Poorer than their parents?

[chem1st]

The housing episode is tragic.

 

Flats standing empty because people can't afford them, a buy to let landlord with a son who can't afford to buy a house, lamenting the fact his 3 B2L flats haven't risen in value. And his son with a wife and child left at the mercy of the private (Buy to Let) market. The B2L landlord having got into buy to let after opting out of his 'pointless pension'.

 

How mortgage interest rate relief for buyers has gone, whilst landlords are now given tax relief. So old people got the perk of tax relief to buy their homes, whilst young people will not get a mortgage tax break. The old people now entering the B2L sector can now get a tax break on buy to let mortgages, and thus an advantage over those without housing capital.

 

The £60k home projects, to give people a chance championed by John Prescott (who went on to demolish 400 000 homes ), only 8 out of 10 of the projects got off the ground, 7 were finished, the average price of these '£60k homes' was £231k, most expensive affordable home was £375000. The construction cost was £85k and the land effectively gifted to devlopers whom made handsome profits.

 

A young girl (19) living in Cambridge, entering a YMCA hostel, expecting to live in the hostel for 2 years before she will be moved to another hostel, unless she can access council housing/housing association property (local waiting list of 7000). She was kicked out at 17, stayed at her fathers a few months, then a hostel, in the private rented sector (till she lost her job), on her sister's settee, then back to a bed in a hostel.

The PRS property she was renting was a box room in a shared house, £75 per week.

 

How people can't actually afford the new 'affordable rents'.

 

I.e. so called 'affordable rents' for 1 bed flats are UNAFFORDABLE for 65% of people.

 

A girl in her 20s with bar experience having to work for 6 weeks unpaid to get a job in a bar. Wanting to go to college, but struggling with rent.

 

Finally, to conclude the program, it is suggested young people should stay at home with their parents, save as much as physically possible and be really nice to their parents in the hope they can gift them some money so they can get enough together for a deposit, to get on the property ladder. Perhaps when they withdrew equity (what with their houses being cash machines).

 

I suggest all people with children or planning to have children play the boardgames, 'monopoly' and 'snakes and ladder', and make sure their children play them too.

[Ms Macbeth]

Has anybody being listening to this radio programme on radio 4?

 

The first considered the jobs market.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012tpzg/Poorer_Than_Their_Parents_Jobs/

 

The second, pensions.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b012w9sr/Poorer_Than_Their_Parents_Pensions/

 

The 2nd episode talks of pensions, a few figures were mentioned.

 

Pensions ages will rise, and contributions will increased. Young people will have to pay more for longer to receive less.

 

Currently, we have men aged 60 entitled to pension credit, often combined with housing benefit and council tax benefit, bus passes etc., this vastly exceeds what one can expect to earn for a full weeks (40 hours) of minimum wage work. These people might have been claiming dole for life, and never forced to work for their 'dole', unlike the next generation who will be forced to work for their dole via the work program.

 

One commentator, thought, today's young people would not be poorer than the parents, he said economic growth of 2.5% over 30 years would lead to a doubling of the economy, and that young people could expect to earn twice as much.

However, he would be wise to note, current growth is well below that, and that inflation of basic items exceeds 10%, whilst wage inflation is practically non existent.

With inflation vastly exceeding growth, and wages remaining the same we are all being made poorer. Unless inflation is accompanied by wage inflation, growth does not make the working class better off.

 

Also take time to consider the increased cost of housing today, The total lack of access to council housing and vastly reduced stock, not to mention the lack of security of tenure in the private sector, and the increased costs of renting off of private landlords. Even those fortunate enough to access council housing, will be denied security of tenure for life.

Increased income taxes for the poorest, higher utility and transport costs. The periods of unemployment people face in our precarious labour market. Reduced access to and lower amounts of allotments on which one can supplement his income by growing his own food.

The cost of child rearing (now that 2 parents are expected to work, thanks to feminism women now have to cook, clean AND work). And increased stealth & health taxes upon beer, cigarettes, car parking etc.

 

When you think about it, the next generation, will be poorer than their parents....

 

It is said that young people are delaying adulthood. That they are putting off 'moving out', 'having children', and 'saving for the future'.

 

One thing is for sure, it isn't by choice.

 

My generation (baby boomers) didn't get dole very often. When the old 'dole' offices offered a job if you didn't take it they stopped your benefits unless there was a very good reason to refuse the work. So there won't be many 60 year old men who've claimed all their lives. When you did get benefits an inspector came to your house to see if you were genuinely poor! It was humiliating, but it made us keen not to repeat the experience. That wouldn't happen nowadays either.

 

When my generation had children, most ordinary families I knew had two parents, which gave them the opportunity for two incomes and shared childcare. Most mums were earning something by the time their children went to school (out of necessity), unless dad had a really good job. If dad wasn't in the professions, it usually meant he worked in a strong union shop, like a car factory or the NCB.

 

You mention the lack of allotments -people used to grow veg in their gardens. Just have a wander around some estates, and look at the large (and often neglected) gardens. Would those people really want to take on an allotment? Perhaps they could offer the use of their garden to someone who could grow veg?

 

Realistically both partners should share household tasks and child rearing if they both work outside the home. Men can cook and vacuum just as well as women! And tobacco and alcohol are luxuries which we can all do without when we can't afford them. However, I have noticed that necessities like children's clothes are so much more affordable than they were 40 years ago.

 

Like many of my children's generation, neither of mine bought a house until they were in their 30s. They lived in shared accommodation, one had a tiny council flat for a while, and only when they were established in their careers could they afford to buy.

[chem1st]

My generation (baby boomers) didn't get dole very often. When the old 'dole' offices offered a job if you didn't take it they stopped your benefits unless there was a very good reason to refuse the work. So there won't be many 60 year old men who've claimed all their lives. When you did get benefits an inspector came to your house to see if you were genuinely poor! It was humiliating, but it made us keen not to repeat the experience. That wouldn't happen nowadays either.

There isn't the jobs there for people nowadays. People are priced out of work by the benefit system. It's a shame the job centre can't offer people jobs there and then.

 

When my generation had children, most ordinary families I knew had two parents, which gave them the opportunity for two incomes and shared childcare. Most mums were earning something by the time their children went to school (out of necessity), unless dad had a really good job. If dad wasn't in the professions, it usually meant he worked in a strong union shop, like a car factory or the NCB.

Unions seem to be losing their power, what with automation and the smaller workforce needed to produce goods.

 

You mention the lack of allotments -people used to grow veg in their gardens. Just have a wander around some estates, and look at the large (and often neglected) gardens. Would those people really want to take on an allotment? Perhaps they could offer the use of their garden to someone who could grow veg?

You can't grow much veg in a flat, the people I know with neglected gardens tend to be elderly, they are often a good source of cash in hand work in the summer, and you can clear their drives come winter.

 

Realistically both partners should share household tasks and child rearing if they both work outside the home. Men can cook and vacuum just as well as women! And tobacco and alcohol are luxuries which we can all do without when we can't afford them. However, I have noticed that necessities like children's clothes are so much more affordable than they were 40 years ago.

Alcohol and tobacco can be produced for peanuts. I could purchase a lifetime supply of tobacco in Zimbabwe for about £300. The purchase price is essentially all tax in the UK and smoking costs some 100 times more than it should do. Children's clothes may be cheaper but I would call them a necessity, you can make do with 2nd hand ones for free. I'd say housing is the biggest necessity after food.

 

Like many of my children's generation, neither of mine bought a house until they were in their 30s. They lived in shared accommodation, one had a tiny council flat for a while, and only when they were established in their careers could they afford to buy.

I don't even want to buy, I wan't to be able to rent a council house for life and when I die for it to be passed onto to another citizen.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025585/Good-neighbours-The-women-lived-door-76-years.html

 

This story in the daily mail is about two pensioners whom have lived nextdoor to each other all their lives, in council housing since 1935, in 1935:

 

Average salary was £200/year.

Rent was 5s8d/week

A three bedroom house was £350

A pint of beer 2d

 

Annual Rent was 7.4% of average annual income

The cost of a house was 1.75* annual income

Annual income would purchase 24000 pints of beer.

 

Fast forward to today;

Average salary is £25000/year

Rent is £60/week (council), £100/week (private)

A three bedroom house costs £160k

A pint of beer £2.50

 

Annual Rent is 12.5% of average annual income (council), or 20% (private)

The cost of a house is 6.4* annual income.

Annual income would purchase 10000 pints of beer.

[chem1st]

Going on today's newspaper headlines, this thread is quite relevant...