Mass Homelessness Soon?

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, nightrider said:

STC = sold Subject to Contract

 

Not everyone can afford a country mansion, seems plenty are happy with a terrace in Walkley/Crookes both of which are near very nice countryside. Terraced houses seem to have gone up from average asking price of 140k to 180-200k in less than a year!

 

I am not saying the wealthier side will "be ok". I am saying no house owners there need worry about not being able to sell their house and ending up taking a loss. OTOH people who traditionally buy in these areas are being priced out and consequently moving to other areas, no doubt forcing house prices to increase there and so on. No-one really wins from increasing prices. OTOH maybe e.g residents in Loxley should stop blocking new housing developments if they want their kids to be able to afford a house nearby....

The housing being built in Loxley will be very nice, but unaffordable to a large proportion of the population.

Contracts often stipulate that building projects should include 'affordable' housing, but all that means is they can stick on one cheaper house, (usually a two bedroom or a couple of flats,) and they've fulfilled their obligation. 

The more expensive the house, the more profit the builders make, so it's no surprise this is what they prefer to build, but what is needed is a lot more affordable housing, and dare I say it, Council housing. 

Edited February 16, 2021 by Anna B

[nightrider]

5 minutes ago, Anna B said:

The housing being built in Loxley will be very nice, but unaffordable to a large proportion of the population.

Contracts often stipulate that building projects should include 'affordable' housing, but all that means is they can stick on one cheaper house, (usually a two bedroom or a couple of flats,) and they've fulfilled their obligation. 

The more expensive the house, the more profit the builders make, so it's no surprise this is what they prefer to build, but what is needed is a lot more affordable housing, and dare I say it, Council housing. 

but where will the buyers of these more expensive houses come from? Presumably they will be moving up the housing ladder thus freeing up starter homes elsewhere nearby.

[catmiss]

If you paid ‘married woman’s ‘ contributions your lower pension, applicable from age 60,will be topped up by Pension Credit which entitles you, if no other income, to passported benefits such as maximum Housing and Council Tax Benefits and other benefits such as additional fuel allowances and other means tested benefits. If you’re slightly younger, you’ve had to pay or be credited, full NI contributions for at least 40 years, work extra years to get the ‘new’ pension which takes you a bit above Pension Credit entitlement. A friend is in the former group having had a few sporadic part time jobs and I’m in the latter, having worked full time for 50 years-financially she’s better off than me

[Anna B]

13 hours ago, catmiss said:

If you paid ‘married woman’s ‘ contributions your lower pension, applicable from age 60,will be topped up by Pension Credit which entitles you, if no other income, to passported benefits such as maximum Housing and Council Tax Benefits and other benefits such as additional fuel allowances and other means tested benefits. If you’re slightly younger, you’ve had to pay or be credited, full NI contributions for at least 40 years, work extra years to get the ‘new’ pension which takes you a bit above Pension Credit entitlement. A friend is in the former group having had a few sporadic part time jobs and I’m in the latter, having worked full time for 50 years-financially she’s better off than me

Thankyou.

 

I paid full stamp for 40 years, but I'm one of the women born in the 1950's who lose out both ends because they have to work longer, but still only get the old rate. I don't get any top ups because I have a small private pension which takes me just  above the pension credit entitlement, but in effect wipes out the value of my private pension, and nor do I get any of the benefits that come with getting pension credit, so I'm worse off. 

 

I know there have been a lot of petitions going to the government for women in this position (there are thousands of us,) but no joy, and I believe there's a campaign to raise money to take it to court - which brings me to another point, when did law and justice become the preserve only of the rich? Nobody else can afford it.

  

Edited February 18, 2021 by Anna B

[Arnold_Lane]

16 minutes ago, Anna B said:

Thankyou.

 

I paid full stamp for 40 years, but I'm one of the women born in the 1950's who lose out both ends because they have to work longer, but still only get the old rate. I don't get any top ups because I have a small private pension which takes me just  above the pension credit entitlement, but in effect wipes out the value of my private pension, and nor do I get any of the benefits that come with getting pension credit, so I'm worse off. 

 

I know there have been a lot of petitions going to the government for women in this position (there are thousands of us,) but no joy, and I believe there's a campaign to raise money to take it to court - which brings me to another point, when did law and justice become the preserve only of the rich? Nobody else can afford it.

  

The WASPI women took it to court and lost already.
 

In my humble opinion they made a mistake in their argument that their treatment was discrimination.  The judge said something along of the lines of it actually being sexist that women were allowed to retire earlier than men.  
 

They should have just argued better that the large jump in retirement age was unfair and argued for a staggered increase - which is what I think happened in Germany.  I think this would have been much fairer than the blanket increase. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Arnold_Lane

[Anna B]

1 hour ago, Arnold_Lane said:

The WASPI women took it to court and lost already.
 

In my humble opinion they made a mistake in their argument that their treatment was discrimination.  The judge said something along of the lines of it actually being sexist that women were allowed to retire earlier than men.  
 

They should have just argued better that the large jump in retirement age was unfair and argued for a staggered increase - which is what I think happened in Germany.  I think this would have been much fairer than the blanket increase. 

That's true, but then these women are of an age where they have been negatively affected by sexism and discrimination all their working lives, particularly in the early years.

 

It's hard to remember the amount of blatant sexism and discrimination they had to put up with back in the day.

Even today they still don't get equal pay if looked at over a lifetime of work. And they also shouldered the majority of housework and child rearing at the same time. Even now I doubt it is equitably shared, it usually falls to the women to look after aged parents etc. too. 

Edited February 18, 2021 by Anna B

[Anna B]

Meanwhile back on topic:

The main reason for homelessness is lack of money.

Rents too high, wages/benefits too low.

 

Until this is sorted out the problem will continue to grow. We are heading into a time of mass unemployment so it's going to be a huge problem.

[El Cid]

8 hours ago, Anna B said:

Meanwhile back on topic:

The main reason for homelessness is lack of money.

Rents too high, wages/benefits too low.

 

Until this is sorted out the problem will continue to grow. We are heading into a time of mass unemployment so it's going to be a huge problem.

What was the impact of QE?

As well as bonds, it increases the prices of things such as shares and property. This tends to benefit wealthier members of society who already own these things, as the Bank itself concluded in 2012.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789

 

So when we stop the banks and big bussiness from going bust, what we are doing is helping the wealthy among us.

[Annie Bynnol]

In northern Europe urban home ownership can be significantly less than in the UK.

Many local companies/banks/trust/pensions/charities engage are actively involved.

Their interest is in long term stable contracts and far more time and effort is put into the suitability of applicants.

It is viewed as a 'highly respectable business'. 

In return for very long term contracts and legal responsibilities for maintenance the tenants have many more rights, guarantees against eviction and price regulation. The tenant provides long term financial return for the landlord and pays less . Sounds great. Ordinary working retired families, singles, pensioners can look forward long term stability. It would be far less likely for a landlord to want to evict a long term tenant going through a period of hardship.

Still sounds great?

 

In this same northern European country there is also some people living in atrocious blocks of high rises and tenements.

They cannot escape because they have have not got the capital for the deposit, advance payments, insurance etc. They are not in stable, long term and continuous employment so are not 'suitable tenants'.

For those who want to buy the houses are far more expensive relative to here.

 

Is this system better than ours?

 

 

 

[Anna B]

8 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

In northern Europe urban home ownership can be significantly less than in the UK.

Many local companies/banks/trust/pensions/charities engage are actively involved.

Their interest is in long term stable contracts and far more time and effort is put into the suitability of applicants.

It is viewed as a 'highly respectable business'. 

In return for very long term contracts and legal responsibilities for maintenance the tenants have many more rights, guarantees against eviction and price regulation. The tenant provides long term financial return for the landlord and pays less . Sounds great. Ordinary working retired families, singles, pensioners can look forward long term stability. It would be far less likely for a landlord to want to evict a long term tenant going through a period of hardship.

Still sounds great?

 

In this same northern European country there is also some people living in atrocious blocks of high rises and tenements.

They cannot escape because they have have not got the capital for the deposit, advance payments, insurance etc. They are not in stable, long term and continuous employment so are not 'suitable tenants'.

For those who want to buy the houses are far more expensive relative to here.

 

Is this system better than ours?

 

 

 

I don't know, but the Scandinavian countries have a better record for fully integrated systems and welfare.

I suppose it comes down to the number of homeless per capita.

 

I do know that the growing number of homeless and those in insecure housing placements etc (and the hungry) in Britain is totally unacceptable.

Edited February 20, 2021 by Anna B