Brexit, The Economy and House Prices (Part 2)

Rusty_Shackleton

GreatApe wrote: »

Inheritances are also the reason why the ideas of left wing young ones will usher in a perminant socialist as their right wing grand parents die off never seem to come true.

The young ones not only inherit their grandmas house and their granddads pension they also inherit their politics. Not so keen to tax and spend when they are the subject of the taxing

The main correlation between moving from lab to con with age tends to be down to home ownership, true, believed to be a reason why older groups voted lab in higher numbers this year, because people are less likely to be home owners at older ages than before.

On the other hand, a key argument for the reason people move from left to right as they get older is because the young socialise with far more diverse groups, and this decreases as you get older. Think about it, the vast majority of people when at school are socialising with others from every background going, this continues at university, but then as you move into the world of work it narrows into similar socioeconomic classes to your own, facilitating fear of the 'other'.

I think there's a very strong argument for people moving towards the right out of fear and not knowing people outside their own social echo chamber. This is backed up by the fact that the areas and people most against immigration are those who have the least immigration around them - the unknown is scary, and the right give voice to those fears and say they'll protect you from them.

It will be very interesting in the years to come to see which of us is right: if you're correct, people will inherit houses and become homeowners, just at a later stage of life, and they'll lurch right (though will this be too long for them to change voting habits of half a lifetime?). If I'm correct, I think my generation and younger generations will be ever more comfortable with immigrants, diverse ethnicity's and religions, and then rather than voting for the right out of fear, other priorities will become apparent, and this may well benefit labour.

There is of course also the argument that the millennial generation are far more socially conscious (albeit at a relatively young age, remains to be seen if their attitudes harden with age), with regards to the environment, discrimination, social justice etc. than previous generations.

Speaking as a millennial in the final stages of buying their first house, I have no intention of ever voting for the right, I find their beliefs fundamentally wrong and would sooner vote monster raving than tory. It would take quite a character change for me to vote right. Even though I will soon be a homeowner, I support the idea of a land value tax, as a graduate with a rather average salary (and less average household income), I'm very comfortable with the idea of contributing more in tax if it's spent on bettering our society (i.e. not funding corporation tax cuts). Further, there is wide and growing support in the electorate overall for paying more in tax, for the first time since 2006.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

You are wrong

For a start you need to look at UK born stats not averages that include recent migrants who are mostly private renters. For instance something like 15% of UK born are private renters but 75% of recent migrants (in the UK 0-5 years) are private renters.

You then have to look at the ownership levels of pensioners as they are the ones gifting and leaving Inheritances. Ownership for pensioners is something like 80%

For a UK born household say a couple age 30. The man has Two sets of grand parents and the woman has two sets of grand parents. So there is an 80% chance both sets own and a 96% chance at least 1 set of grand parents own. So only 4% of British born with British born parents will not inherit at least half a house.


What's more the rental to ownership figures are skewed by the fact that some private rentals are necessary. For instance I rented for 15% of my likely adult life and then bought in my late 20s. I think that is not abnormal. What this means is that most private renters are temporary before they become owners (or get a council house). Just like me I was a renter for 7 years and will be an owner for 50 years depending in how long I live.

So while private renting is indeed almost 20% of the stock, 3/4th of that number should be ignored as they are only temporary renters before they become owners


Believe me I've spent a lot of time thinking about this and the conclusion is quite clear
The UK is a very rich country and wealth is spread very far to most the population. Not only will most British born youngsters revive free housing most of them will receive the same again in cash/stocks/businesses/furniture/antiques/commercial property/farm land/ etc


Of course there is a small number who will get nothing and nor will their spouse.
But that number is very small

Mostly people do not quite see or understand it until it lands on their lap.
One of my friends for instance got a £500k house gifted to him a couple of years ago when he got married. Five years before that he was a true lefty always angry and bitter.

Inheritances are also the reason why the ideas of left wing young ones will usher in a perminant socialist as their right wing grand parents die off never seem to come true.

The young ones not only inherit their grandmas house and their granddads pension they also inherit their politics. Not so keen to tax and spend when they are the subject of the taxing

spot on. millenials tend to think life is unfair, however try living in the 50s/60s/70s when we didnt have internet, cheap flights and high tech home appliances. millenials want to have it all without working.

GreatApe

Herzlos wrote: »

When the generation above me passes on, I expect to inherit half a house (currently paid off) and the equity on 1/3rd of a flat. And in my wider social group I'm one of the better off. I expect most of us will get less than that.

There is probably more that you do not know about or will be unexpected, For instance the official inheritance data shows that residential property often makes up just over half of the pot of estates. That means huge sums are left in pensions and other assets.

Most people also couple up, so your household will get two sides of inheritences. Each side will often get 1/4th of the assets of their grandparents on their mothers side, 1/4th of the assets of their grandparents on their fathers side, and the same again on their partners side.

What this means is that it is very unlikely a uk born person with uk born parents/grand-parents will not get anything substantial. It is like a lottery ticket but with an 80% chance of winning. But it is 4 lottery tickets with 80% chance of winning. The odds of all 4 tickets failing is just 0.16%

And yes before anyway else says it, I am aware well off people often attempt to partner up with people of similar economic means. That is to say the well off try to marry other well off people. While this may be true to a small extent I do not think it is the norm. I know far more people who are rich that married poor people than I know rich people who have married other rich people.

So I will stand by my previous posting, this is an amazingly rich country and if you are uk born with uk born parents you won the lotty of life at birth.

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

The main correlation between moving from lab to con with age tends to be down to home ownership, true, believed to be a reason why older groups voted lab in higher numbers this year, because people are less likely to be home owners at older ages than before.

On the other hand, a key argument for the reason people move from left to right as they get older is because the young socialise with far more diverse groups, and this decreases as you get older. Think about it, the vast majority of people when at school are socialising with others from every background going, this continues at university, but then as you move into the world of work it narrows into similar socioeconomic classes to your own, facilitating fear of the 'other'.

I think there's a very strong argument for people moving towards the right out of fear and not knowing people outside their own social echo chamber. This is backed up by the fact that the areas and people most against immigration are those who have the least immigration around them - the unknown is scary, and the right give voice to those fears and say they'll protect you from them.

It will be very interesting in the years to come to see which of us is right: if you're correct, people will inherit houses and become homeowners, just at a later stage of life, and they'll lurch right (though will this be too long for them to change voting habits of half a lifetime?). If I'm correct, I think my generation and younger generations will be ever more comfortable with immigrants, diverse ethnicity's and religions, and then rather than voting for the right out of fear, other priorities will become apparent, and this may well benefit labour.

There is of course also the argument that the millennial generation are far more socially conscious (albeit at a relatively young age, remains to be seen if their attitudes harden with age), with regards to the environment, discrimination, social justice etc. than previous generations.

Speaking as a millennial in the final stages of buying their first house, I have no intention of ever voting for the right, I find their beliefs fundamentally wrong and would sooner vote monster raving than tory. It would take quite a character change for me to vote right. Even though I will soon be a homeowner, I support the idea of a land value tax, as a graduate with a rather average salary (and less average household income), I'm very comfortable with the idea of contributing more in tax if it's spent on bettering our society (i.e. not funding corporation tax cuts). Further, there is wide and growing support in the electorate overall for paying more in tax, for the first time since 2006.

more taxes is the opposite of what we should be doing. socialism/leftwing ideas goes against human nature. we will only work hard if there is a purpose for it, not if our produce will be taxed away.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

spot on. millenials tend to think life is unfair, however try living in the 50s/60s/70s when we didnt have internet, cheap flights and high tech home appliances. millenials want to have it all without working.

I dont think millennials are any better or worse than other generation

Perhaps the biggest difference is the fact that people get married and have kids so much later. A few generations ago women had children in their early 20s or even their late teens so not much time to feel sorry for themselves or look around at the rich and famous and think why have I not got that.

Now with many more women either childless or well into their late 30s/40s they have a good 1-2 decades to be upset with their life not going anywhere. Obviously this also applies to men

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

I dont think millennials are any better or worse than other generation

Perhaps the biggest difference is the fact that people get married and have kids so much later. A few generations ago women had children in their early 20s or even their late teens so not much time to feel sorry for themselves or look around at the rich and famous and think why have I not got that.

Now with many more women either childless or well into their late 30s/40s they have a good 1-2 decades to be upset with their life not going anywhere. Obviously this also applies to men

yeh. get busy living or get busy dying.

Rusty_Shackleton

cogito wrote: »

You have commented on every response to your posts except mine at #3131. Is there a reason for this?

Sorry Cogito, I didn't actually see your post. I know how much you value my opinion :rotfl:, so I'll respond now.

I completely agree with Corbyn in that quote, but frankly, I haven't been reading much on Venezuela and so I don't know what Corbyn has or hasn't said about the situation. The reason I've not read much on Venezuela is because a lot of the discussion has descended into "this is what a Corbyn govt. would turn us into", which is absurd unless you think the similar policies means the Nordic countries are heading that way too. Similarly, I just don't know enough about the country, people and background of the situation to think critically about it.

I do recall something about the government looking for people who flew a police helicopter and used it to attack the government? In which case, I would imagine that criticising both sides (in what sounds like part of a coup) would be consistent with criticising both in NI and Palestine?

Rusty_Shackleton

economic wrote: »

more taxes is the opposite of what we should be doing. socialism/leftwing ideas goes against human nature. we will only work hard if there is a purpose for it, not if our produce will be taxed away.

That's a very simplistic view that's often held up as fact. I don't have time to get into this can of worms at the moment, but something to highlight my point: the more people pay in tax, the more they're willing to give to charity (Source). Counterintuitive isn't it?

If tax was 100% and so you gained nothing from your work, yes, you wouldn't work. But anything less than 100% means you still benefit to some degree - where the tipping point is, is very much open to debate. I think given that in previous decades we've had higher rates of income tax and have previously been a more productive country, I think there's a lot more to it than just "more tax is bad", contrary to popular opinion, people aren't always overly selfish. Are you inherently selfish? I wouldn't consider myself to be (happy to pay more tax personally), and I don't think the vast majority of people are. The most selfish always seem to be those who have the most... interesting that.

What about people who work hard because they care about a cause (charities), or in the pursuit of knowledge (scientists and academics), or because they love to build things (engineers) - these people often aren't in the highest paid jobs they could get, because there's a lot more to life than money once your basic needs are taken care of.

GreatApe

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

The main correlation between moving from lab to con with age tends to be down to home ownership, true, believed to be a reason why older groups voted lab in higher numbers this year, because people are less likely to be home owners at older ages than before.

There is no way at all to draw a conclusion like that. Politics is a hundred variable game not a house price game

Also politics or rather democracy is a way for those who seek power to gain it without bloodshed. Actually I wont go there, I will only say that one party rule is not possible in a democracy so the Tories will have to step down at some point, my guess is the next cycle or at most the cycle after that. Almost irrespective of the opposition

Also home ownership has not fallen so much for the brits, its been skewed by the large amount of recent migrants who predominantly rent about 75% of them do. Brits typically only rent temporarily before they move onto home ownership or social

On the other hand, a key argument for the reason people move from left to right as they get older is because the young socialise with far more diverse groups, and this decreases as you get older. Think about it, the vast majority of people when at school are socialising with others from every background going, this continues at university, but then as you move into the world of work it narrows into similar socioeconomic classes to your own, facilitating fear of the 'other'.

I dont think most people think it though much at all. In some ways its a lot like religion people inherit their politics as they inherit their religion. The largest block vote the same way all the time. The much smaller block of voters that move parties probably primarily focus on the individual on offer the PM

I think there's a very strong argument for people moving towards the right out of fear and not knowing people outside their own social echo chamber. This is backed up by the fact that the areas and people most against immigration are those who have the least immigration around them - the unknown is scary, and the right give voice to those fears and say they'll protect you from them.

I dont think it plays a big part, most tories would vote tory irrespective of the party being pro or anti migrant. Just like most landlords would vote for them even though the tories fooked them over the last couple of years

It will be very interesting in the years to come to see which of us is right: if you're correct, people will inherit houses and become homeowners, just at a later stage of life, and they'll lurch right (though will this be too long for them to change voting habits of half a lifetime?). If I'm correct, I think my generation and younger generations will be ever more comfortable with immigrants, diverse ethnicity's and religions, and then rather than voting for the right out of fear, other priorities will become apparent, and this may well benefit labour.

I am somewhat in the middle of the road, same for my family. Have voted left and right in the past. This time I voted tory and so did the rest of my family. Primarily because I highlighted the inheritance tax proposals from dear comrade. No British born over 40 should vote for a party that will massively increase inheritance taxes as the vast majority of brits will gain from inheritances. I did not see much of this policy in the media on the last cycle. Hopefully the tories improve their crap performance and make a big deal of it on the next one.

Grandma isnt going to vote comrade in if she knows/believes that comrade is going to take her house her pension and her savings away from her and her kids and grand kids. Those kids and grand kids should also not vote for comrade if they know whats good for them.

Speaking as a millennial in the final stages of buying their first house, I have no intention of ever voting for the right,

Yes like I said most voters are tribal

I find their beliefs fundamentally wrong

No you dont, because 90-99% of their beliefs are the same as everyone else

and would sooner vote monster raving than tory.

religon

Even though I will soon be a homeowner, I support the idea of a land value tax

We already have two very large land value taxes. Business rates which is 100% a land value tax and stamp duty which is indirectly a land value tax (Kensington borough pays more of that land value tax than the whole of scotland and wales)

, as a graduate with a rather average salary (and less average household income), I'm very comfortable with the idea of contributing more in tax if it's spent on bettering our society (i.e. not funding corporation tax cuts).

Its so easy to say on an internet forum isnt it? Why dont you just give a lot more to charity, do it now, log into your bank account and set up a direct debt of 10% of your gross income to save the children or the red cross or any other charity of your choosing. That will surely 'better society' there is no need for you to wait for someone to force you to do it. I wont be holding my breath

Further, there is wide and growing support in the electorate overall for paying more in tax, for the first time since 2006.

bull $ it

economic

Rusty_Shackleton wrote: »

That's a very simplistic view that's often held up as fact. I don't have time to get into this can of worms at the moment, but something to highlight my point: the more people pay in tax, the more they're willing to give to charity (Source). Counterintuitive isn't it?

If tax was 100% and so you gained nothing from your work, yes, you wouldn't work. But anything less than 100% means you still benefit to some degree - where the tipping point is, is very much open to debate. I think given that in previous decades we've had higher rates of income tax and have previously been a more productive country, I think there's a lot more to it than just "more tax is bad", contrary to popular opinion, people aren't always overly selfish. Are you inherently selfish? I wouldn't consider myself to be (happy to pay more tax personally), and I don't think the vast majority of people are. The most selfish always seem to be those who have the most... interesting that.

What about people who work hard because they care about a cause (charities), or in the pursuit of knowledge (scientists and academics), or because they love to build things (engineers) - these people often aren't in the highest paid jobs they could get, because there's a lot more to life than money once your basic needs are taken care of.

what a load of nonsense.