Extend the uncertainty?

BobQ

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Yep, people who just recently signed on the mortgage line are going to wish they never listened to a bunch of landlords and 1990`s buyers. At least rates are still low but I reckon any further EU break up could see rates spiking, the market just dribbled it`s dummy again because the US doesn`t have much excuse to cut either. Funny old times.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-fall-as-u-s-rate-cut-prospects-recede-11562563827

One day you are bound to be right.

BobQ

lisyloo wrote: »

If there’s no one else living there then yes.

And what’s the issue with that?

They either sell an empty house which they can’t look after and possibly can’t pay the bills for

OR

We let them keep an empty house and the tax payer (including the just amount managing and those who cannot afford houses) subsidise them to keep an empty house. Do we pay for the upkeep, council tax, bills as well??

It’s pretty obvious to me that if they have assets they don’t need then they should sell them.

No vested interest here I can assure you as I’m doing myself out of an inheritance.

In most respects I agree with you but we do need more creative ways of paying for social care, including enabling those that can to remain in their home.

BobQ

AG47 wrote: »

The UK should save the divorce bill and build even more affordable homes with the bullions, just walk away. RIP the band aid off in one go, yes it hurts to start with then we can rebuild.

Slowly taking the plaster off is more painful and even more damaging

What do you think "affordable" means in measurable terms?

There are lots of houses suitable for first time buyers occupied by single pensioners. Often not in pristine condition but suitable for updating. Often the reason the singletons stay put is sometimes that they have neighbours who care about them but in many cases it is due to the lack of suitable alternatives. We should be building more affordable bungalows and apartments in communities for the over 60s. Not everybody's cup of tea but if people moved to such housing it would free up larger houses that could accommodate families.

MobileSaver

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Yep, people who just recently signed on the mortgage line are going to wish they never listened to a bunch of landlords and 1990`s buyers.

You and your HPC buddies have been saying that for approaching twenty years... some people who ignored your misguided predictions back then will have paid off their mortgage by now and could be living in their homes rent and mortgage-free for the rest of their lives.

The really sad part though is that you know you made the biggest financial mistake of your life all those years ago and yet you continue to try and convince other people to make exactly the same mistake. Karma has a way of balancing the books so perhaps you should have a serious think about why in your fifties you are still living in a bedsit in an area that not many other people want to live in?

lisyloo

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Yep, people who just recently signed on the mortgage line are going to wish they never listened to a bunch of landlords and 1990`s buyers. At least rates are still low but I reckon any further EU break up could see rates spiking, the market just dribbled it`s dummy again because the US doesn`t have much excuse to cut either. Funny old times.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/global-stocks-fall-as-u-s-rate-cut-prospects-recede-11562563827

Have you heard of fixed mortgage rates?

lisyloo

BobQ wrote: »

In most respects I agree with you but we do need more creative ways of paying for social care, including enabling those that can to remain in their home.

LAs do already keep people in their homes for as long as possible.
It’s not just economically better but also people maintain a degree of independence for as long as possible.
You don’t get to choose if you aren’t paying, rather your needs are assessed.
Up to 4x 1 hour visits per day for carers at home is the max.
We had a combination of mobility aids, carers at home, respite day care and community meals which was all free or low cost.
We had a good social worker but I understand from others that it’s a postcode lottery.
This governments austerity program has gone too far IMO in cutting back.
If you don’t have good experienced and well motivated social workers then you won’t get the best decisions/results and it might be a false economy.
I’m not sure there are any easy answers but in order to be creative you probably need to invest at some level.

Part of the issue is the increase in dementia which can mean people aren’t safe because they forget medication, wander off, fall over because they don’t know their limits, put things in the microwave they shouldn’t causing fires and in some cases shout and break property.
My FIL (late 80s) who was disabled himself could not cope mentally of physically with looking after my MIL even with family support and respite care. Dementia patients can also go through a nasty phase when they accuse others of stealing when they’ve lost things etc. And it can be hard for family to take your loved one being vile.
My FIL eventually couldn’t cope and I think that was hard for a man of his generation to admit.

Perhaps we need some form of national long term care insurance? e.g. additional national insurance as well as private products.
Currently there isn’t any private insurance you can buy in advance.

lisyloo

MobileSaver wrote: »

You and your HPC buddies have been saying that for approaching twenty years... some people who ignored your misguided predictions back then will have paid off their mortgage by now and could be living in their homes rent and mortgage-free for the rest of their lives.

Yep, that’s me, and those people are probably looking forward to a comfortable and rent free early retirement as well.

I don’t think anyone should take things as face value, but if you have a choice of whether to listen to people who’ve done well (caveat they can say anything) and a bunch of obsessed nutters then it’s pretty obvious whose opinions you should consider.

Of course things have changed since the 90s, but the issue here isn’t the conditions at the time it’s an attitude thing. Landlords were the types who got on and did something and largely made a success of it, rather than moaning and whinging.
The people that work hard, put the time and effort in are almost certain to do better than those who put no effort in beyond moaning about their lot.

With retirement planning for example it doesn’t matter so much how you achieve it, but the fact that you make it a priority and have a plan.

My plans have always been unsophisticated
E.g. pay off a repayment mortgage monthly
But i got there because I had a plan and stuck to it for a couple of decades. Success doesn’t fall into people’s laps, they’ve worked decades for it.

A plan and hard work in a better approach that speculating, procrastinating without a plan and moaning every time.

I.e. time not timing

I am SO glad I didn’t listen to the naysayers in 2001 (well I did listen but dismissed their point of view) because I can now get to financial independent at 55 with the house I want (I’m not rich or financially sophisticated and didn’t take any whacky risks either way, just did something rather than doing nothing).

westernpromise

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Yep, people who just recently signed on the mortgage line are going to wish they never listened to a bunch of landlords and 1990`s buyers.

Better to listen to a 1990s seller, eh Crashy? :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:

Malthusian

lisyloo wrote: »

Perhaps we need some form of national long term care insurance? e.g. additional national insurance as well as private products.

Already exists, it's called tax.

Currently there isn’t any private insurance you can buy in advance.

Because it's either uninsurable, self-insurable or unaffordable and nobody would buy it.

Malthusian wrote: »

Nobody wants to compromise their lifestyle while they are compos mentis to pay for a service they won't be conscious enough to appreciate. The cost of such insurance would be huge. Far more than life insurance, far more than comprehensive income protection, and most people don't even want to pay for that even though they need it far more than they need care insurance.

There would be a big problem with the risk pool. People like myself with virtually zero dementia in their family history would not take out care insurance at any price. This would push up the price of insurance even higher for those who wanted it, because there would be very few non-claimers to subsidise the claimers. Contrast that with home insurance, where nobody self-insures on the grounds that there isn't a family history of their house burning down. Similarly income protection doesn't have a problem with low-risk people self-selecting out of the pool, because even very fit and healthy people know they could get hit by a bus or contract cancer.

In addition you don't need insurance if you have plenty of equity in your house to fund your eventual care. Which can be used to buy a care annuity if appropriate to almost eliminate the risk of running out.

If you are young and have a large amount of disposable income that could be used to pay for a care insurance policy, you should be saving for a deposit to get on the housing ladder. If you are older and on the housing ladder you are probably sorted. If you are older and not on the housing ladder you are uninsurable.

Malthusian wrote: »

People only talk about insurance as a potential solution for care costs because they like to pretend that a potential six-figure liability which a very high proportion of the insurance pool would claim on would cost less than £25 per month in premiums like their home or life insurance. "Insurance" is being used not as a solution but a magic word that will make the cost disappear.

And why would people pay premiums when they see people who didn't pay any care insurance premiums being housed in the same care homes? You already get this complaint all the time, but it's not so much of a problem when care costs come out of home equity or other assets, because at least they got to live in a house and enjoy the benefit of those other assets. There are benefits to being self-sufficient other than the ability to pick your own care home (which is handy as few people value the latter), whereas there are almost no other benefits to paying care insurance premiums.

These drawbacks inexorably lead fans of care insurance to say "well in that case we should make it compulsory like car insurance" and we already have an insurance scheme like that called tax.

lisyloo

Malthusian wrote: »

Already exists, it's called tax.

Well it’s not working well enough and the numbers requiring residential care are only going to increase.
The social care sector is in crisis.
Both our parents were bed blocking in hospital which is £3k per week for the bed only and causes delays for other patients.
Homes are currently closing down often due to not being able to meet various rules e.g. min room sizes.

Because it's either uninsurable, self-insurable or unaffordable and nobody would buy it.

I think there are people interested in it (comes up on other forums) but probably not enough for it to be a worthwhile market.
My thinking was that central government could help like they do with pensions, for example perhaps tax relief and promising the industry a higher take-up.
Having people insured would reduce the burdens on the nations finances as it does with private education, private medical, private pensions.