "baby boomer" I guess, so what exactly have I done to deserve such vitriol just because of when I was born?

by Syl Sun Mar 25, 2018 12:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:It's absurd to blame a whole group of people for economic woes anyway. "Baby boomers" are just people who happen to be born between certain years. There's a massive difference between 54 and 72 anyway. Those who are 72 will have been drawing their pensions for years, and those who are 54 have another 12 years or so before they retire. People at those ages will have completely different lifestyles, different incomes, and different personalities, so why lump them all together and blame them for everything?

I'm a "baby boomer" I guess, so what exactly have I done to deserve such vitriol just because of when I was born?

Same here...we struggled to buy a house when interest rates were sky high in the 1980's.
Now any saving people may have accrued during their working life lose value daily because the interest rate is so low and has been for years.
My OH worked from the age of 15 to when he retired, mostly self employed....its bloody hard work that enabled us to be in the position we are now, not state handouts, tax credits, child tax credits, and every other benefit that gets handed out nowadays whether people work or don't.

I get sick of reading on here how one country is better than another, how one race is superior, now its one age group being pitted against another, every generation, no matter where they live, has their own life and problems....stop bloody moaning.

by Fred Moletrousers Sun Mar 25, 2018 1:11 pm

I can't speak for Nicko, but I certainly qualify as a pre-baby boomer, having been born a few months before Hitler invaded Poland.

In my early school years, of which I still retain vivid memories, I and kids like me had to go to bed hungry - and our parents even more hungry - and to get by with mainly well worn hand-me-down clothing because severe rationing meant that we could have little, if anything, else. I must have been about nine years old before I even saw an orange, and food rationing didn't end completely until I was about 15.

I have all-too vivid memories of my home town being bombed by the Luftwaffe night after night...and the V-weapons hitting us again towards the end of the war.

Of walking to school past the still smoking ruins of houses with Civil Defence personnel, policemen, medics and neighbors frantically digging through rubble in the hope of finding someone still alive;

Of bodies covered by blood smeared blankets.

Of standing in primary school assembly and being addressed by a headmistress in floods of tears as she read out the names of schoolmates who would not be coming to school that morning. Or ever.

Yet with the love and devotion of our parents most of us came through it and went on to work hard to make something worthwhile of our lives.

And then I compare the people of my generation to those like the arrogant, self-proclaimed elitist, whingeing, complaining, "me first" ignorant bastard Veya...and I wonder where it all went wrong.

by Vintage Sun Mar 25, 2018 2:26 pm

I am a baby boomers by those years, it was no picnic growing up for the majorty of us, just about everything was handme downs, clothes furniture. There were very few that could even dream of buying a house. There were factory jobs, mining, forestry work but mainly low paid. The improvements came when more people from working class backgrounds went on to higher education and so moved up to the professional class and they could afford to buy a house and save and/or pay into a rivate/occupational pension. A couple who are friends of ours were teachers and are now retired their income per annum is a lot more that my OH and I make still working.
We managed to buy a run down terraced house in the 80's. It just about had electricity - for lights only and one cold tap. We did as much to improve it as we could over the first few years when money would allow. Although we are in the country more or less, more and more houses are being built all around us, we would love to retire and move to the proper countryside but even if we sell our house and use our hard earned savings (rubbish interest as someone pointed out, so our plan in saving for our old age hasn't materialised as we had hoped)we'll never afford anything. So some pensioners have definately done alright
the majority I think have not.

by Guest Sun Mar 25, 2018 3:58 pm

veya_victaous wrote:
Vintage wrote:What have they being paying tax for the last 40 odd years? Paying the previous generations pension, putting the younger generation through education, policing, defence etc. So some may take advantage of tax breaks or whatever, do you think the younger generation won't if they will have the opportunity.

Down here they have NEVER paid enough tax to cover their expenditure on themselves
Which is probably the same in the UK hence the Deficits

they made cuts to education(they got everything including uni free) and public health, expect both the Pension and the Super scheme tax breaks.
Younger generations WILL NOT GET PENSIONS already a policy voted for By them as long as it didn't start till after them that is

Wolf is right it is not exactly even but either is the tax refund on untaxed income which benefits the rich baby boomer only.

And that's the POINT no one else has ever had or will have the opportunity because the baby boomer sold off the public resources to pay for their extravagance and them Borrowed money that could never be paid back in their working life time.

Like the Op says the examples of a 'hardship' the retiree will face if the tax rort is removed, is ALREADY REALITY for the majority of tax paying families now.

Absolutely agree with you. But I don't consider anyone under the age of 65 a 'baby boomer'. I was born Dec 45, which makes me 72. I was born at a time the NHS came in so my parents didn't have to worry about paying doctors, which turned out to be fantastic, because my Mum got TB when I was 8 and although she was in hospital for 2 years, without the NHS she would have been dead. My grandparents (Mum's side) came from the East End and they really had it bad. Some of their brothers and sisters died because they couldn't afford doctors. I went to college (without having to pay) and my very first job was in Shell Centre in London. There were jobs going spare and you could pick and chose, if you didn't like one you left on the Friday and got another on the Monday. I earned £1,200 pa, when I met my ex he was working for another London company, earning about the same. You could get a 100% mortgage easily and we bought our first house for under £6,000. They allowed 3.5 x his salary and 1 x mine in case I stopped work to have children, which I did. I didn't go back to work until my youngest was 12. Things were tight, they always are, and my Nan used to send me parcels of kids clothes bought from jumble sales, but we paid the mortgage, we all ate well because I make everything from scratch, including bread and life was pretty damn good. My kids could go to uni without fees, we didn't pay for prescriptions etc. Then Maggie arrived and things started to go down hill. We lost our manufacturing base (which is exactly what Veya means by millenials sold of the public resources, except it was us, it was the Government, one I bloody hated exactly for that reason). Now private companies are getting 70% of clinical contracts (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-privatisation-contracts-virgin-care-richard-branson-jeremy-hunt-a8134386.html), private companies are making £831million profits from the NHS (https://www.ft.com/content/71201382-8cd6-11e7-9084-d0c17942ba93), food banks are over-run, child poverty is through the roof, homelessness has gone up by nearly 300% since 2010 and the sick and disabled are being hounded to death. Don't believe me? A friend of my daughter is, like her, very sick and in a wheelchair. She has been so badly treated by the DWP, last week she tried to kill herself. It's not uncommon. She was sectioned, but her family had to fight for her wheelchair to go with her, they were going to push her around on one of those chairs on wheels you get in A&E. Without upper body support she is in agony. I don't know any youngsters that can afford to buy a house or a flat, I know many that went to uni but are still on minimum wage with no hope of anything better.

Yes, this generation have it a lot, lot worse than we did and it makes me fucking angry.

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:06 pm

sassy wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:

Down here they have NEVER paid enough tax to cover their expenditure on themselves
Which is probably the same in the UK hence the Deficits

they made cuts to education(they got everything including uni free) and public health, expect both the Pension and the Super scheme tax breaks.
Younger generations WILL NOT GET PENSIONS already a policy voted for By them as long as it didn't start till after them that is

Wolf is right it is not exactly even but either is the tax refund on untaxed income which benefits the rich baby boomer only.

And that's the POINT no one else has ever had or will have the opportunity because the baby boomer sold off the public resources to pay for their extravagance and them Borrowed money that could never be paid back in their working life time.

Like the Op says the examples of a 'hardship' the retiree will face if the tax rort is removed, is ALREADY REALITY for the majority of tax paying families now.

Absolutely agree with you. But I don't consider anyone under the age of 65 a 'baby boomer'. I was born Dec 45, which makes me 72. I was born at a time the NHS came in so my parents didn't have to worry about paying doctors, which turned out to be fantastic, because my Mum got TB when I was 8 and although she was in hospital for 2 years, without the NHS she would have been dead. My grandparents (Mum's side) came from the East End and they really had it bad. Some of their brothers and sisters died because they couldn't afford doctors. I went to college (without having to pay) and my very first job was in Shell Centre in London. There were jobs going spare and you could pick and chose, if you didn't like one you left on the Friday and got another on the Monday. I earned £1,200 pa, when I met my ex he was working for another London company, earning about the same. You could get a 100% mortgage easily and we bought our first house for under £6,000. They allowed 3.5 x his salary and 1 x mine in case I stopped work to have children, which I did. I didn't go back to work until my youngest was 12. Things were tight, they always are, and my Nan used to send me parcels of kids clothes bought from jumble sales, but we paid the mortgage, we all ate well because I make everything from scratch, including bread and life was pretty damn good. My kids could go to uni without fees, we didn't pay for prescriptions etc. Then Maggie arrived and things started to go down hill. We lost our manufacturing base (which is exactly what Veya means by millenials sold of the public resources, except it was us, it was the Government, one I bloody hated exactly for that reason). Now private companies are getting 70% of clinical contracts (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-privatisation-contracts-virgin-care-richard-branson-jeremy-hunt-a8134386.html), private companies are making £831million profits from the NHS (https://www.ft.com/content/71201382-8cd6-11e7-9084-d0c17942ba93), food banks are over-run, child poverty is through the roof, homelessness has gone up by nearly 300% since 2010 and the sick and disabled are being hounded to death. Don't believe me? A friend of my daughter is, like her, very sick and in a wheelchair. She has been so badly treated by the DWP, last week she tried to kill herself. It's not uncommon. She was sectioned, but her family had to fight for her wheelchair to go with her, they were going to push her around on one of those chairs on wheels you get in A&E. Without upper body support she is in agony. I don't know any youngsters that can afford to buy a house or a flat, I know many that went to uni but are still on minimum wage with no hope of anything better.

Yes, this generation have it a lot, lot worse than we did and it makes me fucking angry.

So you're saying that things can be bad for anyone, whether they're a "baby boomer" or not. There are actually middle-aged people who pay rent, become disabled, lose their jobs, etc - that's not confined to people under a certain age.

The thing about going to university has always been the same. I keep saying it - a degree guarantees nothing - it never has and never will.

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:19 pm

Oh, and re interest rates, the interest on savings is very low for everyone, not just young people. Anyone would think that there were different rates for different ages the way some people go on.

by Guest Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:24 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

Absolutely agree with you. But I don't consider anyone under the age of 65 a 'baby boomer'. I was born Dec 45, which makes me 72. I was born at a time the NHS came in so my parents didn't have to worry about paying doctors, which turned out to be fantastic, because my Mum got TB when I was 8 and although she was in hospital for 2 years, without the NHS she would have been dead. My grandparents (Mum's side) came from the East End and they really had it bad. Some of their brothers and sisters died because they couldn't afford doctors. I went to college (without having to pay) and my very first job was in Shell Centre in London. There were jobs going spare and you could pick and chose, if you didn't like one you left on the Friday and got another on the Monday. I earned £1,200 pa, when I met my ex he was working for another London company, earning about the same. You could get a 100% mortgage easily and we bought our first house for under £6,000. They allowed 3.5 x his salary and 1 x mine in case I stopped work to have children, which I did. I didn't go back to work until my youngest was 12. Things were tight, they always are, and my Nan used to send me parcels of kids clothes bought from jumble sales, but we paid the mortgage, we all ate well because I make everything from scratch, including bread and life was pretty damn good. My kids could go to uni without fees, we didn't pay for prescriptions etc. Then Maggie arrived and things started to go down hill. We lost our manufacturing base (which is exactly what Veya means by millenials sold of the public resources, except it was us, it was the Government, one I bloody hated exactly for that reason). Now private companies are getting 70% of clinical contracts (https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/nhs-privatisation-contracts-virgin-care-richard-branson-jeremy-hunt-a8134386.html), private companies are making £831million profits from the NHS (https://www.ft.com/content/71201382-8cd6-11e7-9084-d0c17942ba93), food banks are over-run, child poverty is through the roof, homelessness has gone up by nearly 300% since 2010 and the sick and disabled are being hounded to death. Don't believe me? A friend of my daughter is, like her, very sick and in a wheelchair. She has been so badly treated by the DWP, last week she tried to kill herself. It's not uncommon. She was sectioned, but her family had to fight for her wheelchair to go with her, they were going to push her around on one of those chairs on wheels you get in A&E. Without upper body support she is in agony. I don't know any youngsters that can afford to buy a house or a flat, I know many that went to uni but are still on minimum wage with no hope of anything better.

Yes, this generation have it a lot, lot worse than we did and it makes me fucking angry.

So you're saying that things can be bad for anyone, whether they're a "baby boomer" or not. There are actually middle-aged people who pay rent, become disabled, lose their jobs, etc - that's not confined to people under a certain age.

The thing about going to university has always been the same. I keep saying it - a degree guarantees nothing - it never has and never will.

Sorry Rags, but that isn't what I said at all. I said for me as a teenager, 20s, 30s was bloody great, with jobs aplenty, able to buy a house etc etc, not forgetting the feeling of hope in the air. That's what being a baby boomer was like. Now for most people in those age groups life is a fight. What ever people might say, we had it bloody easy in comparison.,

by Guest Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:27 pm

Raggamuffin wrote:Oh, and re interest rates, the interest on savings is very low for everyone, not just young people. Anyone would think that there were different rates for different ages the way some people go on.

Interest rates? I don't know any young people who can afford to save. They can barely afford to feed themselves with rent, fuel etc prices.

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:35 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:

So you're saying that things can be bad for anyone, whether they're a "baby boomer" or not. There are actually middle-aged people who pay rent, become disabled, lose their jobs, etc - that's not confined to people under a certain age.

The thing about going to university has always been the same. I keep saying it - a degree guarantees nothing - it never has and never will.

Sorry Rags, but that isn't what I said at all. I said for me as a teenager, 20s, 30s was bloody great, with jobs aplenty, able to buy a house etc etc, not forgetting the feeling of hope in the air. That's what being a baby boomer was like. Now for most people in those age groups life is a fight. What ever people might say, we had it bloody easy in comparison.,

You say that only people over 65 should be classed as a baby boomer though. I'm well below that and I'm supposedly a baby boomer. When I was in my 20s there weren't plenty of jobs where I was, so I moved to London where there were more. It's a good job I wasn't particularly attached to the place I moved from - that's another gripe that a lot of people have, that they have to move away from the place they grew up to get a job. I wasn't in a position to buy a house either. I don't know why you think that older people had it easy and that's it so much worse though. I don't think it is. I think house prices and rents are too high, but that's about it.

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 25, 2018 5:38 pm

sassy wrote:
Raggamuffin wrote:Oh, and re interest rates, the interest on savings is very low for everyone, not just young people. Anyone would think that there were different rates for different ages the way some people go on.

Interest rates? I don't know any young people who can afford to save. They can barely afford to feed themselves with rent, fuel etc prices.

And yet loads of people do have savings accounts. What about young people who live with their parents? They can save money. They don't have to spend it all on fancy phones and new gadgets.

In any case, why is it only young people who can't save, according to you? Don't older people have to pay rent, buy fuel, and feed themselves?

by Guest Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:33 pm

What about young people who HAVE to live with their parents. It's not their choice, they can't afford a rent, unlike when I was young and we got a two bedroomed flat to rent for the first year we were married without a problem. Now, kids are at home for ever because they can't afford to leave.

by Syl Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:34 pm

Some people have always had it hard, but I believe poverty today is nothing like poverty was in the 50's and early 60's.

We grew up in a house with no electricity upstairs, no hot water or heating, no bathroom, outside toilet,icicles inside the window as well as outside.... in short, a slum which would be considered unfit for human habitation today. That was the norm for poor working class in the area I knew.
Benefits like are meted out today was unheard of...people coped with the little they had and just got by.

When Thatcher came into power she persuaded people to stop renting and buy their property, hundreds of thousands did, mortgage rates soared to over 18% the year we bought our house, and many people were left unable to pay their mortgage and in negative equity.

Yes, we baby boomers never had it so good. Rolling Eyes

by Guest Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:40 pm

Syl wrote:Some people have always had it hard, but I believe poverty today is nothing like poverty was in the 50's and early 60's.

We grew up in a house with no electricity upstairs, no hot water or heating, no bathroom, outside toilet,icicles inside the window as well as outside.... in short, a slum which would be considered unfit for human habitation today. That was the norm for poor working class in the area I knew.
Benefits like are meted out today was unheard of...people coped with the little they had and just got by.

When Thatcher came into power she persuaded people to stop renting and buy their property, hundreds of thousands did, mortgage rates soared to over 18% the year we bought our house, and many people were left unable to pay their mortgage and in negative equity.

Yes, we baby boomers never had it so good.

Funny, the Conservatives just stopped a Bill saying that rented properties must be fit for human habitation. Most of them were landlords. And the reason why we have so little low priced rented accommodation now is the sell off of council property, 85% of which is now being rented out.

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:43 pm

sassy wrote:What about young people who HAVE to live with their parents. It's not their choice, they can't afford a rent, unlike when I was young and we got a two bedroomed flat to rent for the first year we were married without a problem. Now, kids are at home for ever because they can't afford to leave.

They can get together and share with mates. That's what I did for quite a long time. I couldn't afford to rent someone on my own or even with one other person.

by Raggamuffin Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:44 pm

sassy wrote:
Syl wrote:Some people have always had it hard, but I believe poverty today is nothing like poverty was in the 50's and early 60's.

We grew up in a house with no electricity upstairs, no hot water or heating, no bathroom, outside toilet,icicles inside the window as well as outside.... in short, a slum which would be considered unfit for human habitation today. That was the norm for poor working class in the area I knew.
Benefits like are meted out today was unheard of...people coped with the little they had and just got by.

When Thatcher came into power she persuaded people to stop renting and buy their property, hundreds of thousands did, mortgage rates soared to over 18% the year we bought our house, and many people were left unable to pay their mortgage and in negative equity.

Yes, we baby boomers never had it so good.

Funny, the Conservatives just stopped a Bill saying that rented properties must be fit for human habitation. Most of them were landlords. And the reason why we have so little low priced rented accommodation now is the sell off of council property, 85% of which is now being rented out.

The people who bought their council houses weren't forced to do so, so do you not blame them at all?

by Syl Sun Mar 25, 2018 7:53 pm

sassy wrote:
Syl wrote:Some people have always had it hard, but I believe poverty today is nothing like poverty was in the 50's and early 60's.

We grew up in a house with no electricity upstairs, no hot water or heating, no bathroom, outside toilet,icicles inside the window as well as outside.... in short, a slum which would be considered unfit for human habitation today. That was the norm for poor working class in the area I knew.
Benefits like are meted out today was unheard of...people coped with the little they had and just got by.

When Thatcher came into power she persuaded people to stop renting and buy their property, hundreds of thousands did, mortgage rates soared to over 18% the year we bought our house, and many people were left unable to pay their mortgage and in negative equity.

Yes, we baby boomers never had it so good.

Funny, the Conservatives just stopped a Bill saying that rented properties must be fit for human habitation. Most of them were landlords. And the reason why we have so little low priced rented accommodation now is the sell off of council property, 85% of which is now being rented out.

True there are few council houses left, but housing associations took over, so there is plenty property to rent, often times paid for by local councils. They may not be luxury, but compared to the slums many baby boomers were brought up in they at palaces.
What I do notice is private housing estates where people bought, now have many properties on them for rent. Some of these are rented out by social services, so whatever the rent charged the council pay it.

Edit to add....Conservatives, Labour, or a Con/Lib mix....imo there is not much to choose between any of them.
The poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich.

by Guest Sun Mar 25, 2018 11:58 pm

Syl wrote:
sassy wrote:

Funny, the Conservatives just stopped a Bill saying that rented properties must be fit for human habitation. Most of them were landlords. And the reason why we have so little low priced rented accommodation now is the sell off of council property, 85% of which is now being rented out.

True there are few council houses left, but housing associations took over, so there is plenty property to rent, often times paid for by local councils. They may not be luxury, but compared to the slums many baby boomers were brought up in they at palaces.
What I do notice is private housing estates where people bought, now have many properties on them for rent. Some of these are rented out by social services, so whatever the rent charged the council pay it.

Edit to add....Conservatives, Labour, or a Con/Lib mix....imo there is not much to choose between any of them.
The poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich.

I don't even know to start with that because it's so untrue. The news must be passing you by Syl.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/27/property-england-priced-out-households-affordable-homes-savills-report

http://www.affordablehomeadvice.co.uk/effects-of-the-lack-of-affordable-housing.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/24/social-housing-poverty-homeless-shelter-rent

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/asking-prices-inch-lack-affordability-crunches-property-market/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/23/homeleness-rises-75-per-cent-vulnerable-groups-mental-health-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/06/more-children-homeless-or-in-temporary-housing-than-during-crash-crisis

And it all started with selling off council houses (and no, housing associations in no way made up for it). And now we have no affordable housing stock and a huge housing crisis.

And you think slums are gone? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/victorian-slums-housing-developers-housebuilding-inequality

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41776369 - the families living in modern day slums

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/26/inside-london-slum-rogue-landlord-forced-40-adults-live-together-7261861/

NHS being destroyed, 300% more people living on the street, huges numbers of children living in poverty https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-poverty-uk-cities-london-birmingham-manchester-welfare-cuts-benefits-food-parents-households-a8174436.html , etc etc etc. The only thing that I disagree with Veya on was it was the baby boomers themselves that caused it, it was the governments they lived under that did that. Apart from that, yep, life was much better and much more hopeful and we expected the world to be a better place, there was a vibrancy and joy that is gone, and is it any wonder.

by Guest Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:02 am

sassy wrote:
Syl wrote:Some people have always had it hard, but I believe poverty today is nothing like poverty was in the 50's and early 60's.

We grew up in a house with no electricity upstairs, no hot water or heating, no bathroom, outside toilet,icicles inside the window as well as outside.... in short, a slum which would be considered unfit for human habitation today. That was the norm for poor working class in the area I knew.
Benefits like are meted out today was unheard of...people coped with the little they had and just got by.

When Thatcher came into power she persuaded people to stop renting and buy their property, hundreds of thousands did, mortgage rates soared to over 18% the year we bought our house, and many people were left unable to pay their mortgage and in negative equity.

Yes, we baby boomers never had it so good.

Funny, the Conservatives just stopped a Bill saying that rented properties must be fit for human habitation. Most of them were landlords. And the reason why we have so little low priced rented accommodation now is the sell off of council property, 85% of which is now being rented out.

Not telling the full picture are you sassy?

https://fullfact.org/economy/did-mps-vote-against-homes-having-be-made-fit-live-in/

by veya_victaous Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:59 am

I think some are missing the Point that It's not even about how bad anyone had it, it is the Gov't Pandering to Boomers as the largest Single Demographic. that has twisted the economy and policy in a manner that has not left ANY of our nations in the best of standing.

We are now seeing that the pandering may be at an end as demographic change and all the post boomer generations are suffering the same issues unify them in their disapproval of the 'pork barrelling' to the boomer, Literally People gawked in disbelief when Turnbull made the example of what hardship the Boomers will face if the tax rort is stopped. Because EVERYONE has had to Seriously consider dumping private health insurance due to it's greater the inflation rises every year for decades. Let alone the Cost of Housing etc.

by Guest Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:10 am

veya_victaous wrote:I think some are missing the Point that It's not even about how bad anyone had it, it is the Gov't Pandering to Boomers as the largest Single Demographic. that has twisted the economy and policy in a manner that has not left ANY of our nations in the best of standing.

We are now seeing that the pandering may be at an end as demographic change and all the post boomer generations are suffering the same issues unify them in their disapproval of the 'pork barrelling' to the boomer, Literally People gawked in disbelief when Turnbull made the example of what hardship the Boomers will face if the tax rort is stopped. Because EVERYONE has had to Seriously consider dumping private health insurance due to it's greater the inflation rises every year for decades. Let alone the Cost of Housing etc.

So are you against helping the elderly then, after they have worked and paid their taxes throughout life?

I think you will find there is only a number of groups at risk.

One of these will be the elderly, based on the older they get, the more susceptible they are to illness and require care.

Another group is the very young, as they have not developed enough to combat many illnesses.

Another is those with disabilities who require care

Another is those in real poverty, like the homeless

Hence private health insurance will rise and more so with an aging population and a growing baby population.

So its not just the elderly, but the youth and those with disabilities that need care.

Hence you are missing the boat entirely and it has nothing to do with pandering to anyone

by Syl Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:19 am

sassy wrote:
Syl wrote:

True there are few council houses left, but housing associations took over, so there is plenty property to rent, often times paid for by local councils. They may not be luxury, but compared to the slums many baby boomers were brought up in they at palaces.
What I do notice is private housing estates where people bought, now have many properties on them for rent. Some of these are rented out by social services, so whatever the rent charged the council pay it.

Edit to add....Conservatives, Labour, or a Con/Lib mix....imo there is not much to choose between any of them.
The poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich.

I don't even know to start with that because it's so untrue. The news must be passing you by Syl.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/27/property-england-priced-out-households-affordable-homes-savills-report

http://www.affordablehomeadvice.co.uk/effects-of-the-lack-of-affordable-housing.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/24/social-housing-poverty-homeless-shelter-rent

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/asking-prices-inch-lack-affordability-crunches-property-market/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/23/homeleness-rises-75-per-cent-vulnerable-groups-mental-health-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/06/more-children-homeless-or-in-temporary-housing-than-during-crash-crisis

And it all started with selling off council houses (and no, housing associations in no way made up for it). And now we have no affordable housing stock and a huge housing crisis.

And you think slums are gone? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/victorian-slums-housing-developers-housebuilding-inequality

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41776369 - the families living in modern day slums

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/26/inside-london-slum-rogue-landlord-forced-40-adults-live-together-7261861/

NHS being destroyed, 300% more people living on the street, huges numbers of children living in poverty https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-poverty-uk-cities-london-birmingham-manchester-welfare-cuts-benefits-food-parents-households-a8174436.html , etc etc etc. The only thing that I disagree with Veya on was it was the baby boomers themselves that caused it, it was the governments they lived under that did that. Apart from that, yep, life was much better and much more hopeful and we expected the world to be a better place, there was a vibrancy and joy that is gone, and is it any wonder.

I'm too tired to look at the links now Sassy but I will tomorrow.

There are lots of houses and apartments to let in this area....my son is changing his apartment for a house to rent, after a couple of weeks looking he has had 3 or 4 good possibilities, it hasn't been hard.

Local housing associations are building locally too....2 new estates to rent (not buy) in the last 3/4 years.
I'm not saying its the same in every area....but I do know whats happening in my own area.

by veya_victaous Mon Mar 26, 2018 1:47 am

Didge wrote:
veya_victaous wrote:I think some are missing the Point that It's not even about how bad anyone had it, it is the Gov't Pandering to Boomers as the largest Single Demographic. that has twisted the economy and policy in a manner that has not left ANY of our nations in the best of standing.

We are now seeing that the pandering may be at an end as demographic change and all the post boomer generations are suffering the same issues unify them in their disapproval of the 'pork barrelling' to the boomer, Literally People gawked in disbelief when Turnbull made the example of what hardship the Boomers will face if the tax rort is stopped. Because EVERYONE has had to Seriously consider dumping private health insurance due to it's greater the inflation rises every year for decades. Let alone the Cost of Housing etc.

So are you against helping the elderly then, after they have worked and paid their taxes throughout life? THEY SPENT MORE THAN THEY PAID IN TAXES ALREADY, I have already subsidized them with my taxes more than they me, and their is ZERO put away for when I get their age, even GenX is never going to get as much as them

I think you will find there is only a number of groups at risk.

One of these will be the elderly, based on the older they get, the more susceptible they are to illness and require care.

Another group is the very young, as they have not developed enough to combat many illnesses.

Another is those with disabilities who require care

Another is those in real poverty, like the homeless

Hence private health insurance will rise and more so with an aging population and a growing baby population.

So its not just the elderly, but the youth and those with disabilities that need care.

Hence you are missing the boat entirely and it has nothing to do with pandering to anyone

You are a dumb ass Rolling Eyes

nothing you posted is relevant what so ever,
Private health insurance is a LUXURY expense
it covers the individuals on the policy ONLY
it is NOT part of public funded Medicare.
the Premium cost is determined by the age you start it and Smoking status.

Many Families have had to drop it (which will mean they will have higher premiums if they ever retake it up)
So When the Prime Minster tries to Make an opposition policy look 'bad' and the Best he can do is say they might have to drop Private heath care
Everyone else went, "So? that is what we have had to do already"

So trying to get the 20% of Boomer votes (and those poor enough to be on Pensions will Vote Labour since Liberals Cut Pensions) he has Alienated about 60% of voters that consist of Families, Young and working class.

by Guest Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:12 am

Never heard so much rubbish in all my life

So you have paid in more that 3 million elderly people collectively in taxes?

Come again, I do not think so and have you paid back what you got in fact free, like health care and education growing up? Or were you working and paying taxes as a toddler?

No, did not think so

So we can add agiest as well as antisemitism to your long list of prejudices and bigotry that you hold

Do you what you are such an ignorant twat its beyond belief

There is nothing progressive about you what so ever

All I see is hate from you, by segregating parts of society, you take issue with.

Now if you had only made this a political issue on what one of the parties was doing, I doubt anyone would have replied or objected

Instead you had to make this about attacking a group of elderly people and that veya, makes you a complete retard

As far as i am concerned, you are not even worth wasting my time debating.

Once you grow up, then give me a shout and we can get back to some serious debate

Laters

by veya_victaous Mon Mar 26, 2018 3:44 am

Didge wrote:Never heard so much rubbish in all my life

So you have paid in more that 3 million elderly people collectively in taxes?

Come again, I do not think so and have you paid back what you got in fact free, like health care and education growing up? Or were you working and paying taxes as a toddler?

No, did not think so

So we can add agiest as well as antisemitism to your long list of prejudices and bigotry that you hold

Do you what you are such an ignorant twat its beyond belief

There is nothing progressive about you what so ever

All I see is hate from you, by segregating parts of society, you take issue with.

Now if you had only made this a political issue on what one of the parties was doing, I doubt anyone would have replied or objected

Instead you had to make this about attacking a group of elderly people and that veya, makes you a complete retard

As far as i am concerned, you are not even worth wasting my time debating.

Once you grow up, then give me a shout and we can get back to some serious debate

Laters

Read the OP dumb ass

Getting real sick of you and your 'debating' Which is Just you spouting Dumb shit to start arguments

THAN STOP REPLY OR COMMENTING ON MY POSTS
I'm Not interested in you misguided delusional Rubbish excuses for Posts

by Guest Mon Mar 26, 2018 4:04 am

Oh wow the little hard man behind the PC lol

I could care less what you think Veya, as seen you turned this into elderly bashing, thinking you were being smart and you are not.

I never started any arguments, I pointed out many false claims you made about baby boomers growing up, which saw other posters come in and repeat the same. How aboujt you actually study some real history and actually talk to people who lived then. Then maybe many people might not have to jump in and correct your ignorance.

So it was you deliberately agitated those elderly on here. I am not even within that group, but I wont stand by and let you continue to be agiest.

Like i say, learn to grow up

As to this debate, I have nothing more to say, as its pointless when you wont even admit your many errors on here

Byeee

by Raggamuffin Mon Mar 26, 2018 7:30 am

sassy wrote:
Syl wrote:

True there are few council houses left, but housing associations took over, so there is plenty property to rent, often times paid for by local councils. They may not be luxury, but compared to the slums many baby boomers were brought up in they at palaces.
What I do notice is private housing estates where people bought, now have many properties on them for rent. Some of these are rented out by social services, so whatever the rent charged the council pay it.

Edit to add....Conservatives, Labour, or a Con/Lib mix....imo there is not much to choose between any of them.
The poor will always be poor and the rich will always be rich.

I don't even know to start with that because it's so untrue. The news must be passing you by Syl.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/27/property-england-priced-out-households-affordable-homes-savills-report

http://www.affordablehomeadvice.co.uk/effects-of-the-lack-of-affordable-housing.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/24/social-housing-poverty-homeless-shelter-rent

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/asking-prices-inch-lack-affordability-crunches-property-market/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/23/homeleness-rises-75-per-cent-vulnerable-groups-mental-health-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/06/more-children-homeless-or-in-temporary-housing-than-during-crash-crisis

And it all started with selling off council houses (and no, housing associations in no way made up for it). And now we have no affordable housing stock and a huge housing crisis.

And you think slums are gone? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/victorian-slums-housing-developers-housebuilding-inequality

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41776369 - the families living in modern day slums

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/26/inside-london-slum-rogue-landlord-forced-40-adults-live-together-7261861/

NHS being destroyed, 300% more people living on the street, huges numbers of children living in poverty https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-poverty-uk-cities-london-birmingham-manchester-welfare-cuts-benefits-food-parents-households-a8174436.html , etc etc etc. The only thing that I disagree with Veya on was it was the baby boomers themselves that caused it, it was the governments they lived under that did that. Apart from that, yep, life was much better and much more hopeful and we expected the world to be a better place, there was a vibrancy and joy that is gone, and is it any wonder.

Are you sure that's not because of your age Sassy? I'm not being rude, but when we're young doesn't everything seem a bit more vibrant and hopeful? After all, young people don't have so much responsibility, and they have a lot of time in front of them to do all kinds of stuff. I know that not all young people feel that way, but one does become a bit more cynical later on IMO.

by Guest Mon Mar 26, 2018 9:04 am

Raggamuffin wrote:
sassy wrote:

I don't even know to start with that because it's so untrue. The news must be passing you by Syl.

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/nov/27/property-england-priced-out-households-affordable-homes-savills-report

http://www.affordablehomeadvice.co.uk/effects-of-the-lack-of-affordable-housing.html

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/jun/24/social-housing-poverty-homeless-shelter-rent

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/property/house-prices/asking-prices-inch-lack-affordability-crunches-property-market/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/23/homeleness-rises-75-per-cent-vulnerable-groups-mental-health-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/dec/06/more-children-homeless-or-in-temporary-housing-than-during-crash-crisis

And it all started with selling off council houses (and no, housing associations in no way made up for it). And now we have no affordable housing stock and a huge housing crisis.

And you think slums are gone? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jan/16/victorian-slums-housing-developers-housebuilding-inequality

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-41776369 - the families living in modern day slums

http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/26/inside-london-slum-rogue-landlord-forced-40-adults-live-together-7261861/

NHS being destroyed, 300% more people living on the street, huges numbers of children living in poverty https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/child-poverty-uk-cities-london-birmingham-manchester-welfare-cuts-benefits-food-parents-households-a8174436.html , etc etc etc. The only thing that I disagree with Veya on was it was the baby boomers themselves that caused it, it was the governments they lived under that did that. Apart from that, yep, life was much better and much more hopeful and we expected the world to be a better place, there was a vibrancy and joy that is gone, and is it any wonder.

Are you sure that's not because of your age Sassy? I'm not being rude, but when we're young doesn't everything seem a bit more vibrant and hopeful? After all, young people don't have so much responsibility, and they have a lot of time in front of them to do all kinds of stuff. I know that not all young people feel that way, but one does become a bit more cynical later on IMO.

No Rags, they even write books about it. We still had poverty, but the world changed from grey to technicolour, Kennedy because President and you have no idea what that meant to young people in the UK, Music, food, culture, everything changed and we started marching for it. This captures it completely, even though it is written by someone much younger: http://www.historic-uk.com/CultureUK/The-1960s-The-Decade-that-Shook-Britain/

If the Fifties were in black and white, then the Sixties were in Technicolor. The ‘Swinging Sixties’ remain the defining decade for Britain. In just ten short years, London had transformed from the bleak, conservative city, only just beginning to forget the troubles of the Second World War, into the capital of the world, full of freedom, hope and promise. It was the centre of all excitement; the city where anything and everything was possible. And yet, does anyone truly know how it was possible for decades of change to take place in just ten years?

By the 1960s, the first teenage generation free from conscription emerged in Britain. Young people were finally given a voice and freedom to do what they wanted. The parents of the Sixties teenage generation had spent their youth fighting for their lives in the Second World War and wanted their own children to enjoy their youth and be able to have more fun and freedom. By the early 1960s, teenagers were already significantly different to those of a decade ago.

One of the biggest, defining aspects of the 1960s was music. Although rock and roll began having an effect on Britain in the 1950s, it wasn’t until the early Sixties and the emergence of ‘British Invasion’ groups like The Beatles, that music truly began its revolutionary changes. The Beatles are an excellent example of how music influenced the lives of young Britons. Although they continued the rock and roll genre of the 1950s for the early part of the decade, by 1967 Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band became the turning point in music and inspired other musicians, such as The Beach Boys and The Rolling Stones, to experiment with new sounds and develop innovative pieces of music. Their later albums included lyrics encouraging rebellion against the authorities, as seen in ‘Revolution’. Young people began to stand up for their beliefs and their individuality.

Recreational drugs were also synonymous with the Sixties and became more commonly used in the latter part of the decade. Images of the Woodstock festival show people high on marijuana and LSD, dancing in fields with paint on their face and their hair flowing free. It was very difficult for anyone in show business to avoid becoming involved in drugs in some way and as easily influenced young people looking for fun, many were encouraged to follow their idols and take hallucinogenic drugs. LSD made people feel happy and optimistic and helped bring about the ‘hippie’ movement. The effects of these drugs were also reflected in psychedelic art and films, bringing new, vibrant and exciting colours and patterns to the forefront. The ‘Yellow Submarine’ film with its combination of psychedelic pictures and music illustrates this perfectly.

Although Britain wasn’t directly involved in the Vietnam War, British musicians such as John Lennon brought it to the attentions of British people through protests against the conflict. Songs like ‘Give Peace a Chance’ showed people the horrors and pointlessness of war and fans followed in the footsteps of their idols to pursue peace and freedom. This became one of the biggest aspects associated with the ‘hippie’ movement. People began to challenge and question authority, something that would have been unheard of a decade ago.

The Profumo Affair, a scandalous mix of sex, spies and government, captured the public’s attention in 1963. The Secretary for War John Profumo was discovered to be having an affair with a woman who was also seeing a Russian military attaché. Profumo denied the affair but later admitted that he had lied to the House of Commons and resigned. The affair changed the relationship between government and press forever and seriously undermined the public’s trust in politicians. The traditional deference to figures of authority was now gradually being replaced by suspicion and mistrust.

Fashion in the decade mirrored many of the social changes of the Sixties. Mary Quant became famous for popularising the mini skirt which became the epitome of 1960s fashion. The mini was designed to be free and liberating for women, allowing them to “run and jump”. Her fashion designs used simple geometric shapes and colours which gave women a new kind of femininity. Women were free to wear more playful, youthful clothes that would have seemed outrageous ten years before. By the late Sixties, psychedelic prints and vibrant colours began appearing on clothes as the hippie movement gathered pace.

Feminism began to become a more influential ideology as more jobs became available to young women in the Sixties. This allowed them to move away from home and become more independent. The contraceptive pill became legalised for all women in 1967 and gave them the opportunity to broaden their hopes and dreams far beyond motherhood and marriage. The Women’s Liberty movement was in its infancy when in 1968 at a Ford factory in Dagenham, 850 women went on strike, arguing for equal pay with their male co-workers. This action resulted in the passing of the Equal Pay Act of 1970. Furthermore, women were becoming increasingly involved in politics. For example, in 1968, Barbara Castle became the first and only woman to be appointed First Secretary of State and women began finding a voice in society and the running of the country.

Technological advancements of the 1960s drastically changed how people spent their leisure time. The increase in employment in factories and increase in money allowed people to spend more on leisure activities. Colour television and pocket transistor radios allowed people to spend their free time listening to music and watching TV. Every teenager owned a transistor radio allowing them to listen to pop music on the move. The microwave oven shortened the amount of time women spent in the kitchen, further allowing them more freedom and time to enjoy themselves. By the end of the decade, Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin achieved the impossible by becoming the first men on the moon in 1969. It ended the decade on a note of optimism and the ability to dream for something bigger and better.

by Syl Mon Mar 26, 2018 12:36 pm

In some of those reports about a million people being made homeless, one of the reasons given is because the homes they now live in are considered unfit.

My original point was what is considered unfit today is far removed from what was considered unfit in the 50's and 60's. When no electric, no inside toilet, no hot water on tap, no central heating was available....people brought families up in those conditions.....pre birth control pilll they brought big families up.

Obviously no one should be living in squalor in so called rich countries, not then and not now. No one should be living in poverty......but poverty 2018 certainly isn't the same for the majority as it was for some baby boomers.

Peoples expectations of what they see their entitlements are have changed considerably over the last few decades.
If some don't have a car, big screen TV, mobile phones, computers etc they feel disadvanged.

by Sponsored content