Baby Boomers. now between 57 and 75 years old, have in recent years been getting a bad reputation cast upon them by subsequent generations. I have never entirely grasped why, but here’s a helpful explanation from Lawrence R. Samuel writing in Psychology Today in 2020. “Boomers hogged the economy and the world’s resources for their own financial gain and/ or consumptive habits, I’ve been repeatedly told,” he wrote. “They are often seen as greedy and wasteful, with no regard for what future generations will inherit. To put it another way, they’re frequently viewed as dinner guests who’ve eaten and drank pretty much everything set out on the table, leaving only scraps for those who came later to the party, even their own children.”

In short, he explained, the sorry state of the world, including global warming, is considered to be largely their fault. There’s some ageism at play here, he added, and he’s not wrong, in my view. So when an email arrived from a public relations firm containing a highly-contradictory-to-the-above view of “older people,” I read it with interest. I cannot confirm the sturdiness of this research, but it did come from RBC (Royal Bank). According to its family finances poll labelled the “Grandparents Edition,” 30 per cent of Western Canadian respondents have provided money to their grandchildren at an annual average of $5,899. Furthermore, 21 per cent support at least one adult child aged 25 or older at an average cost of $6,084 annually. Among these respondents, 41 per cent said they sacrificed their own savings and 33 per cent are worried about running out of money to cover their own costs.

Such selfishness, no?

Meanwhile, there is at least one group pushing to apply federal policy to boomers’, ah, “excessive” wealth. I am a tad insulted by some of its assumptions and tone, so keep my lack of objectivity in mind. The group is known as Generation Squeeze (GS) and its spokesperson is one Paul Kershaw, who writes a column for the Globe and Mail on this subject. “Hammers” this subject is perhaps more accurate. Kershaw indeed seems to have caught the ear of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who appeared at a recent GS event. GS argues, for one thing, that the current housing problem in Canada — soaring prices, not enough affordable housing stock, and so on — is the fault of boomers. I rather thought there were several market forces at play, but who am I? If I grasp their point, based on flashing headlines on the website, “generational unfairness,” aka the “disease,” has led to “symptoms” including government unfairness, unaffordable housing and childcare, climate breakdown and “a bleak legacy.”

I cannot argue with the basic thesis: we have problems. The group notes that a growing number of people can’t afford houses, which have soared 300 per cent in value since 2000. Valid. Then GS points out that our homes are sheltered from taxation, by which if it means capital gains tax, is true (for all homes). That said, we are hardly sheltered from property taxes, income taxes (for the most part), or taxes on, well, everything else; but let’s go with their premise for now. GS proposes “putting a price on housing inequity” by adding a surtax on homes valued over $1 million. It would be a small amount, and only on expensive homes; but I fail to grasp how this will help most new home buyers. I expect GS thinks the feds will apply the tax to building new homes. Which is, except under specific circumstances, not in federal jurisdiction (although admittedly it can provide programs to spur building, as it has recently done with the Housing Accelerator Fund.)

What annoys me, though, is the group’s contention that the system is unfair: the income tax hard-working Canadians pay (does this not include boomers, both past and present??) is taxed more than “the wealth homeowners gain from rising prices while they sleep and watch TV.” Bit of truth there too, in a way, but such rhetoric is unhelpful in the extreme. I may try to get seven or eight hours a night, although I watch a little TV; but I worked my tail off paying for my house. I am still working to pay for everything else. That includes taxes. Now, my home is not worth anything close to a million bucks, so I do not fear the surtax reaper. Based on the wider principle, though, I may well need this house not just to live in but to pay for long-term care when I’m really old. Where, precisely, does GS expect us to go? In this market, $1 million still pays for a lot of house. In Toronto, not so much. Most people are stuck in the market they’re in, where all prices are relative. So, regardless of where you live, what are you moving into when you finally ditch the big house? Will it actually be hugely cheaper?

I question their math. I dislike their tone. Furthermore, there will be a massive transfer of wealth in the very near future and according to the RBC survey, some of that is already happening. The social democrat inside me sees some of these points. The minicapitalist runs screaming from the room. The Baby Boomer is really quite offended.

– Joanne Paulson