Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

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


Recommended Posts

10 minutes ago, kzb said:

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

higher tax on rental income -> discourage BTL -> less competition for first time buyers

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 minute ago, Dorkins said:

higher tax on rental income -> discourage BTL -> less competition for first time buyers

That isn't what you said though is it?  You said pensioners should pay NI on all income.

Also I am still waiting for an explanation of how one year of service would earn a pension of £1500.  Did your mother earn the equivalent of £90,000 back then at age 21?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kzb said:

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.

Isn't Britain getting so much a nicer place to live in thanks to all of these? I'm sure those fields are so much a more pleasant place now that there are houses built all over them, and that if there's a more crowded, cramped feel to the area then that's so much better to live in. Can't argue, if it's new, if that's how things are done these days and weren't in the past, it's got to be good I keep getting told. Must be my fault for hating it, I'm clearly in the wrong for not liking it all!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, kzb said:

Nobody did.  It's ludicrous to even suggest this, but they all seem to believe in it. 

Why would a parent set out to disadvantage their own offspring?

Actually some do campaign against housing developments even though their child can't afford a home - hard to believe but it happens.

I have had heard retired people saying we can't have houses built near us - there won't be another space on the trains in the morning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours 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.

 

 

 

Land banking, which is what the building companies do, some with a few decades of stock to be drip fed into the market. As one of them said not too long ago, 'we can keep our prices as high as they are as long as we want too, we will not sell cheap' and of course this is what they do. Much of the workforce was made up of EU workers and could be laid off and taken on with the wave of an arrogant hand. Some time ago they used to train up 1000's of new apprentices every year and the more building they did the more profitable they were. Today they are run more by financial engineering and crony corruption rather than competing with other companies for business and selling in volume.  In my view every single aspect of house building needs to be regulated either for or against, eg, collusion, drip feeding, anti competition,  antiquated building methods,  planning permission for most land use changes should have just about all profit removed from it (leads to corruption for which we all pay for in one way or another and fills undeserving pockets on the stroke of a pen)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, satsuma said:

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.  

Yes, poor boxes are the architecture we get now. And the point about isolated estates is very much to do with the planning since that's exactly how they're planned. Not sure where "little England" comes in, but it sounds like you're in denial (and in any case "Little England" has become a rather pathetic term used to attack anyone who actually cares about the place).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, zugzwang said:

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.

Agree with this, it just needs to be done well. It's got a bad reputation in the UK thanks to past issues - terraces that were built with nothing in the way of amenities and were left to fall in to very poor condition on top of that (even without counting all the ones that had bombs dropped on them), then tower blocks with all the issues there but it wasn't density that was the problem with them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Actually some do campaign against housing developments even though their child can't afford a home - hard to believe but it happens.

I have had heard retired people saying we can't have houses built near us - there won't be another space on the trains in the morning.

Why is it hard to believe? Anyone not horrified by the thought of a housing development nearby needs their head examining. Yes, their children not being able to afford a home is also a problem but it's not a case where you should be fine with one if you're not with the other. If I had children I'd pity them having to live in the sort of country too many people are so desperate to build; it's a lose-lose situation and quite frankly having children these days is cruel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

50 minutes ago, Riedquat said:

Isn't Britain getting so much a nicer place to live in thanks to all of these? I'm sure those fields are so much a more pleasant place now that there are houses built all over them, and that if there's a more crowded, cramped feel to the area then that's so much better to live in. Can't argue, if it's new, if that's how things are done these days and weren't in the past, it's got to be good I keep getting told. Must be my fault for hating it, I'm clearly in the wrong for not liking it all!

Actually we've had decades of this, out-of-town retail premises and workplaces built on M-way junctions.  People actually wanting to live in large city centres is relatively recent.  

In the south, people moving out to rural locations frees up housing in the city to house more immigrants.  In the north it largely impoverishes the towns because they are left derelict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, kzb said:

Actually we've had decades of this, out-of-town retail premises and workplaces built on M-way junctions.  People actually wanting to live in large city centres is relatively recent.  

In the south, people moving out to rural locations frees up housing in the city to house more immigrants.  In the north it largely impoverishes the towns because they are left derelict.

I'd hardly call moving to some bland edge-of-town estate rural living. If you want rural you need to go rural, not turn rural into suburbia.

Sure, we've had decades of it and it's concerning that it's accelerating again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

Actually some do campaign against housing developments even though their child can't afford a home - hard to believe but it happens.

I have had heard retired people saying we can't have houses built near us - there won't be another space on the trains in the morning.

They're right.  More housing in a locality means more traffic and more demand for services.  Usually they don't supply any more roads or services.  They shouldn't be allowed to build anything without paying for it to be connected to the tram or railway system.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, kzb said:

That isn't what you said though is it?  You said pensioners should pay NI on all income.

I said all income should be taxed at the same marginal rate. At present there are two main kinds of income in the UK tax system, wages and unearned income, and (ludicrously in my opinion) unearned income which includes both rental income and pensions is the one that is taxed at a lower rate. I can't see any reason why pensions should be taxed at a different rate from other forms of unearned income. Frankly the UK tax system is already massively overcomplicated and should be simplified, not for yet more classifications and special treatment to be engineered in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Yes, poor boxes are the architecture we get now. And the point about isolated estates is very much to do with the planning since that's exactly how they're planned. Not sure where "little England" comes in, but it sounds like you're in denial (and in any case "Little England" has become a rather pathetic term used to attack anyone who actually cares about the place).

You need to get out more and get outside little England, worlds moved on and left these places behind, just because all you see is poor boxes doesn’t mean that’s what’s available or what has to be. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

Isn't Britain getting so much a nicer place to live in thanks to all of these? I'm sure those fields are so much a more pleasant place now that there are houses built all over them, and that if there's a more crowded, cramped feel to the area then that's so much better to live in. Can't argue, if it's new, if that's how things are done these days and weren't in the past, it's got to be good I keep getting told. Must be my fault for hating it, I'm clearly in the wrong for not liking it all!

If you hate living near other people so much why keep living near a major population centre like Manchester? Most of Ireland is basically empty, you could get a house in the middle of nowhere and hardly have to see a soul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, kzb said:

They're right.  More housing in a locality means more traffic and more demand for services.  Usually they don't supply any more roads or services.  They shouldn't be allowed to build anything without paying for it to be connected to the tram or railway system.

But these are people who want want mass immigration - if you want mass immigration then you have to accept more houses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, satsuma said:

You need to get out more and get outside little England, worlds moved on and left these places behind, just because all you see is poor boxes doesn’t mean that’s what’s available or what has to be. 

Dear oh dear. Like I said, denial. Or obliviousness. Odd thing to say though, "get out more", when you appear blind (or completely uncaring) about what's going on.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

If you hate living near other people so much why keep living near a major population centre like Manchester? Most of Ireland is basically empty, you could get a house in the middle of nowhere and hardly have to see a soul.

Where did I say I hate living near other people? Please don't try to paint things in overly simplistic black and white extremes.

What I hate is the constant expansion of busier and busier, and the corresponding damage to what I truly love. And the people who are responsible for it. Saying "if you don't like it, move" is the equivalent of saying that to someone who's fed up with neighbours playing loud music at 3 am.

Edited by Riedquat
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Dorkins said:

I said all income should be taxed at the same marginal rate. At present there are two main kinds of income in the UK tax system, wages and unearned income, and (ludicrously in my opinion) unearned income which includes both rental income and pensions is the one that is taxed at a lower rate. I can't see any reason why pensions should be taxed at a different rate from other forms of unearned income. Frankly the UK tax system is already massively overcomplicated and should be simplified, not for yet more classifications and special treatment to be engineered in.

Let's see if you feel the same approaching 60.  Also you've not explained to us how increasing tax on pensioners would help younger people buy houses.  Or why someone in a £130k house should pay more tax to help someone else buy a million-pound house.

Also if you are implying that NI should be subsumed into the income tax system I don't agree.  It's insurance, and it has to be clearly identified who has paid in and who has not.  Also no country in the world does this, as far as I can see, all developed western economies have separate social security and income tax.

Edited by kzb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

But these are people who want want mass immigration - if you want mass immigration then you have to accept more houses.

 

I don't think the alleged boomers allegedly blocking the housing developments would be enthusiastic pro-immigration people.

On the contrary, they will be asking why do I have to put up with more traffic so they can bring in more immigrants.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, kzb said:

Also if you are implying that NI should be subsumed into the income tax system I don't agree.  It's insurance, and it has to be clearly identified who has paid in and who has not.  Also no country in the world does this, as far as I can see, all developed western economies have separate social security and income tax.

I'm not sure why this is.

You pay NI if you earn more than £184 per week. If you have 35 years earning just above that threshold, you receive the full state pension (currently £179.60, or close to 100% of salary). There is so little relationship between national insurance contributions and state pension received (it only matters how many qualifying years of contributions you have). If paying in is important, it seems unfair to people who earned a higher income for less than 35 years.

Also, isn't there some other form of benefit for people of retirement age who aren't entitled to the state pension and are poor (do benefits just stop for the long term unemployed once they reach pension age)? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Young Turk said:

I'm not sure why this is.

You pay NI if you earn more than £184 per week. If you have 35 years earning just above that threshold, you receive the full state pension (currently £179.60, or close to 100% of salary). There is so little relationship between national insurance contributions and state pension received (it only matters how many qualifying years of contributions you have). If paying in is important, it seems unfair to people who earned a higher income for less than 35 years.

Also, isn't there some other form of benefit for people of retirement age who aren't entitled to the state pension and are poor (do benefits just stop for the long term unemployed once they reach pension age)? 

Well that is the system "we" have chosen for the new state pension.  Under previous schemes there were earnings-related supplements to the basic pension rate.  Anyhow, by having years of contributions it does mean you have been working in the UK for those years.  In France, the state pension is more or less a final-salary pension scheme, based on years of contributions.  They get about 75% of final salary after 40 years or whatever.

Yes there is Pension Credit.  It is means tested, if you have less than £16k in the bank and your income is less than 170-odd pounds a week it will top you up to £170-odd pounds a week.  The New State Pension is cleverly designed to be about £1 above the benefit level, which then prevents you from getting free dental care etc, which you would get if you could claim one penny a week of means-tested benefit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, MonsieurCopperCrutch said:

Quiz-time. It's either:

A. I knew full well what per capita meant thanks.

or

B. I know full well what per capita means thanks.

 

Now which one is the correct grammar?

 

True. I wish you the best mad gainz now we brothers in arms. 

That is what you posted 35 minutes ago on another thread.  Need I comment further?

OK, I will (apologies to everyone else for this tedium).

I knew (back then) what "per capita" means (present tense-its meaning is still the same now), is correct in context.

To say, I knew (back then) what "per capita" meant (past tense), implies that the meaning of per capita has changed since, or it meant something unusual between the two correspondents at the time.  

To say, I knew what "per capita" means, conveys the exact meaning intended.

Edited by kzb
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, kzb said:

I don't think the alleged boomers allegedly blocking the housing developments would be enthusiastic pro-immigration people.

On the contrary, they will be asking why do I have to put up with more traffic so they can bring in more immigrants.

No I know people who want more immigration and more housing - but not near them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, iamnumerate said:

No I know people who want more immigration and more housing - but not near them.

If they can find somewhere where no-one objects to the housing then fine. Good luck finding that place.

The reality is of course that the further something is from someone the less they're likely to care as much about it, so could well be aware of the damage it'll cause nearby but less further afield, and most people are pretty poor at empathy. There are also those who live in places where there isn't really any space for housing nearby and are used to that sort of environment and are thus unable to even grasp the concept of really caring about turning somewhere else into something similar - the "doesn't bother me so shouldn't bother anyone else and I'll just call them idiots or NIMBYs or whatever" type people.

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.