Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Millennials own just 3% of all Household Wealth!!!


Recommended Posts

56 minutes ago, satsuma said:

The best think to do would be to build several new cities, personally I place them in the North of England, south west and the midlands.  They should be equipped with industrial estates and all the houses be preapproved with planning.  I’d also have the government come in and buy sections of London and level the lot and replace them with large apartment blocks.  The problem of course is that this may pull people out of other areas. My solution would be to turn those areas over to nature and compensate the owners.  I can’t see any government being able to do all of this but it would be good to try one new city.   Shift all the millennials in there and see what happens.  It was done by previous generations with mixed results but the demand now is very high.

 

Over 1 million homes in England with planning permission have not yet been built.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/08/over-1m-homes-in-england-with-planning-permission-not-built

More than 1.1m homes that received planning permission in England over the last decade are yet to be built, according to the Local Government Association, which called for new powers to be given to councils to encourage developers to build housing more quickly.

The LGA, which represents 327 of the 333 councils in England, said that 2.78m homes have been granted planning permission by councils since 2010-11, but over the same period only 1.6m have been built. The number of planning consents granted for new homes has more than doubled since 2010, with nine in 10 planning applications being approved by councils.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 424
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

1 hour ago, Staffsknot said:

No they bloody well were not and you are dragging around for something to justify your little strop.

As said you made out @jiltedjen was living a fantasy of victimhood and you've now said how you are the victim of 'hate speech'. Please get over yourself because anytime someone disagrees you seem to go off into a tizz of whatabouttery and throw out a load of things, which when taken apart cause palpatations of victimhood.

I'm sorry but you are no longer worth conversing with as we've had a full circle of this now and it comes down to 

You have two unsquarable circles - house prices are too high now but somehow they haven't disadvantaged the younger gens by being too high for a long time.

You don't like the truth do you.

I'm not disputing that house prices are too high.  As I said I can't believe that anyone could buy in London, but someone is buying.

If you think you are taxing my miserly pension pot so you can buy a £530k flat in Hackney, forget it.  I'm afraid you'll have to move out to make way for more immigrants, and get a job elsewhere in the country.  Perhaps when they can't get workers in London something will be done, but don't count on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zugzwang said:

 

Over 1 million homes in England with planning permission have not yet been built.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/08/over-1m-homes-in-england-with-planning-permission-not-built

More than 1.1m homes that received planning permission in England over the last decade are yet to be built, according to the Local Government Association, which called for new powers to be given to councils to encourage developers to build housing more quickly.

The LGA, which represents 327 of the 333 councils in England, said that 2.78m homes have been granted planning permission by councils since 2010-11, but over the same period only 1.6m have been built. The number of planning consents granted for new homes has more than doubled since 2010, with nine in 10 planning applications being approved by councils.

"Only" 1.6m built? That's a frighteningly high number; you can see everywhere the mess caused by housing developments spreading like cancer. But no doubt the usual suspects who couldn't give a shit about the country they live in will cheer it on and fail to even understand the problem (that they don't even attempt to claim it's a necessary evil shows how vile they are).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, satsuma said:

The best think to do would be to build several new cities, personally I place them in the North of England, south west and the midlands.  They should be equipped with industrial estates and all the houses be preapproved with planning.  I’d also have the government come in and buy sections of London and level the lot and replace them with large apartment blocks.  The problem of course is that this may pull people out of other areas. My solution would be to turn those areas over to nature and compensate the owners.  I can’t see any government being able to do all of this but it would be good to try one new city.   Shift all the millennials in there and see what happens.  It was done by previous generations with mixed results but the demand now is very high.

Milton Keynes?

Preston and Warrington were "New Towns" until quite recently.  Both of these are actually not down in the gutter as far as their neighbouring towns, but how many on here are queuing to buy in Preston or Warrington?

Urban areas in the north are full of brown-field sites that ought to be developed before we despoil more of our countryside.  There are loads of boarded-up homes only a couple of miles from where I sit.

What is needed is decent jobs in the north.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, zugzwang said:

 

Over 1 million homes in England with planning permission have not yet been built.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/may/08/over-1m-homes-in-england-with-planning-permission-not-built

More than 1.1m homes that received planning permission in England over the last decade are yet to be built, according to the Local Government Association, which called for new powers to be given to councils to encourage developers to build housing more quickly.

The LGA, which represents 327 of the 333 councils in England, said that 2.78m homes have been granted planning permission by councils since 2010-11, but over the same period only 1.6m have been built. The number of planning consents granted for new homes has more than doubled since 2010, with nine in 10 planning applications being approved by councils.

 

 

 

This does reinforce my point that the cities need to be built, simple enough to solve the problem of land banking, put a five year expiry on the permission after which the council takes the site back.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Riedquat said:

"Only" 1.6m built? That's a frighteningly high number; you can see everywhere the mess caused by housing developments spreading like cancer. But no doubt the usual suspects who couldn't give a shit about the country they live in will cheer it on and fail to even understand the problem (that they don't even attempt to claim it's a necessary evil shows how vile they are).

 

160,000/yr isn't so bad. Certainly not historically. The fact that it's been hopelessly inadequate to meet the demand is what's frightening. I suspect that the entire 2.78m would still have been too few.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

Urban areas in the north are full of brown-field sites that ought to be developed before we despoil more of our countryside.  There are loads of boarded-up homes only a couple of miles from where I sit.

What is needed is decent jobs in the north.

Whilst there's no problem per se with building on brownfield sites it always gives the impression of more people and fewer jobs in the area where it happens (since the sites are almost always former employers, now long gone).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kzb said:

Milton Keynes?

Preston and Warrington were "New Towns" until quite recently.  Both of these are actually not down in the gutter as far as their neighbouring towns, but how many on here are queuing to buy in Preston or Warrington?

Urban areas in the north are full of brown-field sites that ought to be developed before we despoil more of our countryside.  There are loads of boarded-up homes only a couple of miles from where I sit.

What is needed is decent jobs in the north.

 

Again, this reinforces my point, people dont want to live in those brownfield  areas for various reasons but they do want to live in Milton Keynes but not the areas around it.  Of course Milton Keynes is not what I would be aiming for, planning and architecture have come so far since then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jiltedjen said:

pre 1980 the boomers had full employment.

I know plenty of stories of boomers just moving around factories for wages and literally walking into jobs

That was true in the 1960's but not from about 1974 onwards.  By 1977 we reached the 1m unemployed milestone.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, zugzwang said:

 

160,000/yr isn't so bad. Certainly not historically. The fact that it's been hopelessly inadequate to meet the demand is what's frightening. I suspect that the entire 2.78m would still have been too few.

Historically it's masses too. That's enough for a whole city every year. There have been periods in history where that rate has been met or exceeded but in the long run it's very, very much way above the norm.

It's doing everything in their power to boost the demand that more than that is needed to house everyone that's the frightening, utterly irresponsible thing. Whilst we've deliberately backed ourselves into a corner where it's needed the only way I could ever find it acceptable is if it's going hand in hand with measures to make sure that's it, a one-off building programme and no more, minimise the damage to the lowest possible, rather than not give a sh1t about it and cheer it on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, satsuma said:

Again, this reinforces my point, people dont want to live in those brownfield  areas for various reasons but they do want to live in Milton Keynes but not the areas around it.  Of course Milton Keynes is not what I would be aiming for, planning and architecture have come so far since then.

Planning and architecture have come so far? Really? I can see the practical appeals of a newbuild but bugger all in the way of architectural appeal in all but a very few (and they're mostly trying to ape older styles anyway). And from the planning perspective isolated estates (I was going to say self-contained but that would imply they've got anything other than houses in them) still seem to be the norm; more than token gestures towards being an integrated part of the wider area appear rare.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, kzb said:

Well, bear in mind that plot is GDP per capita, and capita includes women.

Yes, if the proportion of women working increases, the GDP per capita increases because capita includes women (per capita means per person, not per working person).

25 minutes ago, kzb said:

But yes, double income has certainly allowed a lot of HPI.  Maybe we should go back to the old system where only the male earnings counted towards how much you could borrow?  Imagine the storm of outrage if that came back....

They could go to single income instead of male only (in fact, was it strictly male only in the old days?). In fact they would probably have to, otherwise it would prevent single women and lesbian couples from buying at all and allow gay couples to still borrow on the basis of double incomes.

A sensible solution might be to allow either income earner to be nominated, or to take the average.

If the public could be persuaded of the benefits of lower prices, I believe restricting mortgages to single incomes could palatable politically.

Is it better for children to be looked after by a parent? If this is widely believed to be true, then I can see how it could be very popular. 

Edited by Young Turk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Dorkins said:

I don't know if the intergenerational tax realignment would be done quite so explicitly along age lines as that but I can imagine changes like merging national insurance into income tax so that landlords and pensioners pay the same marginal tax rates as workers.

Damaging your own interests out of spite ?

You certainly don't want any additional taxes on your pensions, but that is what you are suggesting.

Shooting yourselves in the foot.

What we need is authoritarian control over HPI:

  • Limits on the number that can be owned by one person
  • Stop house ownership by non-domiciled foreigners like most countries in the world.
  • Limit immigration
  • Strict limits on what can be borrowed based on mandatory affordability evaluation.
  • Punitive tax rates on unearned house price inflation income.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Planning and architecture have come so far? Really? I can see the practical appeals of a newbuild but bugger all in the way of architectural appeal in all but a very few (and they're mostly trying to ape older styles anyway). And from the planning perspective isolated estates (I was going to say self-contained but that would imply they've got anything other than houses in them) still seem to be the norm; more than token gestures towards being an integrated part of the wider area appear rare.

Nonsense, you are talking about houses you see in new developments, thats not architecture, those are poor boxes.  And of course you bring in some point about isolated estates that is nothing to do with the points made.  Little England indeed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, satsuma said:

Again, this reinforces my point, people dont want to live in those brownfield  areas for various reasons but they do want to live in Milton Keynes but not the areas around it.  Of course Milton Keynes is not what I would be aiming for, planning and architecture have come so far since then.

What we need is occupational density not suburban sprawl. The entire city to be accessible by foot or cycle, and stitched together with local rail. The residential model of Tokyo, for example.

 

http://www.tokyobybike.com/2014/12/how-suburban-tokyo-promotes-cycling.html

How is it then that cycling thrives in a city where the majority of citizens commute by train? Where are the daily cyclists and how can they possibly make up 14% of trips in the city? In short, Tokyo's cyclists are concentrated in the suburbs where they make many utilitarian trips by bicycle every day and rarely venture much further than a few kilometres from their homes. Rather than using their bicycles to cycle into the city, a route already well serviced by public transport, citizens of Tokyo cycle almost entirely within the confines of their local neighbourhood. To understand why you have to understand the structure of a typical suburban Japanese neighbourhood.

Tokyo's neighbourhoods resemble small, self-contained, villages from a bygone age. At the centre of the village is the train station which is the focus of all village activity. As the majority of residents are reliant on rail transport anyone entering or leaving the village must pass through the station making it the heart of the suburb. Over 20% of Tokyo's 20 million daily rail passengers cycle from their homes to the local station and the provision of bicycle parking close to the station to keep up with cyclist numbers is a major challenge for local councils. Due to a lack of car parking facilities at suburban train stations, the remaining 80% of passengers walk to the station.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-J0kKdFOCKVg/VJA4Ksj49AI/AAAAAAAAM8s/vkOutMhWwcc/s1600/IMG_2649.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, kzb said:

Damaging your own interests out of spite ?

You certainly don't want any additional taxes on your pensions, but that is what you are suggesting.

Shooting yourselves in the foot.

Correct, I am suggesting that wage income and other forms of income should be taxed at the same rate. As most of my income comes from wages this is hardly shooting myself in the foot, plus I think it should be done just out of simple fairness between workers and people living on investment income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

Correct, I am suggesting that wage income and other forms of income should be taxed at the same rate. As most of my income comes from wages this is hardly shooting myself in the foot, plus I think it should be done just out of simple fairness between workers and people living on investment income.

So all these young people being short-changed on their pension will need to save even more out of their income?  Good one.

Most people are not in the same position as you with your USS DB pension.  Perhaps you will be happy to pay NI out of your "gold plated" pension, but it will have a bad effect on poorer people.

And how in Gods name will this reduce London house prices ?

Edited by kzb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

If you don't believe the official stats why did you post them?

To illustrate the pattern.  To show that unemployment was indeed higher in the latter decades of the 20th century than it is now.

Unemployment was the defining political issue of the late 1970's and 1980's.  That is what got people going then, not BLM.  House prices were not on the agenda.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Young Turk said:

If the public could be persuaded of the benefits of lower prices, I believe restricting mortgages to single incomes could palatable politically.

I'm all for it. 

The trouble will be that even larger numbers of people will be priced out of London if this measure fails in producing massive price drops.  And I'm not sure that it will, because I can't see how the ridiculous prices are supported by earnings as it is.  Although Dorkins lives there and he says it is.

A couple buying a flat in Hackney for £530k would need one of them to earn £177k p.a if we limited it to 3X gross earnings.

Edited by kzb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

"Only" 1.6m built? That's a frighteningly high number; you can see everywhere the mess caused by housing developments spreading like cancer. But no doubt the usual suspects who couldn't give a shit about the country they live in will cheer it on and fail to even understand the problem (that they don't even attempt to claim it's a necessary evil shows how vile they are).

We went up into Ribble Valley last weekend.  Lots of new housing estates built on green fields, not served by public transport but very handy for the A-roads.  You can guarantee the residents won't work anywhere nearby, and the only way they are going to get to work is by car.  The nearby towns in Lancashire are almost wastelands.  The developers can probably sell for 3 or 4 times in these new estates compared to most other areas in Lancs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, kzb said:

So all these young people being short-changed on their pension will need to save even more out of their income?  Good one.

Most people are not in the same position as you with your USS DB pension.  Perhaps you will be happy to pay NI out of your "gold plated" pension, but it will have a bad effect on poorer people.

And how in Gods name will this reduce London house prices ?

I work in the private sector, apart from a small employer DC pension I use to get matching contributions most of my pension contributions go into my SIPP. I am fine with future pensioners (including me) paying the same marginal rate on income as workers, it is simple fairness. With the personal allowance as high as it is now it's only well-off pensioners who would even notice merging NI into income tax.

Edited by Dorkins
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, kzb said:

If you think you are taxing my miserly pension pot so you can buy a £530k flat in Hackney, forget it

Again ascribing a dispute you are having with someone else with me.

@Dorkins is only person talking about pensions so once again railing at wrong person.

I have only mentioned housing props. You seem to be reading half a dozen people's posts and replying as if we've all said the same thing.

This is why its not worth engaging with you - you were telling me about spelling because @MonsieurCopperCrutch pulled you up on it as if scoring points back. 

In a nutshell you don't read or listen what is put in front of you, nor who said it so what's the point. People even had to explain per capita to you that women were included.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

I work in the private sector, apart from a small employer DC pension I use to get matching contributions most of my pension contributions go into my SIPP. I am fine with future pensioners (including me) paying the same marginal rate on income as workers, it is simple fairness. With the personal allowance as high as it is now it's only well-off pensioners who would even notice merging NI into income tax.

OK the lecturer must have been someone with a similar ID.

However, talk about turkeys voting for Christmas.

You want us all to pay more tax as pensioners, and somehow that will help young people buy £530k flats in Hackney?

if you give young people more money won't that enable prices in Hackney to increase still further?

I'm not a pensioner yet, but paying more tax from it while living in my house oop north, so that people can buy million-pound homes in London is going to grate, and not just on me either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Staffsknot said:

nor who said it so what's the point. People even had to explain per capita to you that women were included.

You all sound the same to me.

I knew full well what per capita means thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.





×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.