UKC

The housing market and interest rates

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 neilh 09 May 2022

Here you go. Good article on what is going on with interest rates and housing markets in Western economies. 

https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/which-housing-markets-are-most-exposed/21809217

Prediction of 4% interest rate needed before it impacts U.K. market. 
 

Good time not to be in Aus or NZ……..

In reply to neilh:

I'm damn glad our mortgage is clear, that said we had plenty of scope to pay more on ours because we borrowed the absolute minimum possible to put a roof over our head that suited our needs. 

 Jenny C 09 May 2022
In reply to neilh:

Think they were averaging around 6% when we first took out our mortgage, which at the time of was considered exceptionally low. 

In the early 2000s there was also still a strong memory of negative equity and the potential for rates to go back up into double figures, which I think borrowers (and lenders) factored into the equation when deciding what was affordable.

 GAE 09 May 2022
In reply to neilh:

Interesting times ahead. I personally think we're due one hell of a recession/depression as they start to unwind 13 years worth of ultra low interest rates and QE. The best indicator of where we're going is to probably watch US inflation figures. The Fed have indicated another 2 x 0.5% rises as a minimum, and I reckon they will keep going if inflation really sets in and/or accelerates even if that means putting the US into a deep recession (I think they'll defend the $ at all costs). Historically, wherever the Fed goes with rates, the BoE is forced to follow. On the flip side, if US inflation calms down, they might not rise much beyond 2-3%.

 Uncle Derek 09 May 2022
In reply to GAE:

> Interesting times ahead. I personally think we're due one hell of a recession/depression as they start to unwind 13 years worth of ultra low interest rates and QE. The best indicator of where we're going is to probably watch US inflation figures. The Fed have indicated another 2 x 0.5% rises as a minimum, and I reckon they will keep going if inflation really sets in and/or accelerates even if that means putting the US into a deep recession (I think they'll defend the $ at all costs). Historically, wherever the Fed goes with rates, the BoE is forced to follow. On the flip side, if US inflation calms down, they might not rise much beyond 2-3%.

In America you can already get 9.62% interest on Series I Bonds. I would not be surprised if interest rates go up more than people expect.

In reply to neilh:

I daren’t open that as I’m currently trying to sell our house and if we don’t soon things could get messy 

OP neilh 09 May 2022
In reply to Tyler:

Basically saying that until interest rates hit 4% in the U.K. then demand outstrips supply. So I would sell it soon.

In reply to neilh:

Ok, not as bad as it might be. House already going through but been in this position several times already…

 Cobra_Head 09 May 2022
In reply to neilh:

The sooner the better, artificially low interest rates have skewed the housing market for far too long.

 Trangia 09 May 2022
In reply to Cobra_Head:

> The sooner the better, artificially low interest rates have skewed the housing market for far too long.

Yeah! Give em a taste of the days when mortgage interest rates were 15%.  

Misery for thousands with negative equity struggling to make ends meet...

We never seem to get it right as a society - just boom and bust cycles. We are now on the brink of a bust, and it's going to be hell, made a lot worse this time by Putin's war; a crap, incompetent, dishonest government; and ineffectual opposition. The perfect storm.

Somehow we need to start thinking of the housing market being primarily for the provision of homes, and not as a prime vehicle for investment. Not certain how we would achieve this, but it used to be more like this 50 years ago and the way in which property "investment" is taxed needs reviewing,including, possibly, another look at capital gains for owner occupied property, second homes etc. Property values within Inheritance tax thresholds other than between spouses may need reviewing too.

1
 Cobra_Head 09 May 2022
In reply to Trangia:

> Yeah! Give em a taste of the days when mortgage interest rates were 15%.  

It doesn't have to get that far.

> Misery for thousands with negative equity struggling to make ends meet...

we've already got that, we also have a massive housing stock all bought on the back of each other, allowing landlords to own loads of homes, without actually having the mony to pay for them, Buy to Rent, has pushed up the prices so people can't afford them

> We never seem to get it right as a society - just boom and bust cycles. We are now on the brink of a bust, and it's going to be hell, made a lot worse this time by Putin's war; a crap, incompetent, dishonest government; and ineffectual opposition. The perfect storm.

True, but we've put this off for too long because too many people are making money from housing.

> Somehow we need to start thinking of the housing market being primarily for the provision of homes, and not as a prime vehicle for investment. Not certain how we would achieve this, but it used to be more like this 50 years ago and the way in which property "investment" is taxed needs reviewing,including, possibly, another look at capital gains for owner occupied property, second homes etc. Property values within Inheritance tax thresholds other than between spouses may need reviewing too.

Agreed.

OP neilh 09 May 2022
In reply to Cobra_Head:

If you read the article you might be surprised by how many counties face the same issues.  It a particularly U.K. unique position.  Might come as a surprise to most people. 

In reply to Trangia:

> Yeah! Give em a taste of the days when mortgage interest rates were 15%.  

People weren't borrowing 5x joint salary on 30 year terms then though - they were only allowed 3x single on 25years max. 15% interest on a smaller mortgage (as a percentage of earnings) is less of a problem than doubling the interest on a modern mortgage with payments being 50% of joint income.

1
 PaulJepson 10 May 2022
In reply to Trangia:

> Somehow we need to start thinking of the housing market being primarily for the provision of homes, and not as a prime vehicle for investment. Not certain how we would achieve this, but it used to be more like this 50 years ago and the way in which property "investment" is taxed needs reviewing,including, possibly, another look at capital gains for owner occupied property, second homes etc. Property values within Inheritance tax thresholds other than between spouses may need reviewing too.

Easy - start ramping up tax on earnings on letting domestic property. The landlords would soon sell up when it got too much for them to stomach. Would leave a much healthier housing market and start to trickle homes back into circulation of owner-occupied dwellings. Enough supply and house prices would settle, people can afford to buy a home without needing to inherit hundreds of thou from somewhere, and people stop leeching a living off sitting on their arse. 

8
 David Riley 10 May 2022
In reply to PaulJepson:

All rents would go up by the same amount.

4
 PaulJepson 10 May 2022
In reply to David Riley:

Cap rent increases in line with inflation. 

1
 David Riley 10 May 2022
In reply to PaulJepson:

Like ordering the tide back.   Only the tenants would lose out.

2
 Martin W 10 May 2022
In reply to PaulJepson:

A less potentially disruptive approach might be to do something about security of tenure. I think that the so-called Assured Shorthold Tenancy has been quite a significant driver of the UK's rentier economy.  I suspect that the appeal of property as an investment vehicle might decline somewhat if landlords knew that they couldn't turf tenants out on a whim with only two months notice.

1
 La benya 11 May 2022
In reply to Trangia:

So you mean add it to the list of things  Boomers have had all their own way, which they then pull the drawbridge on for the other generations? Sounds about right. Looking forward to being told the state pension is no more once the very last boomer dies, having taken full advantage. 

12
 gethin_allen 11 May 2022
In reply to PaulJepson:

> Cap rent increases in line with inflation. 


Is that going to work if we are due to hit 10% inflation this year?

I reckon if you capped the rate of rent increases at the rate of inflation the unscrupulous landlords would consider that as the standard rate, and some more normal landlords would start inching the rents up bit by bit to make sure they weren't going to get caught out at a point when they finally want to increase rents eg. When current tenants move on and you want to bring them back in line with the going rate.

I'm a reluctant landlord have had to move across the country at relatively short notice for work and now living in rented accommodation myself and I haven't put the rent up for a while.

I fear that significant reductions in rental accommodation would impact people who need flexibility to move around and also people who just can't afford to buy. Maybe an increase in social housing provision would help here but it seems the current government are thinking about bringing back the right to buy scheme and reducing the social housing stocks, while at the same time they have admitted just today that they are unable to meet their house building promises.

One big thing would be if the country was more equitable. It's always going to be a problem when buying buy to let houses in the provinces is just playing with small change for someone with property in London.

 hang_about 11 May 2022
In reply to Toerag:

People weren't borrowing 5x joint salary on 30 year terms then though - they were only allowed 3x single on 25years max. 15% interest on a smaller mortgage (as a percentage of earnings) is less of a problem than doubling the interest on a modern mortgage with payments being 50% of joint income.

Having had a mortgage at that time (and a rather worrying weekend when we pulled out the ERM and there was talk of 17.5%), I'm glad the rules were there to stop the big multipliers. Got to think there's something wrong with the system where 5x for 30 years on two salaries is still not enough. It seems as if this simply fuels the house price. Help-to-buy did exactly the same and buy-to-let was a disaster. We have to have a system where buying a house to live in is the basis of house prices, rather than rent, use as a holiday home or as an investment based on an ever increasing market. We need a 'soft catch' though to avoid the horrors of negative equity for those in the current system.   

 S Ramsay 11 May 2022
In reply to David Riley:

Rents are largely set by the what the market is willing to pay. Increasing taxes on landlords wouldn't increase the amount that the tenants are willing to pay and therefore the link between putting taxes on landlords up and rent increases is not straightforward and nothing like as proportional as you suggest. It may be that some landlords leave the market which at first seem as though it would decrease supply and hence push rents but also some of the people who were tenants might then become owner/occupiers so the demand for rental properties could also drop. Basically, it is by no means guaranteed that landlords will be able to pass any extra charges onto their tenants.

In reply to Martin W:

> A less potentially disruptive approach might be to do something about security of tenure. I think that the so-called Assured Shorthold Tenancy has been quite a significant driver of the UK's rentier economy.  I suspect that the appeal of property as an investment vehicle might decline somewhat if landlords knew that they couldn't turf tenants out on a whim with only two months notice.

The UK desperately needs a more common sense approach to tenancy. I couldn't quite believe it when I moved to Germany and experienced a sane rental market which provides people with secure, stable homes, rather than our market that serves primarily to enrich the already wealthy.

1
In reply to gethin_allen:

Rather than cap rents in line with inflation use something like council tax banding. A given house in a given area with x bedrooms has a rent cap of x.

Add to that a gradual increase in tax rates for landlords and it will start freeing up a lot of low cost starter homes on to the market. More supply = less demand and lower prices.

No way will it happen for a long time though, no one is going to vote for a party that is going to lower the value of their house.  Maybe once renters significantly outnumber owners. 

 redjerry 11 May 2022
In reply to neilh:

I imagine there are a lot of legislative strategies that governments could use to improve the affordability of housing. 
What I can't imagine is the governments in the UK, US and OZ having the economic/idealogical flexibility in thinking to entertain such strategies.

In reply to redjerry:

Housing is a supply/demand market.  There are two ways prices can be levelled (bringing them down would be negative; inflation does that without bankrupting people).  One is to build more houses where people wish to live, so supply exceeds demand.  The other is to genuinely level up rather than paying lip service to it, so people buy surplus housing in places other than the South East and move there because jobs are there.  Home working helps but more is needed.

Post edited at 16:20
1
 Martin W 11 May 2022
In reply to gethin_allen:

> Maybe an increase in social housing provision would help here but it seems the current government are thinking about bringing back the right to buy scheme and reducing the social housing stocks

Although Right to Buy was abolished in Scotland in 2016, and in Wales in 2019, it still exists in England.

In 2005 the rules were changed so that you had to have been a tenant for five years before you could exercise your right to buy.  In 2016 Right to Buy was extended to Housing Association tenants.  In 2018 the qualifying period to be exercise right to buy was was reduced to three years.  Recall which parties were in power at those different times.

In reply to midgen:

> The UK desperately needs a more common sense approach to tenancy.

The UK used to have more stable tenancy rules, not dissimilar to much of continental Europe, until the so-called Assured Shorthold Tenancy was introduced in 1988.  The definition of an Assured Shorthold Tenancy was widened in 1996.  Recall which party was in power at those times.

Michael Heseltine who, as Secretary of State for the Environment, was responsible for implementing the original Right to Buy provisions in the Housing Act 1980 said that "no single piece of legislation has enabled the transfer of so much capital wealth from the state to the people", as if that were ipso facto and of itself a good thing.

 gethin_allen 11 May 2022
In reply to Martin W:

I'm surprised you say that right to buy still exists in England as I'd read in numerous sources only recently headlines like "Boris to bring back right to buy".

 RobAJones 11 May 2022
In reply to gethin_allen:

> I'm surprised you say that right to buy still exists in England as I'd read in numerous sources only recently headlines like "Boris to bring back right to buy".

I think those headlines were about expanding the scheme to include housing associations. 

 GAE 11 May 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

It's not just a supply/demand market, as the market is heavily manipulated by other factors, mainly ultra low interest rates and QE, both of which are very inflationary to assets including houses

Post edited at 18:47
In reply to GAE:

Inflation (reduction in the value of money) is not a bad thing when it comes to overpriced houses, as it means prices reduce in real terms without the number getting smaller, which avoids negative equity.

Post edited at 19:00
 Martin W 11 May 2022
In reply to gethin_allen:

> I'm surprised you say that right to buy still exists in England as I'd read in numerous sources only recently headlines like "Boris to bring back right to buy".

My source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Buy

Simple rule of thumb: anything that Boris says, or that people say he says, probably bears little more than a fleeting resemblance to the truth.  (And here's a second useful rule: read beyond the headlines.)

In reply to RobAJones:

> I think those headlines were about expanding the scheme to include housing associations. 

According to the article linked above, that was done under DC's watch (the Housing and Planning Act 2016 come in to force during May and June of that year) - although it does say that the extension of RtB to Housing Association tenants was on a voluntary basis.  Maybe Bojo wants to make it compulsory?

 RobAJones 11 May 2022
In reply to Martin W:

>Maybe Bojo wants to make it compulsory?

That was my understanding, that it would be compulsary for all housing associations to be part of the scheme, there was also something about it being possible in installments? But like you I don't think it will happen and be forgotten about in a few weeks. 

 GAE 11 May 2022
In reply to Neil Williams:

Well yes, general inflation as measured by CPI does indeed, in theory, reduce real house prices (I say in theory because I'd argue for most people, this is not actually the case in reality, as most people are probably not getting pay rises keeping up with CPI), but that's a separate issue and not what I was talking about. The inflation I'm talking about, (asset price inflation directly caused by low interest rates and QE) isn't measured in CPI, it's in addition to general inflation as measured by CPI. The cost of living type inflation as measured by CPI is caused at the moment by many external factors, war, covid etc, whereas the inflation of asset prices is caused by ultra low interest rates and money printing.

OP neilh 11 May 2022
In reply to redjerry:

There is a mixture in these markets In the states you have rental price controls in NY for example. . NZ which is also mentioned has the same issues and yet we all like the PM there. 

In reply to Neil Williams:

> Housing is a supply/demand market. 

Correction, prices are the measure of wealth of the buyers / renters - the market moves to match the funds of buyers/renters.  The UK currently has what we have here in Guernsey - a housing affordability problem, not a lack of housing problem (although lack of housing is a driver to the affordability problem).  Pretty much everyone who wants to live in a house is living in a house, they just aren't necessarily paying for that roof over their heads in the way they want to, or living in the house they want to. 

The market price always moves to match the funds available in the absence of government restrictions, thus the best way to reduce the price is to remove the buyers with the highest funds. They are invariably the relatively wealthy people / businesses looking to 'buy to let' who will pay little or no mortgage. Your average family or younger person looking to get onto the ladder will require a large mortgage with higher interest rates, thus cannot compete. It's time to make BTL unattractive as an investment. If someone wants to invest in property, let them do so elsewhere.  Because anyone can own a UK property, people wanting to buy in an area aren't just competing with their peers, they're competing with buyers from all over the world in the form of property investment funds.  Demand from the wealthy has skyrocketed since the 2008 crash because housing has offered relatively good returns without the volatility of the stock market. Your average babyboomer with a retirement lump sum was looking for exactly that low volatility and has piled into the property market as their 'pension', either directly or via property investment funds.

There are essentially 2 sorts of renter - those who want to because they're not planning to stay in an area or are waiting to buy for whatever reason ('voluntary renters'), and those that are forced to because they can't afford to buy.  The wealthy BTL investors push up the market rate to buy thus increasing the number of 'forced renters' thus increasing rental demand. This makes BTL more attractive, thus increasing BTL buying demand, thus increasing prices, thus increasing the number of forced renters......it's a vicious circle.  House prices are rising faster than forced renters can save for deposits and thus they're trapped, with inflationary pressure making things even worse.  People here have been scaremongering that in the event of BTL being made unattractive the number of rental properties will plummet and the rental market will go even more bonkers. This is incorrect - the occupancy type will directly migrate - a voluntary renter will not buy the property that a landlord sells off, because they don't want to. If a landlord with voluntary tenant sells off, either another landlord will buy it and the voluntary renter carries on renting happily, or a 'forced renter' will buy the house, thus freeing up a rental property for the voluntary tenant to move to. Obviously it won't be a direct swap, but you get the gist. As existing landlords give up and new ones don't buy, the forced renters will slowly but surely buy up ex-rentals until the rental market solely consists of voluntary renters.

We can effect demand, or more precisely the wealth of that demand. At the moment, demand for your average 3 bed house consists mainly of 2 groups of people - families with relatively little funds because they have to spend money on their kids and haven't reached the top of the salary tree, and BTL investors with lots of money who want to rent the house out to those families. Guess who's going to buy the house at the speculatively high price it gets put on the market for? Every estate agent will tell the vendor to put it on high to see who bites, then reduce the price if necessary. Thus the poor family simply doesn't get a look in. Even if the vendor puts it on 'cheap' to get a quick sale the wealthy investor doesn't have to wait for surveys etc., that the poor family's mortgage lender will require. New builds or building plots are snapped up by the estate agent's pet developers and BTL investors without even being marketed because it's less cost and effort for them.
Remove that BTL investor demand by making BTL unattractive as an investment and suddenly all the buyers are ones with little funds. Vendors will have to reduce their prices until they reach the lower levels the families can afford. That's why housing in old mining towns was cheap - many people were unemployed and had little money to spend on housing, no-one wanted to move there for work, and BTL investors didn't want the high risks of buying and trying to rent to someone who might lose their job in a declining area. Thus prices fell to match the low funds available of the remaining buyers.
Even if demand exceeds supply, if that demand is from the financially poor then the prices will not rise as much as they will if wealthy buyers are part of the demand. What people need to understand is that there is different amounts of demand at different price levels.

In reply to gethin_allen:

> I fear that significant reductions in rental accommodation would impact people who need flexibility to move around and also people who just can't afford to buy.

Unlikely.  There are essentially 2 sorts of renter - those who want to because they're not planning to stay in an area or are waiting to buy for whatever reason ('voluntary renters'), and those that are forced to because they can't afford to buy.  The wealthy BTL investors push up the market rate to buy thus increasing the number of 'forced renters' thus increasing rental demand. This makes BTL more attractive, thus increasing BTL buying demand, thus increasing prices, thus increasing the number of forced renters......it's a vicious circle.  House prices are rising faster than forced renters can save for deposits and thus they're trapped, with inflationary pressure making things even worse.  People here have been scaremongering that in the event of BTL being made unattractive the number of rental properties will plummet and the rental market will go even more bonkers. This is incorrect - the occupancy type will directly migrate - a voluntary renter will not buy the property that a landlord sells off, because they don't want to. If a landlord with voluntary tenant sells off, either another landlord will buy it and the voluntary renter carries on renting happily, or a 'forced renter' will buy the house, thus freeing up a rental property for the voluntary tenant to move to. Obviously it won't be a direct swap, but you get the gist. As existing landlords give up and new ones don't buy, the forced renters will slowly but surely buy up ex-rentals until the rental market solely consists of voluntary renters.

In reply to Trangia:

> Somehow we need to start thinking of the housing market being primarily for the provision of homes, and not as a prime vehicle for investment. Not certain how we would achieve this, but it used to be more like this 50 years ago and the way in which property "investment" is taxed needs reviewing,including, possibly, another look at capital gains for owner occupied property, second homes etc.

We had a thing here called 'Dwelling profits tax' implemented in 1973 to take the speculators out of the market.  It applied to the difference between the selling price and the inflation-adjusted cost of a dwelling, allowing for expenditure on repairs, improvements or alterations.  Profits from the sale of a property owned and occupied as a sole or main residence for more than twelve months are exempt, so your average person wanting to buy a house to live in was unaffected. In addition the profit on the sale of any property owned for more than five years is exempt, so any BTL investor couldn't make a capital gain unless they owned the property for at least 5 years. The rate of tax was 100% of the chargeable capital gain. It was disabled a few years ago as it was costing more to run than it was taking in tax, but there are now calls to revitalise it as it will essentially stop people 'flipping' properties for a living.

 redjerry 11 May 2022
In reply to neilh:

Are you claiming that rent control is a significant factor in the US housing market? 
You might want to look into that a bit more.

OP neilh 11 May 2022
In reply to redjerry:

I said it was mixed. Rental control in Ny being an example. It varies from state and location. 

federal rules have little impact other than interest rates. 
 

OP neilh 12 May 2022
In reply to Toerag:

Overall in the U.K. we are not building the 250,000 a year new houses we need to meet demand. That has a huge affect on prices. Not difficult to grasp the issue. 

 gethin_allen 12 May 2022
In reply to Toerag:

My take on the term property "flipping" is buying run down property, doing it up and selling it on.

The quality of the work done can be variable but I don't see a problem with the general idea, I see it as adding value.

Builders have been doing this type of thing for ages, buying a house in autumn when external work is dying up because people don't want their houses opened up to the elements while it's freezing outside, working on it over winter and selling it in summer when houses sell quickly.

 fred99 12 May 2022
In reply to La benya:

> So you mean add it to the list of things  Boomers have had all their own way...

"Boomers" are now in their 70's, so they must, almost by definition, be dropping dead one by one from now on.

This will mean vacant houses for sale and (inherited) money in youngsters pockets.

Now, assuming said youngsters can resist spending their new-found dosh on some modern electronic gizmo's, or alternatively just p1551ng it up the wall, there will be the opportunity to obtain their own home - if they so want to.

Or in simple terms - stop having a go at people just based on their age. People who are older than you are not some homologous mass with identical views and actions.

Doing so by dint of peoples race, religion, sex or sexual orientation is discrimination - so with regard to age your views strike me as no different.

8
 La benya 12 May 2022
In reply to fred99:

Apologies, I could lump elder gen x in with them. The youngest boomers are 58. Basically those that refuse to acknowledge their luck while also torpedoing the opportunities they have benefitted from, for future gens.

If you're not one of the wrinklies that has benefitted from housing prices increasing massively whilst actively working towards things to removes similar chances from your grandkids generation,then that comment wasn't aimed at you, regardless of age. 

7
OP neilh 12 May 2022
In reply to La benya:

The only problems with theolder generation is a bad case of Nimbyism as regards house building. Failing to grasp that opposing housing developments means your children cannot afford houses as not enough are being built is a huge problem. It’s pathetic and narrow minded .

 redjerry 12 May 2022
In reply to neilh:

Just to be clear. Rent Controlled properties account for 44k units out of a total of around 130 000 000.
Why even bring that up?

 Martin W 12 May 2022
In reply to Toerag:

> Pretty much everyone who wants to live in a house is living in a house, they just aren't necessarily paying for that roof over their heads in the way they want to, or living in the house they want to.

I'm trying understand how this statement can be reconciled with neilh's assertion that:

> Overall in the U.K. we are not building the 250,000 a year new houses we need to meet demand.

If that 'demand' is largely for houses that people can buy, rather than having to rent, and in places where they want to live, then ISTM that meeting that target would mean a significant oversupply of houses: basically increasing numbers of rentals sitting empty because everyone who would rather buy a house in a place that they want to live is able to do so, leaving only the 'voluntary' renters to support the rental market.  (But then I guess that people relying on housing benefit are far from 'voluntary' renters but will likely never be able to buy - maybe that's a key part of the 'market' that Toerag has failed to account for - I don't know.)

I know that homelessness is still with us and by no means is it a problem that should be ignored or swept under the carpet, but I have no idea whether lack of affordable houses to rent or buy is a significant cause. Toerag's assertion seems to be that it isn't, while it seems to me that pursuing neilh's assertion to its end would mean that once all the 'forced' renters have been able to buy the greenfield new build that they want, then the rental prices will decline to a point where even families (in the broadest sense, i.e. including single people) relying on housing benefit will be able to afford to rent nice places to live rather than having to try to cope in scuzzy B&Bs, or worse.

I honestly don't know where the truth may lie between these two apparent polar opposites, or indeed if it lies somewhere else entirely.

1
 FreshSlate 12 May 2022
In reply to fred99:

> "Boomers" are now in their 70's, so they must, almost by definition, be dropping dead one by one from now on.

> This will mean vacant houses for sale and (inherited) money in youngsters pockets.

> Now, assuming said youngsters can resist spending their new-found dosh on some modern electronic gizmo's, or alternatively just p1551ng it up the wall, there will be the opportunity to obtain their own home - if they so want to.

Yes, it's that 40 quid phone contract between young people and a £25k deposit. The problem is many are living into their 80s and 90s and need to have their massive pensions paid by 'youngsters'. Also most are into their 50's and 60's before they see any inheritance. 

4
OP neilh 12 May 2022
In reply to redjerry:

We do not have it in the U.K.  ……..

In reply to FreshSlate:

That’s pretty much the crux of it.

We seem very unwilling as a nation to acknowledge that we have a horrendous demographic problem that’s only going to get worse.

It affects everything - housing, cost of living ect.

The tax base is pretty much the highest it’s ever been to pay for boomers pensions. When they start to reach the age where they require serious NHS cash thrown at them (final few years life) there’s no way the country can afford it.

Means testing the state pension would be a good start. If this was done on wealth (I.e. include the value of a home) it might stimulate the supply side of the housing market as boomers look to downsize.

4
 Wainers44 12 May 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> That’s pretty much the crux of it.

> Means testing the state pension would be a good start. If this was done on wealth (I.e. include the value of a home) it might stimulate the supply side of the housing market as boomers look to downsize.

So first foreign holiday with my family when I was 45. Only ever had one long haul flight/holiday ever. Camping for us.

Two periods of unemployment after employer's went bust and then 12 years of putting kids through uni.

Things finally settling down after years of austerity,  but we own our house.

Your plan is I get no state pension yet am surrounded by those who saved zero but flew to sunny climes every year?

Can see the slight disincentive to be careful with your money here.....

1
 redjerry 12 May 2022
In reply to neilh:

I know, I'm a little confused. 
Did you have a reason for bringing it up?

 RobAJones 12 May 2022
In reply to Wainers44:

I think agreeing with VS (unless it's about cycling) is a first for me, so in some ways I hope I'm wrong 

> So first foreign holiday with my family when I was 45. Only ever had one long haul flight/holiday ever. Camping for us.

Similar, more European holidays, but no long haul flights. Mrs J insisted on a campervan when we reached our 40's

> Your plan is I get no state pension yet am surrounded by those who saved zero but flew to sunny climes every year?

> Can see the slight disincentive to be careful with your money here.....

I see a greater insentive. At the moment a retirement on the state pension means unless you own your own home you are living in poverty. I'm still 16 years off being eligible for my state pension, it doesn't really feature in my retirement plans. By then I struggle to see how it will be funded and think it will be unlikely that I'll be jealous of those who are relying on it. 

2
In reply to Martin W:

> I'm trying understand how this statement can be reconciled with neilh's assertion that:

> > Overall in the U.K. we are not building the 250,000 a year new houses we need to meet demand.

> If that 'demand' is largely for houses that people can buy, rather than having to rent, and in places where they want to live, then ISTM that meeting that target would mean a significant oversupply of houses: basically increasing numbers of rentals sitting empty because everyone who would rather buy a house in a place that they want to live is able to do so, leaving only the 'voluntary' renters to support the rental market.  (But then I guess that people relying on housing benefit are far from 'voluntary' renters but will likely never be able to buy - maybe that's a key part of the 'market' that Toerag has failed to account for - I don't know.)

The ultra-poor come under my VR category - they have no interest in buying because they can't under any realistic market.

> I know that homelessness is still with us and by no means is it a problem that should be ignored or swept under the carpet, but I have no idea whether lack of affordable houses to rent or buy is a significant cause. Toerag's assertion seems to be that it isn't, while it seems to me that pursuing neilh's assertion to its end would mean that once all the 'forced' renters have been able to buy the greenfield new build that they want, then the rental prices will decline to a point where even families (in the broadest sense, i.e. including single people) relying on housing benefit will be able to afford to rent nice places to live rather than having to try to cope in scuzzy B&Bs, or worse.

> I honestly don't know where the truth may lie between these two apparent polar opposites, or indeed if it lies somewhere else entirely.

Just think how many migrant workers from Europe have gone back home due to covid / brexit, and freeing up accommodation - 1.3 million in a year. Yet house prices are still rocketing. The law of supply and demand should dictate the opposite.

 FreshSlate 12 May 2022
In reply to Wainers44:

> So first foreign holiday with my family when I was 45. Only ever had one long haul flight/holiday ever. Camping for us.

> Two periods of unemployment after employer's went bust and then 12 years of putting kids through uni.

> Things finally settling down after years of austerity,  but we own our house.

> Your plan is I get no state pension yet am surrounded by those who saved zero but flew to sunny climes every year?

> Can see the slight disincentive to be careful with your money here.....

We're not just talking about state pensions (which will be gone for anyone under about 40 now hence auto enrolment) we're also talking about defined benefit pensions (which have gone already) that still need to be funded by the workers of today.  We're talking about young people not having a free healthcare service (look at those wait times now) when they're older and living with their parents until their mid 30s compared to being able to move out and have 3 kids and a childminder  / house keeper supported by one income in their 20s (good luck!).  

Yes the cost of flying has come down, as has the price of consumer electronics, and all things made by children (lucky pups) in sweatshops around the world which is why it's a golden age of Ryanair and Iphones but the fact of the matter is that everyone has benefited from these coming down in price and boomers love Apple and Tenerife. 

When it comes to health, housing, getting a reasonable job with no qualifications, the costs of higher education, pensions, retirement, child care, climate then yes the younger generations have been  screwed over. I don't imagine paying for the furlough scheme for the next couple of decades is going to help either!

Edit: Oh, and f*cking Brexit.

Post edited at 23:43
3
 Kalna_kaza 13 May 2022
In reply to Toerag:

> Just think how many migrant workers from Europe have gone back home due to covid / brexit, and freeing up accommodation - 1.3 million in a year. Yet house prices are still rocketing. The law of supply and demand should dictate the opposite.

That's a huge number of people but as a demographic they probably had a comparatively small footprint on the housing market 

The bulk of EU nationals who left would have been on short term contracts which in many cases came with accommodation, e.g. fruit picking, hotel staff. Many of the others would have been in multiple occupancy households rather than living alone or as a family.

1
 Wainers44 13 May 2022
In reply to FreshSlate:

> We're not just talking about state pensions (which will be gone for anyone under about 40 now hence auto enrolment) we're also talking about defined benefit pensions (which have gone already) that still need to be funded by the workers of today.  We're talking about young people not having a free healthcare service (look at those wait times now) when they're older and living with their parents until their mid 30s compared to being able to move out and have 3 kids and a childminder  / house keeper supported by one income in their 20s (good luck!).  

> Yes the cost of flying has come down, as has the price of consumer electronics, and all things made by children (lucky pups) in sweatshops around the world which is why it's a golden age of Ryanair and Iphones but the fact of the matter is that everyone has benefited from these coming down in price and boomers love Apple and Tenerife. 

> When it comes to health, housing, getting a reasonable job with no qualifications, the costs of higher education, pensions, retirement, child care, climate then yes the younger generations have been  screwed over. I don't imagine paying for the furlough scheme for the next couple of decades is going to help either!

> Edit: Oh, and f*cking Brexit.

That wanders around somewhat.  My point was around choices of my peers, not the contrast between generations.

If I think back to my start/early years,  its not the "being able to move out, have three kids on one income...childminder etc" that you reflect on? Try both working, skint, no holidays, credit card debt to eat in the bad years, and the odd trip to Cornwall with the tent.

It is different now, and yes tougher in some ways. Right now though employment is massively more plentiful than it was when I left school....with no A levels, no degree as there was no means to fund me doing those.

1
 lowersharpnose 13 May 2022

Residential property ownership could be legally restricted to people, local authorities or housing associations. 

No offshore entities, no Ltd companies. 

 wercat 13 May 2022
In reply to Wainers44:

exactly that

I didn't have a car till I was 30 and around the same time had my first trip abroad.  Looking for work in the early years of Thatcher was such a privilege.  Struggling to buy a tiny flat that had then not recovered in value after the crash of the 90s and was worth less when sold in 2000 than I paid for it was a privilege.  Having to lookf for work all over the UK from Wester Ross to Kingston on Thames to Sheffield to Newcastle right through my career was a privilege.  Boomer's privilege.  All classed together whether we could buy a house cheaply in the 60s or 70s or had to go through the 80s at the start of our careers .. All Boomers are to Blame, Hail the Mantra

This is not a complaint about life it's a response to the popular lies

> So first foreign holiday with my family when I was 45. Only ever had one long haul flight/holiday ever. Camping for us.

> Two periods of unemployment after employer's went bust and then 12 years of putting kids through uni.

> Things finally settling down after years of austerity,  but we own our house.

> Your plan is I get no state pension yet am surrounded by those who saved zero but flew to sunny climes every year?

> Can see the slight disincentive to be careful with your money here.....

Post edited at 08:43
1
In reply to FreshSlate:

You are glass half empty kind of guy I see! You are basically correct though, the question to me would seem to be 'should intergenerational wealth be transferred by inheritance or controlled by the state'.

Something needs to happen.

 FreshSlate 13 May 2022
In reply to Wainers44:

> That wanders around somewhat.  My point was around choices of my peers, not the contrast between generations.

> If I think back to my start/early years,  its not the "being able to move out, have three kids on one income...childminder etc" that you reflect on? Try both working, skint, no holidays, credit card debt to eat in the bad years, and the odd trip to Cornwall with the tent.

> It is different now, and yes tougher in some ways. Right now though employment is massively more plentiful than it was when I left school....with no A levels, no degree as there was no means to fund me doing those.

You're right. You were talking about peers and means testing pensions (where I do tend to agree) not integenerational fairness. Sorry the two examples of spending you picked were exactly the same as the person above saying that young people can't have houses because they have laptops. Please treat it as a stock rant and not a direct response, ta!

In reply to Wainers44:

You’re story pretty much describes perfectly our current economic malaise.

Based on your story:

- You’ve paid little to the state

- You’re asset rich (wealthy)

- You expect to take a lot out via the state pension and the NHS

The situation worked when we had an ever growing working age population, but as demographics get worse and worse that isn’t sustainable.

How do we pay for it? There’s less and less workers paying in the system every year and more and more pensioners taking out.

I’m sure I’ll get the usual responses around “taxing the rich” and “taxing big business”, but we all know that won’t work.

2
 FreshSlate 13 May 2022
In reply to blurty:

The problem with inheritance is that money likes to concentrate. You send the larger inheritances to posh schools and let them take over the family business, give them the posh house and sensiblr investments which appreciates more than a Newcastle council house etc. Of course everyone works very hard and it's all down to that but Elon Musk bought into Tesla and every other company he has been involved in with the money from his dad's mining company.

Post edited at 09:28
 Wainers44 13 May 2022
In reply to FreshSlate:

> You're right. You were talking about peers and means testing pensions (where I do tend to agree) not integenerational fairness. Sorry the two examples of spending you picked were exactly the same as the person above saying that young people can't have houses because they have laptops. Please treat it as a stock rant and not a direct response, ta!

Fair enough. Didn't mention laptops either.

 Wainers44 13 May 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> You’re story pretty much describes perfectly our current economic malaise.

> Based on your story:

> - You’ve paid little to the state

> - You’re asset rich (wealthy)

> - You expect to take a lot out via the state pension and the NHS

> The situation worked when we had an ever growing working age population, but as demographics get worse and worse that isn’t sustainable.

> How do we pay for it? There’s less and less workers paying in the system every year and more and more pensioners taking out.

> I’m sure I’ll get the usual responses around “taxing the rich” and “taxing big business”, but we all know that won’t work.

Well that's a load of tosh. Paid little to the state? Except for tax, every week since I was 16....oh except when I was unemployed when I couldn't be paid a penny in benefits.

One little dodge I came up with was taking a crap paid job as a "freelancer" when I lost my job with no warning, spent the gross pay to pay the mortgage and feed the kids gambling that by the time the tax man arrived I had a job that paid enough to find the back tax.

Wealthy...as a home owner yes. Deserving therfore of losing the state pension as a result? No I don't think so but understand that you do.

1
In reply to Wainers44:

I’m not saying you deserve to lose the state pension. I’m saying that demographics mean that it’s inevitable that we will be unable to fund your cohort to the level you expect.

If boomers had paid in enough to offset what they want to take out, we’d have a massive sovereign wealth fund right now, as their tax money would have been set aside. Clearly not the case.

Personally I find the boomer line “I paid tax all my life” a bit painful. As for most of them it means “I paid a pittance, now give me my free stuff”.

3
 RobAJones 13 May 2022
In reply to Wainers44:

> Wealthy...as a home owner yes. Deserving therfore of losing the state pension as a result? 

What are the options?

It doesn't need to limited to the state pension, why should people who avoided paying 40% tax, get 25% of their pension tax free. Means tested doesn't have to be as blunt as you own a home you don't get any state pension. Do households with private pensions of 40k+ really need to get the full state pension if they own their own home, with some sort of sliding scale up to that. On the less fortunate side, the 6% of pensioners renting privately get (little) extra, should that be withdrawn as they should accept the consequences of the 'choices' they have made or could an increase in support for them be funded by a reduction in the state pension for homeowners? 

 Wainers44 13 May 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I’m not saying you deserve to lose the state pension. I’m saying that demographics mean that it’s inevitable that we will be unable to fund your cohort to the level you expect.

> If boomers had paid in enough to offset what they want to take out, we’d have a massive sovereign wealth fund right now, as their tax money would have been set aside. Clearly not the case.

> Personally I find the boomer line “I paid tax all my life” a bit painful. As for most of them it means “I paid a pittance, now give me my free stuff”.

Sorry but you have that all wrong.....*we* as a society have decided what to spend our money on, not just us boomer scum.

Given the last few years and the mad world of covid and brexit, my expectations are limited. Fairness would be good to see, but foolish to rely upon.

 Wainers44 13 May 2022
In reply to RobAJones:

> What are the options?

> It doesn't need to limited to the state pension, why should people who avoided paying 40% tax, get 25% of their pension tax free. Means tested doesn't have to be as blunt as you own a home you don't get any state pension. Do households with private pensions of 40k+ really need to get the full state pension if they own their own home, with some sort of sliding scale up to that. On the less fortunate side, the 6% of pensioners renting privately get (little) extra, should that be withdrawn as they should accept the consequences of the 'choices' they have made or could an increase in support for them be funded by a reduction in the state pension for homeowners? 

That I agree with....

 RobAJones 13 May 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> Personally I find the boomer line “I paid tax all my life” a bit painful. As for most of them it means “I paid a pittance, now give me my free stuff”.

There also seems to be a surprising number who have suffered badly in the housing market. Most I know have been lucky and are now living in properties worth 5 to 10 times what they paid, but any suggestion this wealth is used to fund their retirement/care seems taboo. 

 fred99 13 May 2022
In reply to Wainers44:

> So first foreign holiday with my family when I was 45. Only ever had one long haul flight/holiday ever. Camping for us.

> Two periods of unemployment after employer's went bust and then 12 years of putting kids through uni.

> Things finally settling down after years of austerity,  but we own our house.

> Your plan is I get no state pension yet am surrounded by those who saved zero but flew to sunny climes every year?

> Can see the slight disincentive to be careful with your money here.....

Beat me to it, though my first foreign holiday was a little earlier - when I was 39.

 fred99 13 May 2022
In reply to FreshSlate:

...  We're talking about young people not having a free healthcare service (look at those wait times now) when they're older and living with their parents until their mid 30s compared to being able to move out and have 3 kids and a childminder  / house keeper supported by one income in their 20s (good luck!).  

"childminder  / house keeper supported by one income" - just what socio-economic group are you from ???

 RobAJones 13 May 2022
In reply to Wainers44:

> That I agree with....

Fair enough, the idea that all homeowners get no state pension seems daft/unfair to me as well.

I'm not sure about distinction you seem draw between other people choosing to go on holiday/buy rubbish and you not doing A levels going to University because of the circumstances you faced. I've seen a lot of disadvantaged parents making what I would consider very poor choices, but think the circumstances and external pressures contributed greatly. 

In reply to RobAJones:

I’m not suggesting for a moment that if you own a property you shouldn’t get a state pension, I’m just think we need to get away from the notion that someone’s property is a sacred cow.

We don’t give working age benefits to people with assets greater than £x, why should retirement age benefits be treated any differently?

Unless we change the model we going to end up in a situation where working age people are living in poverty until their parents die and they inherit their money (if they’re lucky to have rich parents) or they stay in poverty permanently if they don’t have rich parents.

I do find it very amusing that for a largely left wing readership, they suddenly lurch to the right once it’s suggested that they might have to sell their house. It’s fine for me to pay more tax out of my income, but heaven forbid they get a bit poorer…

1
 Wainers44 13 May 2022
In reply to RobAJones:

> Fair enough, the idea that all homeowners get no state pension seems daft/unfair to me as well.

> I'm not sure about distinction you seem draw between other people choosing to go on holiday/buy rubbish and you not doing A levels going to University because of the circumstances you faced. I've seen a lot of disadvantaged parents making what I would consider very poor choices, but think the circumstances and external pressures contributed greatly. 

Mixing two different points made. The external pressures issue is massive and affects everything from spending habits to diet to....etc etc.

1
 FreshSlate 13 May 2022
In reply to Wainers44:

> Fair enough. Didn't mention laptops either.

True.

 RobAJones 13 May 2022
In reply to Wainers44:

> Mixing two different points made. The external pressures issue is massive and affects everything from spending habits to diet to....etc etc.

Why are they different? Mrs J's mum didn't continue her education after 16 due to external pressure/expectation. That seems to be viewed far more sympathetically than a  parent getting into financial difficulty by spending too much money on Christmas/Holiday/latest phone 

 Ian W 13 May 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> I do find it very amusing that for a largely left wing readership, they suddenly lurch to the right once it’s suggested that they might have to sell their house. It’s fine for me to pay more tax out of my income, but heaven forbid they get a bit poorer…

Thats because it isnt really a party political issue; but it does point out the issue; nobody expects to have to pay for their costs in later life (care homes etc), but expects to be able to maintain wealth and leave everything to their offspring. For most of those dying / requiring care now the vast majority of their wealth is in their house, and the idea of taking care costs out of that is one that is the centre of much political debate.

 Wainers44 13 May 2022
In reply to RobAJones:

> Why are they different? Mrs J's mum didn't continue her education after 16 due to external pressure/expectation. That seems to be viewed far more sympathetically than a  parent getting into financial difficulty by spending too much money on Christmas/Holiday/latest phone 

They might be related but were plucked out of different contexts. Not sure if you mean they are viewed differently by society or should be?

 seankenny 13 May 2022
In reply to wercat:

> Looking for work in the early years of Thatcher was such a privilege. 

Clearly the early 80s recession was really, really grim. But the crucial point is that for most people it ended quite quickly (exceptions being if you were either very poor or lived in particular ex-industrial areas). But 2008 crash caused much worse long term scarring in terms of wages and disposable income across the whole of the U.K. economy, and particularly affecting younger people. Real wages and growth have been stagnating for a long time now - we’re still living with that crisis after over a decade, whereas in the 80s the economy bounced back quite quickly. The long slow grinding down of living standards isn’t as photogenic as the dole queues but it’s still very damaging. 
 

I do find the continual older person comparison of their austere youth vs the young ‘uns and their plethora of electric gizmos kind of myopic - have you people not heard of China’s entry into world markets and the cheap products this allows?! - but also gets things the wrong way round. Houses are so expensive that for many people it’s not worth saving up for them, so they have more disposable income for other things. You’re mistaking the symptom for the cause. (Btw if any of you are tempted to show me that there are houses in Shitville that are cheap, save yourself the bother.)

Post edited at 12:58
2
 RobAJones 13 May 2022
In reply to VSisjustascramble:

> We don’t give working age benefits to people with assets greater than £x, why should retirement age benefits be treated any differently?

I fall into the first category, it would be rediculous for me to receive any sort of benefit. In fact that I don't pay any income tax on what little I earn seems a bit unfair. I suppose an argument is that no will have any sympathy for me as I can just start working again if I want more income, not an option for many pensioners. Although perhaps more people working part-time/less stressful/physical jobs will need to be more common place for people in their 70's in the future. 

> Unless we change the model we going to end up in a situation where working age people are living in poverty until their parents die and they inherit their money (if they’re lucky to have rich parents) or they stay in poverty permanently if they don’t have rich parents.

I'm not sure even  that lasts more than a generation or two for the moderately well off. I'm not sure how much those already planning/needing to use their inheritance (which they probably won't get until they are in the 60's) to fund their retirement will pass on to the next generation. 

> I do find it very amusing that for a largely left wing readership, they suddenly lurch to the right once it’s suggested that they might have to sell their house. It’s fine for me to pay more tax out of my income, but heaven forbid they get a bit poorer…

Not sure how typical our village is but the number of extensions, conservatories, new kitchen/baths rooms being built/installed over the last few months has certainly benefitted local trades. The sitting at home bit of lockdown was pretty rubbish for many of them but at least they now get to spend the wealth they accumulated during that period, unlike young working families. 

 RobAJones 13 May 2022
In reply to Wainers44:

> They might be related but were plucked out of different contexts.

That's fair comment, apologies. 

>Not sure if you mean they are viewed differently by society or should be?

They are and they shouldn't be. 

In reply to wercat:

> exactly that

> I didn't have a car till I was 30 and around the same time had my first trip abroad.  Looking for work in the early years of Thatcher was such a privilege.  Struggling to buy a tiny flat that had then not recovered in value after the crash of the 90s and was worth less when sold in 2000 than I paid for it was a privilege.  Having to lookf for work all over the UK from Wester Ross to Kingston on Thames to Sheffield to Newcastle right through my career was a privilege.  Boomer's privilege.  All classed together whether we could buy a house cheaply in the 60s or 70s or had to go through the 80s at the start of our careers .. All Boomers are to Blame, Hail the Mantra

> This is not a complaint about life it's a response to the popular lies


The thing is, are you typical of your generation?  I would think not. My Dad was a retail shop manager for the majority of his career and afforded a 4 bed house with 140ft of garden on his wage alone.  He's retired with a reasonable pension.  Today's equivalent cannot do that.

Post edited at 15:12
 seankenny 13 May 2022
In reply to Toerag:

> The thing is, are you typical of your generation?  I would think not. My Dad was a retail shop manager for the majority of his career and afforded a 4 bed house with 140ft of garden on his wage alone.  He's retired with a reasonable pension.  Today's equivalent cannot do that.


According to this RAC report (https://www.racfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/car-ownership-in-great-britain-leibling-171008-report.pdf), in the mid 70s around 50% of people in the U.K. had cars in their household. It’s been basically the same since the late 90s, with 81% of people having access to a car in their household. Obviously households that were particularly poor, young (eg students) or old would make up the bulk of non car owners. 
 

More broadly, the use of “my youth” as a baseline is so regressive. We live in an advanced capitalist society, it is SUPPOSED to get richer over time. My grandparents had no fridge, washing machine, TV etc because 1930s Britain was just much poorer. My grandad had a car but it broke down all the time. Houses were poorly heated and they got sick a lot. But, compared to the Victorian life of his grandmother, it was luxurious. And her baseline was better than than that of her ancestors… this is what is supposed to happen.


That many young people find themselves locked out of basic things like housing or increasingly healthcare (and even a functioning justic system) should be a cause for concern amongst older people, NOT a cause for “you don’t know what tough means” ego polishing. 

1
 ExiledScot 13 May 2022
In reply to seankenny:

Yeah the 80s ended quickly, longest for anyone was 10 years, around a decade. 

For many things improved in the late 80s, but they'd not been good since before the mid 70s, high inflation, high interest, insecure employment etc...

Those saying it wasn't so bad were likely city folk racing around the m25 in their gti? The other areas were where? Not central belt of Scotland,NE England, west and south yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Merseyside, south wales.. 

2
 fred99 13 May 2022
In reply to Ian W:

> Thats because it isnt really a party political issue; but it does point out the issue; nobody expects to have to pay for their costs in later life (care homes etc), but expects to be able to maintain wealth and leave everything to their offspring. For most of those dying / requiring care now the vast majority of their wealth is in their house, and the idea of taking care costs out of that is one that is the centre of much political debate.

There is also the point that, if the house is sold, then the person selling the house has to find somewhere else to live. Not only that, but far too many of the houses that would be sold in that way would be bought up by the same schisters that have bought up so much of the housing stock already. Cue even more inflated rents, both in ordinary housing and in care homes, due to OAP's having money due to their house sale, but nowhere to live.

 fred99 13 May 2022
In reply to Toerag:

> The thing is, are you typical of your generation?  I would think not. My Dad was a retail shop manager for the majority of his career and afforded a 4 bed house with 140ft of garden on his wage alone.  He's retired with a reasonable pension.  Today's equivalent cannot do that.

He was the Manager you say. Did his staff - the shop assistants, cleaner, bookkeeper etc. also have a 4 bed house with 140ft of garden, and retire with a reasonable pension.

I would suggest not, and for every Manager there are many people working who are below such a station in life.

2
 seankenny 13 May 2022
In reply to ExiledScot:

> For many things improved in the late 80s, but they'd not been good since before the mid 70s, high inflation, high interest, insecure employment etc...

It’s worth checking out the chart on page 47 of this report from the Resolution Foundation. 

https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/app/uploads/2022/03/Living-Standards-Outlook-2022.pdf

As you can see, in terms of household income the mid 60s to late 70s period actually looks pretty rosy compared to the post 2008 situation. What we will probably see over the next few years in terms of incomes (and this chart is for real incomes, ie with inflation taken into account) will amount to a lot of suffering throughout society. 

> Those saying it wasn't so bad were likely city folk racing around the m25 in their gti? The other areas were where? Not central belt of Scotland,NE England, west and south yorkshire, Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Merseyside, south wales.. 

In the 80s I was a child from a single parent family (a family set up demonised continually in  that era), I got free dinners in a school where rain pissed through the holes in the roof. My mum was a home help and we lived in a decaying seaside town. So no need to give me a prolier-than-thou lecture. Still, plenty of people did okay for themselves in that decade, even in poor places like mine, and what we think of as stereotypical 80s culture incorporates both the increase in poverty *and* the expanding consumer society. 

 RobAJones 13 May 2022
In reply to fred99:

> He was the Manager you say. Did his staff - the shop assistants, cleaner, bookkeeper etc. also have a 4 bed house with 140ft of garden, and retire with a reasonable pension.

My dad was very similar to Toerags, with shift allowance his income was above average, it was similar to an experienced teacher. I'm struggling to think of any family that can aspire to that on one teachers wage now.

Mrs J's mum was bookkeeper her husband a HGV driver, OK, she hasn't got the 140ft garden, but she has got a 4 bed semi after buying and later extending their council house. When combining the state pension with her modest private pension, she is currently having a comfortable retirement. I hope I'm wrong but I think you need to be optimistic to think things will be better for a young family currently in a similar position. 

 RobAJones 13 May 2022
In reply to fred99:

Downsizing doesn't have to happen when people are incapable of 

>  Not only that, but far too many of the houses that would be sold in that way would be bought up by the same schisters that have bought up so much of the housing stock already.

I'm not sue I understand this. Along with one of my brothers I'll be responsible for selling my 92 year old aunties flat. There are various conditions on who can purchase a flat in her complex, so it will basically be sold to a retired person who thinks they would benefit from having an on call warden. I can't see why it would make any difference if we were selling it to pay for her stay in a care home or for our inheritance. 

>Cue even more inflated rents, both in ordinary housing and in care homes, due to OAP's having money due to their house sale, but nowhere to live.

In my aunties complex the issue seems to be different. She is quite unusual in that she has sold her previous property. Many of the others haven't and the empty properties just get used by their kids now and again. 

In reply to fred99:

> He was the Manager you say. Did his staff - the shop assistants, cleaner, bookkeeper etc. also have a 4 bed house with 140ft of garden, and retire with a reasonable pension.

There was only him, another fulltime assistant and a saturday kid, it wasn't a big shop.

> I would suggest not, and for every Manager there are many people working who are below such a station in life.

That's irrelevant to my example though. Someone doing the exact same job as my Dad did now cannot afford the same house, nor will they get as good a pension.


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...