Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
The smoke is starting to clear fiiish. I was masssively excited about the youth being mobilised to vote. I don't want to turn this into a generational divide because I respect my elders and many of them (many on here) have worked their backsides off to create a future for their children.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
But what is the solution? I completely agree that home ownership is not as easy as it was twenty years ago, or thirty years ago or more. However, despite first time buyers getting older there are still those that are getting on the housing ladder. It comes down to a choice for those working in London. You either live in the City and have a small property (buying or renting) or you live further away from work and have a bigger/cheaper place. This dilemma probably applies all over the UK.
As nice an idea as it is, that we can all grow up and buy a property just down the road from where we were born it is just not realistic - especially in areas that are over populated. It has little to do with house prices in isolation. The population of the world is growing and people are just refusing to die all the while they are having children (and grand-children and great grand-children). The problem with London is that too many people want to live there. Even if anyone that wasn't born there (and not just those from overseas - those from other parts of the UK too) were told to move away, London is not big enough to house all the people that want to live there as we are having children quicker than the old are dying.
It's just a fact of life, literally. What needs to happen is that people need to be educated to understand that they cannot all live in a City that is not big enough for them all. If there are not enough properties to satisfy the demand then one way to decide who gets them is the price. We can build more houses and/or flats but there is even a finite number of those that can be built. Even if we, theoretically, built massive tower blocks of flats (and some of this is going on) there is still a limit to how many people a certain geographical area can sustain.
If the price of the accommodation is not going to determine who gets it what is the alternative? A Lottery? Allowing certain people to decide (politicians for example)? Can't see that leading to abuse of power and 'back handers', much. Maybe we just all gather in a big field and fight for the properties with our fists? Sadly that would leave me living in a $hit hole at the end of the earth.
I wouldn't dream of telling you where to live cabbles but surely you can see that you are contributing to the high prices, as are all the others that tolerate the accommodation on offer in London.
Property prices are, in part, driven up by buy-to-lets, who are almost exclusively made up of those who already own their own home but have also come into some money and so invest in property for huge profits, as well as just those companies that just own a lot of rental properties.
Property as an investment needs to end. I have a German friend who says that property ownership is much rarer than here because the local authorities are much bigger player in the property markets and rents are driven down.
Renting here is a mug's game - unless you're in social housing, you're effectively paying off the landlord's mortgage, plus interest, plus admin fees, plus the profit margin.
So who are those that don't want, or can't afford, to buy, going to rent from?
Or are you suggesting that the Taxpayer should buy thousands of buy to lets and then let them out at a loss to those that live in London and, probably, already earn much more than those paying the tax that buys the properties?
Or are you suggesting that the state 'repossess' the properties and tell the banks that they can whistle for the mortgages?
One last question. What will the criteria be for getting one of these outrageously cheap rental properties? As it will not be done on price will it be one of the three options I suggested earlier? I only ask as I would love to apply for the job of being the person that controls who gets them. I have a feeling that would pay very well - especially in 'other' benefits.
You are brilliant Rob, you look up the numbers without really having any sort of grasp of what they are telling you. You can have your Conservative triumph party whenever you want - nobody is stopping you.
Just answering your 'he got more votes than labour governments that were elected' I could have said the same about Theresa 'useless' May.......
I won't be having a winners party, might go to the local Labour loosers party, are they having one do you think
Feel free to ever jump in and challenge any of the numbers I quote, or provide your own alternatives to back up what you say.
When a union member pays their subs, it does state the political contribution element of it and there's an opt out. Unions then, as they are obliged to do, pass these funds from their members to the Labour Party.
So to class it as one big donation is misleading. It is made up of lots and lots of miniscule donations by ordinary workers. Unions don't make profits by exploiting workers for profit or by taking actions that cause huge environmental damage, or sell weapons, or by selling adspace through their fake news outlets, unlike some large Tory donors and backers. Unions cease to exist once their members stop funding them.
Having just signed up to GMB online there was no mention of the political donation, no mention of the amount and no option to opt out, however after some digging on their website it does state you can opt out by speaking to branch office or writing to obtain an opt out form. There is a tick box on the paper from however.
It is one big donation from one union, but of course that union received it's money from thousands of members.
Fine, the 2015 stats weren't lies so much as thoroughly misleading and you should have focused on the election donations. But looking at the wider evidence, the Tories do get an awful lot of private donations, don't they?
How were they misleading? I gave the figures for 2015 which you said were a lie and then I gave you the data to back this up. I never said they were election donations.
According to the electoral commission incomes from 2010 - 2015 were:
The Tory's do get a lot of private donations, not sure why that is either a) an issue or b) a surprise, Labour get a lot of donations from Unions, so what?
I don't think any conservative donator gives a 5th of what Unite give Labour. I don't think anyone would have an issue with that although were I a member of a Union who gave money to a political party that I didn't agree with not sure I'd be happy about that as your hands are largely tied on what they give. At least in the main the Tory donators are giving their own money.
If you look at those figure @Rob7Lee you will see that 2010 is the only year that the Tories had more donations, that was the last time the received Short funds as they were in opposition for half the year. It would be interesting to see figures that cover both parties either minus Short funds or inclusing whatever the government get from Public Funds which must be more than the opposition. Or perhaps there is something that goes back before 2010 that will give an indication?
I don't think it exists except in a number of FOI requests as the equivalent is the civil service. Looking at the pre 2010 figures should give an indication but doesn't account for trends.
The link I gave goes back to 2002, it's only totals though, in rounded numbers:
2002, Labour 21m Conservative £10m 2003, Labour 26m Conservative £14m 2004, Labour 29m Conservative £20m 2005, Labour 35m Conservative £24m 2006, Labour 26m Conservative £31m 2007, Labour 32m Conservative £33m 2008, Labour 34m Conservative £32m 2009, Labour 27m Conservative £42m
So some years Tories more but overall Labour considerably more 2002 - 2015 (or even 02 - 10)........
Good to see you getting unionised @Rob7Lee . I won't tell the NUT.
lol, I didn't go as far as filling in my bank account details I suspect the NUT would go on strike if I did. It wasn't my fault that when I pointed out most schools in a particular London Borough were not following the School teachers Pay and Conditions Document that the NUT assumed that must mean their members had been diddled........
Yes, but you showed 2005 which backed me up - you don't have to be such a pedant with the figures and totally miss the point which was a valid one! It's starting to get a bit ridiculous.
Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
The smoke is starting to clear fiiish. I was masssively excited about the youth being mobilised to vote. I don't want to turn this into a generational divide because I respect my elders and many of them (many on here) have worked their backsides off to create a future for their children.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
But what is the solution? I completely agree that home ownership is not as easy as it was twenty years ago, or thirty years ago or more. However, despite first time buyers getting older there are still those that are getting on the housing ladder. It comes down to a choice for those working in London. You either live in the City and have a small property (buying or renting) or you live further away from work and have a bigger/cheaper place. This dilemma probably applies all over the UK.
As nice an idea as it is, that we can all grow up and buy a property just down the road from where we were born it is just not realistic - especially in areas that are over populated. It has little to do with house prices in isolation. The population of the world is growing and people are just refusing to die all the while they are having children (and grand-children and great grand-children). The problem with London is that too many people want to live there. Even if anyone that wasn't born there (and not just those from overseas - those from other parts of the UK too) were told to move away, London is not big enough to house all the people that want to live there as we are having children quicker than the old are dying.
It's just a fact of life, literally. What needs to happen is that people need to be educated to understand that they cannot all live in a City that is not big enough for them all. If there are not enough properties to satisfy the demand then one way to decide who gets them is the price. We can build more houses and/or flats but there is even a finite number of those that can be built. Even if we, theoretically, built massive tower blocks of flats (and some of this is going on) there is still a limit to how many people a certain geographical area can sustain.
If the price of the accommodation is not going to determine who gets it what is the alternative? A Lottery? Allowing certain people to decide (politicians for example)? Can't see that leading to abuse of power and 'back handers', much. Maybe we just all gather in a big field and fight for the properties with our fists? Sadly that would leave me living in a $hit hole at the end of the earth.
I wouldn't dream of telling you where to live cabbles but surely you can see that you are contributing to the high prices, as are all the others that tolerate the accommodation on offer in London.
I was born in Brockley in Jan 82 and have spent all my life here. My job is here, family and friends are here. I don't mind renting but successive governments have ripped the arsehole out the housing market, and rents are unreasonable. All I've done is be born in area that has seen over population and massive price hikes in housing and cost of living. I'm not really sure what else I should be doing really. Should I be looking for jobs in Hull, Exeter? I don't know, maybe I should. I've never missed a month's rent, always paid off my debts. I've just gone down the path that the system has promoted.
Yes, everyone flocks to London, but how was I supposed to have the foresight when I left Uni in 2004 that all of sudden everything will become gentrified and the average house price in my constituency would be £630k.....
It's on the government to do more to get companies to set up and attract talent to the regions. All the governments in my lifetime have done is allow the London property market to be carved up between the haves and the have nots and now we have a real problem.
If you find me a job in Inverness that is what I would like to do, I'd quite happily consider it. As it is, I've cracked on doing my very best, stupidly contributing to higher prices in London
And I would wager even those of the generation that have secured housing and are enjoying low interest rates etc but have children entering into the workplace now will start to think very differently in the next few years. The race to the bottom is intensifying in my opinion
@kings hill addick I think your last two posts are at odds with each other. The first asks what is there to be done, with the conclusion that there is nothing to be done whilst the second berates an ideas that was trying to do something.
Whatever your political persuasion it cannot be denied that the last 40 years has seen the greatest amount of movement of money from the young to the old. I have done great out of it having sold houses in London and earnt a reasonable wage with lower and lower taxation.
We need to ensure that young people share the trappings of our wealth as we sure are going to need them when we run out of steam and we need people to look after us or pay taxes that pay for us to be looked after.
Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
The smoke is starting to clear fiiish. I was masssively excited about the youth being mobilised to vote. I don't want to turn this into a generational divide because I respect my elders and many of them (many on here) have worked their backsides off to create a future for their children.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
But what is the solution? I completely agree that home ownership is not as easy as it was twenty years ago, or thirty years ago or more. However, despite first time buyers getting older there are still those that are getting on the housing ladder. It comes down to a choice for those working in London. You either live in the City and have a small property (buying or renting) or you live further away from work and have a bigger/cheaper place. This dilemma probably applies all over the UK.
As nice an idea as it is, that we can all grow up and buy a property just down the road from where we were born it is just not realistic - especially in areas that are over populated. It has little to do with house prices in isolation. The population of the world is growing and people are just refusing to die all the while they are having children (and grand-children and great grand-children). The problem with London is that too many people want to live there. Even if anyone that wasn't born there (and not just those from overseas - those from other parts of the UK too) were told to move away, London is not big enough to house all the people that want to live there as we are having children quicker than the old are dying.
It's just a fact of life, literally. What needs to happen is that people need to be educated to understand that they cannot all live in a City that is not big enough for them all. If there are not enough properties to satisfy the demand then one way to decide who gets them is the price. We can build more houses and/or flats but there is even a finite number of those that can be built. Even if we, theoretically, built massive tower blocks of flats (and some of this is going on) there is still a limit to how many people a certain geographical area can sustain.
If the price of the accommodation is not going to determine who gets it what is the alternative? A Lottery? Allowing certain people to decide (politicians for example)? Can't see that leading to abuse of power and 'back handers', much. Maybe we just all gather in a big field and fight for the properties with our fists? Sadly that would leave me living in a $hit hole at the end of the earth.
I wouldn't dream of telling you where to live cabbles but surely you can see that you are contributing to the high prices, as are all the others that tolerate the accommodation on offer in London.
Property prices are, in part, driven up by buy-to-lets, who are almost exclusively made up of those who already own their own home but have also come into some money and so invest in property for huge profits, as well as just those companies that just own a lot of rental properties.
Property as an investment needs to end. I have a German friend who says that property ownership is much rarer than here because the local authorities are much bigger player in the property markets and rents are driven down.
Renting here is a mug's game - unless you're in social housing, you're effectively paying off the landlord's mortgage, plus interest, plus admin fees, plus the profit margin.
So who are those that don't want, or can't afford, to buy, going to rent from?
Or are you suggesting that the Taxpayer should buy thousands of buy to lets and then let them out at a loss to those that live in London and, probably, already earn much more than those paying the tax that buys the properties?
Or are you suggesting that the state 'repossess' the properties and tell the banks that they can whistle for the mortgages?
One last question. What will the criteria be for getting one of these outrageously cheap rental properties? As it will not be done on price will it be one of the three options I suggested earlier? I only ask as I would love to apply for the job of being the person that controls who gets them. I have a feeling that would pay very well - especially in 'other' benefits.
I don't have all the solutions. But the current situation is clearly inequitable and unsustainable. Properties are being concentrated into an increasingly smaller group of people and all this is going to do is drive property prices and rents up.
If we did phase towards a German style model, I imagine it wouldn't be overnight. But it has to be the case that people should not be able to make a profit on housing, otherwise all that happens is the market becomes a target of speculation that drives the prices up.
Clearly the German model works as people still buy or rent according to their situation. I don't think they consider their rents "outrageously cheap", just fair as they are not paying the surcharge caused by property speculation and greedy landlords.
Housing is a necessity, like water, infrastructure, energy, clear air, food etc. The government already heavily subsidises the latter lot in one way or another, why not housing? It would save everyone a lot of money in the long run.
Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
The smoke is starting to clear fiiish. I was masssively excited about the youth being mobilised to vote. I don't want to turn this into a generational divide because I respect my elders and many of them (many on here) have worked their backsides off to create a future for their children.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
But what is the solution? I completely agree that home ownership is not as easy as it was twenty years ago, or thirty years ago or more. However, despite first time buyers getting older there are still those that are getting on the housing ladder. It comes down to a choice for those working in London. You either live in the City and have a small property (buying or renting) or you live further away from work and have a bigger/cheaper place. This dilemma probably applies all over the UK.
As nice an idea as it is, that we can all grow up and buy a property just down the road from where we were born it is just not realistic - especially in areas that are over populated. It has little to do with house prices in isolation. The population of the world is growing and people are just refusing to die all the while they are having children (and grand-children and great grand-children). The problem with London is that too many people want to live there. Even if anyone that wasn't born there (and not just those from overseas - those from other parts of the UK too) were told to move away, London is not big enough to house all the people that want to live there as we are having children quicker than the old are dying.
It's just a fact of life, literally. What needs to happen is that people need to be educated to understand that they cannot all live in a City that is not big enough for them all. If there are not enough properties to satisfy the demand then one way to decide who gets them is the price. We can build more houses and/or flats but there is even a finite number of those that can be built. Even if we, theoretically, built massive tower blocks of flats (and some of this is going on) there is still a limit to how many people a certain geographical area can sustain.
If the price of the accommodation is not going to determine who gets it what is the alternative? A Lottery? Allowing certain people to decide (politicians for example)? Can't see that leading to abuse of power and 'back handers', much. Maybe we just all gather in a big field and fight for the properties with our fists? Sadly that would leave me living in a $hit hole at the end of the earth.
I wouldn't dream of telling you where to live cabbles but surely you can see that you are contributing to the high prices, as are all the others that tolerate the accommodation on offer in London.
Property prices are, in part, driven up by buy-to-lets, who are almost exclusively made up of those who already own their own home but have also come into some money and so invest in property for huge profits, as well as just those companies that just own a lot of rental properties.
Property as an investment needs to end. I have a German friend who says that property ownership is much rarer than here because the local authorities are much bigger player in the property markets and rents are driven down.
Renting here is a mug's game - unless you're in social housing, you're effectively paying off the landlord's mortgage, plus interest, plus admin fees, plus the profit margin.
So who are those that don't want, or can't afford, to buy, going to rent from?
Or are you suggesting that the Taxpayer should buy thousands of buy to lets and then let them out at a loss to those that live in London and, probably, already earn much more than those paying the tax that buys the properties?
Or are you suggesting that the state 'repossess' the properties and tell the banks that they can whistle for the mortgages?
One last question. What will the criteria be for getting one of these outrageously cheap rental properties? As it will not be done on price will it be one of the three options I suggested earlier? I only ask as I would love to apply for the job of being the person that controls who gets them. I have a feeling that would pay very well - especially in 'other' benefits.
I don't have all the solutions. But the current situation is clearly inequitable and unsustainable. Properties are being concentrated into an increasingly smaller group of people and all this is going to do is drive property prices and rents up.
If we did phase towards a German style model, I imagine it wouldn't be overnight. But it has to be the case that people should not be able to make a profit on housing, otherwise all that happens is the market becomes a target of speculation that drives the prices up.
Clearly the German model works as people still buy or rent according to their situation. I don't think they consider their rents "outrageously cheap", just fair as they are not paying the surcharge caused by property speculation and greedy landlords.
Housing is a necessity, like water, infrastructure, energy, clear air, food etc. The government already heavily subsidises the latter lot in one way or another, why not housing? It would save everyone a lot of money in the long run.
I'm 100% in agreement with you on this. Not to digress as I know I started a housing thread earlier this year after the government's whitepaper. I just don't think people realise how bad things are with housing in this country.
Surely we can see there is a problem when you can buy a 5 bed house in Barrow for £300k and that won't even get you a one bed in London now
Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
The smoke is starting to clear fiiish. I was masssively excited about the youth being mobilised to vote. I don't want to turn this into a generational divide because I respect my elders and many of them (many on here) have worked their backsides off to create a future for their children.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
But what is the solution? I completely agree that home ownership is not as easy as it was twenty years ago, or thirty years ago or more. However, despite first time buyers getting older there are still those that are getting on the housing ladder. It comes down to a choice for those working in London. You either live in the City and have a small property (buying or renting) or you live further away from work and have a bigger/cheaper place. This dilemma probably applies all over the UK.
As nice an idea as it is, that we can all grow up and buy a property just down the road from where we were born it is just not realistic - especially in areas that are over populated. It has little to do with house prices in isolation. The population of the world is growing and people are just refusing to die all the while they are having children (and grand-children and great grand-children). The problem with London is that too many people want to live there. Even if anyone that wasn't born there (and not just those from overseas - those from other parts of the UK too) were told to move away, London is not big enough to house all the people that want to live there as we are having children quicker than the old are dying.
It's just a fact of life, literally. What needs to happen is that people need to be educated to understand that they cannot all live in a City that is not big enough for them all. If there are not enough properties to satisfy the demand then one way to decide who gets them is the price. We can build more houses and/or flats but there is even a finite number of those that can be built. Even if we, theoretically, built massive tower blocks of flats (and some of this is going on) there is still a limit to how many people a certain geographical area can sustain.
If the price of the accommodation is not going to determine who gets it what is the alternative? A Lottery? Allowing certain people to decide (politicians for example)? Can't see that leading to abuse of power and 'back handers', much. Maybe we just all gather in a big field and fight for the properties with our fists? Sadly that would leave me living in a $hit hole at the end of the earth.
I wouldn't dream of telling you where to live cabbles but surely you can see that you are contributing to the high prices, as are all the others that tolerate the accommodation on offer in London.
I was born in Brockley in Jan 82 and have spent all my life here.
Brockley has been one of the major risers the past 50 years (% terms). I remember my granddad telling me how he sold his 8 bedroom Victorian in Brockley in about 1960 and for the same money bought a 3 bed semi in Eltham. I suspect there is more than 200% differential now.
I do wonder the appetite on reducing housing cost by most parties, particularly in London/SE. Stamp duty paid is not an inconsiderable amount (oh, look @MuttleyCAFC another one of the tax rises on the Rich the Conservatives put in).
Rent is a different matter although not sure how that can be realistically reduced by government without completely upsetting the whole housing market.
You ever thought @Cabbles of buying elsewhere in the country and letting it out? Could help you save for the deposit and also doing your bit by putting a roof over someone's head and paying tax on the profit, everyone's a winner!
Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
The smoke is starting to clear fiiish. I was masssively excited about the youth being mobilised to vote. I don't want to turn this into a generational divide because I respect my elders and many of them (many on here) have worked their backsides off to create a future for their children.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
But what is the solution? I completely agree that home ownership is not as easy as it was twenty years ago, or thirty years ago or more. However, despite first time buyers getting older there are still those that are getting on the housing ladder. It comes down to a choice for those working in London. You either live in the City and have a small property (buying or renting) or you live further away from work and have a bigger/cheaper place. This dilemma probably applies all over the UK.
As nice an idea as it is, that we can all grow up and buy a property just down the road from where we were born it is just not realistic - especially in areas that are over populated. It has little to do with house prices in isolation. The population of the world is growing and people are just refusing to die all the while they are having children (and grand-children and great grand-children). The problem with London is that too many people want to live there. Even if anyone that wasn't born there (and not just those from overseas - those from other parts of the UK too) were told to move away, London is not big enough to house all the people that want to live there as we are having children quicker than the old are dying.
It's just a fact of life, literally. What needs to happen is that people need to be educated to understand that they cannot all live in a City that is not big enough for them all. If there are not enough properties to satisfy the demand then one way to decide who gets them is the price. We can build more houses and/or flats but there is even a finite number of those that can be built. Even if we, theoretically, built massive tower blocks of flats (and some of this is going on) there is still a limit to how many people a certain geographical area can sustain.
If the price of the accommodation is not going to determine who gets it what is the alternative? A Lottery? Allowing certain people to decide (politicians for example)? Can't see that leading to abuse of power and 'back handers', much. Maybe we just all gather in a big field and fight for the properties with our fists? Sadly that would leave me living in a $hit hole at the end of the earth.
I wouldn't dream of telling you where to live cabbles but surely you can see that you are contributing to the high prices, as are all the others that tolerate the accommodation on offer in London.
I was born in Brockley in Jan 82 and have spent all my life here.
Brockley has been one of the major risers the past 50 years (% terms). I remember my granddad telling me how he sold his 8 bedroom Victorian in Brockley in about 1960 and for the same money bought a 3 bed semi in Eltham. I suspect there is more than 200% differential now.
I do wonder the appetite on reducing housing cost by most parties, particularly in London/SE. Stamp duty paid is not an inconsiderable amount (oh, look @MuttleyCAFC another one of the tax rises on the Rich the Conservatives put in).
Rent is a different matter although not sure how that can be realistically reduced by government without completely upsetting the whole housing market.
You ever thought @Cabbles of buying elsewhere in the country and letting it out? Could help you save for the deposit and also doing your bit by putting a roof over someone's head and paying tax on the profit, everyone's a winner!
Yes mate I appreciate there are different options etc but alas you require savings for that. I put away for a pension, but truth be told the last few years have just been earning to keep my head afloat.
I will be quite happily be the first to admit that better levels of financial education and perhaps restraint couldve been exercised in my 20s etc, but even still, it wouldn't have got me anything near what I needed in my neck of the woods, perhaps buying somewhere else.
I can only speak from personal experience, but I feel this city is at cliff edge with the financial storm it kicking up. There was an article on BBC London a few weeks back and it featured people of a similar age or younger than me taking about using credit cards etc to get through the month.
Again I get the argument about prudence etc, but these are just young people being young, living a life. If they start to exercise a bit more restraint then I've no doubt the London services sector will be impacted etc
I'm not an economist so that's probably a very simplistic view, but I whole heartedly believe it's all being held together on a precipice
To be fair the Government did make changes to buy to let taxes that will reduce the amount of property investment. The stamp duty surcharge was virtually immediate and the tax relief changes on mortgages are being phased in over the next three years with the first impact being felt when investors complete their tax returns for the 2016-17 year in December this year, or January 2018.
I wasn't having a dig at you, Fiish, but I don't think there is a way to make property any more affordable so saying that it needs to be doesn't mean anything.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
In reality, though, I can't see anyway that the situation with property ownership can be tackled, and I can't see the demand for property in London, and most of the UK, falling enough for prices to reduce more than a notional amount.
@kings hill addick I think your last two posts are at odds with each other. The first asks what is there to be done, with the conclusion that there is nothing to be done whilst the second berates an ideas that was trying to do something.
Whatever your political persuasion it cannot be denied that the last 40 years has seen the greatest amount of movement of money from the young to the old. I have done great out of it having sold houses in London and earnt a reasonable wage with lower and lower taxation.
We need to ensure that young people share the trappings of our wealth as we sure are going to need them when we run out of steam and we need people to look after us or pay taxes that pay for us to be looked after.
I don't think I made myself clear. The question 'what should be done?' was ironic and rhetorical.
Joseph Stiglitz is very renowned in economics. He is easily one of the top 5 in the field and unlike Krugman or Piketty he doesn't have any political stigma. So when he has stated that we need a new economic model and to move away from the one the Tories are desperately clinging to like a piece of driftwood, they would do well to take heed.
There is now no justification for the continuation of the Tory economic program, and no respectable economist would dare put their name to the endorsement of austerity. We need radical spending, tax, capital and redistribution reforms desperately. We are one of the most unequal societies comparably speaking to other similar nations and the economic consensus is that inequality stifles growth.
Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
The smoke is starting to clear fiiish. I was masssively excited about the youth being mobilised to vote. I don't want to turn this into a generational divide because I respect my elders and many of them (many on here) have worked their backsides off to create a future for their children.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
But what is the solution? I completely agree that home ownership is not as easy as it was twenty years ago, or thirty years ago or more. However, despite first time buyers getting older there are still those that are getting on the housing ladder. It comes down to a choice for those working in London. You either live in the City and have a small property (buying or renting) or you live further away from work and have a bigger/cheaper place. This dilemma probably applies all over the UK.
As nice an idea as it is, that we can all grow up and buy a property just down the road from where we were born it is just not realistic - especially in areas that are over populated. It has little to do with house prices in isolation. The population of the world is growing and people are just refusing to die all the while they are having children (and grand-children and great grand-children). The problem with London is that too many people want to live there. Even if anyone that wasn't born there (and not just those from overseas - those from other parts of the UK too) were told to move away, London is not big enough to house all the people that want to live there as we are having children quicker than the old are dying.
It's just a fact of life, literally. What needs to happen is that people need to be educated to understand that they cannot all live in a City that is not big enough for them all. If there are not enough properties to satisfy the demand then one way to decide who gets them is the price. We can build more houses and/or flats but there is even a finite number of those that can be built. Even if we, theoretically, built massive tower blocks of flats (and some of this is going on) there is still a limit to how many people a certain geographical area can sustain.
If the price of the accommodation is not going to determine who gets it what is the alternative? A Lottery? Allowing certain people to decide (politicians for example)? Can't see that leading to abuse of power and 'back handers', much. Maybe we just all gather in a big field and fight for the properties with our fists? Sadly that would leave me living in a $hit hole at the end of the earth.
I wouldn't dream of telling you where to live cabbles but surely you can see that you are contributing to the high prices, as are all the others that tolerate the accommodation on offer in London.
Property prices are, in part, driven up by buy-to-lets, who are almost exclusively made up of those who already own their own home but have also come into some money and so invest in property for huge profits, as well as just those companies that just own a lot of rental properties.
Property as an investment needs to end. I have a German friend who says that property ownership is much rarer than here because the local authorities are much bigger player in the property markets and rents are driven down.
Renting here is a mug's game - unless you're in social housing, you're effectively paying off the landlord's mortgage, plus interest, plus admin fees, plus the profit margin.
So who are those that don't want, or can't afford, to buy, going to rent from?
Or are you suggesting that the Taxpayer should buy thousands of buy to lets and then let them out at a loss to those that live in London and, probably, already earn much more than those paying the tax that buys the properties?
Or are you suggesting that the state 'repossess' the properties and tell the banks that they can whistle for the mortgages?
One last question. What will the criteria be for getting one of these outrageously cheap rental properties? As it will not be done on price will it be one of the three options I suggested earlier? I only ask as I would love to apply for the job of being the person that controls who gets them. I have a feeling that would pay very well - especially in 'other' benefits.
But it seems that the 'taxpayer' is already effectively paying for many of these 'buy to lets' through a housing benefit bill that has quadrupled in real terms in 30 years (mirroring the decline in social housing) while the number of claimants has been fairly static:
In the 30 years since 1983 the cost of Housing Benefits quadrupled, and yet the number of claimants has hardly increased. Why is that?
@kings hill addick I think your last two posts are at odds with each other. The first asks what is there to be done, with the conclusion that there is nothing to be done whilst the second berates an ideas that was trying to do something.
Whatever your political persuasion it cannot be denied that the last 40 years has seen the greatest amount of movement of money from the young to the old. I have done great out of it having sold houses in London and earnt a reasonable wage with lower and lower taxation.
We need to ensure that young people share the trappings of our wealth as we sure are going to need them when we run out of steam and we need people to look after us or pay taxes that pay for us to be looked after.
I don't think I made myself clear. The question 'what should be done?' was ironic and rhetorical.
You should have used an emoji and then I would have understood!
Actually don't ever use an emoji, respect can only be lost once.
@cabbles more than one way to skin a cat, any chance you have enough to save into one of the new ISA's the government tops up? Again don't know your personal finances and what tax level you are at but may be more efficient than a pension right now that you are paying into.
I.e. Stick in £4K a year and government gives you £1k. Dare I say it borrowing £4K a year to put in would be profitable!!
I'm not a qualified FA but happy to chew the cud over a coke (I'm tea total) one day.
Unfortunately a lot of young people do not see these problems of the previous generation dumping down 50 years worth of debt on their heads then pulling the ladder up and instead follow the populist line that all their problems are due to benefits claimants, Muslims, the EU, immigrants, and liberal lefties who love terrorists. And as long as the Tories and their pals in the right wing media continue to perpetuate this mentality there will be plenty of young people willing to go along with it.
The smoke is starting to clear fiiish. I was masssively excited about the youth being mobilised to vote. I don't want to turn this into a generational divide because I respect my elders and many of them (many on here) have worked their backsides off to create a future for their children.
But, different set of rules now and kicking the can down the road is very apt. I can only go on personal circumstance, but I'm a renter paying over and above the odds to rent in the city I was born, I'm a million miles from home ownership and I came out of further/higher education with a tonne of debt (paid off now) because I was told that's what I was supposed to do to be a productive member of society. In short, now, I work my arse off just to keep my head above water.
I'm not saying anyone works any less hard than me, what I'm saying is london, for all it's glitz and glamour and opportunity, is slowly chewing up and spitting out a lost generation. No government has yet to address this.
I would be relaxed about home ownership if rents were affordable. They're not.
Without wanting to come across apocalyptic, London has the potential to implode if we don't do some serious long term thinking. Won't happen though
But what is the solution? I completely agree that home ownership is not as easy as it was twenty years ago, or thirty years ago or more. However, despite first time buyers getting older there are still those that are getting on the housing ladder. It comes down to a choice for those working in London. You either live in the City and have a small property (buying or renting) or you live further away from work and have a bigger/cheaper place. This dilemma probably applies all over the UK.
As nice an idea as it is, that we can all grow up and buy a property just down the road from where we were born it is just not realistic - especially in areas that are over populated. It has little to do with house prices in isolation. The population of the world is growing and people are just refusing to die all the while they are having children (and grand-children and great grand-children). The problem with London is that too many people want to live there. Even if anyone that wasn't born there (and not just those from overseas - those from other parts of the UK too) were told to move away, London is not big enough to house all the people that want to live there as we are having children quicker than the old are dying.
It's just a fact of life, literally. What needs to happen is that people need to be educated to understand that they cannot all live in a City that is not big enough for them all. If there are not enough properties to satisfy the demand then one way to decide who gets them is the price. We can build more houses and/or flats but there is even a finite number of those that can be built. Even if we, theoretically, built massive tower blocks of flats (and some of this is going on) there is still a limit to how many people a certain geographical area can sustain.
If the price of the accommodation is not going to determine who gets it what is the alternative? A Lottery? Allowing certain people to decide (politicians for example)? Can't see that leading to abuse of power and 'back handers', much. Maybe we just all gather in a big field and fight for the properties with our fists? Sadly that would leave me living in a $hit hole at the end of the earth.
I wouldn't dream of telling you where to live cabbles but surely you can see that you are contributing to the high prices, as are all the others that tolerate the accommodation on offer in London.
Property prices are, in part, driven up by buy-to-lets, who are almost exclusively made up of those who already own their own home but have also come into some money and so invest in property for huge profits, as well as just those companies that just own a lot of rental properties.
Property as an investment needs to end. I have a German friend who says that property ownership is much rarer than here because the local authorities are much bigger player in the property markets and rents are driven down.
Renting here is a mug's game - unless you're in social housing, you're effectively paying off the landlord's mortgage, plus interest, plus admin fees, plus the profit margin.
So who are those that don't want, or can't afford, to buy, going to rent from?
Or are you suggesting that the Taxpayer should buy thousands of buy to lets and then let them out at a loss to those that live in London and, probably, already earn much more than those paying the tax that buys the properties?
Or are you suggesting that the state 'repossess' the properties and tell the banks that they can whistle for the mortgages?
One last question. What will the criteria be for getting one of these outrageously cheap rental properties? As it will not be done on price will it be one of the three options I suggested earlier? I only ask as I would love to apply for the job of being the person that controls who gets them. I have a feeling that would pay very well - especially in 'other' benefits.
But it seems that the 'taxpayer' is already effectively paying for many of these 'buy to lets' through a housing benefit bill that has quadrupled in real terms in 30 years (mirroring the decline in social housing) while the number of claimants has been fairly static:
In the 30 years since 1983 the cost of Housing Benefits quadrupled, and yet the number of claimants has hardly increased. Why is that?
I guess it could be because house prices have risen. The average price in 1983 Q1 was £26,307 by Q1 2013 that number was £163,056 That increase (6 times) suggests that housing benefit rents are cheaper, in real terms, if they've only quadrupled.
@cabbles more than one way to skin a cat, any chance you have enough to save into one of the new ISA's the government tops up? Again don't know your personal finances and what tax level you are at but may be more efficient than a pension right now that you are paying into.
I.e. Stick in £4K a year and government gives you £1k. Dare I say it borrowing £4K a year to put in would be profitable!!
I'm not a qualified FA but happy to chew the cud over a coke (I'm tea total) one day.
Joseph Stiglitz is very renowned in economics. He is easily one of the top 5 in the field and unlike Krugman or Piketty he doesn't have any political stigma. So when he has stated that we need a new economic model and to move away from the one the Tories are desperately clinging to like a piece of driftwood, they would do well to take heed.
There is now no justification for the continuation of the Tory economic program, and no respectable economist would dare put their name to the endorsement of austerity. We need radical spending, tax, capital and redistribution reforms desperately. We are one of the most unequal societies comparably speaking to other similar nations and the economic consensus is that inequality stifles growth.
Stiglitz is always interesting. I particularly support his views that Britain is easily capable of thriving outside the European Union, that the euro zone has very deep flaws, and that the response of eurozone officials to the debt crisis that erupted in Greece in 2010 has effectively doomed large parts of the monetary bloc to perennial depression.
Joseph Stiglitz is very renowned in economics. He is easily one of the top 5 in the field and unlike Krugman or Piketty he doesn't have any political stigma. So when he has stated that we need a new economic model and to move away from the one the Tories are desperately clinging to like a piece of driftwood, they would do well to take heed.
There is now no justification for the continuation of the Tory economic program, and no respectable economist would dare put their name to the endorsement of austerity. We need radical spending, tax, capital and redistribution reforms desperately. We are one of the most unequal societies comparably speaking to other similar nations and the economic consensus is that inequality stifles growth.
Stiglitz is always interesting. I particularly support his views that Britain is easily capable of thriving outside the European Union, that the euro zone has very deep flaws, and that the response of eurozone officials to the debt crisis that erupted in Greece in 2010 has effectively doomed large parts of the monetary bloc to perennial depression.
I agree with most of this, but we still want free trade with them.
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have gained a majority, i.e. "won":
2015
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have failed to gain a majority, i.e. "lost":
2001 2005 2010 2017
The Tories cannot change their perception or improve their results until they acknowledge they lost the election. The longer they kid themselves that it's all ok, because they won the most seats and votes, the later the rebuilding starts and the longer it takes.
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have gained a majority, i.e. "won":
2015
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have failed to gain a majority, i.e. "lost":
2001 2005 2010 2017
The Tories cannot change their perception or improve their results until they acknowledge they lost the election. The longer they kid themselves that it's all ok, because they won the most seats and votes, the later the rebuilding starts and the longer it takes.
I hope this dawns on them very, very slowly.
Well, they did win the election because they're going to form a government.. otherwise.. who won the election?
I don't think belonging to a union is compulsary. I would say £160 is good value myself. I was brought up by my dad to understand the acheivements of Unions for the working man. Many moons ago in a previous job, I was actually a union rep and it did upset me a bit how people were thinking, what is in it for me? We had some people who had problems who joined the union and left immediately after we sorted them out.
Its all a bit contradictory though. Unite for example, put forward their number one reason for being a member of their union is to earn more than your fellow workers.
I could leave @Cordoban Addick, but I believe in workers rights, fairness and collective representation. Just think £160 a year is a bit toppy for that, and I belong to a union for those reasons and not to give handouts in the millions to political parties.
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have gained a majority, i.e. "won":
2015
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have failed to gain a majority, i.e. "lost":
2001 2005 2010 2017
The Tories cannot change their perception or improve their results until they acknowledge they lost the election. The longer they kid themselves that it's all ok, because they won the most seats and votes, the later the rebuilding starts and the longer it takes.
I hope this dawns on them very, very slowly.
Well, they did win the election because they're going to form a government.. otherwise.. who won the election?
And that kind of thinking is precisely my point! Until they realise they failed in their objective to secure a majority, they won't do the heavy lifting required to win again.
Whatever your political persuasion it cannot be denied that the last 40 years has seen the greatest amount of movement of money from the young to the old. I have done great out of it having sold houses in London and earnt a reasonable wage with lower and lower taxation.
It CAN be readily denied. The ONS have done some interesting work on it. In short, employees aged 21 in 1995 and were 39 when the statistics were created in 2013, will have earned a total of 40% more in real terms that a 21-year-old who started work in 1975 when they hit 39. Similarly, those who started work in 1985 were 18% better off than their 1975 counterparts. People feel worse off because things have stagnated wage-wise since 2008. (So, my personal theory is that back in the day we saved more because there wasn't the pressure to have the latest gizmo here and now that there is today. And because today we spend more money on things the oldies just didn't have back in the day.)
The reality is that the current crop are (or should be) better placed than those in the earlier generation. In addition, unlike the 1970s and 1980s, real household disposable income per head grew almost continuously through the 1990s and 2000s, irrespective of recessions. In addition, to debunk your theory, the ONS state that pensioner (and single parent) households are more likely to be at the lower end of the income distribution. So, while it is undoubtedly true that some older people have houses which are worth a lot of money, it is also true to say that they are often asset rich but cash poor and presumably the young will get to inherit whatever the Government decides not to tax.
In addition, according to the ONS, in 2008/09 an estimated 18 per cent of individuals in the UK were from households with low income – below 60 per cent of contemporary median income. This is virtually unchanged since 1998/99 .
Whatever your political persuasion it cannot be denied that the last 40 years has seen the greatest amount of movement of money from the young to the old. I have done great out of it having sold houses in London and earnt a reasonable wage with lower and lower taxation.
It CAN be readily denied. The ONS have done some interesting work on it. In short, employees aged 21 in 1995 and were 39 when the statistics were created in 2013, will have earned a total of 40% more in real terms that a 21-year-old who started work in 1975 when they hit 39. Similarly, those who started work in 1985 were 18% better off than their 1975 counterparts. People feel worse off because things have stagnated wage-wise since 2008. (So, my personal theory is that back in the day we saved more because there wasn't the pressure to have the latest gizmo here and now that there is today. And because today we spend more money on things the oldies just didn't have back in the day.)
The reality is that the current crop are (or should be) better placed than those in the earlier generation. In addition, unlike the 1970s and 1980s, real household disposable income per head grew almost continuously through the 1990s and 2000s, irrespective of recessions. In addition, to debunk your theory, the ONS state that pensioner (and single parent) households are more likely to be at the lower end of the income distribution. So, while it is undoubtedly true that some older people have houses which are worth a lot of money, it is also true to say that they are often asset rich but cash poor and presumably the young will get to inherit whatever the Government decides not to tax.
In addition, according to the ONS, in 2008/09 an estimated 18 per cent of individuals in the UK were from households with low income – below 60 per cent of contemporary median income. This is virtually unchanged since 1998/99 .
Back in the seventies if you wanted something you saved for it. No credit cards for the masses then.
As time has gone on 'I want it now' is what rules.
I wouldn't deny life is difficult for youngsters today. I have 3 daughters so am well aware of how things are but it wasn't 'the bed of roses' some like to portray 40 or 50 years ago either. Many had two jobs (or more in some cases) as a matter of course.
Comments
Or are you suggesting that the Taxpayer should buy thousands of buy to lets and then let them out at a loss to those that live in London and, probably, already earn much more than those paying the tax that buys the properties?
Or are you suggesting that the state 'repossess' the properties and tell the banks that they can whistle for the mortgages?
One last question. What will the criteria be for getting one of these outrageously cheap rental properties? As it will not be done on price will it be one of the three options I suggested earlier? I only ask as I would love to apply for the job of being the person that controls who gets them. I have a feeling that would pay very well - especially in 'other' benefits.
I won't be having a winners party, might go to the local Labour loosers party, are they having one do you think
Feel free to ever jump in and challenge any of the numbers I quote, or provide your own alternatives to back up what you say.
lol, I didn't go as far as filling in my bank account details
Yes, everyone flocks to London, but how was I supposed to have the foresight when I left Uni in 2004 that all of sudden everything will become gentrified and the average house price in my constituency would be £630k.....
It's on the government to do more to get companies to set up and attract talent to the regions. All the governments in my lifetime have done is allow the London property market to be carved up between the haves and the have nots and now we have a real problem.
If you find me a job in Inverness that is what I would like to do, I'd quite happily consider it. As it is, I've cracked on doing my very best, stupidly contributing to higher prices in London
And I would wager even those of the generation that have secured housing and are enjoying low interest rates etc but have children entering into the workplace now will start to think very differently in the next few years. The race to the bottom is intensifying in my opinion
Whatever your political persuasion it cannot be denied that the last 40 years has seen the greatest amount of movement of money from the young to the old. I have done great out of it having sold houses in London and earnt a reasonable wage with lower and lower taxation.
We need to ensure that young people share the trappings of our wealth as we sure are going to need them when we run out of steam and we need people to look after us or pay taxes that pay for us to be looked after.
If we did phase towards a German style model, I imagine it wouldn't be overnight. But it has to be the case that people should not be able to make a profit on housing, otherwise all that happens is the market becomes a target of speculation that drives the prices up.
Clearly the German model works as people still buy or rent according to their situation. I don't think they consider their rents "outrageously cheap", just fair as they are not paying the surcharge caused by property speculation and greedy landlords.
Housing is a necessity, like water, infrastructure, energy, clear air, food etc. The government already heavily subsidises the latter lot in one way or another, why not housing? It would save everyone a lot of money in the long run.
Surely we can see there is a problem when you can buy a 5 bed house in Barrow for £300k and that won't even get you a one bed in London now
I do wonder the appetite on reducing housing cost by most parties, particularly in London/SE. Stamp duty paid is not an inconsiderable amount (oh, look @MuttleyCAFC another one of the tax rises on the Rich the Conservatives put in).
Rent is a different matter although not sure how that can be realistically reduced by government without completely upsetting the whole housing market.
You ever thought @Cabbles of buying elsewhere in the country and letting it out? Could help you save for the deposit and also doing your bit by putting a roof over someone's head
I will be quite happily be the first to admit that better levels of financial education and perhaps restraint couldve been exercised in my 20s etc, but even still, it wouldn't have got me anything near what I needed in my neck of the woods, perhaps buying somewhere else.
I can only speak from personal experience, but I feel this city is at cliff edge with the financial storm it kicking up. There was an article on BBC London a few weeks back and it featured people of a similar age or younger than me taking about using credit cards etc to get through the month.
Again I get the argument about prudence etc, but these are just young people being young, living a life. If they start to exercise a bit more restraint then I've no doubt the London services sector will be impacted etc
I'm not an economist so that's probably a very simplistic view, but I whole heartedly believe it's all being held together on a precipice
I wasn't having a dig at you, Fiish, but I don't think there is a way to make property any more affordable so saying that it needs to be doesn't mean anything.
In terms of house buying, parents can pass on their inheritance (most of which will be their own parent's property) which will enable their children to bridge the gap between the price they will have to pay, and the loan they can afford, and this has, already, started happening.
In reality, though, I can't see anyway that the situation with property ownership can be tackled, and I can't see the demand for property in London, and most of the UK, falling enough for prices to reduce more than a notional amount.
Joseph Stiglitz is very renowned in economics. He is easily one of the top 5 in the field and unlike Krugman or Piketty he doesn't have any political stigma. So when he has stated that we need a new economic model and to move away from the one the Tories are desperately clinging to like a piece of driftwood, they would do well to take heed.
There is now no justification for the continuation of the Tory economic program, and no respectable economist would dare put their name to the endorsement of austerity. We need radical spending, tax, capital and redistribution reforms desperately. We are one of the most unequal societies comparably speaking to other similar nations and the economic consensus is that inequality stifles growth.
In the 30 years since 1983 the cost of Housing Benefits quadrupled, and yet the number of claimants has hardly increased. Why is that?
http://www.blog.rippedoffbritons.com/2014/03/graphs-at-glance-in-30-years-since-1983.html#.WT6RVje1sW0
Actually don't ever use an emoji, respect can only be lost once.
I.e. Stick in £4K a year and government gives you £1k. Dare I say it borrowing £4K a year to put in would be profitable!!
I'm not a qualified FA but happy to chew the cud over a coke (I'm tea total) one day.
2015
Here's a list of general elections this century in which the Conservatives have failed to gain a majority, i.e. "lost":
2001
2005
2010
2017
The Tories cannot change their perception or improve their results until they acknowledge they lost the election. The longer they kid themselves that it's all ok, because they won the most seats and votes, the later the rebuilding starts and the longer it takes.
I hope this dawns on them very, very slowly.
The reality is that the current crop are (or should be) better placed than those in the earlier generation. In addition, unlike the 1970s and 1980s, real household disposable income per head grew almost continuously through the 1990s and 2000s, irrespective of recessions. In addition, to debunk your theory, the ONS state that pensioner (and single parent) households are more likely to be at the lower end of the income distribution. So, while it is undoubtedly true that some older people have houses which are worth a lot of money, it is also true to say that they are often asset rich but cash poor and presumably the young will get to inherit whatever the Government decides not to tax.
Read more here webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lmac/uk-wages-over-the-past-four-decades/2014/sty-wages.html
In addition, according to the ONS, in 2008/09 an estimated 18 per cent of individuals in the UK were from households with low income – below 60 per cent of contemporary median income. This is virtually unchanged since 1998/99 .
As time has gone on 'I want it now' is what rules.
I wouldn't deny life is difficult for youngsters today. I have 3 daughters so am well aware of how things are but it wasn't 'the bed of roses' some like to portray 40 or 50 years ago either. Many had two jobs (or more in some cases) as a matter of course.