We'd like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum... Read More »
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!
Boomers Pension Gravy Train Finally To Be Derailed
Comments
-
...........
I don't think the OP understands that the triple lock which he disapproves of, was introduced in 2010, and is scheduled to end in 2020. At which point it will be replaced by something else. It might be triple lock 2.0, or it might be something else. Nothing will be derailed - it's only a question of which track to choose.
So it was intoduced by Cameron who was arguably (to be determined when we can get a clear definition of a boomer) the UKs first post-boomer PM and his post boomer Chancellor, and possibly to be removed by a PM and Chancellor who are both (almost certainly) boomers.0 -
what are you proposing, practically, to deal with these other issues?
If you have 2 people on identical lifetime incomes, one of whom spends everything they earn on renting, booze, holidays, and fags, while the other saves, builds a pension and buys a house, toastie is proposing that the state should expropriate the latter for having "wealth", and give the money to himself.0 -
westernpromise wrote: »If you have 2 people on identical lifetime incomes, one of whom spends everything they earn on renting, booze, holidays, and fags, while the other saves, builds a pension and buys a house, toastie is proposing that the state should expropriate the latter for having "wealth", and give the money to himself.
It begs a broader question that I often pose to those on the sinister side of politics - why do we have the somewhat arbitrary set of public services that we do? Why do we have public service TV and not public service newspapers and magazines? Why schools and not supermarkets?
I've also asked the Housing-Crash crowd many times what they are seeking - in terms of how much should a House cost in their ideal world, and what proportion of a FTB's income should be taken up by deposit and repayments. There's never an answer. I find it difficult empathise when there's so little detail there to backup the claims behind the rant.0 -
Cornucopia wrote: »It begs a broader question that I often pose to those on the sinister side of politics - why do we have the somewhat arbitrary set of public services that we do? Why do we have public service TV and not public service newspapers and magazines? Why schools and not supermarkets?
I've also asked the Housing-Crash crowd many times what they are seeking - in terms of how much should a House cost in their ideal world, and what proportion of a FTB's income should be taken up by deposit and repayments. There's never an answer. I find it difficult empathise when there's so little detail there to backup the claims behind the rant.
Quite so. Why is there a National Health Service but no National Food Service? The Chinese wore party overalls for years; why should the rich be allowed to wear nicer clothes than the poor? Why no National Clothing Service?
The crash troll's main problem with what the price of a house should be is that houses are only the "right" price in either the past or the future. But you can only buy a house in the present. This means that it is impossible for any crash troll ever to buy a house, hence for example Crashy of this parish, because either they never did or they never will. The only way a crash troll can buy is to recant, to buy in the present, and thereby tacitly to admit that houses are in fact affordable after all.
As for questions like "what proportion of a FTB's income should be taken up by deposit and repayments", again the answer is "less than now". Since it is impossible for the time to be anything but "now", this means that the answer in effect is "an impossible proportion".0 -
westernpromise wrote: »The crash troll's main problem with what the price of a house should be is that houses are only the "right" price in either the past or the future. But you can only buy a house in the present. This means that it is impossible for any crash troll ever to buy a house, hence for example Crashy of this parish, because either they never did or they never will. The only way a crash troll can buy is to recant, to buy in the present, and thereby tacitly to admit that houses are in fact affordable after all.
As for questions like "what proportion of a FTB's income should be taken up by deposit and repayments", again the answer is "less than now". Since it is impossible for the time to be anything but "now", this means that the answer in effect is "an impossible proportion".
Yes, I can see that they are fundamentally time-bound in that way.
What concerns me, and I do have a degree of empathy with them, is that for many people, becoming a FTB is something of a leap of faith. It has almost always been that expensive, and that much of a commitment that it cannot be otherwise (or at least, the "otherwise" in this case is renting).
The degree of faith has the potential to be totally undermined by the alternative "faith" that prices will soon come down, even though there is no particular evidence to support that notion, and every day that goes by sees not only no lower prices but also the loss of earning/mortgage paying potential that can help to offset the financial upheaval involved.0 -
Worth remembering that the state pension is funded by the mandatory taxation of the working. There's a reason for that and it's because there's a vanishingly small chance that the working would voluntarily give up a third of their pay for the government to do good things on their behalf.
Except on this thread where everyone would gladly pay more.0 -
westernpromise wrote: »Quite so. Why is there a National Health Service but no National Food Service? The Chinese wore party overalls for years; why should the rich be allowed to wear nicer clothes than the poor? Why no National Clothing Service?
NHS - Because my health is dependent on your health. Because quantity of health services is of necessity limited by cost and skills. Because it's difficult to see how a market based on results could be achieved as results are often not clear, comparable or capable of proper assessment until perhaps years after the treatment. Of course you could have a market based on quality of food, attractiveness of wards and other "hotel" type criteria, but in terms of the whole purpose of healthcare these factors are rather peripheral if not actually counter productive because the shorter time one has in hospital the better for all of us.
And of course there is the moral feeling some of us have that access to the limited healthcare is too important to be allocated according to one's wealth.
No NFS - Because cheap food is as effective in its primary purpose as expensive food and the supply in this country is for all practical purposes unlimited. People are therefore more interested in secondary factors such as the taste and look of the food and the efficiency of the sales service provided by the supermarkets which are amenable to competition.
No NCS
Unlimited availability and equal effectiveness of cheap and expensive products as for food. The unlimited availability means that competition can exist based on design etc without compromising general access. "niceness" is at least partially defined by its lack of general availability. Someone else's lack of dress-sense may offend me but that's something I can live with.
In the early days of the Chinese revolution conditions were probably rather different.0 -
Worth remembering that the state pension is funded by the mandatory taxation of the working. There's a reason for that and it's because there's a vanishingly small chance that the working would voluntarily give up a third of their pay for the government to do good things on their behalf.
......
Or even a third of their pay to do good things for their future selves. However they would soon start complaining when they stopped getting the benefits,0 -
No NFS - Because cheap food is as effective in its primary purpose as expensive food and the supply in this country is for all practical purposes unlimited. People are therefore more interested in secondary factors such as the taste and look of the food and the efficiency of the sales service provided by the supermarkets which are amenable to competition.
We don't just have public services because their provision would otherwise be expensive. Sometimes it's to do with the ability to deliver a "service" in a way that is beneficial to Society. (I imagine that the justification for the BBC is along those lines).
Therefore, even in these days of over-nutrition I could certainly see a potential role for some kind of NFS (not necessarily in underwriting supply, but in ensuring that true nanny-state style, we all eat our Greens).0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 351.3K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.2K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 453.8K Spending & Discounts
- 244.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 599.5K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.1K Life & Family
- 257.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards