Resolution Foundation. Increase Pensioner Tax

[tinfoilhat]

Great what if someone can’t afford a house in wincobank?

 

Out of curiosity I had a look at right move and there are 23 houses under £60k within 1 mile of page hall. If they can't afford that, buy a house in goldthorpe, there's a few at under £35k. If you can't afford that, make sacrifices, and if possible get a second job or a better one.

[ECCOnoob]

Great what if someone can’t afford a house in wincobank?

 

Then they look for somewhere cheaper.

 

If they cant find anywhere affordable at all then they need to really think hard about whether they are yet in a position to buy a house.

 

Expectation and reality are two very very different things.

 

If they really cant buy any sort of house in any sort of area, then they rent or roomshare or continue to live with their parents or stay with friends or sofa hop or even apply for priority with a local authority until they get themselves in a better position

 

If they cannot manage to do either of the above then quite frankly they have bigger priorities to sort out before even begining to dream about home ownership.

 

Im not sure what sort of response are you really seeking here?

 

Surely you are not going to keep going on some exhaustive list of residential areas to try to prove that every single property and every single area is outside the reach of some young graduate in full time work. That's just nonsense.

 

If you are merely fishing for some stock answer of "make them all cheaper" or "give them all a grant towards it" then that is also nonsense.

 

Look, im not denying that housing is expensive. Im am not even going to challenge that property in certain popular areas has not risen dramatically BUT what I will maintain is that this nothing new.

 

Every single generation throughout time has had housing costs to be the biggest financial burden in their lives. I am also going to strongly maintain that this current generation have income, financial support, improved working standards and improved living standards and a social lifestyle that some of their previous generation would only dream of.

 

The debate can rage on till the cows come home and polar opposite statistics and "facts" can be bandied about dependant on what source is quoted and what agenda that source is pushing.

 

One very important thing cannot be deneid though. There are plenty of young people (including many who have never been to university) who HAVE managed to scrimp and save to get themselves a property. A modest even perhaps poky property - yes. In a less than preferred area - yes.

 

BUT its a start and everyone has to start somewhere.

 

The question to be asked is what are these types of young house owning millenials (including myself) doing that is clearly working over all these others young people who are perceived to be in such dire straits and requiring the teat of mother government to sort them out.

 

They cant all be dismissed as spolit rich kids or lucky people getting their inheritances early so......?

[Anna B]

I think the context to this is to reduce 'inter generational conflict.'

There has been a lot of discussion about the advantages that some of the 'baby boomer' generation had (in terms of pensions, employment, education etc) over subsequent generations.

There are a number of proposals in the report that are worthy of consideration....

 

I can't see this report being implemented in full though.

 

This 'intergenerational conflict' has been cooked up / encouraged by this incompetent government to divert blame from them to someone else. As usual.

First it was the unemployed and benefit scriungers etc. Then the old. Now it's all the Baby Boomers' fault...

 

As a baby boomer I don't recall having much of a say in anything over the years. I just put a cross in a box every 5 years or so, and then the government of the day did whatever it wanted without asking me.

 

Mariella Frostrup was on radio4 discussing this very situation. She pointed out that the so called 'lucky' baby boomers, now have commitments and expenses from all directions which the previous generation never did. We are expected to support the kids well into their thirties and sometimes beyond, help with college / housing costs, provide child care etc.

And at the other end of the scale we are expected to care single handedly for our aged parents in a world of diminishing / none-existent social services support services. (If you doubt this check out the SF carers and disability group page.) Then at the end of the day we are expected to pay for our own care costs by selling our houses that we worked so hard to afford, to pay the extortionate fees.

 

She suggested instead of blaming each other, we could examine why 10% of the population hold 90% of the wealth.

Personally, I would also suggest a vote for Jeremy Corbyn, who will try to redress some of the recent iniquities which have stripped away the advances that the baby boomers and their forebears fought for generations to achieve.

[Cyclone]

Increased by 71% then based on your exampled "average"

 

So average wage has increased by 71%, average house price has increased by 250%, and the cost of living has increased how much? Probably around 70%.

 

So you know what the overall outcome of that is. The average person doesn't save anymore than before, the deposit required to buy a house is many times greater than it was, and the mortgage required is many times greater than it was.

 

---------- Post added 09-05-2018 at 07:50 ----------

 

Look, im not denying that housing is expensive. Im am not even going to challenge that property in certain popular areas has not risen dramatically BUT what I will maintain is that this nothing new.

You were in fact denying that.

[Calahonda]

My first property purchase in 1972 was for a new 2 bed flat with garage costing £6,500, my deposit was £1,000. The mortgage interest rate was circa 7.30% and my salary was circa £3,000 p/a.

 

The same property recently sold for £80,000, UK average salary is circa £27,000 (possibly a little less in the north) and it is not difficult to obtain a 2 years interest deal of less than 2.00%.

 

What is better now is the existence of mortgage brokers, thus negating the necessity to queue at the building society for a third degree interview conducted by a Mr Mainwaring lookalike.

 

I’ll leave you guys to do the maths.

[Ms Macbeth]

This 'intergenerational conflict' has been cooked up / encouraged by this incompetent government to divert blame from them to someone else. As usual.

First it was the unemployed and benefit scriungers etc. Then the old. Now it's all the Baby Boomers' fault...

 

As a baby boomer I don't recall having much of a say in anything over the years. I just put a cross in a box every 5 years or so, and then the government of the day did whatever it wanted without asking me.

 

Mariella Frostrup was on radio4 discussing this very situation. She pointed out that the so called 'lucky' baby boomers, now have commitments and expenses from all directions which the previous generation never did. We are expected to support the kids well into their thirties and sometimes beyond, help with college / housing costs, provide child care etc.

And at the other end of the scale we are expected to care single handedly for our aged parents in a world of diminishing / none-existent social services support services. (If you doubt this check out the SF carers and disability group page.) Then at the end of the day we are expected to pay for our own care costs by selling our houses that we worked so hard to afford, to pay the extortionate fees.

 

She suggested instead of blaming each other, we could examine why 10% of the population hold 90% of the wealth.

Personally, I would also suggest a vote for Jeremy Corbyn, who will try to redress some of the recent iniquities which have stripped away the advances that the baby boomers and their forebears fought for generations to achieve.

 

I agree Anna, most of the media discussion seems to be baby boomers v Millennials. I'm a baby boomer, born at the end of WWII. We had quite a struggle through the 70s and 80s, after giving up the rented slum we lived in with its outside toilet etc., and buying a home, the mortgage rates nearly did for us! Perhaps because we'd grown up on the back of hard times, we wanted more for our children. I think many of our generation became more interested in our children's education, as we were were realising that the jobs so many relied on weren't going to be there forever. And that's certainly proved to be the case.

 

Most of the children of our generation are what's known as Generation X, between BBs and Millennials. It's obvious when I look at that generation in ours and friends' families in their 30s and 40s now, that they've nearly all benefited from higher education, then sorted out their careers and gone on to buy homes and have children. The few Millennials in our friends and family are in apprenticeships or at university. My own grandchildren are still in primary education, their future remains to be seen.

 

The biggest difference IMO is between people in the same generations. The BBs who are scraping by, the GenX's who aren't earning enough to buy a home, and the Millennials who have never had a decent job. Perhaps we should be looking at why, or how, in three or four generations the children and grandchildren of some who started with very little are better educated and better housed, and others from similar starting points aren't. So many GenXs have done well, and are financially better off than their BB parents, but we don't tend to hear about them. I imagine there are quite a few here in that category.

[Billam]

Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44029808

 

When he was an MP David Willetts had the nickname "two brains".

 

It looks like he isn't using either of them in this crazy scheme.

Briliant, I,'ll wager he has a pile of money and a large house, why hit pensioners, tax the rich.

[Cyclone]

My first property purchase in 1972 was for a new 2 bed flat with garage costing £6,500, my deposit was £1,000. The mortgage interest rate was circa 7.30% and my salary was circa £3,000 p/a.

 

The same property recently sold for £80,000, UK average salary is circa £27,000 (possibly a little less in the north) and it is not difficult to obtain a 2 years interest deal of less than 2.00%.

 

What is better now is the existence of mortgage brokers, thus negating the necessity to queue at the building society for a third degree interview conducted by a Mr Mainwaring lookalike.

 

I’ll leave you guys to do the maths.

 

 

Why tell us your salary then and the average salary now. That's not something we can compare.

 

"In 1971, the average house price was £5,632 – with house prices now sitting at £247,000, this represents a rise of 4,286 per cent.

According to our figures, if wages had risen at the same rate as house price inflation, the average wage would be £87,720 – while a 2.5kg chicken would be £51.31…

WAGES

Average in 1971: £2,000

Average now: £26,000

"

 

So you were buying a house at slightly over the average cost, whilst earning 1.5* the average income.

The multiple for the averages was 2.8 times.

Today 9.5 times.

Edited May 9, 2018 by Cyclone

[Calahonda]

Why tell us your salary then and the average salary now. That's not something we can compare.

 

"In 1971, the average house price was £5,632 – with house prices now sitting at £247,000, this represents a rise of 4,286 per cent.

According to our figures, if wages had risen at the same rate as house price inflation, the average wage would be £87,720 – while a 2.5kg chicken would be £51.31…

WAGES

Average in 1971: £2,000

Average now: £26,000

"

 

So you were buying a house at slightly over the average cost, whilst earning 1.5* the average income.

The multiple for the averages was 2.8 times.

Today 9.5 times.

 

Why quote the 1971 UK average house price, which includes areas such as Chelsea and Kensington, how does that help when comparing a 1972 Sheffield purchase?

[Michael_W]

This 'intergenerational conflict' has been cooked up / encouraged by this incompetent government to divert blame from them to someone else. As usual.

First it was the unemployed and benefit scriungers etc. Then the old. Now it's all the Baby Boomers' fault...

 

As a baby boomer I don't recall having much of a say in anything over the years. I just put a cross in a box every 5 years or so, and then the government of the day did whatever it wanted without asking me.

 

Mariella Frostrup was on radio4 discussing this very situation. She pointed out that the so called 'lucky' baby boomers, now have commitments and expenses from all directions which the previous generation never did. We are expected to support the kids well into their thirties and sometimes beyond, help with college / housing costs, provide child care etc.

And at the other end of the scale we are expected to care single handedly for our aged parents in a world of diminishing / none-existent social services support services. (If you doubt this check out the SF carers and disability group page.) Then at the end of the day we are expected to pay for our own care costs by selling our houses that we worked so hard to afford, to pay the extortionate fees.

 

She suggested instead of blaming each other, we could examine why 10% of the population hold 90% of the wealth.

Personally, I would also suggest a vote for Jeremy Corbyn, who will try to redress some of the recent iniquities which have stripped away the advances that the baby boomers and their forebears fought for generations to achieve.

 

 

my bold

Identity politics is the weapon of choice from all parties not just the Tories, I do however agree with the point you raise mentioned by Mariella Frostrup, I can vouch for that personally.