No option to buy? Single people

steve866

wannabe_a_saver said:

Contributing to the community and society you live in according to your means should be a source of pride, not something to moan and gripe about and avoid at all cost.

I suppose that depends on who decides how much is ‘fair’ and also where and how your money is spent?

wannabe_a_saver

steve866 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Contributing to the community and society you live in according to your means should be a source of pride, not something to moan and gripe about and avoid at all cost.

I suppose that depends on who decides how much is ‘fair’ and also where and how your money is spent?

That's where political engagement and voting comes in to play. 

wannabe_a_saver

Mickey666 said:

But once nationalised, how would you ensure that higher earners pay more for such utilities?

Or do you mean that the services would be free and funded by central government with x% on income tax to pay for it?  if so, I get your point but what do you think would happen in practice?  Wouldn't everyone just consume far more if it was free at the point of delivery?  Wouldn't everyone just leave their heating on full blast 24/7 during the winter months?  Energy consumption would go through the roof!

As for UBI . . . I'm with you on that.  It seems to me we have a very muddled tax/benefits system.  For example, we define a minimum wage of £8.91 but a living wage as £9.50 (higher in London).  In other words it's legal to pay people less than they need to live.  Further more we then TAX these minimum or living wages!   It would be simpler to have just one figure, make it illegal to pay any less and don't start taxing anyone until they earn more.

Having said that, UBI is a bit of a political hot potato.  It has been tried in a few places and referendums have been held for its introduction but it has not received the public support that might at first be expected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-36454060
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-47169549

The consumption aspect is the sticking point.  People should be able to heat their homes to a comfortable temperature (and very few would want to be uncomfortably warm just because its free!) but until we are at a point when all energy is from 100% renewable sources there would need to be incentives for being more climate conscious.

steve866

wannabe_a_saver said:

steve866 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

Contributing to the community and society you live in according to your means should be a source of pride, not something to moan and gripe about and avoid at all cost.

I suppose that depends on who decides how much is ‘fair’ and also where and how your money is spent?

That's where political engagement and voting comes in to play. 

Of course, however if a majority vote that a wealthier minority must pay X more in tax, they can’t be forced into feeling a sense of pride if they feel it’s too much!

theoretica

Who needs to turn the heating down when you can open the windows...

Some system where the first X amount (water/power) is at one price and cost then rises significantly would be one way to ensure everyone could afford a basic minimum.  And bring us right back to where this thread started with would it be power per person or per home and what about a single person heating a whole home for themselves compared to a couple sharing heat.  Also issues with poorly insulated housing stock and affordability of the most energy efficient homes.  Maybe water would be simpler to work out.

[Deleted User]

ts21 said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

I just wanted to know if there was anyone else in my situation.

I am a single female – and struggling like hell to get on the property ladder.

I am on a 37,000 pa salary and saving on average £700 month towards my deposit.

Unfortunately, Shared Ownership would be my only option as my lone salary wouldn’t allow me to borrow more then £166,000 and in surrey you can’t buy anything with that – even further out. I can’t do help to buy as the properties are still stupidly high. However, the issue I am running into with Shared ownership is I am never classed a ‘Priority’ – even on one bedrooms.

I mean its getting a tad ridiculous. I would have thought it would be based on if you could afford it, and reading that couples are classed more of a priority really annoys me.  I am on the edge of just giving up as there doesn't seem to be an option for those in my situation. At my age my friends have families so a house mate is out of the question. 

Anyone else finding this?

Yes.  I had exactly the same issue, though from the male perspective.  I was earning decent money as a graduate but my salary would only fund enough of a mortgage to buy really grotty houses in grotty areas.  However, as soon as my GF graduated and got a job with a similar salary the increased joint mortgage we could suddenly afford opened up a whole new area of opportunity and we were able to buy a decent terraced house in a lovely village in the home counties commuter belt.  We've never looked back.

Oh yes, this was in the early 1980s.

My point is that a single FTB has always found it harder to buy a house than a couple - for obvious reasons.  In that respect, it's less to do with changes to the housing market over the past 40 years and more to do with changing demographics.

My nieces/nephews are all married, as are many of my friend's children and they've all managed to buy their first homes without commanding huge salaries.  They are mostly teachers, nurses, council office staff, uni admin, retail managers, that sort of thing - not high-flying corporate lawyers or bankers in the city.

I used to wonder how it is that with all the 'problems' of ever-rising house prices these 'ordinary' couples have managed to buy their first homes in their mid-late 20's.  I'm beginning to conclude it is precisely BECAUSE they are married, or at least partners sharing their finances.  

I'm in no way denying the house market is not tough for FTBs.  It clearly is and I can remember how frustrating it can be . . . . I'm just pointing out that this is nothing new or specific to today's market conditions.  T'was ever thus.

No i agree....its just frustrating because I feel I have to rush into a relationship - and lets face it. Its not fair on the guy either. I mean already id have to take a mortgage out over 20 years due to my age (40), and the older you get the harder it is. There should be more help for those who are single

I'm sure its frustrating but - and this will sound harsh - but it's just a fact of life.  Two people can live cheaper than one, therefore couples have an inherent financial advantage over singles.  It's not active discrimination, it's just maths.

I understand your wishing for more 'help' for single people but what do you imagine this sort of help should be?  Benefits for single people?  Tax breaks for single people?  Who would pay for all this?  And wouldn't it just mean fewer couples would get married so they could take advantage of whater 'help' you think should be given to single people?  And what then?  How would you define 'a couple' anyway?  Two people living in the same house, regardless of their actual relationship? 

It's all just a fundamental fact of life that can't be changed by social engineering.

It’s not JUST maths. There are tax breaks for married people beyond that make it more financially beneficial beyond the basics of sharing costs when living with someone else. Why should a single person’s taxes be used to make life easier for married couples, when they already benefit from sharing expenses by living together? It’s like the single person’s council tax discount which is only 25% - why should a single person only pay 25% less than a family of 5? There are plenty of structural disadvantages to being single which send out the message that society values the single person less than someone who is part of a couple.

If it's not JUST maths, then it is 99% maths because 2 incomes transforms affordability, tax breaks for married couple will have a trivial comparative impact.

Your example of the council tax, presupposes that the single person is not choosing to house share (their available choice to create some equivalence with a married couple in your example), and you do imply that they will be resident in a property of the same banding too.

Apodemus

theoretica said:

Who needs to turn the heating down when you can open the windows...

Quite so!  A winter walk round most university halls of residence or any army barracks shows that this is the case.

princeofpounds

theoretica said:

Who needs to turn the heating down when you can open the windows...

It's called Russian central heating. This isn't even a joke - most of the communal apartments in Russia had district heating systems, where the heat was provided essentially free (there was a nominal fee). If you wanted to cool down, you just opened the window into the winter night. Nor was there any incentive to insulate or behave at all responsibly when it came to heating.

Socialised heating in Russia turned into a disaster - people got plenty of heating (when it wasn't broken from the lack of capital investment that is a near-inevitable consequence of long-term government control, in a manner similar to British Rail), but the amount of energy used was insane on a per-household basis. That came at a huge opportunity cost to the country, as all that energy wasted could have been sold abroad.

It's been partially fixed by years of tariff increases for gas, but the heating system itself is a bit of a mess still as they still can't bring themselves to raise tariffs or move to a market mechanism to account for the necessary investment to modernise the system.

The NHS in the UK suffers a similar problem - when you make something free at the point of use, you end up with no constraint on demand. So you end up dealing with it in other ways - awkward GP receptionists, waiting lists, rationing, concentrating on funding operational expenditures without capital investment etc.

That's not to say that there should be no element of public subsidy but requiring even a token contribution would deliver a lot of efficiencies.

MaryNB

princeofpounds said:

theoretica said:

Who needs to turn the heating down when you can open the windows...

It's called Russian central heating. This isn't even a joke - most of the communal apartments in Russia had district heating systems, where the heat was provided essentially free (there was a nominal fee). If you wanted to cool down, you just opened the window into the winter night. Nor was there any incentive to insulate or behave at all responsibly when it came to heating.

Socialised heating in Russia turned into a disaster - people got plenty of heating (when it wasn't broken from the lack of capital investment that is a near-inevitable consequence of long-term government control, in a manner similar to British Rail), but the amount of energy used was insane on a per-household basis. That came at a huge opportunity cost to the country, as all that energy wasted could have been sold abroad.

It's been partially fixed by years of tariff increases for gas, but the heating system itself is a bit of a mess still as they still can't bring themselves to raise tariffs or move to a market mechanism to account for the necessary investment to modernise the system.

The NHS in the UK suffers a similar problem - when you make something free at the point of use, you end up with no constraint on demand. So you end up dealing with it in other ways - awkward GP receptionists, waiting lists, rationing, concentrating on funding operational expenditures without capital investment etc.

That's not to say that there should be no element of public subsidy but requiring even a token contribution would deliver a lot of efficiencies.

In the first house share I lived in in England utilities were included in the rent. I could guarantee when I arrived home on a warm day my housemates would have opened all the windows instead of walking to the hallway to turn the heating off. 

In Ireland there is no consumption based charging for water. The cost comes out of general taxation. I remember years ago during a big freeze I heard a relative mention that their neighbour kept the water running so the pipes didn't freeze. It wasn't the only case I heard about. 

Nebulous2

moneysavinghero said:

Mickey666 said:

ts21 said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

Mickey666 said:

littlemissbliss said:

I just wanted to know if there was anyone else in my situation.

I am a single female – and struggling like hell to get on the property ladder.

I am on a 37,000 pa salary and saving on average £700 month towards my deposit.

Unfortunately, Shared Ownership would be my only option as my lone salary wouldn’t allow me to borrow more then £166,000 and in surrey you can’t buy anything with that – even further out. I can’t do help to buy as the properties are still stupidly high. However, the issue I am running into with Shared ownership is I am never classed a ‘Priority’ – even on one bedrooms.

I mean its getting a tad ridiculous. I would have thought it would be based on if you could afford it, and reading that couples are classed more of a priority really annoys me.  I am on the edge of just giving up as there doesn't seem to be an option for those in my situation. At my age my friends have families so a house mate is out of the question. 

Anyone else finding this?

Yes.  I had exactly the same issue, though from the male perspective.  I was earning decent money as a graduate but my salary would only fund enough of a mortgage to buy really grotty houses in grotty areas.  However, as soon as my GF graduated and got a job with a similar salary the increased joint mortgage we could suddenly afford opened up a whole new area of opportunity and we were able to buy a decent terraced house in a lovely village in the home counties commuter belt.  We've never looked back.

Oh yes, this was in the early 1980s.

My point is that a single FTB has always found it harder to buy a house than a couple - for obvious reasons.  In that respect, it's less to do with changes to the housing market over the past 40 years and more to do with changing demographics.

My nieces/nephews are all married, as are many of my friend's children and they've all managed to buy their first homes without commanding huge salaries.  They are mostly teachers, nurses, council office staff, uni admin, retail managers, that sort of thing - not high-flying corporate lawyers or bankers in the city.

I used to wonder how it is that with all the 'problems' of ever-rising house prices these 'ordinary' couples have managed to buy their first homes in their mid-late 20's.  I'm beginning to conclude it is precisely BECAUSE they are married, or at least partners sharing their finances.  

I'm in no way denying the house market is not tough for FTBs.  It clearly is and I can remember how frustrating it can be . . . . I'm just pointing out that this is nothing new or specific to today's market conditions.  T'was ever thus.

No i agree....its just frustrating because I feel I have to rush into a relationship - and lets face it. Its not fair on the guy either. I mean already id have to take a mortgage out over 20 years due to my age (40), and the older you get the harder it is. There should be more help for those who are single

I'm sure its frustrating but - and this will sound harsh - but it's just a fact of life.  Two people can live cheaper than one, therefore couples have an inherent financial advantage over singles.  It's not active discrimination, it's just maths.

I understand your wishing for more 'help' for single people but what do you imagine this sort of help should be?  Benefits for single people?  Tax breaks for single people?  Who would pay for all this?  And wouldn't it just mean fewer couples would get married so they could take advantage of whater 'help' you think should be given to single people?  And what then?  How would you define 'a couple' anyway?  Two people living in the same house, regardless of their actual relationship? 

It's all just a fundamental fact of life that can't be changed by social engineering.

It’s not JUST maths. There are tax breaks for married people beyond that make it more financially beneficial beyond the basics of sharing costs when living with someone else. Why should a single person’s taxes be used to make life easier for married couples, when they already benefit from sharing expenses by living together? It’s like the single person’s council tax discount which is only 25% - why should a single person only pay 25% less than a family of 5? There are plenty of structural disadvantages to being single which send out the message that society values the single person less than someone who is part of a couple.

Fair points, but those are just more examples of social engineering - in this case to encourage 'the nuclear family', which is generally regarded as being 'a good thing' for bringing up children etc etc (well, historically at least).

As for CT discounts discriminating against single people, I seem to remember that a former PM wanted to do away with 'council rates' and replace them with a per-capita 'community charge' set by local councils.  What could be fairer than that?

Of course, the subsequent rioting in the streets quickly put an end to this 'poll tax', which suggests that fairness is not always politically acceptable.  Funny old world!

I think it was more the fact that everyone, whether you were the lord of the manor, a billionaire or a street cleaner you all paid the same amount of poll tax that caused the riots.

That was the plan, but in practice it didn't work like that. I had to pay twice as much as everyone else. My wife was not in work, bringing up children, but was liable for the full poll tax, which meant I had to pay two lots. The claim was it was an individual tax, but they then made me pay someone else's. 

We were in an old remote cottage, with limited services, paying £150 or so in rates. That translated into two poll taxes at £220 each.