House prices rose 7.3% this year, average now almost £250k

[413x]

I will continue to make every effort to correct people that regurgitate the usual NIMBY-esque nonsense that comes with these arguments.

The great myth of urban Britain


In short, there is plenty of space in the UK.

Plenty of space if you want to live in a mega city. I'd like to emigrate from uk eventually. There are is less and less space all the time. Wildlife decline is massive. It's really sad.

And really, farm land classes as "built on" in that it isn't available to nature.

I am making steps towards not just moaning about it. Moved to Wales to escape human influence on the land, in time hope to escape the UK entirely.

Its too humanised for me

 

[HEADRAT]

Perhaps if the Govt stopped practically giving them away to those who have simply lived in them for a long period, then that wouldn't be the case.

Oh you've lived in a council house for 20 years? Well then, I suppose you could buy it for £30k now So nearly the same return as the person who got a mortgage then....

"Right to Buy" was a Government policy, it doesn't naturally mean that any council housing scheme would have to follow the same policy.

 

[FoxEye]

Thus the question - if things are so bad there then why not move elsewhere to look for work... it isn't much good just complaining about an area being unaffordable relative to the jobs available, if that's the case then perhaps it would have been better to look elsewhere for work. I'm not saying you should do so... I mean if you are happy living with parents and with local job prospects then that's cool... the other people it affects could move though.

I mean if someone grows up in some old mining town in say Wales or somewhere up north etc.. and the previous big source of employment that used to sustain the town has long gone then perhaps exploring options elsewhere would be worthwhile... It does seem that people are reluctant to move within the UK.

Perhaps it could be a bit moot post-Covid with more and more jobs involving working from home - less of an excuse then even if staying put at least for anyone in an industry/line of work that lends itself to remote working.

Not saying this is the whole reason, but for one it would cost me more in rent to live elsewhere, and I'd be able to save less money for an eventual deposit. Of course if house prices keep inflating at current rates I might never be able to afford a deposit anyhow Won't be long before a 15% deposit is £50k, for an ex-Council house.

 

[HACO]

Nope, per km^2, Belgium is 376, England is 424 and the Netherlands is 521.

You're right, Belgium is above the UK, below England.

 

[FoxEye]

"Right to Buy" was a Government policy, it doesn't naturally mean that any council housing scheme would have to follow the same policy.

From everything I've read "Right to Buy" applies to all Council houses, and binds every Council's hands that they must sell for a minimum 35% discount if the tenant wants to buy the property. IANAL tho.

 

[HEADRAT]

From everything I've read "Right to Buy" applies to all Council houses, and binds every Council's hands that they must sell for a minimum 35% discount if the tenant wants to buy the property. IANAL tho.

I guess that policy can always change though given the political will.

 

[413x]

Can the divide keep going?

Obviously buy to let people have to pick up the slack in the fall in home ownership. To prop the prices up.

But if this does happen prices won't fall and ever fewer people will own thier own homes.

It'll be a end of life care disaster. With more people with less and nothing to pass on.

This needs addressing, I bet the tories never will

This goes in have with pension decreases.



Eventually old people will just be put out to pasture. The young won't be able to afford to pay the olds pensions.
And the old won't have anything to pay for thier own care

 

[dowie]

Not saying this is the whole reason, but for one it would cost me more in rent to live elsewhere, and I'd be able to save less money for an eventual deposit. Of course if house prices keep inflating at current rates I might never be able to afford a deposit anyhow Won't be long before a 15% deposit is £50k, for an ex-Council house.

Yeah it probably would - which is why it wouldn't make sense to move for a similar job (or rather salary) to the one you currently have now unless it offered scope for better career progression. If you could get higher paying jobs elsewhere then it can make perfect sense, the increase in rent being more than eclipsed by the increased salary/bonus.

I guess we'll have to see how flexible employers become with home working, hopefully more high paying roles will be available that don't require relocating to London, go for those and property isn't so much of an issue.

 

[dowie]

Can the divide keep going?

Obviously buy to let people have to pick up the slack in the fall in home ownership. To prop the prices up.

But if this does happen prices won't fall and ever fewer people will own thier own homes.

It'll be a end of life care disaster. With more people with less and nothing to pass on.

This needs addressing, I bet the tories never will

They already tried to under May - amusingly some of the football-shirt-politics types jumped on it with criticism - "OMG dementia tax" etc... ironically it wasn't popular with some conservatives either (as they want to preserve their wealth/future inheritance) and it was scrapped.

Currently we're on course for a big wealth transfer from boomers to millenials (and no doubt from Gen X to Gen Z) at some point... I'm not sure it's such a good thing that more of the middle classes will basically stay as middle classes thanks to dynastic wealth. I mean they largely will anyway thanks to other factors like educated parents being quite focused on their kid's education too etc.. But it shouldn't be as the result of transferring wealth.

Frankly social care in old age should be provided via assets if the person has them - this includes perhaps getting people to borrow against the family home (which arguably they perhaps should have considered selling and downsizing to a small bungalow or flat etc..).

Why should someone who has been an average earner/barely a net contributor or perhaps a housewife for most of their entire life then have their rather expensive social care or care home stay funded by the working population (many of whom can't even get on the property ladder) while they have an asset worth say 250k, 500k (or maybe even more in London) that could fund it instead.

 

[413x]

They already tried to under May - amusingly some of the football-shirt-politics types jumped on it with criticism - "OMG dementia tax" etc... ironically it wasn't popular with some conservatives either (as they want to preserve their wealth/future inheritance) and it was scrapped.

Currently we're on course for a big wealth transfer from boomers to millenials (and no doubt from Gen X to Gen Z) at some point... I'm not sure it's such a good thing that more of the middle classes will basically stay as middle classes thanks to dynastic wealth. I mean they largely will anyway thanks to other factors like educated parents being quite focused on their kid's education too etc.. But it shouldn't be as the result of transferring wealth.

Frankly social care in old age should be provided via assets if the person has them - this includes perhaps getting people to borrow against the family home (which arguably they perhaps should have considered selling and downsizing to a small bungalow or flat etc..).

Why should someone who has been an average earner/barely a net contributor or perhaps a housewife for most of their entire life then have their rather expensive social care or care home stay funded by the working population (many of whom can't even get on the property ladder) while they have an asset worth say 250k, 500k (or maybe even more in London) that could fund it instead.

I agree. If young with less and will have nothing later its only fair old use their 'by chance' capital gains through property price rises etc to pay for their care.
You want a low tax economy.. Well you'll still end up paying. Just in a different way.


I fully expect to have to use my house to pay for anything later in life.

I hope to have
my mortgage paid off
A private pension. (not big)

I don't count on
Public pension
Inheritance (thought may get some)

Even as a middle earner with no kids it's not going to be a fun retirement like my parents have.

Even earning above average salary I expect my retirement to be either hard or non existent.

FYI I've been putting in 10-20 percent of my wage (this incudes employee contributions) since I was 27. But this isn't enough for retirement.
Scary thoughts as there are many many more worse than me

 

[R.P.L]

Currently we're on course for a big wealth transfer from boomers to millenials (and no doubt from Gen X to Gen Z) at some point... I'm not sure it's such a good thing that more of the middle classes will basically stay as middle classes thanks to dynastic wealth. I mean they largely will anyway thanks to other factors like educated parents being quite focused on their kid's education too etc.. But it shouldn't be as the result of transferring wealth.

I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to pass their wealth onto their family. Surely part of being a successful parent is ensuring that your children are financially comfortable.

 

[dowie]

I don't see why someone shouldn't be able to pass their wealth onto their family. Surely part of being a successful parent is ensuring that your children are financially comfortable.

I didn't say they shouldn't, I'm saying others shouldn't need to pay for their social care when they have large assets available... if they have wealth left over once their care has been paid for then sure, pass that on. If they don't have wealth left over after paying for care home costs or costs of carers visiting that they've personally incurred then they don't have anything to pass on.

 

[R.P.L]

I didn't say they shouldn't, I'm saying others shouldn't need to pay for their social care when they have large assets available... if they have wealth left over once their care has been paid for then sure, pass that on. If they don't have wealth left over after paying for care home costs or costs of carers visiting that they've personally incurred then they don't have anything to pass on.

Well, you kind of did say that really though didn't you:

Currently we're on course for a big wealth transfer from boomers to millenials (and no doubt from Gen X to Gen Z) at some point... I'm not sure it's such a good thing that more of the middle classes will basically stay as middle classes thanks to dynastic wealth. I mean they largely will anyway thanks to other factors like educated parents being quite focused on their kid's education too etc.. But it shouldn't be as the result of transferring wealth.

 

[dowie]

Well, you kind of did say that really though didn't you:

Nope, I said what you quoted.

 

[R.P.L]

Nope, I said what you quoted.

You're funny

 

[dowie]

You're funny

If you say so. but to be clear, I'm not saying wealth shouldn't be passed on. I think people should pay for their care and I agree with IHT being applied to estates, I also oppose trust funds. I'd prefer it if society was more meritocratic. If you're going to respond to something I've said then do that rather than reply to some positon I don't hold.

 

[Haggisman]

I didn't say they shouldn't, I'm saying others shouldn't need to pay for their social care when they have large assets available... if they have wealth left over once their care has been paid for then sure, pass that on. If they don't have wealth left over after paying for care home costs or costs of carers visiting that they've personally incurred then they don't have anything to pass on.

The intention is nice, but I can't see how it would work in practice. If you get to the point where you foresee that you're going to lose your house to pay for care costs, then why wouldn't you just sell it and stick it all on black? You can't pass it on to your kids, so you may as well enjoy it!

 

[HACO]

The intention is nice, but I can't see how it would work in practice. If you get to the point where you foresee that you're going to lose your house to pay for care costs, then why wouldn't you just sell it and stick it all on black? You can't pass it on to your kids, so you may as well enjoy it!

So let them do it. That level of spending will stimulate the economy, fine. Also, if the house has appreciated in value, make them pay capital gains tax on it first.

It's absurd that a lot of us believe people who may have hundreds of thousands or millions in property wealth shouldn't have to sell their properties to pay for their case just because otherwise that's inheritance for their kids. If someone wants to blow through £500k+ worth of money, making themselves penniless, just to avoid paying £35k a year for their own social care, let them do it.

The absolute worst thing for the economy is to shield one asset class from taxation, means-testing, etc. and incentivise passing of it between generations as accumulated wealth. People should always be incentivised to spend their wealth, rather than accumulate it away from economic activities.

 

[Haggisman]

So let them do it. That level of spending will stimulate the economy, fine. Also, if the house has appreciated in value, make them pay capital gains tax on it first.

Yup, I'm sure the UK economy will benefit from pensioners spending tens/hundreds of thousands in Vegas.

It's absurd that a lot of us believe people who may have hundreds of thousands or millions in property wealth shouldn't have to sell their properties to pay for their case just because otherwise that's inheritance for their kids.

I never said I believe they shouldn't have to, but it's the same as any other tax - the more you penalise, the more people will try to find ways to avoid it.

If someone wants to blow through £500k+ worth of money, making themselves penniless, just to avoid paying £35k a year for their own social care, let them do it.

Quite, if you're going to get that social care anyway, then why not enjoy the money you've got as well? Although £500k is pushing it. 10 years @ £35k/year would easily wipe out the value of a family home in most places outside of London.

 

[dowie]

The intention is nice, but I can't see how it would work in practice. If you get to the point where you foresee that you're going to lose your house to pay for care costs, then why wouldn't you just sell it and stick it all on black? You can't pass it on to your kids, so you may as well enjoy it!

You can do whatever you want with your assets, that doesn't negate that some boomers are living by themselves in big family homes and that those assets could be used to pay for care... if they want to sell up and downsize then that helps re: housing too tbh...