Corbynomics: A Dystopia

setmefree2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Selling that message to the electorate may prove far more difficult.

I fully expect the Tories to stay in power until 2022 and for Brexit to be over by then tbh.

Cakeguts

Moby wrote: »

Did you read what I actually said? You are choosing to ignore all the social issues I described that influence outcomes and just concentrate on parents that buy branded clothing. Of course poverty now isn't like the 1930's. I should bloody hope not! There is a difference between absolute and relative definitions and surely what's also relevant is the direction of travel?

Well the direction of travel is that everyone is getting better off. But you can't legislate for parents who are just plain stupid and have more children than they can afford. You also can't legislate for people who don't care about their children and are selfish and can't be bothered to stop having children when they have exceeded the number that they can care for. I hope you aren't suggesting that people are forced to be sterilised? You also can't legislate for selfish parents who spend benefit money on things and not on providing a roof over the children's heads so that they have somewhere to store the things.

We need more housing for the single disabled people. Not for families. Families are well provided for.

buglawton

GreatApe wrote: »

While it may increase the demand from FTBs it will decrease demand from landlords as a would have been tenant is instead an owner.

The total demand for housing rental+owned is not changed so the price won't move much.

Be honest, overall demand would still be up sharply as young people leave home earlier. Some landlords would indeed sell, to pocket the 40% price increases kindly provided by the taxpayer. But with current planning laws and a strong tendency for builders to first landbank then only build expensive developments, where's any real increase in starter home supply coming from?

Apart from the UK's green belt policy in the most intensively popular housing locations, there's also the the fact that every young person (including the EU) favours S.E. England to job seek in.

GreatApe

buglawton wrote: »

Be honest, overall demand would still be up sharply as young people leave home earlier. Some landlords would indeed sell, to pocket the 40% price increases kindly provided by the taxpayer. But with current planning laws and a strong tendency for builders to first landbank then only build expensive developments, where's any real increase in starter home supply coming from?

Apart from the UK's green belt policy in the most intensively popular housing locations, there's also the the fact that every young person (including the EU) favours S.E. England to job seek in.

I'm not convinced that would be the case. Also there currently exists various government schemes to help FTBs like the lifetime ISA. An 18 year old would be gifted £12k + interest by the time they are 30 or £22k by the tine they are 40 and if they couple up with someone else in the same boat they would have £24k or £44k + interest in government gifting to them. My idea is better in that it gives it to all the kids rather than the better off that can afford to save into a LISA.

I think 25% would use it for university 25% would keep it in a pension indefinitely and 50% would use it as a deposit on a house.

Even if demand did go up it would mean future demand would go down because the majority of those kids perhaps 70% of them will become homeowners irrespective of this help

GreatApe

If it would actually impact the housing market more than is reasonable then have it just ad a pension or to use as an education.

If a 18 year old decides to keep it in a pension and if the pension returns 5% real rate compounded their pension at age 68 would be worth £344k in today's money. That would give them a comfortable retirement save the state old age benefits and pension credits and probably leave them something to pass onto their own kids. For the majority of kids that would be better than a 3 year degree.

buglawton

GreatApe wrote: »

I'm not convinced that would be the case. Also there currently exists various government schemes to help FTBs like the lifetime ISA. An 18 year old would be gifted £12k + interest by the time they are 30 or £22k by the tine they are 40 and if they couple up with someone else in the same boat they would have £24k or £44k + interest in government gifting to them. My idea is better in that it gives it to all the kids rather than the better off that can afford to save into a LISA.

I think 25% would use it for university 25% would keep it in a pension indefinitely and 50% would use it as a deposit on a house.

Even if demand did go up it would mean future demand would go down because the majority of those kids perhaps 70% of them will become homeowners irrespective of this help

Tight-fitting new build 3 bed semis in the 30 mile belt around London are now £0.5 million. So good luck with all that.

mrginge

Ah yes, all those 18 year olds that have the income to support home ownership costs.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

GreatApe

mrginge wrote: »

Ah yes, all those 18 year olds that have the income to support home ownership costs.:rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Get a full time job age 18 (or even 16) save most of your income by living with your parents and buy age 25.

Even on minimum wage a kid staying at home can save £8k a year which adds up to £56k plus interest between ages 18-25. Add in another £7k via the L-ISA bonus and they have £63k + interest saved up. Couple up with someone who did the same and you have a budget of £126k which is enough to buy a 3 bedroom house in Birmingham and most other parts of the UK too. Mortgage free owner of a 3 bedroom terrace age 25 all while on the min wage. If they take a mortgage then they could buy even sooner or opt to buy a bigger better house.

Of course it could and would be better for most people as most people earn more than min wage and get help from their families too.

I await the posts about it being boring living with your parents as a young adult.
What interesting lives the alternative young adults must live sharing a dirty student house or HMO......

GreatApe

buglawton wrote: »

Tight-fitting new build 3 bed semis in the 30 mile belt around London are now £0.5 million. So good luck with all that.

You are exaggerating

Its also unreasonable to expect a 3 bedroom terrace for the average person let alone the average FTB as the average property is a 2.7 bedroom terrace iirc

If you do a search for London plus 30 miles you get a hit for 1500 properties for under £250k

One of the big problems is that most FTBs and renters turn their noses up at average properties.
Maybe this is a fault of the internet. In the olden days you might have gone to an agent and they only showed you the properties within your budget. Now people have access to high res photos of all the properties in their areas and they look at properties they can't afford and then when viewing properties they can afford they get disheartened with what they can afford vs their heightened expectations.

Arklight

Cakeguts wrote: »

My father had seen poverty in the UK. He described coal falling off the back of a coal delivery wagon and children in rags and no shoes running out to pick it up. How many children do you know in the UK who don't have shoes and live in rags?

If not then something has gone wrong with what is described now as poverty. Anyone who has a colour television is not poor. Anyone who has a car is not poor. Poor people don't have any housing and very little that they can call their own. There are very few children living in poverty in the UK now. If they aren't very well off that is the choice of their parents because there is enough money for all children to have a good life provided by the benefits system. You cannot make people spend money wisely. You cannot stop parents from buying branded clothing when they can't afford it and you cannot stop parents who can't say "no" to their children from spending money on things that they don't need.

Poverty is measured by the standards of the time, not by making a specious parallel with the past.

Unless you think it's fine for doctors to administer a good bleeding for ailments because this was good enough for people in the 16th Century, your example has no merit.

The rest is a load of boring Daily Mail poor blaming. Maybe at some point you lot will grow up enough to move beyond that.

I'm not holding my breath.