The Shame of Britain. Young shredded in inter-generational economic meat grinder

JencParker

BillJones wrote: »

You've got that completely the wrong way round. In the past it was not normal for most women to work, so people could only spend one salary on a mortgage. Once double-income couples started to become the norm. this drove up house prices to match, so it was people choosing to work that drove up prices, not prices being driven up that caused women to need to work.

Actually, I think what had the biggest impact was when non married couples could pool their salaries and get interest relief up to £60,000.

BillJones

JencParker wrote: »

Actually, I think what had the biggest impact was when non married couples could pool their salaries and get interest relief up to £60,000.

That could only have been a transient effect, though, as it's a very long time now since it's been available. Gordon Brown got rid of it 14 years ago, apparently on the basis that it benefitted the middle classes.

JencParker

BillJones wrote: »

That could only have been a transient effect, though, as it's a very long time now since it's been available. Gordon Brown got rid of it 14 years ago, apparently on the basis that it benefitted the middle classes.

I agree, I remember it well because it was when we were looking to buy - prices jumped practically overnight. But it is the cumulative effect of various factors, of which this was one, that have led to the difficulties the younger generations now face and these were mainly brought about in the 80's by Thatcher.

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

I agree, I remember it well because it was when we were looking to buy - prices jumped practically overnight. But it is the cumulative effect of various factors, of which this was one, that have led to the difficulties the younger generations now face and these were mainly brought about in the 80's by Thatcher.

are you sure that Thatcher built fewer houses in the 80s than labour after 1997?

certainly there was a smaller expansion in population under Thatcher than under Labour

JencParker

CLAPTON wrote: »

are you sure that Thatcher built fewer houses in the 80s than labour after 1997?

certainly there was a smaller expansion in population under Thatcher than under Labour

Where did I say Thatcher built few houses than Labour?

I said there are a number of things that have contributed to the problem which largely came about under Thatcher - Right to Buy, abolition of the rent act, etc. Labour had opportunities to change things, but didn't, in fact, the Right to Aquire regarding Housing Association properties came in in 1997 while Labour were in power.

Arguing politics of who did what is largely irrelevant, it was more to point out the time when these changes occurred that set the ball rolling to the point were are now.

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

Where did I say Thatcher built few houses than Labour?

I said there are a number of things that have contributed to the problem which largely came about under Thatcher - Right to Buy, abolition of the rent act, etc. Labour had opportunities to change things, but didn't, in fact, the Right to Aquire regarding Housing Association properties came in in 1997 while Labour were in power.

Arguing politics of who did what is largely irrelevant, it was more to point out the time when these changes occurred that set the ball rolling to the point were are now.

how did the right to buy reduce the housing stock?

JencParker

CLAPTON wrote: »

how did the right to buy reduce the housing stock?

The assumption that I am saying it reduced housing stock is yours. It fuelled the demand to buy.

CLAPTON

JencParker wrote: »

The assumption that I am saying it reduced housing stock is yours. It fuelled the demand to buy.

surely the demand is related to the number of families seeking house?

how does ownership come into it

if there is no change in the number of families wanting somewhere to live and no change in the number of houses to live in, why does ownership matter so much?

JencParker

CLAPTON wrote: »

surely the demand is related to the number of families seeking house?

how does ownership come into it

if there is no change in the number of families wanting somewhere to live and no change in the number of houses to live in, why does ownership matter so much?

Of course ownership comes into it as more people seek to buy as to rent. Why, well I would have thought that obvious - and I'm sure you know but will say it anyway. With no security of tenure, private rentals costing as much as a mortgage, buying a property is a much better choice.

ukcarper

JencParker wrote: »

Where did I say Thatcher built few houses than Labour?

I said there are a number of things that have contributed to the problem which largely came about under Thatcher - Right to Buy, abolition of the rent act, etc. Labour had opportunities to change things, but didn't, in fact, the Right to Aquire regarding Housing Association properties came in in 1997 while Labour were in power.

Arguing politics of who did what is largely irrelevant, it was more to point out the time when these changes occurred that set the ball rolling to the point were are now.

Without the abolition of the rent act there would be very little rental property most landlords were unloading properties as soon as they could. BTL might no be ideal but without it the number of properties available to rent would be lower.