Debate House Prices


In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!

SMI. Priced-out young pay for older generation to stay in their homes.

Options
24

Comments

  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    the proposed new system of linking the 'interest rate' to an average of high street rates and updating the support level regularly seems to make sense; there will of course no real winners but amny losers and we will doubtless see the losers on TV
  • Orpheo
    Orpheo Posts: 1,058 Forumite
    edited 6 September 2010 at 11:34AM
    StevieJ wrote: »
    But surely this could only have been done to save money on admin costs, otherwise it would have been sensible to pay the actual rate. BTW I wonder how much this costs compared to rents paid out? It may be that over 65's who claim SMI would have been much more of a burden on the state had they not bothered to purchase a property and relied 100% on the state to pay their rent during their dotage.

    This is a fair point. Although it does gloss over the moral hazard of the taxpayer paying to buy someone a house. Perhaps they should be forced to sell their house and live off the proceeds until such a time as the proceeds run out. Then, when they are unable to pay for themselves, state help should kick in.
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Orpheo wrote: »
    This stands to reason. The youngsters have had to borrow more to feed the inflated house prices of their elders.

    Or maybe they have paid most of their mortgage off.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • CLAPTON
    CLAPTON Posts: 41,865 Forumite
    10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    StevieJ wrote: »
    But surely this could only have been done to save money on admin costs, otherwise it would have been sensible to pay the actual rate. BTW I wonder how much this costs compared to rents paid out? It may be that over 65's who claim SMI would have been much more of a burden on the state had they not bothered to purchase a property and relied 100% on the state to pay their rent during their dotage.


    I'm sure it was a simple way to implement the system, probably at a time when the numbers of claimants were much smaller (I'm guessing now)
    However the propsed new system seems a reasonable compromise between overpaying by such a large margin and working it out for each individual.
    and it does seem fundamantally wrong for a substantial number to actually make a profit (interestly not quantified form my quick reading)
  • Orpheo
    Orpheo Posts: 1,058 Forumite
    StevieJ wrote: »
    Or maybe they have paid most of their mortgage off.

    Maybe. But not all of it. They are relying on their grandchildren's taxes to finish the job.

    The first generation to change the world in order to worsen the quality of life for their children. They have failed in the whole purpose of being alive.
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Orpheo wrote: »
    This is a fair point. Although it does gloss over the moral hazard of the taxpayer paying to buy someone a house. .

    I see the Moral Hazard more as encouraging people not to buy a house because the state will pay the rent when they retire, if they can't afford it.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Orpheo wrote: »
    Maybe. But not all of it. They are relying on their grandchildren's taxes to finish the job.

    The first generation to change the world in order to worsen the quality of life for their children. They have failed in the whole purpose of being alive.


    You are joking, worse quality of life, you live in cloud cuckoo land like the rest of your inter generational warrior mates.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
  • Orpheo
    Orpheo Posts: 1,058 Forumite
    StevieJ wrote: »
    I see the Moral Hazard more as encouraging people not to buy a house because the state will pay the rent when they retire, if they can't afford it.

    You and I both know that the complete abolition of this benefit would not discourage people from buying houses. So, I believe that makes your argument, in the above quote, a strawman.
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
  • Orpheo
    Orpheo Posts: 1,058 Forumite
    StevieJ wrote: »
    You are joking, worse quality of life, you live in cloud cuckoo land like the rest of your inter generational warrior mates.

    No. Yes. No and no.

    But it is interesting how you have stopped with the debate and started flinging poo.

    The quality of life will be worse for their grandchildren than it has been for them.

    I got my university education for free.
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
  • StevieJ
    StevieJ Posts: 20,174 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Orpheo wrote: »
    No. Yes. No and no.

    But it is interesting how you have stopped with the debate and started flinging poo.


    The quality of life will be worse for their grandchildren than it has been for them.

    I got my university education for free.

    Interesting as it it was merely in response to your comment below :)
    They have failed in the whole purpose of being alive.
    'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 351.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 453.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 244.2K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 599.3K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177K Life & Family
  • 257.6K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.