One Child Policy

[madmax2]

I read that around a third of houses have mortgages on them. As this isnt a brand new country (been going over a thousand years) I wouldve pondered why that is. As in, a house gets built, gets bought, gets paid off after 25 years or so. Job done.

The "third of houses" with mortgages werent all built in the last 25 years.

So poeple come and people go, and people die, but the money gets passed down (less tax)

My only conclusion is when you have two kids, your money gets split, so they both need a mortgage to live in a place like you had. Or they both buy a small place outright (no mortgage)..if that always happened then we would have 100% of houses owned outright.

So in my simplistic model, when you have more than one kid (because you only have one paid for house to pass on), it is at that point that demand for mortgages is created. Or when a new entrant enters the game.

(yes of course a fully paid for house can be put back into the pool if e.g. mew, gambling/bankrupcy sale etc, but to balance this out, some people win the lottery etc)

So, assuming this is where it is created, and the modern way (I look around me) is one child as that is all we can afford, would it be fair to say that the gov. NEEDS more than one child per family to keep the plates spinning with regards to stamp duty, taxes and so on, and needs NEW entrants to the game.

because, it seems we have had 1000 years to pay off some houses to the bankers, and somehow we still havent managed to give this money back.

Edited March 20, 2015 by madmax2

[thecrashingisles]

Err, houses don't last forever.

[SarahBell]

Err, houses don't last forever.

These new build sh&t boxes might not.

[Steppenpig]

As most households are couples, you need two kids, one to inherit the house, and one to marry someone who inherited a house (or, more precisely, 2.1 kids, as 0.1 will die in a horrible accident)

Does give me an idea for the next government bubble stoking policy though. Mandatory three child families. Big tax hikes for the infertile and low of testosterone. It'll all pay for itself in Giddynomics.

Edited March 20, 2015 by Steppenpig

[renting til I die]

As most households are couples, you need two kids, one to inherit the house, and one to marry someone who inherited a house (or, more precisely, 2.1 kids, as 0.1 will die in a horrible accident)

Does give me an idea for the next government bubble stoking policy though. Mandatory three child families. Big tax hikes for the infertile and low of testosterone. It'll all pay for itself in Giddynomics.

Naa, they will just increase immigration!

[renting til I die]

I read that around a third of houses have mortgages on them. As this isnt a brand new country (been going over a thousand years) I wouldve pondered why that is. As in, a house gets built, gets bought, gets paid off after 25 years or so. Job done.

The "third of houses" with mortgages werent all built in the last 25 years.

So poeple come and people go, and people die, but the money gets passed down (less tax)

My only conclusion is when you have two kids, your money gets split, so they both need a mortgage to live in a place like you had. Or they both buy a small place outright (no mortgage)..if that always happened then we would have 100% of houses owned outright.

So in my simplistic model, when you have more than one kid (because you only have one paid for house to pass on), it is at that point that demand for mortgages is created. Or when a new entrant enters the game.

(yes of course a fully paid for house can be put back into the pool if e.g. mew, gambling/bankrupcy sale etc, but to balance this out, some people win the lottery etc)

So, assuming this is where it is created, and the modern way (I look around me) is one child as that is all we can afford, would it be fair to say that the gov. NEEDS more than one child per family to keep the plates spinning with regards to stamp duty, taxes and so on, and needs NEW entrants to the game.

because, it seems we have had 1000 years to pay off some houses to the bankers, and somehow we still havent managed to give this money back.

The debts can never be paid off with our current monetary system!

[disenfranchised]

Population expansion. 2.4 Children = 0.83 houses inherited per couple.

Minus tax

Minus non-owners

Minus feckless squanderers

Minus MEW and/or downsizing to a lower value property to release wealth in retirement

The when the lucky couple inherits 0.42 of a house, few of them dump the whole value into their own property.

[StainlessSteelCat]

Mass home ownership is a relatively recent phenomenon in this country. For the best part of millennia most of us were basically serfs to feudal lords. I suspect that only began to slowly change during the industrial revolution, and probably only picked up pace post World War I. Each new generation has basically been a new opportunity for various parasites to farm us for our labour. As a result for most of humanity's existence, virtually none of us managed to accumulate anything to pass on.

Mortgages are basically the latest wheeze in a long line of them, often combined with the threat of violence. Our upbringings tell us that the idea of all land belonging to someone else is normal, and expected. We'll even defend that on the basis of a few of us managing to accumulate a few paltry sq feet ourselves.

Even now, I am the first person in my immediate family to own outright - as all of my predecessors rented either privately or more recently socially. A sibling has a hefty mortgage which they are nowhere near paying off. Since I have no kids, and I since I don't really believe in huge unearned inherited wealth - I'm unlikely to pass it on any nieces or nephews but rather a deserving cause (please do not PM about yours).

The OP is right to mention inheritance as a factor. Previously this was often solved by the first born getting everything, and the rest having to seek their own fortune (something I suspect helped drive our colonial adventures overseas in the last few centuries).

Edited March 20, 2015 by StainlessSteelCat