Savings and Investments thread

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Diebythesword said:

blackpool72 said:

I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable. 
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer,  but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits. 
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason  why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny. 
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change  

1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden. 

Huge generalisation there.
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling. 
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point,  but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed. 

3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.

Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?

They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.

Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

golfaddick said:

cantersaddick said:

golfaddick said:

cantersaddick said:

golfaddick said:

Don't want to slide this thread too much into politics but with the Junior (oops....Resident) Doctors starting their 5 day strike today I would give them this option.......

The pay rise they are looking for in return for the NHS Pension scheme switching to a DC Scheme. With 10% contributions from both sides (roughly what is currently being contributed) but obviously there would be no linking to final salary or indexation in retirement. 

There is some bigger picture context on this outside if the public finances point. We have an ageing population but lots of the world including some near neighbours (France, Germany and others) have that problem coming down the road sooner and harder. The demand for health professionals is at a massive high in Europe and places like Australia. And its only gonna get much higher. We invest a massive amount in their education and training placements etc. Yet we lose a massive number to other countries every year. Removing what is the one aspect of their compensation we offer better than other countries is not gonna help our staffing issues.  

If we want healthcare in this country of any kind we need to have an offer on the table that keeps medical professionals here. We can't be short-termist about this or there will be no one to look after us in old age. 

Lots more in the 10 year health plan:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/10-year-health-plan-for-england-fit-for-the-future

And a 10 year health workforce plan to be published soon. 

Also there hasn't been any final salary NHS pensions since 2010. A very small number of people managed to keep previous final salary pensions going but for most they were ported into a new scheme in 2010. Resident doctors by nature of where they are in their careers will certainly have no element of final salary. It'll be career average with 42 years service required to get full career average salary in retirement 

I don't think you want to be discussing with me about the finer points of the NHS Pension. I've been dealing with it for 25 years in all of its guises. 

And it didnt change in 2010. There was a new one in 2008 that hardly anyone took up, and then in 2015 a new one "replaced" the 1995 scheme. But in reality most Doctors (and I can really only speak for them) didn't join the 2015 scheme until 2022. 

And the 1995 scheme is still linked to final salary, even if NHS staff are now in the 2015 scheme or even left.

Yes but resident doctors by definition of being in the first stage of being a doctor will be on the scheme I described whether it came in from 2010 or 2015 (my mistake) as they will have joined after that date. So resident doctors who you were talking about will have no element of final salary pension whatsoever as its not possible to be a resident doctor but to have joined the pension pre 2015.

No point conflating doctors in the first step of their career with ones nearing retirement.

Also note you didn't address the issue of global demand for doctors as a reason we should avoid cutting pensions for new doctors.

I don't want to get into a political debate on a thread that is supposed to be about money. All I will say is that in my 25 years of speaking to all grades of Doctors the Pension scheme (or changes to it) has not been to toper-most in their reasons why they would seek work elsewhere. Its usually to do with pay, conditions & hours of work. 

I will agree that the link to the NHS Pension being based on final salary was broken to new entrants in 2015, but it is still linked to their salary & is index linked throughout their career & into retirement. This was my main point. It is simply unaffordable & this money should (imo) be spent on the NHS, and not on pensioners with incomes above £50k pa.

I mean you brought it up. 

So like I said not final salary but career average and requires 42 years of service (pretty difficult after 7+ years of training) to actually reach career average. So actually nowhere near as generous as those schemes you were talking about.

The point is that currently resident doctors are in a  completely different position to those you are speaking to who are much nearer retirement. The pension is a much bigger part of the overall compensation for this cohort than any previous because of how much every other part of their compensation has fallen. Its a major part of the negotiations currently ongoing and central to the 10 year workforce plan. 

It was common place up until the early to mid 90's for anyone working for a largish company to have and be part of a final salary scheme. I joined the Woolwich in 1994 and their scheme was a 60th scheme (that could be drawn in full at aged 60). They ceased that for new entrants around 1998 and altogether sometime after I left. I know lots of people I worked with who are very happy drawing their FS pension!!

The difficulty comes when you have much of the public sector having final salary or average salary yet the private sector almost solely DC pensions now. It was always cited the reason for the 'gold plated' pensions was due to the lower salaries compared to private, I'm not so sure that applies anymore.

I think it's time to stop DB schemes completely.

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

golfaddick said:

cantersaddick said:

golfaddick said:

cantersaddick said:

golfaddick said:

Don't want to slide this thread too much into politics but with the Junior (oops....Resident) Doctors starting their 5 day strike today I would give them this option.......

The pay rise they are looking for in return for the NHS Pension scheme switching to a DC Scheme. With 10% contributions from both sides (roughly what is currently being contributed) but obviously there would be no linking to final salary or indexation in retirement. 

There is some bigger picture context on this outside if the public finances point. We have an ageing population but lots of the world including some near neighbours (France, Germany and others) have that problem coming down the road sooner and harder. The demand for health professionals is at a massive high in Europe and places like Australia. And its only gonna get much higher. We invest a massive amount in their education and training placements etc. Yet we lose a massive number to other countries every year. Removing what is the one aspect of their compensation we offer better than other countries is not gonna help our staffing issues.  

If we want healthcare in this country of any kind we need to have an offer on the table that keeps medical professionals here. We can't be short-termist about this or there will be no one to look after us in old age. 

Lots more in the 10 year health plan:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/10-year-health-plan-for-england-fit-for-the-future

And a 10 year health workforce plan to be published soon. 

Also there hasn't been any final salary NHS pensions since 2010. A very small number of people managed to keep previous final salary pensions going but for most they were ported into a new scheme in 2010. Resident doctors by nature of where they are in their careers will certainly have no element of final salary. It'll be career average with 42 years service required to get full career average salary in retirement 

I don't think you want to be discussing with me about the finer points of the NHS Pension. I've been dealing with it for 25 years in all of its guises. 

And it didnt change in 2010. There was a new one in 2008 that hardly anyone took up, and then in 2015 a new one "replaced" the 1995 scheme. But in reality most Doctors (and I can really only speak for them) didn't join the 2015 scheme until 2022. 

And the 1995 scheme is still linked to final salary, even if NHS staff are now in the 2015 scheme or even left.

Yes but resident doctors by definition of being in the first stage of being a doctor will be on the scheme I described whether it came in from 2010 or 2015 (my mistake) as they will have joined after that date. So resident doctors who you were talking about will have no element of final salary pension whatsoever as its not possible to be a resident doctor but to have joined the pension pre 2015.

No point conflating doctors in the first step of their career with ones nearing retirement.

Also note you didn't address the issue of global demand for doctors as a reason we should avoid cutting pensions for new doctors.

I don't want to get into a political debate on a thread that is supposed to be about money. All I will say is that in my 25 years of speaking to all grades of Doctors the Pension scheme (or changes to it) has not been to toper-most in their reasons why they would seek work elsewhere. Its usually to do with pay, conditions & hours of work. 

I will agree that the link to the NHS Pension being based on final salary was broken to new entrants in 2015, but it is still linked to their salary & is index linked throughout their career & into retirement. This was my main point. It is simply unaffordable & this money should (imo) be spent on the NHS, and not on pensioners with incomes above £50k pa.

I mean you brought it up. 

So like I said not final salary but career average and requires 42 years of service (pretty difficult after 7+ years of training) to actually reach career average. So actually nowhere near as generous as those schemes you were talking about.

The point is that currently resident doctors are in a  completely different position to those you are speaking to who are much nearer retirement. The pension is a much bigger part of the overall compensation for this cohort than any previous because of how much every other part of their compensation has fallen. Its a major part of the negotiations currently ongoing and central to the 10 year workforce plan. 

It was common place up until the early to mid 90's for anyone working for a largish company to have and be part of a final salary scheme. I joined the Woolwich in 1994 and their scheme was a 60th scheme (that could be drawn in full at aged 60). They ceased that for new entrants around 1998 and altogether sometime after I left. I know lots of people I worked with who are very happy drawing their FS pension!!

The difficulty comes when you have much of the public sector having final salary or average salary yet the private sector almost solely DC pensions now. It was always cited the reason for the 'gold plated' pensions was due to the lower salaries compared to private, I'm not so sure that applies anymore.

I think it's time to stop DB schemes completely.

I get where you're coming from and the public sector was slower to move away from final salary than the rest but they were gone by or soon after 2010. And not just for new entrants most people were ported over very quickly. A few managed to hold on but basically were held to ridiculously strict limits. 2 extra hours a week were added to public sector contracts as part of the same move. Yes they still have DB as career average but it isn't final salary.

I maintain its needed to attract good people with specialist skills. Now there are non-specialist roles in the public sector (and part of the problem is they are on the same pay scales as specialists). But if you was doctors as we were discussing above, or Lawyers, researchers or analysts you have to do something to attract them. If you don't pay the going rate you rely on a mixture of goodwill and and other factors like flexible working and pensions. You pay peanuts you get monkeys. You want skilled professionals doing these key roles in order for government to actually deliver effectively. It's why the government loses every legal challenge it faces, because its Lawers have to start on the same pay scales as everyone else which is about a fifth of what they'd get in the private sector.

 To give an example my wife is in the NHS, she is an analyst with a background in biology and epidemiology and has specialised in health data for more than 10 years. She is excellent and works there largely because she wants to make a difference and improve health outcomes for people. She has had offers from 2 consultancies that are big in the Health space for similar level jobs that would more than double her salary overnight. One of them keeps coming back with improved offers even though she's told them she doesn't want to work for them as they are one of the least moral companies in the world.

There remains a significant pay disparity to the private sector, the pension makes up for this in part.

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Diebythesword said:

blackpool72 said:

I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable. 
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer,  but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits. 
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason  why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny. 
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change  

1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden. 

Huge generalisation there.
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling. 
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point,  but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed. 

3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.

Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?

They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.

Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.

How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.

If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.

And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.

It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history. 

When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there? 

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Diebythesword said:

blackpool72 said:

I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable. 
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer,  but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits. 
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason  why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny. 
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change  

1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden. 

Huge generalisation there.
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling. 
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point,  but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed. 

3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.

Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?

They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.

Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.

How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.

If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.

And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.

It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history. 

When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there? 

Your not comparing apples with apples, The silent generation were in broad terms quite poor, because the country was poor. By the time we go to the 80's through to early 00's wealth (in a large part due to property) and inflation earlier meant that those 40 year olds had seen their wealth grow. Also Generations are now living longer, so in part it is taking longer for wealth to pass down (I'm ignoring death taxes for this purpose)

I find it hard to believe that in say 2050 Gen Z will have less than 1% of the wealth. Baby boomers will sadly be a lot less in number (as they'll be approaching 90 or over 100) - where has their wealth gone, or is it with them in Heaven (and hell), even Gen X will be 75+. Where's all the money gone!?! 

It will go to corporations the likes of Blackrock and Lloyd's who are targeting between them 18bn of UK housing purchases in the next 2 years. Offshore ownerships and private equity are planning to hoover up the assets as they become available as boomers die.

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Diebythesword said:

blackpool72 said:

I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable. 
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer,  but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits. 
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason  why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny. 
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change  

1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden. 

Huge generalisation there.
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling. 
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point,  but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed. 

3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.

Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?

They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.

Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.

How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.

If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.

And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.

It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history. 

When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there? 

Your not comparing apples with apples, The silent generation were in broad terms quite poor, because the country was poor. By the time we go to the 80's through to early 00's wealth (in a large part due to property) and inflation earlier meant that those 40 year olds had seen their wealth grow. Also Generations are now living longer, so in part it is taking longer for wealth to pass down (I'm ignoring death taxes for this purpose)

I find it hard to believe that in say 2050 Gen Z will have less than 1% of the wealth. Baby boomers will sadly be a lot less in number (as they'll be approaching 90 or over 100) - where has their wealth gone, or is it with them in Heaven (and hell), even Gen X will be 75+. Where's all the money gone!?! 

It will go to corporations the likes of Blackrock and Lloyd's who are targeting between them 18bn of UK housing purchases in the next 2 years. Offshore ownerships and private equity are planning to hoover up the assets as they become available as boomers die.

I'm assuming Black Rock et all will be paying money for these properties? Where does that money go? And who owns Lloyds & Blackrock?

Huskaris said:

Nah old people need to just go on fewer cruises and they'll be fine. 

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Diebythesword said:

blackpool72 said:

I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable. 
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer,  but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits. 
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason  why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny. 
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change  

1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden. 

Huge generalisation there.
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling. 
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point,  but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed. 

3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.

Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?

They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.

Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.

How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.

If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.

And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.

It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history. 

When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there? 

Your not comparing apples with apples, The silent generation were in broad terms quite poor, because the country was poor. By the time we go to the 80's through to early 00's wealth (in a large part due to property) and inflation earlier meant that those 40 year olds had seen their wealth grow. Also Generations are now living longer, so in part it is taking longer for wealth to pass down (I'm ignoring death taxes for this purpose)

I find it hard to believe that in say 2050 Gen Z will have less than 1% of the wealth. Baby boomers will sadly be a lot less in number (as they'll be approaching 90 or over 100) - where has their wealth gone, or is it with them in Heaven (and hell), even Gen X will be 75+. Where's all the money gone!?! 

It will go to corporations the likes of Blackrock and Lloyd's who are targeting between them 18bn of UK housing purchases in the next 2 years. Offshore ownerships and private equity are planning to hoover up the assets as they become available as boomers die.

I'm assuming Black Rock et all will be paying money for these properties? Where does that money go? And who owns Lloyds & Blackrock?

Well sure but with what that injection of cash will do to already massively inflated house prices will ensure that people will find it harder and harder to buy houses. For the majority of people it's the largest or only asset they will own in their life. Take that away and what do they have? 

And as for who owns them - a smaller and smaller class of asset owners.

Can you genuinely not see a problem here?

But that's not what you said.

I asked where the wealth would go that you were suggesting is disappearing somewhere (when the baby boomers pass etc), you said it would go to companies like Blackrock and Lloyds by purchasing these properties. That isn't removing the wealth from people, it's exchanging one asset (bricks and mortar) for another - Cash. If I sell you my house, assuming I sell at the market value, today I have an asset (House) worth 1.35m, tomorrow I have cash of 1.35m - the wealth hasn't left me.

You were saying the money is moving from the people to the corporations, that's simply not true. If they do buy up 18bn of property it will of course mean certain assets are moving (each way) more property will be moving to corporations and more cash/money will be moving to people.

My second point which you missed or misunderstood, who owns blackrock and Lloyds Banking Group..... Blackrock and Lloyds two biggest shareholders are Vanguard and Blackrock themselves. I.E. it's mine, yours and millions of others pension, ISA's etc that own large parts of these companies.

So again, where does the money/value/asset go? I think you are confusing asset choice and investment return, Blackrock etc are gambling that they'll make more money on Property than elsewhere (and they may be right, but I'm not convinced).

Where I was trying to get you to, is there is only one place the money goes to (meaning the assets diminish) that is currently owned by 'the people' - and that's to Government by way of taxation (in this instance, IHT). If there was no IHT and no crown receipts from death, the money wouldn't be leaving people. However some love the idea of IHT as they believe it redistributes wealth, yet in reality it doesn't.

The housing issue in this country is a whole other topic, until such time as we grow up and start building new towns and millions of houses (and all the infrastructure that requires) it will not change but likely only get worse.

Nope not missed the point at all in fact I think you have. 

You're kidding yourself if you think substituting an asset for cash leaves people equally well off. 

Those assets both the housing and financial are being owned by an ever smaller asset owning class of people. That's already happening. A much smaller proportion of people own financial assets than houses as is and that's only getting worse as well. The massive transfer of wealth from people owning houses to corporations and financial services that's coming as the boomer generation die is only going to make that worse. Having any kind of pension wealth at all puts you in the top 40% of the UK. For a large amount of people the only financial service they buy in their entire life is insurance.

So as said a smaller and smaller asset owning class. 

I get it's not gonna be a problem for you and yours but sure you can see its a problem for society?

cantersaddick said:

Slightly tangential post but will become linked (sorta) at the end so indulge me - or ignore me, your choice!

I have recently returned to formal economics education -masters part time on the side of my job and am really enjoying it. We have one lecturer who is really trying to get us to challenge the ways of economic thinking we were taught in undergrad and the economics that is used in politics.

I have long been of the opinion that economics (well the economics that politicians listen to) is taking problems of the modern economic world - which is built on globalised free trade, large national and multinational companies, conglomerates & private equity and  external shocks beyond a governments control - and applying economic solutions that were designed for a more traditional economy of a large number of small businesses, less globalisation, more competition. An example of this is with inflation, with the inflation over the last 4ish years whilst there is acknowledgement that it was started by external shocks (Covid, Ukraine war, reduction in global free trade) so much of the conversation domestically was around wages. Economics has known since the 1970s that in a globalised world the link between wages and inflation is broken. but it still dominated the conversation and policy response.

This lecturer takes it a step further challenging the fundamentals of neo-liberal economics which formed the basis for Thatcherism and is still the dominant force in terms of economic thinking across "The West". She's not trying to promote any alternative way of thinking about economics but rather to encourage us to explore alternatives. She also pointed out that basically since feudalism ended the UK and most other major economies have had some tangible change to their economic system and way of approaching it roughly every 30 years. Except now we haven't really had one since the early 70s. So we are nearly 25 years overdue a new approach. 

So why am I saying this here and now? Well a lot of the chat on this thread over the last day or so is naturally framed though that Neo-liberal economics viewpoint. And am wondering whether thats really right and what alternative approaches could exist. I've been delving into Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) and I'm not sure I fully understand it yet and I don't fully agree with it. But it's an interesting challenge to a lot of the established wisdom and at least on the surface presents a way out of some of the modern economic challenges.

Richard Murphey talks a lot about it and I find his explanations are really good at translating it out of technical economic language so if anyone is interested in challenging their understanding of the economy (and markets in particular) i'd start with his blogs or videos.

Couple interesting ones here:

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/09/07/what-is-modern-monetary-theory-2/

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/Modern-monetary-theory-v2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjIqN667emQAxWCQkEAHUOSI3AQFnoECF4QAQ&usg=AOvVaw1QEEv4_fslJJFACkrvUlSK

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/06/22/mmt-magic-myth-or-reality/

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2024/09/17/why-is-modern-monetary-theory-so-important/

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/11/11/did-the-1970s-really-kill-keynes/

bobmunro said:

cantersaddick said:

Honestly mate was not an attack on boomers at all. Or any group of people. More the corporations looking to exploit the situation. 

Clarification accepted

If one of the problems is large corporations buying up the housing stock (to rent out presumably) then that has to be stopped and the land registry should be able to easily control that, as well as regulation on developers preventing whole swathes of new housing being swallowed up. It can also be neutralised to an extent by much, much more social housing. 

Just an observation, I believe it is Blackstone who are one of the main villains, rather than Black Rock.

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Diebythesword said:

blackpool72 said:

I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable. 
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer,  but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits. 
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason  why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny. 
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change  

1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden. 

Huge generalisation there.
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling. 
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point,  but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed. 

3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.

Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?

They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.

Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.

How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.

If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.

And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.

It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history. 

When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there? 

Your not comparing apples with apples, The silent generation were in broad terms quite poor, because the country was poor. By the time we go to the 80's through to early 00's wealth (in a large part due to property) and inflation earlier meant that those 40 year olds had seen their wealth grow. Also Generations are now living longer, so in part it is taking longer for wealth to pass down (I'm ignoring death taxes for this purpose)

I find it hard to believe that in say 2050 Gen Z will have less than 1% of the wealth. Baby boomers will sadly be a lot less in number (as they'll be approaching 90 or over 100) - where has their wealth gone, or is it with them in Heaven (and hell), even Gen X will be 75+. Where's all the money gone!?! 

It will go to corporations the likes of Blackrock and Lloyd's who are targeting between them 18bn of UK housing purchases in the next 2 years. Offshore ownerships and private equity are planning to hoover up the assets as they become available as boomers die.

I'm assuming Black Rock et all will be paying money for these properties? Where does that money go? And who owns Lloyds & Blackrock?

Well sure but with what that injection of cash will do to already massively inflated house prices will ensure that people will find it harder and harder to buy houses. For the majority of people it's the largest or only asset they will own in their life. Take that away and what do they have? 

And as for who owns them - a smaller and smaller class of asset owners.

Can you genuinely not see a problem here?

But that's not what you said.

I asked where the wealth would go that you were suggesting is disappearing somewhere (when the baby boomers pass etc), you said it would go to companies like Blackrock and Lloyds by purchasing these properties. That isn't removing the wealth from people, it's exchanging one asset (bricks and mortar) for another - Cash. If I sell you my house, assuming I sell at the market value, today I have an asset (House) worth 1.35m, tomorrow I have cash of 1.35m - the wealth hasn't left me.

You were saying the money is moving from the people to the corporations, that's simply not true. If they do buy up 18bn of property it will of course mean certain assets are moving (each way) more property will be moving to corporations and more cash/money will be moving to people.

My second point which you missed or misunderstood, who owns blackrock and Lloyds Banking Group..... Blackrock and Lloyds two biggest shareholders are Vanguard and Blackrock themselves. I.E. it's mine, yours and millions of others pension, ISA's etc that own large parts of these companies.

So again, where does the money/value/asset go? I think you are confusing asset choice and investment return, Blackrock etc are gambling that they'll make more money on Property than elsewhere (and they may be right, but I'm not convinced).

Where I was trying to get you to, is there is only one place the money goes to (meaning the assets diminish) that is currently owned by 'the people' - and that's to Government by way of taxation (in this instance, IHT). If there was no IHT and no crown receipts from death, the money wouldn't be leaving people. However some love the idea of IHT as they believe it redistributes wealth, yet in reality it doesn't.

The housing issue in this country is a whole other topic, until such time as we grow up and start building new towns and millions of houses (and all the infrastructure that requires) it will not change but likely only get worse.

Nope not missed the point at all in fact I think you have. 

You're kidding yourself if you think substituting an asset for cash leaves people equally well off. 

Those assets both the housing and financial are being owned by an ever smaller asset owning class of people. That's already happening. A much smaller proportion of people own financial assets than houses as is and that's only getting worse as well. The massive transfer of wealth from people owning houses to corporations and financial services that's coming as the boomer generation die is only going to squeeze people out of housing and make that worse. And the people that can't afford housing don't buy financial assets either. Having any kind of pension wealth at all puts you in the top 40% of the UK. For a large amount of people the only financial service they buy in their entire life is insurance.

So as said a smaller and smaller asset owning class. 

I get it's not gonna be a problem for you and yours but sure you can see its a problem for society?

Please explain to me, if I sell a property for market value how I am worse off? I had £1.35m in a property, I now have £1.35m in cash (and then wherever I choose to invest it). There has been no transfer of my wealth aside from a tiny amount to an estate agent and solicitor for the transaction.

You seem to believe the wealth is disappearing, I'm trying to work out where you think it's going? Your initial point was that it's going to these corporations that are buying up houses, but fail to see the point that they are paying for those houses, so at the point of asset transfer that is not having the effect of transferring wealth from individuals to corporations. You also seem to miss the fact that those companies buying the properties are ultimately owned mostly by individuals!

Now it may be that house price inflation will out strip other asset inflation/growth, but that's a whole other conversation and a gamble/bet. If I'd have 5 years ago bought property in my pension I'd be worse off than I am now as property has flat lined compared to the stocks and shares I instead held. How have property values compared to the stock market over the last 30-40 years? Not even in the same growth ball park.

There is broadly only one place wealth is going to from individuals and thats to the Government. Let's say I have £5m of asset, whether property, stocks and shares, gold, cash etc etc. That's what I have, if my wife and I die tomorrow that will end up at around £3.4m to my children, the remainder goes to HMRC. There's a true transfer of wealth away from individuals. If we get into the things like property tax it will happen further and quicker.

I'm not saying I agree at all with corporations buying up property and the potential effect that may have on the market, but that it is not the reason for any transfer of wealth and why Gen Z will own less than 1% at aged 40 (which I don't agree with either by the way).

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Diebythesword said:

blackpool72 said:

I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable. 
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer,  but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits. 
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason  why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny. 
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change  

1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden. 

Huge generalisation there.
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling. 
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point,  but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed. 

3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.

Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?

They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.

Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.

How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.

If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.

And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.

It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history. 

When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there? 

Your not comparing apples with apples, The silent generation were in broad terms quite poor, because the country was poor. By the time we go to the 80's through to early 00's wealth (in a large part due to property) and inflation earlier meant that those 40 year olds had seen their wealth grow. Also Generations are now living longer, so in part it is taking longer for wealth to pass down (I'm ignoring death taxes for this purpose)

I find it hard to believe that in say 2050 Gen Z will have less than 1% of the wealth. Baby boomers will sadly be a lot less in number (as they'll be approaching 90 or over 100) - where has their wealth gone, or is it with them in Heaven (and hell), even Gen X will be 75+. Where's all the money gone!?! 

It will go to corporations the likes of Blackrock and Lloyd's who are targeting between them 18bn of UK housing purchases in the next 2 years. Offshore ownerships and private equity are planning to hoover up the assets as they become available as boomers die.

I'm assuming Black Rock et all will be paying money for these properties? Where does that money go? And who owns Lloyds & Blackrock?

Well sure but with what that injection of cash will do to already massively inflated house prices will ensure that people will find it harder and harder to buy houses. For the majority of people it's the largest or only asset they will own in their life. Take that away and what do they have? 

And as for who owns them - a smaller and smaller class of asset owners.

Can you genuinely not see a problem here?

But that's not what you said.

I asked where the wealth would go that you were suggesting is disappearing somewhere (when the baby boomers pass etc), you said it would go to companies like Blackrock and Lloyds by purchasing these properties. That isn't removing the wealth from people, it's exchanging one asset (bricks and mortar) for another - Cash. If I sell you my house, assuming I sell at the market value, today I have an asset (House) worth 1.35m, tomorrow I have cash of 1.35m - the wealth hasn't left me.

You were saying the money is moving from the people to the corporations, that's simply not true. If they do buy up 18bn of property it will of course mean certain assets are moving (each way) more property will be moving to corporations and more cash/money will be moving to people.

My second point which you missed or misunderstood, who owns blackrock and Lloyds Banking Group..... Blackrock and Lloyds two biggest shareholders are Vanguard and Blackrock themselves. I.E. it's mine, yours and millions of others pension, ISA's etc that own large parts of these companies.

So again, where does the money/value/asset go? I think you are confusing asset choice and investment return, Blackrock etc are gambling that they'll make more money on Property than elsewhere (and they may be right, but I'm not convinced).

Where I was trying to get you to, is there is only one place the money goes to (meaning the assets diminish) that is currently owned by 'the people' - and that's to Government by way of taxation (in this instance, IHT). If there was no IHT and no crown receipts from death, the money wouldn't be leaving people. However some love the idea of IHT as they believe it redistributes wealth, yet in reality it doesn't.

The housing issue in this country is a whole other topic, until such time as we grow up and start building new towns and millions of houses (and all the infrastructure that requires) it will not change but likely only get worse.

Nope not missed the point at all in fact I think you have. 

You're kidding yourself if you think substituting an asset for cash leaves people equally well off. 

Those assets both the housing and financial are being owned by an ever smaller asset owning class of people. That's already happening. A much smaller proportion of people own financial assets than houses as is and that's only getting worse as well. The massive transfer of wealth from people owning houses to corporations and financial services that's coming as the boomer generation die is only going to squeeze people out of housing and make that worse. And the people that can't afford housing don't buy financial assets either. Having any kind of pension wealth at all puts you in the top 40% of the UK. For a large amount of people the only financial service they buy in their entire life is insurance.

So as said a smaller and smaller asset owning class. 

I get it's not gonna be a problem for you and yours but sure you can see its a problem for society?

Please explain to me, if I sell a property for market value how I am worse off? I had £1.35m in a property, I now have £1.35m in cash (and then wherever I choose to invest it). There has been no transfer of my wealth aside from a tiny amount to an estate agent and solicitor for the transaction.

You seem to believe the wealth is disappearing, I'm trying to work out where you think it's going? Your initial point was that it's going to these corporations that are buying up houses, but fail to see the point that they are paying for those houses, so at the point of asset transfer that is not having the effect of transferring wealth from individuals to corporations. You also seem to miss the fact that those companies buying the properties are ultimately owned mostly by individuals!

Now it may be that house price inflation will out strip other asset inflation/growth, but that's a whole other conversation and a gamble/bet. If I'd have 5 years ago bought property in my pension I'd be worse off than I am now as property has flat lined compared to the stocks and shares I instead held. How have property values compared to the stock market over the last 30-40 years? Not even in the same growth ball park.

There is broadly only one place wealth is going to from individuals and thats to the Government. Let's say I have £5m of asset, whether property, stocks and shares, gold, cash etc etc. That's what I have, if my wife and I die tomorrow that will end up at around £3.4m to my children, the remainder goes to HMRC. There's a true transfer of wealth away from individuals. If we get into the things like property tax it will happen further and quicker.

I'm not saying I agree at all with corporations buying up property and the potential effect that may have on the market, but that it is not the reason for any transfer of wealth and why Gen Z will own less than 1% at aged 40 (which I don't agree with either by the way).

So why haven't you kept all your wealth in cash then? Why do we have this thread? If cash is just as good then why do we need assets at all? Genuinely can't work out if you're being obtuse here!

So a boomer dies. The probate sells their house and pays the relevant taxes. House is brought by a private equity firm as part of a massive nation wide injection of cash into the market driving prices up further. The estate (most cases a house worth less than £1.35m and not much else once care costs have been paid) is split between on average 3 children, some will be passed to grand children and split even further. For the younger people receiving that money it's not enough to get them on the housing market. People who can't afford houses generally don't buy financial assets either so aren't benefitting by the roundabout route of the commidification of our housing market either. The cash is eaten up by increased rent and living costs, maybe a new car or a treat here and there. The majority is simply inflated away.

The wealth is not disappearing. It is being held by a smaller and smaller group of people. Part of the rapidly worsening wealth inequality that has been happening for 20 years. This is just a continuation of that but at a faster rate and exacerbated by the large transfer of wealth coming down the pipeline shortly.

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

Rob7Lee said:

cantersaddick said:

blackpool72 said:

Diebythesword said:

blackpool72 said:

I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable. 
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer,  but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits. 
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason  why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny. 
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change  

1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden. 

Huge generalisation there.
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling. 
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point,  but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed. 

3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.

Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?

They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.

Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.

How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.

If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.

And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.

It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history. 

When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there? 

Your not comparing apples with apples, The silent generation were in broad terms quite poor, because the country was poor. By the time we go to the 80's through to early 00's wealth (in a large part due to property) and inflation earlier meant that those 40 year olds had seen their wealth grow. Also Generations are now living longer, so in part it is taking longer for wealth to pass down (I'm ignoring death taxes for this purpose)

I find it hard to believe that in say 2050 Gen Z will have less than 1% of the wealth. Baby boomers will sadly be a lot less in number (as they'll be approaching 90 or over 100) - where has their wealth gone, or is it with them in Heaven (and hell), even Gen X will be 75+. Where's all the money gone!?! 

It will go to corporations the likes of Blackrock and Lloyd's who are targeting between them 18bn of UK housing purchases in the next 2 years. Offshore ownerships and private equity are planning to hoover up the assets as they become available as boomers die.

I'm assuming Black Rock et all will be paying money for these properties? Where does that money go? And who owns Lloyds & Blackrock?

Well sure but with what that injection of cash will do to already massively inflated house prices will ensure that people will find it harder and harder to buy houses. For the majority of people it's the largest or only asset they will own in their life. Take that away and what do they have? 

And as for who owns them - a smaller and smaller class of asset owners.

Can you genuinely not see a problem here?

But that's not what you said.

I asked where the wealth would go that you were suggesting is disappearing somewhere (when the baby boomers pass etc), you said it would go to companies like Blackrock and Lloyds by purchasing these properties. That isn't removing the wealth from people, it's exchanging one asset (bricks and mortar) for another - Cash. If I sell you my house, assuming I sell at the market value, today I have an asset (House) worth 1.35m, tomorrow I have cash of 1.35m - the wealth hasn't left me.

You were saying the money is moving from the people to the corporations, that's simply not true. If they do buy up 18bn of property it will of course mean certain assets are moving (each way) more property will be moving to corporations and more cash/money will be moving to people.

My second point which you missed or misunderstood, who owns blackrock and Lloyds Banking Group..... Blackrock and Lloyds two biggest shareholders are Vanguard and Blackrock themselves. I.E. it's mine, yours and millions of others pension, ISA's etc that own large parts of these companies.

So again, where does the money/value/asset go? I think you are confusing asset choice and investment return, Blackrock etc are gambling that they'll make more money on Property than elsewhere (and they may be right, but I'm not convinced).

Where I was trying to get you to, is there is only one place the money goes to (meaning the assets diminish) that is currently owned by 'the people' - and that's to Government by way of taxation (in this instance, IHT). If there was no IHT and no crown receipts from death, the money wouldn't be leaving people. However some love the idea of IHT as they believe it redistributes wealth, yet in reality it doesn't.

The housing issue in this country is a whole other topic, until such time as we grow up and start building new towns and millions of houses (and all the infrastructure that requires) it will not change but likely only get worse.

Nope not missed the point at all in fact I think you have. 

You're kidding yourself if you think substituting an asset for cash leaves people equally well off. 

Those assets both the housing and financial are being owned by an ever smaller asset owning class of people. That's already happening. A much smaller proportion of people own financial assets than houses as is and that's only getting worse as well. The massive transfer of wealth from people owning houses to corporations and financial services that's coming as the boomer generation die is only going to squeeze people out of housing and make that worse. And the people that can't afford housing don't buy financial assets either. Having any kind of pension wealth at all puts you in the top 40% of the UK. For a large amount of people the only financial service they buy in their entire life is insurance.

So as said a smaller and smaller asset owning class. 

I get it's not gonna be a problem for you and yours but sure you can see its a problem for society?

Please explain to me, if I sell a property for market value how I am worse off? I had £1.35m in a property, I now have £1.35m in cash (and then wherever I choose to invest it). There has been no transfer of my wealth aside from a tiny amount to an estate agent and solicitor for the transaction.

You seem to believe the wealth is disappearing, I'm trying to work out where you think it's going? Your initial point was that it's going to these corporations that are buying up houses, but fail to see the point that they are paying for those houses, so at the point of asset transfer that is not having the effect of transferring wealth from individuals to corporations. You also seem to miss the fact that those companies buying the properties are ultimately owned mostly by individuals!

Now it may be that house price inflation will out strip other asset inflation/growth, but that's a whole other conversation and a gamble/bet. If I'd have 5 years ago bought property in my pension I'd be worse off than I am now as property has flat lined compared to the stocks and shares I instead held. How have property values compared to the stock market over the last 30-40 years? Not even in the same growth ball park.

There is broadly only one place wealth is going to from individuals and thats to the Government. Let's say I have £5m of asset, whether property, stocks and shares, gold, cash etc etc. That's what I have, if my wife and I die tomorrow that will end up at around £3.4m to my children, the remainder goes to HMRC. There's a true transfer of wealth away from individuals. If we get into the things like property tax it will happen further and quicker.

I'm not saying I agree at all with corporations buying up property and the potential effect that may have on the market, but that it is not the reason for any transfer of wealth and why Gen Z will own less than 1% at aged 40 (which I don't agree with either by the way).

So why haven't you kept all your wealth in cash then? Why do we have this thread? If cash is just as good then why do we need assets at all? Genuinely can't work out if you're being obtuse here!

So a boomer dies. The probate sells their house and pays the relevant taxes. House is brought by a private equity firm as part of a massive nation wide injection of cash into the market driving prices up further. The estate (most cases a house worth less than £1.35m and not much else once care costs have been paid) is split between on average 3 children, some will be passed to grand children and split even further. For the younger people receiving that money it's not enough to get them on the housing market. People who can't afford houses generally don't buy financial assets either so aren't benefitting by the roundabout route of the commidification of our housing market either. The cash is eaten up by increased rent and living costs, maybe a new car or a treat here and there. The majority is simply inflated away.

The wealth is not disappearing. It is being held by a smaller and smaller group of people. Part of the rapidly worsening wealth inequality that has been happening for 20 years. This is just a continuation of that but at a faster rate and exacerbated by the large transfer of wealth coming down the pipeline shortly.

Again, that wasn't what you were saying. Your comment was that these companies buying up property is taking away wealth, thats simply not true as I have explained. When I asked you where this wealth was disappearing to you said:

It will go to corporations the likes of Blackrock and Lloyd's who are targeting between them 18bn of UK housing purchases in the next 2 years. Offshore ownerships and private equity are planning to hoover up the assets as they become available as boomers die.

But that doesn't remove wealth simply because someone buys an asset from someone. I bought four gold sovereigns a couple of months ago from a lady at work. Just because I now own the coins, I haven't taken away wealth from her. She has exchanged the coins for cash (no idea what she then did with the cash) and I have less cash!

My example of cash was showing that when Lloyds Bank buys an asset, a house, (let's say from me) they would do so by paying me the asset value in cash. There is no transfer of wealth, I'm not suddenly worse off. I may spend that cash, I may invest that cash, if I invest it I may end up with a greater value than the house that Lloyds now own, or I might not (my pension the last 10 years has far far exceeded in value and growth my home). If Lloyds buy £18bn of property tomorrow, they aren't suddenly worth more and those who sold worth less. There is now £18bn of property owned by Lloyds who have probably £19bn less money due to costs. Conversely the sellers have no longer got 18bn of property but have broadly 18bn of cash (on day 1). Again, no transfer of wealth.

You've yet to give one example or any explanation as to how these house purchases are transferring any wealth to the corporations. But I have shown you how government is currently removing 7.5bn per annum of wealth (asset) which is set to be doubling in the next 4-5 years to 15bn (and I think that is before the 2027 change to pension funds).

I think you are making the observation that property will continue to rise at a greater rate than anything else money may be invested in, history tells us thats not necessarily the case or in more recent times even likely.

I have never talked about wealth disappearing, though you have gone to great pains to say that i was. I have only talked about wealth transfers.

I talked about wealth transfers from ordinary people to corporations. You said "who owns those corporations" to which I conceded they are owned by people (via a lot of offshoring and some hidden ownership structures) through financial products, but that those products are owned by a much smaller group of people. This isn't the 70s/80s with a thriving middle class when everyone has a share portfolio! Only about 10% of working aged people have anything invested outside of their workplace pension, and only about half have a workplace pension.  So there is a transfer of assets from the large proportion of people who have traditionally owned houses to a smaller proportion of people who own financial services products. Sure on day 1 the wealth calculation will be equal but again you are kidding yourself if you think they are in equally good position. By year 2 that equation will be massively unbalanced and will continue to exponentially get worse. Not owning any assets will very quickly erode the value of that cash, we aren't comparing property growth to other asset growth here. We are comparing asset growth to cash. And even if we ignore the growth in asset values vs cash point. The non-asset owners will be paying rent to the asset owners (via large multi-nationals) in order to live. Therefore more transfer of wealth!

This isn't a new phenomenon. Its been happening for 20 years and much documented. There are literally hundreds of economic papers (selection linked below) explaining this exact thing. The only point I am adding to it is that the bulge in wealth that is now held by those over retirement age and will be transferred in the coming 20 years and I am saying it is going to exponentially speed up what is already happening.

https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/inequalities/2024/10/29/the-uks-wealth-gap-has-grown-by-50-in-eight-years/

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2020/12/The-UKs-wealth-distribution.pdf

https://www.jrf.org.uk/narrative-change/changing-the-narrative-on-wealth-inequality

As for your point on Tax, I don't disagree its a leakage and a transfer of wealth (but by your measure "on day 1 the wealth still exists its just in different hands") but in the context of inequality its pretty small beans. If you want to talk about government transfers of wealth why don't we talk about how privatisation means that almost everything the government does is a transfer of wealth to corporations (usually those same private equity funds) through contracts and tax breaks, whether the children's care system, water provision, elderly care all of the cash goes back to the same asset holders. Or we could talk about how during COVID the government directly transferred £700-800bn of taxpayers money to those same corporations and funds. 

Every part of our economy, government and system is making the same small (and ever decreasing) group of asset holders richer whilst excluding everybody else.