We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
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!
Corbynomics: A Dystopia
Comments
-
TrickyTree83 wrote: »Hey I'd be fine with means tested pensions, it'll just mean no one saves for retirement. So then the only other alternative is no state pension at all. If that means I pay less tax, great I can put more into my private pension instead of paying other people's. Life choices, some people will make bad choices and expect the rest of us to bail them out. A bit like banks, but on a smaller scale, and possibly less criminality, maybe.
This week the private pension industryhave said they are are beginning to move towards a major crisis thanks in part to ultra low interest rates and Brexit - which is ironic in that it was the elderly who overwhelmingly voted for Brexit .
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/pensions-retirement/news/the-1-trillion-pension-crisis-facing-11m-and-theyre-the-lucky-on/Do not be fooled into believing that this society cannot be made fairer because hard work isn't necessarily all it takes.
There are those on MSE DT who know the price of everything but the value of little.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Fine, if the state gives me back the £6kpa in NI that I've been paying for many a decade (with interest, of course) I'll agree to not have a state pension.
I don't feel entitled to it but I've definitely paid for it.
The clue is in the title National Insurance therefore in that respect the state pension should be means tested. If you have fire insurance you do not get your premiums back if you do not have a fire.Do not be fooled into believing that this society cannot be made fairer because hard work isn't necessarily all it takes.
There are those on MSE DT who know the price of everything but the value of little.0 -
TheNickster wrote: »The clue is in the title National Insurance therefore in that respect the state pension should be means tested. If you have fire insurance you do not get your premiums back if you do not have a fire.
That is just stupidLeft is never right but I always am.0 -
gadgetmind wrote: »Fine, if the state gives me back the £6kpa in NI that I've been paying for many a decade (with interest, of course) I'll agree to not have a state pension.
I don't feel entitled to it but I've definitely paid for it.
As you pointed out, you don't care about your rights or those of anyone else.
What you paid for is the pensioners above you.
When you retire it will be me paying your state pension.
Why do I have to pay for your state pension, your health care, your bus pass, your winter fuel handout, and your free TV license when I won't get any of these things when I retire (thanks mostly to the governments you keep electing) and you have more money than me?0 -
but does it makes sense for the government to build new social homes that might come in at £150k a unit when it can just buy existing homes in most the country for under that price and label that social
So for instance, if in the North East, The Midlands, Wales, NI, Scotland there are currently 250,000 terraces and flats for sale below £100,000 should the government buy them up and fill them with social tenants?
It would be far far quicker than trying to build 250,000 new homes. It would be cheaper. It would be less problematic (no NIMBY protests) and it would be mixed communities
If you feel there arent enough social homes the logical choice is for the government to buy some off the market and rent them out.
But of course there are enough social homes people just like to cry that there arent. Just like in my area of east Londn 60% of all the homes are social stock and people still cry that isnt enough
That would only make sense if those properties the coucil/government buys are empty and suitable and have no prospectt of being sold on the open market. Otherwise there would then be a shotrage of houses for sale thus causing prices to rise especially if there is a shortage of building land because of planning rules and aggressive NIMBYism.
On earlier point you made about long waiting lists is that the real test is how long those in need of urgent housing (ie the homeless) followed by those in unsuitable accommodation (medical, environmental reasons and over crowding and then those who already have suitable accomodation. My local council splits the waiting list in to that type of grouping and those in the last catagory never would get council house because of waiting lists for the more urgent cases. I would also look at how many have to be housed in hostels and bed and breakfast (totally unsuitable for families).
Finally it has been true for at least the seventy years (if not longer) that people in in this country are better off than in some countries but that is no reason not to make improvements. Even at the time of 'Cathy come home' it was better in the UK than (say) Africa - at least the kids did not starve but the family was split up.
I would also question your other suggestion in a previous post that in london high rise high density should be built rather than what is currently built. The problem is that experience has shown that that type of high rise high density building cause additiona social problems.
Those protesting (Resolution Foundaton, IFS, Shelter, etc) that there is a crisis are saying this country is moving towards a 'Cathy come home' scenario and want to reverse that.
https://www.theguardian.com/housing-network/2016/aug/05/those-who-deny-the-housing-crisis-can-no-longer-conceal-their-idiocy-resolution-foundationDo not be fooled into believing that this society cannot be made fairer because hard work isn't necessarily all it takes.
There are those on MSE DT who know the price of everything but the value of little.0 -
TheNickster wrote: »That would only make sense if those properties the coucil/government buys are empty and suitable and have no prospectt of being sold on the open market. Otherwise there would then be a shotrage of houses for sale thus causing prices to rise especially if there is a shortage of building land because of planning rules and aggressive NIMBYism.
That is silly. If a local area has very cheap housing, like stoke-on-trent where you can buy a decent 3 bed for £70k that indicates there is an excess of housing in the area. So it would be a bad idea for the state to build even more housing there and call it social. It would make a lot more sense to buy that housing and rent it out as social. This holds true for a very large portion of the UK probably more than 50% of the UK you can buy an existing terrace for less than it would cost to build a new one. So if you think the UK does not have enough social homes (wrong) the method to fix that problem is for the government to buy homes off estate agents.On earlier point you made about long waiting lists is that the real test is how long those in need of urgent housing (ie the homeless) followed by those in unsuitable accommodation (medical, environmental reasons and over crowding and then those who already have suitable accomodation. My local council splits the waiting list in to that type of grouping and those in the last catagory never would get council house because of waiting lists for the more urgent cases. I would also look at how many have to be housed in hostels and bed and breakfast (totally unsuitable for families).
if you are now saying that the council waiting lists are pointless I completely agree. Like I said to you my area of inner east London is over 60% social homes according to the council LHA data. Yet there is still a waiting list.
I do agree that the real test is if there is sufficent housing for those who are in totally unsuitable housing (eg a family in a bedsit) but we know for 100% that there definitely is suitable housing for these people. here is a website that shows you an almost unimaginable number of homes for rent https://www.rightmove.com so there is no reason why those who need housing suitable for their circumstances cant get it. The reality is that most do and the reality is that those who are waiting long peropds are too picky (eg they want a council home, in a certain area. I saw a program once where this somalian woman with 5-10 kids was shown a house in Luton the government was going to give (rent) to her for free and all the lovely woman could do was !!!!! and moan about how crap she felt luton was. entitled)Finally it has been true for at least the seventy years (if not longer) that people in in this country are better off than in some countries but that is no reason not to make improvements. Even at the time of 'Cathy come home' it was better in the UK than (say) Africa - at least the kids did not starve but the family was split up.
nobody is suggesting that progress should stop and virtually no one would be that evil. The point I am making is that the uk does not lack for housing, does not lack for social housing in at least ~85% of the UK. London does need more homes but thats a different topic and I dont want to go into that it would take too longI would also question your other suggestion in a previous post that in london high rise high density should be built rather than what is currently built. The problem is that experience has shown that that type of high rise high density building cause additiona social problems.
yes I am aware of these things. there are some fantastic documentaries on you tube made in the 1970s and 1990s that look into council estates and what was good and bad about them.
One important thing to note is that high density council estates were the problem, the same problems were not seen in high density private blocks. Most of kensington is mansion blocks and there are no such problems there.
Plus even council estates in this regard have improved a lot as the councils have upped their game in manageing the problem tenants. Children are also generally better behaved and crime is generally down.
So I still think high density development is good. And it is vital for inner London. There is already far too much social housing in inner London so all the future new builds should be 100% private in those areas to dilute the council stock to a more acceptable level. eg Hackney, Islington, Tower Hamlets, Southwark are all over 40% council homes. The national average is 17% so those areas should stop building more social homes until it falls towards the national averageThose protesting (Resolution Foundaton, IFS, Shelter, etc) that there is a crisis are saying this country is moving towards a 'Cathy come home' scenario and want to reverse that.
know this, a foundation, a charity, a company, its just a collection of people and people can be wrong.
There is no housing crisis in most of the UK. They are simply wrong. Housing affordability in the UK is very good. The data is freely available do your own research.
I think there are some problems that look like they are housing related (eg the fall in ownership) but they are actually more to do with other factors. In that case the mortgage market needs to go back to offering 100% LTV mortgages and also needs to start offering self cert mortgages again (for people with 15% or more down). That would reverse the fall in ownership and it will start to rise again.
There are also big problems in ruels taxes and regulations in building new homes in the uk. Again I dont really want to get into it here it would take too long and this post is already too much for most people to read it all
a nonsense article very likely from someone based in London.
Seriously the data is free and so easy to get hold of, the problem is most journalists did not do mathematics or statistics at school.
See some of my old posts and threads on affordability that looked into this. Basically in most the country its cheaper to buy the average terrace home than it is to rent the local average council property. If that is true, you can check for yourself, which it is, then how can you believe that housing is unaffordable when its cheaper than the social sector?0 -
That is silly. If a local area has very cheap housing, like stoke-on-trent where you can buy a decent 3 bed for £70k that indicates there is an excess of housing in the area. So it would be a bad idea for the state to build even more housing there and call it social. It would make a lot more sense to buy that housing and rent it out as social. This holds true for a very large portion of the UK probably more than 50% of the UK you can buy an existing terrace for less than it would cost to build a new one. So if you think the UK does not have enough social homes (wrong) the method to fix that problem is for the government to buy homes off estate agents.
if you are now saying that the council waiting lists are pointless I completely agree. Like I said to you my area of inner east London is over 60% social homes according to the council LHA data. Yet there is still a waiting list.
I do agree that the real test is if there is sufficent housing for those who are in totally unsuitable housing (eg a family in a bedsit) but we know for 100% that there definitely is suitable housing for these people. here is a website that shows you an almost unimaginable number of homes for rent https://www.rightmove.com so there is no reason why those who need housing suitable for their circumstances cant get it. The reality is that most do and the reality is that those who are waiting long peropds are too picky (eg they want a council home, in a certain area. I saw a program once where this somalian woman with 5-10 kids was shown a house in Luton the government was going to give (rent) to her for free and all the lovely woman could do was !!!!! and moan about how crap she felt luton was. entitled)
nobody is suggesting that progress should stop and virtually no one would be that evil. The point I am making is that the uk does not lack for housing, does not lack for social housing in at least ~85% of the UK. London does need more homes but thats a different topic and I dont want to go into that it would take too long
yes I am aware of these things. there are some fantastic documentaries on you tube made in the 1970s and 1990s that look into council estates and what was good and bad about them.
One important thing to note is that high density council estates were the problem, the same problems were not seen in high density private blocks. Most of kensington is mansion blocks and there are no such problems there.
Plus even council estates in this regard have improved a lot as the councils have upped their game in manageing the problem tenants. Children are also generally better behaved and crime is generally down.
So I still think high density development is good. And it is vital for inner London. There is already far too much social housing in inner London so all the future new builds should be 100% private in those areas to dilute the council stock to a more acceptable level. eg Hackney, Islington, Tower Hamlets, Southwark are all over 40% council homes. The national average is 17% so those areas should stop building more social homes until it falls towards the national average
know this, a foundation, a charity, a company, its just a collection of people and people can be wrong.
There is no housing crisis in most of the UK. They are simply wrong. Housing affordability in the UK is very good. The data is freely available do your own research.
I think there are some problems that look like they are housing related (eg the fall in ownership) but they are actually more to do with other factors. In that case the mortgage market needs to go back to offering 100% LTV mortgages and also needs to start offering self cert mortgages again (for people with 15% or more down). That would reverse the fall in ownership and it will start to rise again.
There are also big problems in ruels taxes and regulations in building new homes in the uk. Again I dont really want to get into it here it would take too long and this post is already too much for most people to read it all
a nonsense article very likely from someone based in London.
Seriously the data is free and so easy to get hold of, the problem is most journalists did not do mathematics or statistics at school.
See some of my old posts and threads on affordability that looked into this. Basically in most the country its cheaper to buy the average terrace home than it is to rent the local average council property. If that is true, you can check for yourself, which it is, then how can you believe that housing is unaffordable when its cheaper than the social sector?
I do not think you taken into account unemployment rates in areas where house prices are low.
http://www.lloydsbankinggroup.com/Media/Press-Releases/2016-press-releases/lloyds-bank/unemployment-and-house-prices/
it is all very well saying people should buy in areas of low house prices but that does present a problem in getting a mortgage if you have no job or irregular work.
No. I am not saying wating lists are pointless. Only that you need to look at each catagory of waiting list - emergency, envoronmental health (overcrowding, rat infested, damp etc), those in hostels and bed and breakfast - all of whom deserve decent accommodation.
I do not agree that the majority of those on waiting lists I just listed are too 'picky' - benefit !!!!!! programs are not representative and only focus on the rare extremes.
I am surprised you are suggesting a return to the type of mortgage availability that previously help cause so many problems (self certification and 100% mortgages.Basically in most the country its cheaper to buy the average terrace home than it is to rent the local average council property. If that is true, you can check for yourself, which it is, then how can you believe that housing is unaffordable when its cheaper than the social sector?
Most of the people in the social sector and in an increasing number renting in the private sector are getting housing benefit. Which is unavailable to those wishing to buy. They are on housing benefit because they have an income that is too low to get a mortgage sufficiently large enough(or at all). You do not appear to comprehend that.Do not be fooled into believing that this society cannot be made fairer because hard work isn't necessarily all it takes.
There are those on MSE DT who know the price of everything but the value of little.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »As you pointed out, you don't care about your rights or those of anyone else.
Why not leave me to state clearly what I do and don't think rather than trying to cram words into my mouth?What you paid for is the pensioners above you.
Yes, on the understanding that ...When you retire it will be me paying your state pension.
Yes, but my models show that I'll be paying more in tax in retirement than I'll be getting in state pension,I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
TheNickster wrote: »This week the private pension industry
Your link is to an article on final salary pensions. Some of these are in the private sector, but they are not private pensions. Members do have to pay in something, but they are collective schemes where members do not have their own pot.
Private Pensions are where people pay money into a pension for their own old age, take on all the investment risk themselves, and often closely manage both the investment and withdrawal phases.
Such pensions are pretty much "crisis proof" but the government don't seem to like them for some reason.I am not a financial adviser and neither do I play one on television. I might occasionally give bad advice but at least it's free.
Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them.0 -
TheNickster wrote: »Most of the people in the social sector and in an increasing number renting in the private sector are getting housing benefit. Which is unavailable to those wishing to buy. They are on housing benefit because they have an income that is too low to get a mortgage sufficiently large enough(or at all). You do not appear to comprehend that.
You say house prices are too high. I counter with the fact that in most the country buying a home is cheaper than renting a home off the council. Your counter to that is that some people can't or won't work so for them buying a house is impossible? I feel im talking to a brick wall. Yes but what the hell does that have to do with the fact that buying is cheaper than social housing (for most the country) therefore property isn't unaffordable.
You are aware that your silly argument holds even if house prices fall 80%? There will still be people unable to buy eg a poor 80 year old pensioner so would you conclude post a 80% house price crash that property was still unaffordable?
The more interesting part of this debate is that the governnt should allow those in receipt of housing benefit (most of them are social tenants) to use that sum to buy a property should they wish. So if they are currently getting £500 per month in housing benefits to pay for their 3 bed council flat and the mortgage on a local 3 bed terrace is such that the interest is less than £500 per month (eg £300pm) then that should happen. The state would go from paying out £500pm on housing benefit plus increases as the social landlords always increase rents to paying a foxed £300 a month. The government can take first charge on the Property and recoup costs on sale/death. You have increases ownership and freed up a social house slot and spend less in the process. Win won for all. Of course if you want people to stay poor then you will be against this0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards