Inter generational fairness

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

But central London is affordable so is Kensington. Its not affordable by me or you but it is affordable by others probably primarily people bidding with intergenerational wealth or business wealth rather than you and me with income wealth.

So if central London and Kensington are affordable (which they are) how is anywhere else not affordable?

I do realise this is simply stating if people are buying its affordable which seems simplistic but why does it have to be more complex than that?


Even in your area you cite £300k for a house and that it is unaffordable. How do you come to that conclusion? There is intergenerational and business wealth outside of Kensington too

Thinking fundamentally all existing homes are affordable they can not be unaffordable. Only the allocation of the homes moves about.
New builds on the other hand can be unaffordable (unviable) but second home stock can't.

Of coarse a house is affordable to someone if it sells but that's not the point the point is that they are unaffordable to the majority of people that need a house in that area. You might not see that as a problem but I and many others do.

buglawton

GreatApe wrote: »

If the market were truely free I would say you were wrong but there are problems in the planning system and moreso on mortgage regulations.

To that end BTL quantity should be regulated by the tax system. If BTL gets over 20% the second home stamp duty should be increased every 6 months until the private rental sector falls below 20%. Likewise if the sector fell below 10% the second home stamp duty should be reduced to 0% to keep the sector above 10% of the stock as some rentals are vital. In between 10-20% the rate should be set so its neutral.

Right now I feel the additional 3% was a good idea and it will reduce private rentals towards 20% of the stock. The other event change to interest was silly

Most Germans don't buy their homes yet enjoy a standard of living approx 40% higher than Britons plus approx 40% more living space per person. A recent newspaper article I read stated that the real agenda behind UK BTL tax changes is to squeeze out 'mom and pop' landlords in favour of larger professional landlords (exactly what happened in Germany). Not sure I agree.

HornetSaver

autumn2012 wrote: »

You could say that about if you use the NHS or send your kids to a state school. Its part of a fair society... We collectively give to the government who is supposed to distribute the money to the relevant causes.

A dishonest person trying to deflect from the issue could say that.

I was referring to direct receipt of money.

Cornucopia

ess0two wrote: »

Blah,Blah in other words I want straight away what my parents took years to achieve.

The trouble is that the Boomer-bashers don't seem to understand that most middle-aged people experienced exactly what they are experiencing, sometimes worse.

Which begs the question: why don't they understand this, or why are they willfully ignoring it?

I think part of the answer is that when we were young, the small proportion of the population who went to University or had other genuine opportunities for self-advancement were doing so on the basis that in many cases we were the first generation in our families to have that option. I certainly was, as were all of my college friends.

As such, it was very much a no-lose situation. If you succeeded at college you would likely get a good job, reasonably easily. If you failed, you would be no worse off than when you started.

Now, Society (and a previous Labour Government) has decided that up to 50% of the population should go through Higher Education. As such, the value of such an education is reduced, and at the same time, the consequences of failure are potentially to hve accumulated debt pointlessly, and to be seen to be "doing less well" than parents and siblings.

One observation I would make about the "Boomer-bashing" arguments is that many of them have substituted nonsensical inter-generational arguments for similar, previous class war arguments that actually made more economic, practical and political sense.

In short, people can rant and rant against the older generation(s) for as long as they like. The targets of their ire never did the things that we are accused of, and we are not a homologous group, anyway. At the same time, we know that there are some fundamentals at work here, the main one being that someone at the beginning of their working life will be less affluent than someone at the end. That is always going to be the case, and must be the case if society is not to be even more burdened by the costs of retirement and ill-health in the elderly.

One interesting aspect for me is that much of what the Boomer-bashers focus on is in the private sector, rather than the public. So, rather than railing against Student Loans and Tuition Fees, which I think would attract a lot of public support, they focus on Final Salary pensions, Housing Equity and BTL. That, to me, shows the underlying truth that this is more about far Left class envy politics and less about a genuine hostility to older people. At least, I hope that's what it shows, because the other way is utterly futile and self-destructive.

Houseplant26

Re: work and more traditional education, it is possible to do both alongside each other - I have worked since 15 and did part time throughout all levels of my education, including doing my degree.

Houseplant26

I think charging tuition fees to some generations and not others was and is unfair BUT I don't see paying back my loan as the major barrier to advancing my quality of living. It is paid back in a way that is manageable. Being a poor student I got a grant, it is hard to see these going in favour of more loans. Being poor at uni and having less than job seekers, unless I worked around things which I did, to live with was good life experience if hard. Inflated rent, food prices, energy prices substandard housing for high rent (having to kit it out with electric heaters you buy yourself for example) are bigger barriers. I agree other generations had these barriers too.

Thrugelmir

buglawton wrote: »

Most Germans don't buy their homes yet enjoy a standard of living approx 40% higher than Britons plus approx 40% more living space per person. A recent newspaper article I read stated that the real agenda behind UK BTL tax changes is to squeeze out 'mom and pop' landlords in favour of larger professional landlords (exactly what happened in Germany). Not sure I agree.

Do you understand the historical reasons behind this?

When did professional landlords squeeze out "mom and dad". All news to me.

Sounds as if you've never been to Germany either.

mwpt

missbiggles1 wrote: »

I wasn't trying to convince anybody, neither was I saying (if you notice) that young people are lazy - in fact you seem to have totally misread my post.:(

I was simply sayimg that the mistakes that boomers made were made from a position of ignorance, an excuse that young people nowadays can't make.

Oh, sorry. Crossed wires!

Cakeguts

In regards to the housing in the 1950s and 60s. There was no natural gas central heating or it was just starting to be available. The normal way of heating a house was with coal or coke fires. The coal man came and delivered coal that had to be paid for without the use of a credit card. So the cash had to be available saved from wages. You didn't get a fitted kitchen with appliances included. You had to buy the appliances and if you were lucky you could afford a cooker. Most people could not afford a washing machine you washed clothes by hand. Many people did not have a fridge. You had to buy your own carpets and curtains. Many people made curtains. Floor coverings were not included. Hire purchase was available if you could afford the payments Most people could not afford to buy a car. Some people bought cars using hire purchase but most people only bought something if they had saved the money first. There was very little credit available so if you wanted something you had to be able to pay for it. Phone bills were expensive so you didn't use the phone in the day to talk to friends you called them after 6pm when the rates were cheaper. People had to go without "things" in order to save to buy a house.

I am fairly sure that if many of the people today lived the way that people did in the 50s and 60s, using public transport, cheap phone calls which might today be a mobile phone on pay as you go, no television, no washing machine, no fridge (fresh food only cooked at home.) Turned off the central heating and wore more clothes. (What do you think a house coat was?) made their own clothes, made their children's clothes or got clothes from friends whose children had out grown them they would be able to afford to buy a house. People did not go abroad on holiday. They used to go to stay with relatives in a different part of the country or go to the local seaside resort for a week.

I don't think there is a big difference in affordability. Interest rates are extremely low at the moment. In the past they were as high as 17%. I think the difference is cultural. Young people are more interested in owning and buying "things." Unfortunately if you are a child now in a family where it is the norm to buy anything you want on credit that is how you will live when you grow up because that for you is normal. So the next generation will probably mostly be renting housing for their entire lives.

ukcarper

Cakeguts wrote: »

In regards to the housing in the 1950s and 60s. There was no natural gas central heating or it was just starting to be available. The normal way of heating a house was with coal or coke fires. The coal man came and delivered coal that had to be paid for without the use of a credit card. So the cash had to be available saved from wages. You didn't get a fitted kitchen with appliances included. You had to buy the appliances and if you were lucky you could afford a cooker. Most people could not afford a washing machine you washed clothes by hand. Many people did not have a fridge. You had to buy your own carpets and curtains. Many people made curtains. Floor coverings were not included. Hire purchase was available if you could afford the payments Most people could not afford to buy a car. Some people bought cars using hire purchase but most people only bought something if they had saved the money first. There was very little credit available so if you wanted something you had to be able to pay for it. Phone bills were expensive so you didn't use the phone in the day to talk to friends you called them after 6pm when the rates were cheaper. People had to go without "things" in order to save to buy a house.

I am fairly sure that if many of the people today lived the way that people did in the 50s and 60s, using public transport, cheap phone calls which might today be a mobile phone on pay as you go, no television, no washing machine, no fridge (fresh food only cooked at home.) Turned off the central heating and wore more clothes. (What do you think a house coat was?) made their own clothes, made their children's clothes or got clothes from friends whose children had out grown them they would be able to afford to buy a house. People did not go abroad on holiday. They used to go to stay with relatives in a different part of the country or go to the local seaside resort for a week.

I don't think there is a big difference in affordability. Interest rates are extremely low at the moment. In the past they were as high as 17%. I think the difference is cultural. Young people are more interested in owning and buying "things." Unfortunately if you are a child now in a family where it is the norm to buy anything you want on credit that is how you will live when you grow up because that for you is normal. So the next generation will probably mostly be renting housing for their entire lives.

To be fair housing was improving by the time most boomers bought. I bought my first house in early 70s it was a new terraced it had no central heating just an oil fire in lounge no floor coverings or appliances and the garden was unmade. As you said other things were expensive we had no phone, no TV a second had fridge and used the launderette. This was heaven to me after being brought up in a old terraced house with just a coal fire, no bath or hot water and a toilet in the back garden.