Plans to free up 25 million unused bedrooms

Graham_Devon

heathcote123 wrote: »

Yes, we know that, but so what?

Things change. Go back a few more generations, and you could have found a cave for free and called it your own, as long as you fended off the roaming dinosaurs.

So what have we established? that things have changed?

Your parents probably couldn't afford to make a lengthy long distance phone call to Australia, or fly to New York for a weekends shopping on a whim. Your parents probably weren't competing much with a global workforce, or watching blu ray films on a 60" hd plasma.

Not that this in any way nullifies that its a bit of a !!!!!! not being able to buy a nice big house, just that it was a completely different world back then, and just because a previous generation could afford something, it doesn't make it a god given right for the next one.

Maybe you'll get that nice family home one day, and I'm sure you won't be in a hurry to redistribute it.

Probably one of the worst arguments I have seen.

I can't yet use technology that hasn't been invented either.

Funny old thing this thread. Say you bought in the 60's and 70's and never spent a penny and saved saved saved and you are seen as a hard worker doing the best they could.

Say your saving as a young person and you are called a parasite, told to spend to save the economy. Say you are living with your mum and dad...and well....not worth speaking too....an embarasment to the forum. But of course if a 55 year old says it, they were simply sensible!

Nothing has changed. Not everyone is out living it large. People still save.

annie_tanks

This report is aimed at the private sector, if you read it carefully.It runs in tandem with the government consultation paper to change social housing terms for new tenants to maximise occupancy and mobility at a local level (they say) . The report wants elderly owner occupiers to think about downsizing, to free up houses, unlike new social housing tenants who may be forced to move.