Sunday, April 22, 2012

If they didn’t waste all their money on iPods, they could move out, right?

Home stretch: What happens when twentysomethings move back in with their parents?

Spiralling property prices and the collapse of the labour market are forcing many young people (and some not so young) to move back in with their parents. But how are both generations coping with this living arrangement? The figures speak for themselves. According to the Office for National Statistics, almost a third of men and a fifth of women aged between 20 and 34 live at home with their parents. "After uni I moved into a flat with a friend. I thought it would be great. But the whole thing just felt like being a student again. The flat was disgusting. It was cheap and horrible and damp and dark. The kitchen was tiny and the bathroom hadn't been fixed for years and years. It was above an Arabic bookshop that played loud music until midnight every night."

Posted by drewster @ 05:15 PM (1893 views)
Please complete the required fields.

8 thoughts on “If they didn’t waste all their money on iPods, they could move out, right?

  • mark wadsworth says:

    Yup, it is a well established fact that nobody over 35 owns an iPod, a flat screen TV or a new car. None of them goes on holiday abroad or has ever borrowed money on the rising value of their houses. None of them muck about on the internet, so none of them will be reading this. They are paragons of thrift and it is younger people entirely to blame for simultaneously wasting all their money on iPods, not saving for a deposit, lazing about on the dole AND taking out eye watering mortgages, thus driving up the price of houses – despite the best efforts of the older generations to keep house prices down by encouraging a lot of new supply.

    The government is run purely for the benefit of youngsters, who neither have to pay tax nor pay rent, and completely against the interests of older people, which is why the Lib-Cons decided to e.g. scrap tuition fees which older people had to pay, has abolished state pensions and Labour before them finally put an end to the Major government’s open door immigration policy which merely served to undercut wages of younger workers..

    Lazy whining malingering so and so’s, I tell you.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • @MW

    This is not in response to your comment above but would you mind answering the following please:

    Whilst I might appear to be hostile to LVT I’m not dismissing it out of hand but I certainly want to know more about it before expressing support for it.

    I appreciate that people like yourself advocate LVT in good faith but my concerns are as follows, I’m not suggesting for one moment that you personally think along these lines:

    1. Is LVT a genuine attempt to reform the tax system for the benefit of the majority or is it a vehicle to wage class warfare driven by envy of those who own property?

    2. However, my greatest fear is that if LVT was introduced presumably there would be a transitional period where it was levied alongside existing forms of taxation. Call me cynical but I think the temptation amongst politicians to retain the existing taxes and add LVT as an extra tax would be something they could not resist and Joe Public simply finishes up being taxed even more heavily.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • it should be titled what happens when 20-40 somethings move back in with their parents, it seems to be more and more common for 3 generations to a house now, what happened to freedom and quality of life in the UK oh yeh it went down the drain with our gold reserves

    Please complete the required fields.

  • @Mark & Mr G
    Back in 1998 people bought houses or collected gold coins with no real understanding what was going to happen over the next 15 years. If someone bought gold, or a house back then, they should be feeling comfortable, right now.

    The Labour government presided over a very difficult period of history, but one where the availability of finance was increased year on year. By the time of the credit crunch most folk realised (too late) what had happened and correction of the problem was obviously going to be painful!

    I’m not sure of LVT or how it would work if/when introduced. For sure it would catch some people who are currently escaping (or wriggling through) the tax net. Unfortunately there isn’t any real forum where tax can be honestly debated as virtually everyone would like to reduce their tax burden (onto everyone else). This extends to charitable contributions (I make them) and pasties (I eat them).

    I know what the problem is and admit I’m part of it. Where next?

    Please complete the required fields.

  • mark wadsworth says:

    Mr G:

    1. Look at the list of proponents. From my personal experience, and I know plenty of LVTers, most are politically neutral, there are a few Tories or Ukippers who support it, a lot of Lib Dems, some Socialists, some Christians, some Greens. Very few mainstream Labour people, interestingly, Richard Murhpy is dead against, for example. Adam Smith was very much in favour and Milton Friedman admitted LVT was the least bad tax. Quite who supports it and why is irrelevant anyway. And of all the LVTers I know, all see it as a replacement tax. For sure, the Socialists would keep Inheritance Tax and only use the proceeds to bump up the tax free personal allowance to £20,000 or whatever; the Scottish Greens have only proposed using it to replace council tax and Business Rates.

    And so on, very few are ‘Single taxers’ who’d get rid of all taxes. Me, actually I’m a Single Taxer. So the lefties say “Ah, but we hate this idea, because it means you’d get rid of income tax and Inheritance Tax, so you’re just a lap dog for high earners and the wealthy” and the right-wingers say “Ah, but you hate wealth and success so you are taxing wealth and attacking the aristocracy”. As it happens, neither is true. There would be winners and losers all the way up or down the income scale, you cannot generalise and say that “Wealthy people would be worse off” because the proverbial Poor Widow would be worse off but a £5 million a year Premier League player who lives in a £5 million mansion would be hugely better off – now you tell me, who is wealthier – a Premier League football player or a Poor Widow? And neither is being a Single Taxer anti-poor people. With VAT, income tax, NIC, corp tax and so on gone, there would be more jobs, so there’d simply be fewer really poor people (i.e. fewer unemployed).

    2. This is one of the few possibly valid arguments against.

    However, we know for a fact that people don’t mind stealth taxes. The Lib-Cons hiked VAT and NIC and hope to get an extra £20 billion a year, there wasn’t much of an outcry. People also hate in-your-face taxes like Council Tax (or LVT) so if the Lib-Cons had proposed raising that extra £20 billion by doubling Council Tax, all Hell would have broken loose.

    Therefore I conclude to make it stick, for every extra £1 raised in LVT, other stealth taxes would have to be demonstrably reduced by £2 so that a majority of people realise that they are actually far better off.

    Anyways, this is all hypothetical. You can make up your own list of “most hated taxes” and make up your own mind about the optimum level of government spending and redistribution.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • Of all the things Mark has said about LVT, the bit which has really interested me is the theme of tax evasion or tax avoidance loop holes.
    I think Mark was saying that somebody somewhere has to pay a tax where land is concerned whereas, with certain other types of tax, some people weazel out of paying the full whack expected.

    I don’t think that this is necessarily true. It depends on the fine detail of the law which would be enacted. I can imagine a ‘pro-business’ message government distinguishing the tax which a company would pay and the tax which an individual would pay – thus causing weaseling out of paying the full whack of tax expected.

    I think that ‘LVT’ is too much of a blanket term since it could be legislated in so many ways.

    If it was my passion then I would start off by giving my vision of it a different name to ‘LVT’ and have a web site that detailed what it would mean and what it would not mean. In that way, opponents of another version of LVT would not switch off at the mention of my version of LVT just because it is also called LVT.

    There might be a person living alone in a 3 bedroom house who would rally behind one interpretation of LVT but shun another.

    You could take a tip from the recent past and call it …..
    ‘New LVT’ !!

    Please complete the required fields.

  • mark wadsworth says:

    Alan: “I’m not sure of LVT or how it would work if/when introduced.”

    Easy, you look at the list of actual taxes and how much they raise. You decide which ones you don’t like and should be scrapped, this gives you a number in £x billions. You find out the total value of all UK land and buildings at current market values (somewhere between £5,000 and £6,000 billion, depending on whom you believe). you divide £x billions by £5,000 or £6,000 billions and that gives you a percentage. You then apply this percentage to all land and buildings.

    A bit rough and ready, but gets us three-quarters of the way there. My fag packet tells me a Single Tax system (replacing income tax, VAT, corp tax, NIC, council tax, Inheritance Tax, the lot) would be about 7% of the current value of land and buildings.

    As a tweak, you then radically simplify the welfare system to be flat rate universal payments, which is like a personal allowance against your LVT bill. So by definition, the median household in the median home pays precisely £nil in terms of taxes, because the LVT and Citizen’s Income net off to nothing. They pay zero tax on their earned income, and if they lose their jobs and can’t find a new one, they have to downsize.

    Please complete the required fields.

  • mark wadsworth says:

    Mdmick: “I think that ‘LVT’ is too much of a blanket term since it could be legislated in so many ways.”

    Agreed. Business Rates is so close to LVT as makes little difference, old Domestic Rates combined with Schedule A was so close to LVT as made no difference.

    Please complete the required fields.

Add a comment

  • 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
  • Please adhere to the Guidelines

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes:

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>