Boomers vs the rest

[Chief]

Have nutrition that’s second to none

Not sure about that.

Obesity stubbornly high and rising.

 

[Madas]

Not sure about that.

Obesity stubbornly high and rising.

True
Should have said “ access to “ nutrition……..

 

[Chief]

True
Should have said “ access to “ nutrition……..

I don't know if we have as big a problem with food deserts in Australia but if you live remotely it can be difficult to get good food. Obesity and bad diet is more likely out in remote areas.

 

[revo333]

Prices are pretty nuts but I'll be honest I find the constant whinging about interest rates from foolish people that borrowed too much quite funny.

Some people in their 20's do truely believe it should be some kind of law that boomers should have to sell their house and downgrade.

They lose a little sympathy from me with that attitude as they have benefits living now at their age that boomers didn't have when they were young.

 

[Sqotty from office works]

Some people in their 20's do truely believe it should be some kind of law that boomers should have to sell their house and downgrade.

They lose a little sympathy from me with that attitude as they have benefits living now at their age that boomers didn't have when they were young.

Entitled nitwits.

 

[Rotayjay]

These things aren't necessarily restricted to certain generations, but the rise of things like Uber Eats certainly have an age component.

Getting all kinds of takeaway food delivered at the tap of a screen (as opposed to just pizza) has, I think, broken through the psychological barrier of getting off one's arse to collect takeaway, so people are even more keen to order takeaway than (say) fifteen years ago. I reckon it's not about the delivery fee. It's about the convenience encouraging doing it more often than you otherwise would.

 

[mr bagcroft]

Some people in their 20's do truely believe it should be some kind of law that boomers should have to sell their house and downgrade.

They lose a little sympathy from me with that attitude as they have benefits living now at their age that boomers didn't have when they were young.

lol, well let them think that.
Just another example of their totally unrealistic entitled arse about view of the world.
me me me me me.

 

[faible]

lol, well let them think that.
Just another example of their totally unrealistic entitled arse about view of the world.
me me me me me.

I'm sure boomers are incredibly selfless and definitely don't act, think, or vote for selfish reasons..

 

[mr bagcroft]

I'm sure boomers are incredibly selfless and definitely don't act, think, or vote for selfish reasons..

Acting selfishly is a unfortunate human condition.
Being an total imbecile is a choice, when you think you have the right to demand people sell their own property.

 

[faible]

Acting selfishly is a unfortunate human condition.
Being an total imbecile is a choice, when you think you have the right to demand people sell their own property.

Just their 3rd and 4th investment properties would be fine

 

[mr bagcroft]

Just their 3rd and 4th investment properties would be fine

Nope, you still aren't even close to having that right.
Not now, not ever.
My father is a boomer by the way, I have no dog in this race.
But people need to get their heads out of the arses with this garbage.

 

[faible]

Nope, you still aren't even close to having that right.
Not now, not ever.
My father is a boomer by the way, I have no dog in this race.
But people need to get their heads out of the arses with this garbage.

I see humour eludes you.

What particular garbage do you have an issue with? Housing supply being an issue, housing affordability being an issue, a large generational divide emerging between homeowners and not-homeowners, and housing being incentivised as an investment class are all very real things.

 

[mr bagcroft]

I see humour eludes you.

What particular garbage do you have an issue with? Housing supply being an issue, housing affordability being an issue, a large generational divide emerging between homeowners and not-homeowners, and housing being incentivised as an investment class are all very real things.

Absolutely they are issues,agreed.
Calling for people who were fortunate enough at the time, and worked hard enough at the time, to buy property to have to sell it to benefit them, is total BS however.
Change the rules, the system, whatever to help people in the now, by all means.
But its laughable some people feel entitled to take from others because waa waaa its too expensive, sorry that like I said is BS.

 

[faible]

Absolutely they are issues,agreed.
Calling for people who were fortunate enough at the time, and worked hard enough at the time, to buy property to have to sell it to benefit them, is total BS however.
Change the rules, the system, whatever to help people in the now, by all means.
But its laughable some people feel entitled to take from others because waa waaa its too expensive, sorry that like I said is BS.

But this is the issue, one generation has had a once in a (multi) generation windfall of wealth through changes around property that has resulted in a generational gulf in wealth, housing access and affordability.

Grandfathering in old laws to protect from any changes does nothing whatsoever to fix any of this, it just locks in those differences.

No one is entitled to own investment properties that generate a rental return that covers the purchase price and capital gain due to a number of factors (supply, demand, availability of credit etc...) where it causes a detriment to society as a whole. Property can't simultaneously be the safest investment class and the most profitable.

People who bought property early, particular from around the mid-late 90s and earlier, have a locked in gain in wealth that no generation prior, and likely no generation in the future, will ever replicate.

It's an issue that needs a proper plan to work to address, and there's a huge divide being homeowners and those who aren't that drastically shifts the mindset. When you don't own a home you're concerned with housing affordability and supply, when you do you're concerned with just how much extra value you can squeeze out of your property. The problem is that generally those with the actual power to do anything about it (beyond voting at the ballot box) are all homeowners, so it's a one sided set of solutions.

 

[mr bagcroft]

But this is the issue, one generation has had a once in a (multi) generation windfall of wealth through changes around property that has resulted in a generational gulf in wealth, housing access and affordability.

Grandfathering in old laws to protect from any changes does nothing whatsoever to fix any of this, it just locks in those differences.

No one is entitled to own investment properties that generate a rental return that covers the purchase price and capital gain due to a number of factors (supply, demand, availability of credit etc...) where it causes a detriment to society as a whole. Property can't simultaneously be the safest investment class and the most profitable.

People who bought property early, particular from around the mid-late 90s and earlier, have a locked in gain in wealth that no generation prior, and likely no generation in the future, will ever replicate.

It's an issue that needs a proper plan to work to address, and there's a huge divide being homeowners and those who aren't that drastically shifts the mindset. When you don't own a home you're concerned with housing affordability and supply, when you do you're concerned with just how much extra value you can squeeze out of your property. The problem is that generally those with the actual power to do anything about it (beyond voting at the ballot box) are all homeowners, so it's a one sided set of solutions.

Yeah, I cant argue with any of that and agree with it as well.
So we have a problem.
Do I have a solution?
Of course I don't.
But Mr & Mrs Joe average who lucked out and bought two properties for under a 100K in the early 70's, should not be made to pay for it.
And that's who some younger people love to target with their inane claims and demands.
Maybe its the professional negative gear'ers?
Didn't that sort of thing boom in the 90's?
I am not an economist, just play one occasionally on weekends.

 

[faible]

Yeah, I cant argue with any of that and agree with it as well.
So we have a problem.
Do I have a solution?
Of course I don't.
But Mr & Mrs Joe average who lucked out and bought two properties for under a 100K in the early 70's, should not be made to pay for it.
And that's who some younger people love to target with their inane claims and demands.
Maybe its the professional negative gear'ers?
Didn't that sort of thing boom in the 90's?
I am not an economist, just play one occasionally on weekends.

Who's being made to pay though? They're probably looking at a $1m windfall.

It's not like they're being asked to donate them for free.

 

[mr bagcroft]

Who's being made to pay though? They're probably looking at a $1m windfall.

It's not like they're being asked to donate them for free.

Well in reality they are not, and they won't.
But they own it, lol, you know...
You cant be made to sell because some young person thinks its unfair you own it.
Jesus Christ, do we live in a clown world ??
Unbelievable.
But yes, your right, its a problem now...
Here is an idea...
How about we put some brakes on foreign property investment?

 

[Chief]

But they own it, lol, you know...

So we tax them appropriately.

 

[faible]

Well in reality they are not, and they won't.
But they own it, lol, you know...
You cant be made to sell because some young person thinks its unfair you own it.
Jesus Christ, do we live in a clown world ??
Unbelievable.
But yes, your right, its a problem now...
Here is an idea...
How about we put some brakes on foreign property investment?

I feel like you've taken things way too literally.

IF they were forced to sell, they'd pocket a bucketload of profit for their efforts, so they can hardly complain about being poorly done by.

It's also not 'because some young person thinks it's unfair' it's because we have a very real housing supply and affordability issue that needs a holistic solution to address. For example, disincentivising residential property as investment and improving rental laws for long-term renters.

 

[mr bagcroft]

I feel like you've taken things way too literally.

IF they were forced to sell, they'd pocket a bucketload of profit for their efforts, so they can hardly complain about being poorly done by.

It's also not 'because some young person thinks it's unfair' it's because we have a very real housing supply and affordability issue that needs a holistic solution to address. For example, disincentivising residential property as investment.

Yeah ok,
My argument is , you can't make it retrospective and punish people because they lucked out to be a working adult at the time property was somewhat affordable. That's my argument.
My solution, put the brakes on foreign investment.
Piss off negative gearing.
How I'm doin?

 

[faible]

Yeah ok,
My argument is , you can't make it retrospective and punish people because they lucked out to be a working adult at the time property was somewhat affordable. That's my argument.
My solution, put the brakes on foreign investment.
Piss off negative gearing.
How I'm doin?

You have to make changes retrospective though, that's the problem.

The properties are already owned, you need to incentivise people to sell them to release them to the market, and have buyers be people that will live in them, not just investors.

Are you 'punishing' people by having them sell an asset for an enormous capital gain? We force shareholders to sell where there's a buyout for example.

Foreign investment is a fairly minor factor in property prices from memory, but negative gearing is certainly something that could be looked at in relation to making residential property investment less desirable.

 

[Chief]

you can't make it retrospective and punish people because they lucked out to be a working adult at the time property was somewhat affordable

You can tax realised profit. Or even unrealised appreciation.

Happens all the time.

 

[mr bagcroft]

You have to make changes retrospective though, that's the problem.

The properties are already owned, you need to incentivise people to sell them to release them to the market, and have buyers be people that will live in them, not just investors.

Are you 'punishing' people by having them sell an asset for an enormous capital gain? We force shareholders to sell where there's a buyout for example.

Foreign investment is a fairly minor factor in property prices from memory, but negative gearing is certainly something that could be looked at in relation to making residential property investment less desirable.

Well you are punishing them if they don't want to sell.
Then have to go and buy somewhere else.
Look I just think its an inane argument by a select few who want it all and want it now.
I am not denying its a problem.
I dont own any property, and it dosen't keep me up at night,
Bad ******* luck for me is how I see it.
I didnt have house money in the early 90's.
That's on me.

 

[mr bagcroft]

You can tax realised profit. Or even unrealised appreciation.

Happens all the time.

That won't make you very popular Chief.
We all want to be loved dont we?

 

[faible]

Well you are punishing them if they don't want to sell.
Then have to go and buy somewhere else.
Look I just think its an inane argument by a select few who want it all and want it now.
I am not denying its a problem.
I dont own any property, and it dosen't keep me up at night,
Bad ******* luck for me is how I see it.
I didnt have house money in the early 90's.
That's on me.

I'd only incentivise selling investment properties, not the principal place of residence FWIW.

So they're selling, making bank, and not buying anything.