Monday, Mar 22, 2010
Marriage and ownership
Mail: Couples putting off marriage as they cannot afford to buy homes
Interesting point in the Readers' comments "I hadn't realised that fertility was linked to home ownership. Gosh, I must have been sleeping when they did that point in biology class.Or maybe the British are a species apart as most people here rent and still manage to have children."
But of course the commentator is German. Renting is not preferred option until there are rent controls and better protection for tenants. Imagine having to pack up home after two months notice with a baby in tow and a child at a local school. Imagine having to do this on a regular basis.
Posted by tenant super @ 12:27 PM (1201 views) Add Comment
15 Comments
- If you do not have an admin password leave the password field blank.
- If you would like to request a password allowing you to add comments and blog news articles without needing each one approved manually, send an e-mail to the webmaster.
- Your email address is required so we can verify that the comment is genuine. It will not be posted anywhere on the site, will be stored confidentially by us and never given out to any third party.
- Please note that any viewpoints published here as comments are user's views and not the views of HousePriceCrash.co.uk.
- Please adhere to the Guidelines
1. mark wadsworth said...
That's another advantage of Home-Owner-Ism - younger people shouldn't waste time settling down and having kids, they ought to be slaving away paying off their colossal mortgages and caring for old people. Naughty, naughty young people!!
2. paul said...
This is the Labour government's lasting legacy. By selfishly protecting their own generation's investment interests they deny not only the following generations' birthright, but their grandchildren's rights.
In the near future, history textbooks will decry the current era as a monstrous perversion of purpose for the current government and a cautionary tale for future politicians not to let self interest get in the way of sensible policy. Or so we would hope.
3. tenant super said...
I would also add that in addition to rent controls and better protection for tenants, there needs to be system so that when people do have to move rented properties, they can use their old deposit against the new home.One problem is that the new landlord needs the deposit before the former landlord returns the old and families living from hand to mouth struggle to raise this. There should be a system where the payment deposit protection scheme rolls the old deposit to the new landlord bridging the gap. The tenant then has to top up the deposit if there are any deductions against the previous home.
@ MW, you'd be surprised at the strength of the biological drive. I think we'll see more and more young couples "living apart together" with the woman renting the family home on full housing benefit and the father in a studio flat down the road. When they read all the news stories about couples on benefit in nice family homes, they must realise that this may be the only viable option and their middle-class sensibilties will go up in smoke on the altar of ideology.
4. Crunchy said...
What a mess.
All because we must prop up a system that the top dogs have indulged in over their eyeballs.
'Barry' Obamacare, here we go again.
5. rumble said...
Will this backfire nicely when the home-ownerists expect to survive in their old age on reduced population, tax, infrastructure? How far will a home go? And how much sympathy will they receive from the pissed off generations who will possibly also be anti-immigrant?
6. Russell said...
We were forced out of our home with 2 months notice so the landlord could sell - my wife had just given birth 2 weeks previous to being given notice. She had a nervous breakdown because of it. The tenancy laws in this country are truly vile and are a major part of the reason why we will be leaving this country soon. I'm emigrating to somewhere civilised!
7. the number cruncher said...
TS - Living apart together - you are so right about that
My best mate from uni has done just that for the last 17 years. He and his partner have rented a home paid for by Housing Benefit for their 3 kids while she has not worked. He has rented a flat while building up his music business, often claiming Housing Benefit.
In reality they have lived together (apart from the occasional bust up). She has had a job for the last 3 years and his business is making him a modest living, so they have come off benefits and 'buy' a house. They all live together (for the moment that is, as they bought 3 years ago with an interest only mortgage) now and pay taxes etc, but I would hate to calculate how much of the public purse they have consumed, I once worked out it was about 28k a year.
I have met a few of her friends and they are an awful lot doing the same thing. It is especially effective for self employed fathers who can fiddle their income. The downside to this is it does tend to encourage real marriage breakup.
8. tenant super said...
Well it does make sense if one is being selfish. Theoretically, if I sold my home, I could pay down Mr TS remaining mortgage with the proceeds and still have enough left to have a baby at the Portland Hospital and squirrel the rest away in assets that would be off the DSS radar (like mid-range art). Then I could rent a 2 bedroom house in a good area with nice schools on full housing benefit. Even if I worked part time, the tax credits , child care credits and partial housing benefit would still afford me a decent quality of life and Mr TS would have no mortgage or rent costs so financially we'd be far far better off than co-habiting.
For the purposes of welfare and tax credits, being in a sexual relationship does not mean you are considered a couple. So long as you have independent finances and maintain separate addresses you are not making a fraudulent claim - this is perfectly legal!
The Tories' rhetoric about marriage is meaningless since they propose to abolish tax credits to households with income of over £50k. The £20 per week you'd gain from transferable tax allowance is dwarfed by the tax credits and other payments the non-earner would receive if they separate. The 'couple penalty' is inevitable if you want to be proportionately more generous to people on lower incomes and if you assess entitlement according to household rather than individual circumstances. I strongly support an individualised tax credit system.
According to an IFS report, "To have a tax and benefit system that only ever depends upon an individual’s circumstances. In this case, the tax and benefit treatment of a couple will be identical to the tax and benefit treatment of the two adults in the couple if they had been living apart. This can be thought of as a fully individualised tax and benefit system. This would be an appropriate way to design a tax and benefit system if it were thought that people’s well-being (and ability to pay) depends upon their own income, and not the income of any partner who may be present, or if an overriding concern about individual autonomy ruled out a jointly assessed tax and benefit system.
At the extreme, a fully individualised tax and benefit system would involve paying benefits or tax credits to a non-working or poorly-paid individual regardless of whether they were living alone or married to a millionaire."
However, most millionaires won't claim it (as many do not claim child benefit) or you could put a cap on very high worth households... and the rise of individual autonomy justifies this move. In the context of housing benefit, the non-working spouse should be entitled to 50% rent allowance regardless of her partner's income. This is the only real way of encouraging parents to stay together. If it proves too expensive then just reduce the amounts payable before homogenising. I'd rather ten people get £10 per week than one person gets £100 and nine get nothing!
More importantly if house prices were allowed/ encouraged to correct, then most people could afford to live together on one salary and would choose the more conventional two parent household over a few quid more by living apart.
The whole system is so awful socially and damaging economically, it will eventually backfire/ collapse.
9. Daniel Meeks said...
This article is completely accurate.
Not being able to afford your own home, massively affects your relationships, and forces you to put your life on hold.
Well done to the Labour party for allowing this insanity to occur over the last 12 years.
10. mark wadsworth said...
TS, I think you are referring to the benefits of a Citizen's Income scheme, which is on a per adult basis.
11. tenant super said...
Yes; the lib dems dropped the idea because it would prove too costly but that's because they set the Citizen's Income level too high.
UKIP propose a workable idea. A single £60 basic cash benefit payable to replace standard sick and maternity pay, incapacity benefit, student grant, carer allowance and JSA. "Entitlement to the BCB should be extended to all low- and non-earners, in particular, to married or co-habiting mothers, students and carers, irrespective of household composition, income or assets."
(Housing benefit would be abolished and replaced with workfare anyway which would stop rent distortion in the private sector)
To me, one of the greatest benefits is that you don't need armies of clipboard bureaucrats snooping and checking through people's personal circumstances which should, I believe, be an entirely private matter.
12. Bonds 'r Us said...
@3. tenant super
If only there was a good model for the UK government to explore and adapt for local conditions....
In Australia (well - Queensland at least) Rental Bonds are mandated and controlled by the government.
http://www.rta.qld.gov.au/rental_bonds_section.cfm
And indeed you can transfer your bond from one property to another;
"A tenant can transfer the bond from their previous place to their new place. If a bond is to be transferred, the RTA holds the bond money instead of paying it back at the end of the tenancy."
And the Government will loan you the money interest-free if you meet social housing criteria;
"A Bond Loan is an interest free loan for people who cannot afford to pay a full rental bond to move into private rental accommodation."
Seems like the kind of thing that a forward thinking MP should be considering raising here in the UK, don't you think?
I was amazed when I moved to the UK and found that every landlord seemed to view my deposit as some private slush fund of his/her own..... I think my last landlord was quite shocked when I took him to the Small Claims Court and won it back... plus costs.
13. landofconfusion said...
That's another advantage of Home-Owner-Ism - younger people shouldn't waste time settling down and having kids, they ought to be slaving away paying off their colossal mortgages and caring for old people.
And paying their BTL masters.
14. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.
15. This comment has been removed as it was found to be in breach of our Blog Policies.