A change in the way people own property?

Cakeguts

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Build.

More.

Houses.

Builders build houses. They don't then rent them to people they just build them. So when they have built them who would you suggest buys the houses because unless they can sell them they can't buy anymore land to build more houses on?

People just seem to think that the answer is to build more houses but you have to have someone or some company to buy the built houses. Or you have to have councils and housing associations paying builders to build social housing.

There is no point in building lots and lots of houses to have them sitting empty.

SingleSue

Herzlos wrote: »

Inheritance has been skipping a generation for a while now. A grandparent left enough for me to get a deposit on a house, and I expect my parents will leave enough to top up my kids deposits on houses assuming they get to about 80. I'd rather they hung around longer but I need to be realistic.

I certainly don't buy Great Apes figures. We're well off on the whole but will be receiving an awful lot less.

Plus whilst 70% of pensioners own houses, how many are using equity release or in such a state of repair that massive investment will be required to bring them up to a sellable level. Both will eat a huge chunk of inheritance.

The distribution figures sound about right, assuming my family group is about the 50th centile. My parents entire estate is maybe £250k split between 2 is £125k each before care home costs, funerals and repair work. So maybe £60k cash, is still 2 pretty good deposits. But that midpoint is easily a quarter of your estimate.

My grandparents left their money to my parents and their siblings, not that it was a huge amount each as there were quite a lot of siblings and only one house (maternal grandmother lived in a council house but had been left some money in a will just weeks before she died).

Re distribution, I already know it is not skipping a generation as I will be the executor of their wills and already have my instructions. Their estate is currently approx £300k (mostly made up of their house) but it will have to be split 3 ways and is not taking into account possible care home fees or funeral costs.

Just in case of other questions, there is no other side. I am divorced and even if we were still married, ex mother in law has no assets and is widowed.

My parents and grandparents were born here and have worked here their entire lives (apart from a short spell when dad was in the merchant navy)

SingleSue

GreatApe wrote: »

Low income people sometimes amaze me.

On new years eve I was out shopping and one of the staff asked me if I had anything planned and then continued to tell me his plans for that day. It was a trip with his GF to one of the central London buildings (I forget which one) to watch the fireworks have some food and stay in a hotel for one day. Cost nearly £1,000

This is someone who works for probably £8ph that £1000 is perhaps 2 months savings.
Why would anyone spend 2 months savings for one day out?

Likewise I remember someone telling me about their honeymoon 10 days in dubai for £15,000
That is fine if you earn good money but he was a low wage earner £20,000 a year income so in effect he paid a whole years post tax wages to have 'fun' for 10 days. So stupid

I also know a person who spent £6k on a second hand car, about £2k for insurance and £1k for a years parking. That is £9k just on the car + fuel. This is someone who lives less than 1 mile from where he works so only a 15 minute walk. I told him dont be silly you can buy a house and get out of renting. This was about 18 months ago. Prices have risen £23,000 in the area since then according to LR. Recently I saw him again and he is now trying to save to buy a house. He could have done it 18 months ago but now probably needs to spend another 2 years saving. If prices move another £23,000 up he would have lost close to £50,000 on house price movements + £10k+ on his car. That is £60k and 4-5 years lost all so he can say look I have a car rather than walking 20 minutes to work

Some of us low income people are quite savvy and money conscious, not all of us spend like there is no tomorrow and have to have the latest cars, fashions, posh holidays etc.

Just because there are some idiots, it doesn't mean we are all idiots.

Herzlos

Cakeguts wrote: »

Builders build houses. They don't then rent them to people they just build them. So when they have built them who would you suggest buys the houses because unless they can sell them they can't buy anymore land to build more houses on?

People just seem to think that the answer is to build more houses but you have to have someone or some company to buy the built houses. Or you have to have councils and housing associations paying builders to build social housing.

There is no point in building lots and lots of houses to have them sitting empty.

Someone will buy them if priced correctly.

Or build more social housing.

Moby

http://monevator.com/weekend-reading-should-inheritance-tax-be-100/

in a world where we’ve decided to have a State and to fund that State with taxes, you have to go absurd pretty quickly to justify generous rates and reliefs for people who are (a) dead or (b) who did nothing to earn the money you are taxing.

These are taxes, remember, that rich kids not paying mean someone else has to pay. Maybe me or you? Maybe your kids, from their squeezed wages.

Monevator is bang on.

vivatifosi

Cakeguts wrote: »

Builders build houses. They don't then rent them to people they just build them. So when they have built them who would you suggest buys the houses because unless they can sell them they can't buy anymore land to build more houses on?

People just seem to think that the answer is to build more houses but you have to have someone or some company to buy the built houses. Or you have to have councils and housing associations paying builders to build social housing.

There is no point in building lots and lots of houses to have them sitting empty.

I am in Hertfordshire and the council is currently consulting on massive house building plans which will see a major ramping up in developments and may go some way to bringing the market closer to equilibrium. So house prices should ease.

However there is a great deal of push back against the plan, not least because in some of the places, the number of houses could see the population of villages rise by 50% or more. There will not be an issue selling the houses as it's a desirable county with good transport links.

Another issue is of course that all of these houses could be built, with the number of properties in the report based on demand from local population. However if the same issues aren't addressed nationwide, then what's to stop people spilling out of London to buy up the newly built properties? We've under built for so many years it us going to take a massive effort to get back on track.

ukcarper

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Build.

More.

Houses.

Of the right type?

Also your glib comment is much to simplistic, perhaps you could venture down to the the south east around London and see the pressure the infrastructure is already under.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Someone will buy them if priced correctly.

Or build more social housing.

My question was about changing the fact that many older people live in bigger houses than they need, building more houses the same as they are building now will not alter that.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

My question was about changing the fact that many older people live in bigger houses than they need, building more houses the same as they are building now will not alter that.

Definitely, we need a lot more small / affordable / starter homes, and less 4/5 bedroom luxury villas.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Definitely, we need a lot more small / affordable / starter homes, and less 4/5 bedroom luxury villas.

They build lots of small starter/starter homes where I am I wouldn’t call them affordable although they seem to sell well. Older people are not going to move from thier large homes to a small terraced starter home.