The Over-55S With No Pension, No Savings, Just Massive Debts

[campervanman]

the turd in the UKs water pipe is currently around the age of 43 now and a few years either side of it. .

Love it, that would be the Krustys and Phil's and a few of their turd GenX cohorts on hpc

[porca misèria]

Love it, that would be the Krustys and Phil's and a few of their turd GenX cohorts on hpc

Around 43? Anyone would think he was referring to our great leaders. Cameron, Clegg, MilliBlair and MilliBrown, ....

[Stars]

You need to check your facts, there is no 'boomer' population bulge in the UK, its an American thing. the turd in the UKs water pipe is currently around the age of 43 now and a few years either side of it.

Not that i think this is a population issue (For me 'boomer' is just a generational identification), but the uk had two baby booms, one just after the war and one in the early sixties

Edited September 9, 2010 by Stars

[topliner]

Equity Release (aka Lifetime Mortgages)

These mortgages (Interest Only in effect) were supposed to be the saviour of the over 55's or in most cases the over 60's! (depending on the terms available from lender)

They were derived from a simple interest only mortgage but with built in SHIP guarantees to ensure that the debt built up could never exceed the value of the dwelling.

Good idea? ... well as long as HPI carried on (don't you know that house prices always grow by 100% within 7 years?)

Well has it been a good idea... or not?

topliner

[steve99]

Not that i think this is a population issue (For me 'boomer' is just a generational identification), but the uk had two baby booms, one just after the war and one in the early sixties

Yes, as per this graph

[billybong]

- Perhaps they're frightened of "loosing out" on another big round of house price increases

One of the main reasons for sure. It's one of the reasons that downsizing is so popular rather than renting after retirement.

Booming house prices are so bad and distorting for the general economy for so many reasons but good for property VIs including MPs with their large property portfolios (how many properties does that ex Prime Minister have now. The one who presided over the biggest ever UK property boom) and of course they facilitate equity withdrawal to spend on worthless tat for the retailers and such like to benefit from.

Edited September 9, 2010 by billybong

[corevalue]

Yes, as per this graph

But look at the shape - the post-war surge is a blip, whereas the now 40-somethings is a big bulge ( as is the now-20's).

[Mr Yogi]

But I have to say ... well, where can these people move to? Where can they go? My grandmother downsized from a small two bed terrace in her late 60s to a semi-sheltered one bed flat ... but this sort of thing is like gold-dust now and not really appropriate for a couple in their early 60s.

My parents sold their 3-bed semi and moved into a very nice housing association flat. They love it - the rent is very low and their total outgoings are now tiny. They manage very nicely on only a basic state pension. They have a far better standard of living than if they had stayed in their house - and they are busy spending the capital on holidays etc.

There seem to be plenty of these flats available - at least three are empty in the development my parents live in and the HA is having to advertise them.

Best of all their old house is now occupied by a young family.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Mr Yogi

[Cinzano Bianco]

The problem is that these selfish old people are occupying family sized homes that the next generation need to raise their children in. Granddad needs to understand its time to stand aside and let the new generation get on with building the future which will ultimately pay for their healthcare and surrounding infrastructure.

Where I live we are surrounded by large nice houses near the schools, largely occupied by elderly couples. While the young families are crammed into small houses at the other end of the town.

It’s a terrible situation.

Are you serious?

If so, sorry that is retarded... When I get to that age, I wont be moving out of my nice big quiet house in the country either... if I've managed to save a deposit and bribe someone for a mortgage by then. Seriously, the problem is the planning system, politicians, bankers who have all in there own way reduced quality of life significantly. It's got nothing to do with gramps not moving into a new build shoe box piece of shit. We need to directing anger at the root cause, not the bloody little guy who just wants a quiet life in a nice house.

[The Knimbies who say No]

I deal with people in debt every day, and it is frankly astonishing how some middle aged people's finances are 'organised', although that's hardly news here, nor is it the preserve of that age group. It just seems more shocking when it's older folks 'cause you thought they'd have learned by now.

I can well understand why someone would not wish to sell the family home, there are many reasons why they ought to be encouraged to stay if it means maintaining their social circle etc.

However, those who took an investment view of their house for the purposes of retirement whilst not really being willing to dispose of it when the time came have simply been stupid.

[Authoritarian]

Are you serious?

If so, sorry that is retarded... When I get to that age, I wont be moving out of my nice big quiet house in the country either... if I've managed to save a deposit and bribe someone for a mortgage by then. Seriously, the problem is the planning system, politicians, bankers who have all in there own way reduced quality of life significantly. It's got nothing to do with gramps not moving into a new build shoe box piece of shit. We need to directing anger at the root cause, not the bloody little guy who just wants a quiet life in a nice house.

Strongly disagree with this.

It's yet another absurd policy that is aimed enriching the idle at the expense of the productive. You cannot run an economy like this, it's totally mental. Gramps isn't just sitting there minding his own business, he's sitting on a prime piece of real estate that's being under used because he's monopolising it. An efficient healthy economy requires the best use of finite resources, but how can we achieve this when the productive are forced to live miles from their workplace because the best locations are occupied by geriatrics? They don't need to be there, if they're just sitting indoors all day then it doesn't matter where they are. There are loads of other locations that can be used to facilitate a quiet life that doesn't involve intereference with others, and this can be achieved without the opportunity cost that we currently suffer. Allowing the productive to occupy the most productice locations and the economically inactive to occupy locations that are less boutiful would seem like a more sensible political compromise to me.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Chef

[winkie]

I deal with people in debt every day, and it is frankly astonishing how some middle aged people's finances are 'organised', although that's hardly news here, nor is it the preserve of that age group. It just seems more shocking when it's older folks 'cause you thought they'd have learned by now.

I can well understand why someone would not wish to sell the family home, there are many reasons why they ought to be encouraged to stay if it means maintaining their social circle etc.

However, those who took an investment view of their house for the purposes of retirement whilst not really being willing to dispose of it when the time came have simply been stupid.

Cash you have instant access to, shares you can sell and get the cash within a few days....property is hard to get out of and even harder when you can not sell.

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

The problem is that these selfish old people are occupying family sized homes that the next generation need to raise their children in. Granddad needs to understand its time to stand aside and let the new generation get on with building the future which will ultimately pay for their healthcare and surrounding infrastructure.

Where I live we are surrounded by large nice houses near the schools, largely occupied by elderly couples. While the young families are crammed into small houses at the other end of the town.

It’s a terrible situation.

This is correct. We have a mis-allocation of land.

We have old people cowering in their 5 bedroomed houses scared to go outside because of all the "youths" wandering the streets, while the kids have no choice but to wander the streets as they are living 3 to a bedroom in crappy little flats with no gardens.

It's ridiculous. There is no other word for it.

What we need is purpose built accommodation... purpose built TOWNS for old people. Gated towns with controlled access so they can walk the streets without fear. Towns of single floor houses with bathrooms designed for the elderly, doorways big enough to get wheelchairs through. Towns with pubs and clubs and restaurants targeted at the elderly. Towns designed to pedestrians and people on mobility scooters, not 4x4s. Towns with hospitals designed to care for the elderly. Towns built AWAY from offices and factories and schools. Towns with fresh air, warmer weather, plenty of space.

The towns we have now aren't designed for the elderly, they are designed for working people, families. What we have done is pander to a single generation and allow them to waste important national resources... which is what housing is. Councils are openly trying to adapt the facilities in towns for the elderly. We have ended up with towns and cities which half meet the needs of the elderly, provide we subsidise them enough, and don't meet the needs of business... and as a result, business and manufacturing has simple left the UK.

The result is now we don't have enough production to fund the subsidy anymore.

There is one logical solution if we intend to allow the elderly to retire in any form of comfort... we need to convert Devon into the worlds biggest retirement complex.

[Cinzano Bianco]

Strongly disagree with this.

It's yet another absurd policy that is aimed enriching the idle at the expense of the productive.

What policy?

You cannot run an economy like this, it's totally mental. Gramps isn't just sitting there minding his own business,

Sorry, how do you know?

he's sitting on a prime piece of real estate that's being under used because he's monopolising it.

So what, the guy paid for it!?

An efficient healthy economy requires the best use of finite resources,

These finite resources, e.g. land, who is controlling it's use? Gramps isn't.

but how can we achieve this when the productive are forced to live miles from their workplace because the best locations are occupied by geriatrics?

You are blaming the wrong person/ people.

They don't need to be there, if they're just sitting indoors all day then it doesn't matter where they are.

So what they want to do is not up to them?

There are loads of other locations that can be used to facilitate a quiet life that doesn't involve intereference with others,

So what... if they want to stay where they are.

and this can be achieved without the opportunity cost that we currently suffer. Allowing the productive to occupy the most productice locations and the economically inactive to occupy locations that are less boutiful would seem like a more sensible political compromise to me.

I partially agree here, if you mean those people who have never been economically active - such as generational benefit claimants etc. They should be moved to other less expensive areas/ less productive locations. As for people that own their own home, you are totally mental if you think forcing them to move is the right policy IMO.

[Cinzano Bianco]

This is correct. We have a mis-allocation of land.

We have old people cowering in their 5 bedroomed houses scared to go outside because of all the "youths" wandering the streets, while the kids have no choice but to wander the streets as they are living 3 to a bedroom in crappy little flats with no gardens.

It's ridiculous. There is no other word for it.

What we need is purpose built accommodation... purpose built TOWNS for old people. Gated towns with controlled access so they can walk the streets without fear. Towns of single floor houses with bathrooms designed for the elderly, doorways big enough to get wheelchairs through. Towns with pubs and clubs and restaurants targeted at the elderly. Towns designed to pedestrians and people on mobility scooters, not 4x4s. Towns with hospitals designed to care for the elderly. Towns built AWAY from offices and factories and schools. Towns with fresh air, warmer weather, plenty of space.

The towns we have now aren't designed for the elderly, they are designed for working people, families. What we have done is pander to a single generation and allow them to waste important national resources... which is what housing is. Councils are openly trying to adapt the facilities in towns for the elderly. We have ended up with towns and cities which half meet the needs of the elderly, provide we subsidise them enough, and don't meet the needs of business... and as a result, business and manufacturing has simple left the UK.

The result is now we don't have enough production to fund the subsidy anymore.

There is one logical solution if we intend to allow the elderly to retire in any form of comfort... we need to convert Devon into the worlds biggest retirement complex.

Business and manufacturing has left the UK because old people wont move house? This has to be a joke.

Send 'em to the fecking glue factory, huh?

[RufflesTheGuineaPig]

Business and manufacturing has left the UK because old people wont move house? This has to be a joke.

Send 'em to the fecking glue factory, huh?

The mis-allocation of land has forced up land/house prices, which has forced up wages, which has forced companies to find cheaper people to employ.

It's not rocket science.

[Lagarde's Drift]

Yes, as per this graph

I've always thought there is a baby boom going on now. Does this mean that I also get to participate in pricing out these 1-2 year olds in a few decades time?

[Authoritarian]

What policy?

Current tax policies that encourage people to hoard land that they're not using properly. When I say 'properly' I mean using it in a way that is well below its economic potential. Say if a farm had the capacity to produce 1000 carrots per annum and it's price reflected that, but the owner decided to keep it idle then this is a measurable waste of finite resources. Having elderly people occupy naturally rich locations without using them properly wastes the national wealth, and imposes costs upon others. They now have to spend their time working a field that is only capable of producing 500 carrots pa which is unfair as it takes twice as long to produce the same yield.

Sorry, how do you know?

His presence acts as a restiction upon others because that space is now no longer available.

So what, the guy paid for it!?

If he wants to continue using it then I don't mind if he pays market price for it.

These finite resources, e.g. land, who is controlling it's use? Gramps isn't.

He is if he's an owner of real estate.

You are blaming the wrong person/ people.

I don't think I am, if gramps agrees with me and believes that we should reform the tax system so that this state of affairs is less likely to arise then there's no problem. If he wants to restrict my liberty by claiming that his needs are greater than mine (when in fact they're equal) then I am blaming the right people.

So what they want to do is not up to them?

They can do what they want, but we need to recognise the economic implications of forcing the young and productive out into the margins of society. It decreases the national wealth, causes resentment, entenches a systematic misallocation of finite resources and forces large sections of the population to live in areas that are totally unsuitable for their needs.

So what... if they want to stay where they are.

And the young should just be told to grin and bear it?

I partially agree here, if you mean those people who have never been economically active - such as generational benefit claimants etc. They should be moved to other less expensive areas/ less productive locations. As for people that own their own home, you are totally mental if you think forcing them to move is the right policy IMO.

I don't want to force them to move anywhere, I would like to see home owners pay for the gov't services that they receive. So if somebody wanted to occupy a key location in London it would be reflected in their tax bill, that way those that wanted the services enough to pay market price for them would naturally gravitiate towards the areas that were most suitable for their needs.

Having the elderly live near schools, pubs, clubs and universities etc etc puts them directly at odds with the people that have to use those services, it's a messy compromise that only benefits the owners of real estate; as they own a monoply over access to these resources.

Edited September 9, 2010 by Chef

[John The Pessimist]

This is correct. We have a mis-allocation of land.

We have old people cowering in their 5 bedroomed houses scared to go outside because of all the "youths" wandering the streets, while the kids have no choice but to wander the streets as they are living 3 to a bedroom in crappy little flats with no gardens.

It's ridiculous. There is no other word for it.

What we need is purpose built accommodation... purpose built TOWNS for old people. Gated towns with controlled access so they can walk the streets without fear. Towns of single floor houses with bathrooms designed for the elderly, doorways big enough to get wheelchairs through. Towns with pubs and clubs and restaurants targeted at the elderly. Towns designed to pedestrians and people on mobility scooters, not 4x4s. Towns with hospitals designed to care for the elderly. Towns built AWAY from offices and factories and schools. Towns with fresh air, warmer weather, plenty of space.

The towns we have now aren't designed for the elderly, they are designed for working people, families. What we have done is pander to a single generation and allow them to waste important national resources... which is what housing is. Councils are openly trying to adapt the facilities in towns for the elderly. We have ended up with towns and cities which half meet the needs of the elderly, provide we subsidise them enough, and don't meet the needs of business... and as a result, business and manufacturing has simple left the UK.

The result is now we don't have enough production to fund the subsidy anymore.

There is one logical solution if we intend to allow the elderly to retire in any form of comfort... we need to convert Devon into the worlds biggest retirement complex.

Substitute the word town for ghetto and the word elderly for Jew in the item above. What do you get?

My dad keeps his fabulous house in the countryside, to allow his grandkids some space to play. Why? Because they live in houses with gardens the size of a tablecloth. The elderly are not the problem. The market demands more medium+ sized property. The planning system will not allow the market to be supplied. That is the root cause of this logjam.

Edited September 9, 2010 by John The Pessimist

[Boomer Baby]

You cannot run an economy like this, it's totally mental. Gramps isn't just sitting there minding his own business, he's sitting on a prime piece of real estate that's being under used because he's monopolising it. An efficient healthy economy requires the best use of finite resources, but how can we achieve this when the productive are forced to live miles from their workplace because the best locations are occupied by geriatrics? They don't need to be there, if they're just sitting indoors all day then it doesn't matter where they are. There are loads of other locations that can be used to facilitate a quiet life that doesn't involve intereference with others, and this can be achieved without the opportunity cost that we currently suffer. Allowing the productive to occupy the most productice locations and the economically inactive to occupy locations that are less boutiful would seem like a more sensible political compromise to me.

An interesting approach Chef.

As I’m semi-retired but living in a 4 bedroomed house would it be OK by you for me to move, say, to a 2 bed terrace in the same area or do you think a one-bedroom flat might be more to my needs and your liking?

Obviously, your radical approach to valuable resource re-distribution should not stop with houses. What about cars, bikes and season tickets? I mean, do you have a car and are you using it to maximum capacity? Anything less than 10,000 miles pa clearly requires you restrict yourself to no more than 850 cc as you simply don’t need it, do you?

As I travel considerably more than that (semi-retired means I drive a great deal to work throughout the UK) then I’ll look forward to getting a decent car sometime soon from some unproductive wastrel living close to their work, running an utterly pointless 2 litre motor and delighted, I’m sure to have my 15 year old runabout.

Let’s not stop there; is it reasonable I have a smart laptop when all I use it for is correspondence, doing my business accounts and surfing the net? Maybe there is a debt-riddled youngster who might benefit from my laptop – maybe yours as well – or has the CRAP (Chef Re-allocated Aged’s Property) initiative yet to develop its thinking (hah) that far?

And although I’m having a little rant, don’t imagine for a moment I don’t understand the underlying problem. With two grown kids struggling to hold down jobs, buy homes and pay taxes I really do recognise the inequalities and unfairness of the current position and absolutely accept that as a society we cannot continue promising ourselves things that the next generation have to pay for if at the same time we force living costs up to a point where paying for anything becomes a nightmare.

So, why did you vote for it? Why did you allow QE to happen, for the bankers to be bailed out, for manufacturing to be sold off to the highest bidder? Why did you cast your vote for successive governments to rob you blind?

What’s that…you DIDN’T vote for it?

Oh, I see, generational guilt only works if you’re born before 1965.

Numpty.

[dissident junk]

towns and cities are now full of 1 and 2 bed apartments, if not full of chavs, then these should be handy for 60 somethings, great for the theatre and city centre, and days out around the country by train

But there's an issue with stairs, and noise, and not having any outside space with a lot of British flats -- plus older people don't tend to want to live in cities and towns with weekend mayhem and loads of traffic.

I think that's why so many retired people loved Spain -- they could sell up, buy a nice villa (mostly a bungalow), had a bit of an area to sit out and nice weather with a good community around them, and drink wine.

I know a few older people who sold up to go into "executive apartments" in Britain, not realising that they couldn't really manage the "hotel feel" of some many converted places, and that the flats were so small, they had no place for a clothes horse, and they couldn't do three flights of stairs with a haul of supermarket shopping.

I am not making excuses for the older generation, but I do think the way Britain has gone in the last thirty years vis a vis housing, society etc has put us all in a bind.

[dissident junk]

This is correct. We have a mis-allocation of land.

We have old people cowering in their 5 bedroomed houses scared to go outside because of all the "youths" wandering the streets, while the kids have no choice but to wander the streets as they are living 3 to a bedroom in crappy little flats with no gardens.

It's ridiculous. There is no other word for it.

What we need is purpose built accommodation... purpose built TOWNS for old people. Gated towns with controlled access so they can walk the streets without fear. Towns of single floor houses with bathrooms designed for the elderly, doorways big enough to get wheelchairs through. Towns with pubs and clubs and restaurants targeted at the elderly. Towns designed to pedestrians and people on mobility scooters, not 4x4s. Towns with hospitals designed to care for the elderly. Towns built AWAY from offices and factories and schools. Towns with fresh air, warmer weather, plenty of space.

The towns we have now aren't designed for the elderly, they are designed for working people, families. What we have done is pander to a single generation and allow them to waste important national resources... which is what housing is. Councils are openly trying to adapt the facilities in towns for the elderly. We have ended up with towns and cities which half meet the needs of the elderly, provide we subsidise them enough, and don't meet the needs of business... and as a result, business and manufacturing has simple left the UK.

The result is now we don't have enough production to fund the subsidy anymore.

There is one logical solution if we intend to allow the elderly to retire in any form of comfort... we need to convert Devon into the worlds biggest retirement complex.

I can see why you say this, but there has been a lot of research over the last ten years in what makes "the good society".

There's two pieces I read that come to mind: one was about a reading project that got elderly people in a home to read to primary school children, and the other was about a trial that placed elderly housing next to a primary school.

In both cases, it turned out that the beneficial impact of having young children near to elderly people was astonishing. It calmed the young children down and brightened up the elderly; OAPs didn't detioriate as fast as they normally do in homes and the young children's learning capacities were accelerated.

One of the conslusions to the research was that maybe elderly people are supposed to around young children and visa versa. Indeed, that is one of the medical explanations for the female menopause -- that it allows older women to look after their own grandchildren and do the job of passing on folk knowledge while parents are busy finding food, hunting, cooking, cleaning, defending ... all that kind of thing.

Indeed, when you look at societies that people admire for their child-friendliness and lack of anti-social behaviour, what you tend to find is that they are societies that include all age groups in public space.

I do wonder whether one of our problems in Britain is that we've created a society and environment where many public spaces prohibit elderly people and children -- they are adult only places.

[Authoritarian]

An interesting approach Chef.

Thanks.

As I’m semi-retired but living in a 4 bedroomed house would it be OK by you for me to move, say, to a 2 bed terrace in the same area or do you think a one-bedroom flat might be more to my needs and your liking?

I don't mind where you live as long as you're paying full market price for your government trinkets.

Obviously, your radical approach to valuable resource re-distribution should not stop with houses. What about cars, bikes and season tickets? I mean, do you have a car and are you using it to maximum capacity? Anything less than 10,000 miles pa clearly requires you restrict yourself to no more than 850 cc as you simply don’t need it, do you?

Why, would you purchase a season ticket and then decide to not use it? If course not, it would be a total waste. The difference between a season ticket and property though is that when you decide to waste your ticket you're not preventing anyone else from accessing that particular service, which isn't true with property.

Would you monopolise a whole carriage, not use it and then claim that you're actions have zero impact on others when they're still standing at the station?

Let’s not stop there; is it reasonable I have a smart laptop when all I use it for is correspondence, doing my business accounts and surfing the net? Maybe there is a debt-riddled youngster who might benefit from my laptop – maybe yours as well – or has the CRAP (Chef Re-allocated Aged’s Property) initiative yet to develop its thinking (hah) that far?

If you had a load of old laptops that you weren't using then likelyhood is that you would liquidiate them because

1) they're going down in value, and

2) you could trade them for something else that you would use.

Land works differently though, it tends to go up in value which encourages hoarding and waste of finite resources. Which is something you obviously support because you benefit from the extra costs thrust upon others.

And although I’m having a little rant, don’t imagine for a moment I don’t understand the underlying problem. With two grown kids struggling to hold down jobs, buy homes and pay taxes I really do recognise the inequalities and unfairness of the current position and absolutely accept that as a society we cannot continue promising ourselves things that the next generation have to pay for if at the same time we force living costs up to a point where paying for anything becomes a nightmare.

I think you''ve clearly demonstrated that you don't understand the problem.

So, why did you vote for it? Why did you allow QE to happen, for the bankers to be bailed out, for manufacturing to be sold off to the highest bidder? Why did you cast your vote for successive governments to rob you blind?

What’s that…you DIDN’T vote for it?

Oh, I see, generational guilt only works if you’re born before 1965.

How many MP's aged 28 or under have actively voted for all these policies though? AFAIK there's one Lib Dem MP that's my age in the Commons. I think if you tracked her down she might be able to help you on your quest for finding the age group responsible for our financial predicament.

Numpty.

Classic boomer charm

Edited September 9, 2010 by Chef

[Errol]

Towns with fresh air, warmer weather, plenty of space.

Warmer weather? We can control this??

[Cinzano Bianco]

Current tax policies that encourage people to hoard

Right, so you agree... it's not gramps you should have a beef with.

land that they're not using properly. When I say 'properly' I mean using it in a way that is well below its economic potential. Say if a farm had the capacity to produce 1000 carrots per annum and it's price reflected that, but the owner decided to keep it idle then this is a measurable waste of finite resources. Having elderly people occupy naturally rich locations without using them properly wastes the national wealth, and imposes costs upon others. They now have to spend their time working a field that is only capable of producing 500 carrots pa which is unfair as it takes twice as long to produce the same yield.

Seriously, dude, life really shouldn't boil down to the amount of carrots that could be grown if an old person didnt occupy that space. I think this country has the wrong approach to a finite time on this planet to be honest. This country really isn't short of anything, it's just managed very poorly by a bunch of feckers.

His presence acts as a restiction upon others because that space is now no longer available.

His presence is bothering you... so what, surely thats your problem. Are you saying he is living in his house to spite you?

If he wants to continue using it then I don't mind if he pays market price for it.

Oh, well as long as you don't mind, thats ok then. The real point here is that the system is fecked, I agree.

He is if he's an owner of real estate.

Dude, bigger picture. He owns a house he want's to enjoy. Who is controlling the policies of the way the land is used... even the land that gramps owns?

I don't think I am, if gramps agrees with me and believes that we should reform the tax system so that this state of affairs is less likely to arise then there's no problem.

Gramps can agree or disagree, surely that's jos right. Either way, until he decides that he wants to move, he is perfectly entitled to stay where he is. I don't understand why you think he should move because it suits you...

If he wants to restrict my liberty by claiming that his needs are greater than mine (when in fact they're equal) then I am blaming the right people.

So you want him to get out of your way, because he is restricting your liberty? A little ironic.

They can do what they want, but we need to recognise the economic implications of forcing the young and productive out into the margins of society. It decreases the national wealth, causes resentment, entenches a systematic misallocation of finite resources and forces large sections of the population to live in areas that are totally unsuitable for their needs.

Yes, ok we could all do with thinking about the bigger picture more than we do, including you and I.

And the young should just be told to grin and bear it?

No, i agree with your last point. I don't think that means gramps should be out on his ear.

I don't want to force them to move anywhere, I would like to see home owners pay for the gov't services that they receive. So if somebody wanted to occupy a key location in London it would be reflected in their tax bill, that way those that wanted the services enough to pay market price for them would naturally gravitiate towards the areas that were most suitable for their needs.

What gov't services? We are talking about living in a house. Anyway, I agree with land value tax for multiple home, since that to me seems to be hoarding land... but on the house you live in? No way. You are saying you want the state to control where people live by the use of this kind of policy.

Capitalism is strong in you Chef, and that's cool... but I think too much of this single ideology is not the path to a happy society. I am seriously pissed off i cannot afford a nice house, but i try and make the best of what i have. The focus of anger should definately not be at old people who want to live in a nice house, they aren't doing it to piss you off... i rent next door to a single old lady who lives in a massive chalet bungalow, and i dont think she laughs maniacally when she see me, poor renter scum who could never afford her house, through her window.