House Waiting Lists between 10 and 33 YEARS

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

treliac wrote: »

Then we're going to have to face up to the fact that we've got this thing called Society all wrong.

And why is that?

Society needs to keep growing to cover the pension liabilities. We have no choice. The pensions pot is empty. A declining population could not possibly cover the growing old age liability. And yet we canot default either, as these pensioners have paid in their contributions all their life. It's just that every govt for decades has p1ssed it away.

Population will keep growing, we have no choice.

And these people need to be housed.

And what do you mean by 'even you'? Do you think I'm some sort of thickie, left in the wake of your intelligence?

No, meant as someone who just disagreed with me in no uncertain terms.

the_ash_and_the_oak

people will need to be housed. the interesting thing will be wether they buy or rent. one good thing atm is though there may or may not be a shortage of places to buy thankfully there are enough places to live and althought its not so good we have people on the streets at least there don't seem to be too huge a figure having to resort to this imo

Emy1501

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And why is that?

Society needs to keep growing to cover the pension liabilities. We have no choice. The pensions pot is empty. A declining population could not possibly cover the growing old age liability. And yet we canot default either, as these pensioners have paid in their contributions all their life. It's just that every govt for decades has p1ssed it away.

Population will keep growing, we have no choice.

And these people need to be housed.



No, meant as someone who just disagreed with me in no uncertain terms.

And who is going to have these kids Hamish are you going to force people to have kids etc? You are not having any are you? You are relying on the likes of me and others to have them for you to fund your pension. The problem is many now cannot afford them due to the fact that both in a relationship have to work fulltime to fund the HPI you crave.

More and more people I know are not having any kids due to cost. When my kids reach adulthood it will pretty much impossible as whilst my generation can rely on retired parents for childcare my children generation will not be able to as many of their parents will be working till they die to fund the crap we have got ourself into.

Maybe there will be a housing shortage in the future but there is not one at the moment and therefore your supply and demand argument for house prices at present has fallen short.

I suspect that once we do get anywhere near a real housing shortage the then government would be forced to sort it out.

bernard_shaw

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Or whether the presence of corporate HQ's and governmental administrative centres creates the employment conditions neccessary for household formation growth to outstrip supply.....

There is no homelessness crisis. There is a long waiting list for social housing because, quelle surprise, it's a cheap(er) way to live.:money:

Clearly, supply and demand would be the factors affecting the market clearing price of any and all goods - in a free and efficient market with perfect information and perfect competition, that is. Such 'laboratory conditions' do not (and actually cannot) exist out in the messy real world. They only exist in the mind of fundamentalists like you and Dan Hannan.

Now, take a fresh sheet of paper, sharpen your crayon and see if you can answer the following questions...

• Did a simple misalignment of population vs. housing stock lead to the house price bubble or were there other factors in play?
• Did an excess of liquidity have anything to do with it?
• Did the 'Greenspan Put' (artificially low interest rates) have anything to do with it?
• Did those low rates prompt flows of hot money into property funds in the absence of better returns elsewhere?

Many factors other than stock and population levels affect the clearing price for housing. Indeed, high unsold stock levels demonstrate that the clearing price is not, in fact, being discovered by the market at the moment. It is questionable whether a true 'clearing price' for housing is ever discoverable as we lurch from boom to bust and back to boom. This is because of the influence of many actors, state and otherwise.

See if you can list the factors and the actors...

IveSeenTheLight

Emy1501 wrote: »

And who is going to have these kids Hamish are you going to force people to have kids etc?

If you research the facts you will see that there are more births than deaths per year and there is more migration than emmigration each year.

This contributes to our increasing population.

I do not agree however that you infinately need to increase the population to cope with future pension burdens.
Sure it's a short term answer for now, but options could be taken to ease this burden in the future.

Emy1501

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

If you research the facts you will see that there are more births than deaths per year and there is more migration than emmigration each year.

This contributes to our increasing population.

I do not agree however that you infinately need to increase the population to cope with future pension burdens.
Sure it's a short term answer for now, but options could be taken to ease this burden in the future.

Thats true of today but what about the future? who know how many kids and how much immigration/emmigration there will be in the future? As for pensions most people I know of my age either do not have one or the one they have is not going to give them much when they retire.

IveSeenTheLight

Emy1501 wrote: »

Thats true of today but what about the future? who know how many kids and how much immigration/emmigration there will be in the future?

Hence why I said that an increase in population to fund the pensions is only a short term fix.
Unfortunately it needs to be done to cater for the people who have not secured alternative retirement packages and were led to believe that their pension would be sufficient.

Current projections are for a significant increase in population in the next 10 years.

Emy1501 wrote: »

As for pensions most people I know of my age either do not have one or the one they have is not going to give them much when they retire.

Totally agree with the doubt on what a pension will provide in the future.
I do have a company pension, it's beneficial for me as it's tax free and the company puts in a percentage on top, effectively increasing my salary if you like.
I'm still not certain if it will be sufficient having read and seen other pension stories, therefore I have taken up alternative future income arrangements.

If most people you know haven't got an income plan in place for when they retire, how are they planning to live?
It seems they are very short sighted and you may wish to highlight to the people you know that they need to do something about it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Emy1501 wrote: »

And who is going to have these kids Hamish are you going to force people to have kids etc? You are not having any are you? You are relying on the likes of me and others to have them for you to fund your pension. The problem is many now cannot afford them due to the fact that both in a relationship have to work fulltime to fund the HPI you crave.

The increase in population comes from three sources.

1. Increasing life expectancy
2. Net migration
3. Increased childbirth

These are not hypothetical scenarios, they are already happening.

As for your comments re funding of kids and pensions, whilst it is true I do not have, and will not have, children, it is also true that I pay the highest rates of tax, claim no benefits what so ever, and do not use any state funded health care or similar services as I have private insurance. I also have savings, a healthy private pension, and 2 properties, one of which is already mortgage free. I am counting on the fact that the state will pay me little, if anything, during my lifetime and have made provision to pay for myself, despite paying all the National Insurance etc that I am required to as well.

The reality is that I subsidise your children, far more than your kids will ever subsidise my retirement.

More and more people I know are not having any kids due to cost. When my kids reach adulthood it will pretty much impossible as whilst my generation can rely on retired parents for childcare my children generation will not be able to as many of their parents will be working till they die to fund the crap we have got ourself into.

This is of course absolute nonsense. Chid birth rates are increasing, property ownership is close to an all time high, with 70% of properties in owner occupation, and average mortgage payments as a percentage of income are at close to an all time low, at 30% of after tax income versus the long term average of 37% and 68% in 1990.

Maybe there will be a housing shortage in the future but there is not one at the moment and therefore your supply and demand argument for house prices at present has fallen short.

I suspect that once we do get anywhere near a real housing shortage the then government would be forced to sort it out.

As you have so much faith in government's sorting it, lets look at the governments own projections for the problem, shall we.....

Government projections indicate the population will top 70 million by 2031, as a result of increased fertility, life expectancy, and net migration. The number of households is projected to grow by 252,000 every year up to 27.8 million by 2031 (an increase of 6.3 million or 29%).

This is not solely the result of increases in population – even without those, the number of households could be projected to grow by 36,000 households per annum due to changes in marital status and household formation.

For instance, one-person households are projected to increase by 163,000 per year, equating to two-thirds of the increase in households. By 2031, 18 per cent of the total population of England is projected to live alone (compared with 13 per cent in 2006).

But over the last two years, there has been a sharp decline in the number of homes being built and demand for new properties has plunged. On an annual basis, an estimated 87,190 new homes were started in the 12 months to June 2009 - down 41 per cent compared with the 12 months to June 2008. The figure is also little more than a third of the government's target of 240,000 new homes a year.

If house building continues at current pace (87,190 a year), in a worst-case scenario the UK will be short 4.2m homes by 2031. Even anticipating a recovery in house building to 149,200 a year, (the average number of new homes started since 1990) the country will be short of a staggering 2.7m homes.

http://blog.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/2009/11/housing-shortage-could-top-27m-by-2031.html

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Emy1501 wrote: »

Thats true of today but what about the future? who know how many kids and how much immigration/emmigration there will be in the future? As for pensions most people I know of my age either do not have one or the one they have is not going to give them much when they retire.

Emy, the reality is that the workers of today are contributing not towards their own pension, but to pay the pensions of the generations above them, the baby boomers and older, who far outnumber the young. This is not sustainable with current population levels, so population MUST increase. (The boomers did the same for the generations above them, but it was sustainable, as they outnumbered them and people lived shorter lives. )

As everyone points out, you can't raise population indefinitely, so you must therefore shift forward the pensions burden by not one but two generations so that each is paying for their own.

To do this immediately would require that you triple the National Insurance contribution. So instead of being 11%, it would become 33%. This is on top of existing income tax council tax, VAT, etc.

It would result in workers paying between 50% and 75% of their income in tax and NI. Obviously impossible. So you have to do it slowly, by raising population AND raising tax/NI over the course of 50 to 75 years.

Britain WILL see population increase beyond 70 million within the next few decades. There is no other choice.

Emy1501

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

The increase in population comes from three sources.

1. Increasing life expectancy
2. Net migration
3. Increased childbirth

These are not hypothetical scenarios, they are already happening.

As for your comments re funding of kids and pensions, whilst it is true I do not have, and will not have, children, it is also true that I pay the highest rates of tax, claim no benefits what so ever, and do not use any state funded health care or similar services as I have private insurance. I also have savings, a healthy private pension, and 2 properties, one of which is already mortgage free. I am counting on the fact that the state will pay me little, if anything, during my lifetime and have made provision to pay for myself, despite paying all the National Insurance etc that I am required to as well.

The reality is that I subsidise your children, far more than your kids will ever subsidise my retirement.



This is of course absolute nonsense. Chid birth rates are increasing, property ownership is close to an all time high, with 70% of properties in owner occupation, and average mortgage payments as a percentage of income are at close to an all time low, at 30% of after tax income versus the long term average of 37% and 68% in 1990.



As you have so much faith in government's sorting it, lets look at the governments own projections for the problem, shall we.....

http://blog.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!/2009/11/housing-shortage-could-top-27m-by-2031.html

Hamish only 87K+ homes are being built this year because that is the demand. If builder could build and sell 150K homes they would. The reality whilst their maybe 250K new households a year builder could not sell 250K homes a year as not enough people would buy them.

There are lots of homes for sale and lots of homes to rent in many areas of the country. Show me a postcode in the South East with no homes for sale of to rent and I will listen to your argument.

We do not know what will happen in the future so why build 250K homes a year when few will buy them? At best 15% of properties for sale in the areas I look in complete a month.

Builders are speculators like many homeowners they will build when they believe they can make the best returns. I'm already seeing more and more properties being built again when there were hardly any being built this time last year.