Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th

[FoxEye]

A house is still an asset whether you want to believe that it is or not, I'm sorry that reality conflicts with your own imagination.

My point is, that the "value" of that house is negated by the cost of a replacement house or the cost of renting.

If your house is worth £100 and average rent is £1/month, or your house is worth £100,000 and rent is £1000/month, how are you better off with a £100,000 house? Assuming you aren't going to sell up, ***** all your money then die of a cocaine overdose with a smile on your face?

Actually the country is much better off with houses worth £100 each than £100,000 each. In the current climate, having a house that's worth £250k does *not* make you any better off than having a house back when they cost £40k each. You always need a place to live. If you sell your house for it's cash value you will still need to buy another or start renting. If you rent, you will pay market value and quickly (over a period of years) lose that money.

That idea that a family is "well off" because their £40k house became a £250k house over the years is not in keeping with reality. Unless you intend to sell up and move abroad, somewhere where housing is cheaper...

 

[antijoke]

Persuade your parents to die quicker, problem solved.

News headline from 2049:

State officials investigationg sharp rise in mystery deaths of millions of pensioners. Relatives suspected of turning off heating during harsh arctic winter thought to be possible causes.

Would you like to know more?

I see this as a little short sighted again. a lot of the young rely on decent inheritance to get on the property ladder themselves. Without that.... Many wont be able to afford homes themselves.

What happens when the next generation have not assets for the tories to take away / deduct from. Blame it on labour?

They don't think that far ahead.

 

[xyphic]

Having to sell the family home to pay for care costs would make him homeless. Which then creates the moral question whether at least partly that asset belongs to him.

Forcing people to sell the things they've worked all their lives for to pay for their old age is also morally questionable. It fundamentally changes how future generations will view the importance of owning a home -- if you own a home but have no other savings, are the government going to force you to sell up to pay for your care (even if that care is at home)? I'm sure the country's landlords won't be crying into their cornflakes this morning as the rental market threatens to boom.

Call me a dirty communist, but I prefer to treat the elder generations with the respect that they deserve; they've worked hard for the things they have, and I think that a just society should bear the burden of the cost of their care. I plan to be old one day, and I'd kinda like to hope that my country respects me enough to not usher me into my grave as quickly as it can.

 

[dowie]

That idea that a family is "well off" because their £40k house became a £250k house over the years is not in keeping with reality. Unless you intend to sell up and move abroad, somewhere where housing is cheaper...

Or downsize or pay for some care that you now need... ergo the topic we're discussing. It is an asset and it can be made use of, that is simple fact.

 

[FoxEye]

I think FoxEye's issues stems from his emotional view of his current home. For me (and I assume you dowie), my home is different from my parents' home. It was the family home when I was younger, but now it isn't, and it makes things a lot easier to separate.

In a way I see FoxEye's point, his parents' home is his home. Having to sell the family home to pay for care costs would make him homeless. Which then creates the moral question whether at least partly that asset belongs to him.

That isn't my argument.

My point is that just because your family home increases from £40k in 1970 to £250k in 2017, means very little. Why? Because everybody else's house did the same, and so did rents.

Unless you sell up and move abroad where it's cheaper, you still need to participate in the housing market, which is currently hyper inflated.

 

[dowie]

I see this as a little short sighted again. a lot of the young rely on decent inheritance to get on the property ladder themselves. Without that.... Many wont be able to afford homes themselves.

What happens when the next generation have not assets for the tories to take away / deduct from. Blame it on labour?

this is getting hilarious... now we've got another one advocating for dynastic wealth...

like I said earlier I think part of this reaction is simply because it is being proposed by the Tories

(also it seems to have been missed again that taking 50k or so in care costs from a 250k home isn't leaving people with nothing to inherit)

 

[FoxEye]

Or downsize or pay for some care that you now need... ergo the topic we're discussing. It is an asset and it can be made use of, that is simple fact.

Personally, and this is just our own case, we can't downsize.

The house has three bedroom, and currently is occupied by my mother, brother (can't get a mortgage) and myself (can't get a mortgage).

If we are forced to sell this house, my brother and I become homeless. If the value of the house is given to the care providers, my brother and I become renters for the rest of our lives.

But I'm not just concerned with my own situation. This is becoming a worrying problem for >30% of the population!

 

[dowie]

Personally, and this is just our own case, we can't downsize.

The house has three bedroom, and currently is occupied by my mother, brother (can't get a mortgage) and myself (can't get a mortgage).

If we are forced to sell this house, my brother and I become homeless. If the value of the house is given to the care providers, my brother and I become renters for the rest of our lives.

But I'm not just concerned with my own situation. This is becoming a worrying problem for >30% of the population!

Well your parents could downsize to a one bedroom property if their adult offspring had moved out! (Though presumably as they have adult offspring living with them then they're probably not going to be as reliant on carers anyway!)

If you and your brother are still living together after your parents die then you could always pay for any costs incurred for care and not sell the home... though this is a bit odd - do you not plan to have a relationship some day? Or do you and your brother both expect to carry on living with each other in a 3 bedroom house and then potentially both move partners in there too? I'd suspect that most people would want to sell that home at some point and spilt the proceeds between them.

 

[FoxEye]

Forcing people to sell the things they've worked all their lives for to pay for their old age is also morally questionable. It fundamentally changes how future generations will view the importance of owning a home -- if you own a home but have no other savings, are the government going to force you to sell up to pay for your care (even if that care is at home)? I'm sure the country's landlords won't be crying into their cornflakes this morning as the rental market threatens to boom.

Exactly. And I'm sure this is intentional on the part of the Tories. If this housing ends up in the hands of BTL landlords they are laughing, so long as it isn't too concentrated.

What the Tories want is for 2/3 of the population to be at least somewhat well off, and voting Tory in perpetuity.

The remaining 1/3 can be the working class, tenant class. It doesn't matter how they vote. It doesn't matter if they have to use food banks to keep themselves alive. So long as they are providing their (cheap) labour, the Tories are happy. Just have to make sure the unions have no teeth either.

Well your parents could downsize to a one bedroom property if their adult offspring had moved out! (Though presumably as they have adult offspring living with them then they're probably not going to be as reliant on carers anyway!)

If you and your brother are still living together after your parents die then you could always pay for any costs incurred for care and not sell the home... though this is a bit odd - do you not plan to have a relationship some day? Or do you and your brother both expect to carry on living with each other in a 3 bedroom house and then potentially both move partners in there too? I'd suspect that most people would want to sell that home at some point and spilt the proceeds between them.

A lot depends on how reluctant banks are to lend in the coming years. Currently neither of us have any chance of getting a mortgage. He's self employed, and my income is irregular/seasonal (and minimum wage).

Without the family home I have a choice of renting forever or getting out of the UK. If the Tories mould this country in their image, I'll be buying some (cheap) plane tickets before too long!

 

[Mr Badger]

The fixation with rising UK house prices so regularly exhorted in Daily Express headlines does seem to be a British disease. I have a lot of sympathy with the view that people should have the right to own an affordable home, however that is now plainly impossible in some areas. Buy to let landlords and holiday home owners amongst those that can make an area unaffordable for those ordinary working folk that don't have rich parents. Now it looks as though you won't even be able to inherit your parents home or leave yours to your kids if long term illness strikes. The even sadder image is of some elderly dementia victim who doesn't even realise that the state is taking away the home that they thought would be passed on whilst they dribble away their last few years. Maybe it's time for another look at living wills, assisted dying etc?

 

[Pudney]

That isn't my argument.

My point is that just because your family home increases from £40k in 1970 to £250k in 2017, means very little. Why? Because everybody else's house did the same, and so did rents.

Unless you sell up and move abroad where it's cheaper, you still need to participate in the housing market, which is currently hyper inflated.

Your mother owns her house, if she goes into care it only needs to be sold when she dies to cover the care costs subject to leaving £100k to her estate. That all seems reasonable. There would be no need to participate in the housing market, which is hyper inflated (I'll accept that as fact).

Personally, and this is just our own case, we can't downsize.

The house has three bedroom, and currently is occupied by my mother, brother (can't get a mortgage) and myself (can't get a mortgage).

If we are forced to sell this house, my brother and I become homeless. If the value of the house is given to the care providers, my brother and I become renters for the rest of our lives.

But I'm not just concerned with my own situation. This is becoming a worrying problem for >30% of the population!

Here's the combined issue.

Your issue is that your mum owns a £240k asset but it's unfair to ask her to downsize. Not because of the impact on her living, but because you and your brother would be homeless. Which is why I said I believe your fundamental issue is that you view the house as the "family home". To you it's a home for the family and not just your mum. Whereas in reality the asset is hers alone (and I'm approaching this from a logical and dispassionate point of view).

 

[FoxEye]

Your mother owns her house, if she goes into care it only needs to be sold when she dies to cover the care costs subject to leaving £100k to her estate. That all seems reasonable. There would be no need to participate in the housing market, which is hyper inflated (I'll accept that as fact).

My brother and I would need to participate in the housing market post-sale. Whilst we are separate legal entities from our mother, we are a single family unit.

Here's the combined issue.

Your issue is that your mum owns a £240k asset but it's unfair to ask her to downsize. Not because of the impact on her living, but because you and your brother would be homeless. Which is why I said I believe your fundamental issue is that you view the house as the "family home". To you it's a home for the family and not just your mum. Whereas in reality the asset is hers alone (and I'm approaching this from a logical and dispassionate point of view).

I do wonder what the combined cost to the state of my brother I being homeless would be?

We would both claim housing benefit, or look to state subsidised housing schemes. We would be on income support, etc... hopefully paying less council tax, etc.

I wonder if you tot it all up, who would benefit?

 

[ubersonic]

You do realise that we already massively subsidise the national rail network

Yes, but the situation now is better than it was under British Rail.

 

[Uther]

My brother and I would need to participate in the housing market post-sale. Whilst we are separate legal entities from our mother, we are a single family unit.


I do wonder what the combined cost to the state of my brother I being homeless would be?

We would both claim housing benefit, or look to state subsidised housing schemes. We would be on income support, etc... hopefully paying less council tax, etc.

I wonder if you tot it all up, who would benefit?

Well you'd come out of the house sale with around 50k each, so you would get zero state support. Go into private rental and burn through the money in a couple of years, or move abroad/up north and buy a hovel.
Probably not what your mum was thinking when she bought the place...

 

[dowie]

I do wonder what the combined cost to the state of my brother I being homeless would be?

We would both claim housing benefit, or look to state subsidised housing schemes. We would be on income support, etc... hopefully paying less council tax, etc.

I wonder if you tot it all up, who would benefit?

you'll still likely inherit 200k between the pair of you - if she sadly passes when you're still living there then it will take a while before you burn through that and get to the 16k threshold for housing benefit... maybe by then you'll have a job, partner etc.. and can afford to rent somewhere via an evil BTL landlord


Yes life is so unfair - you perhaps won't be able to live in a mortgage free home while only undertaking sporadic seasonal work for minimum wage...

 

[Judgeneo]

 

[FoxEye]

Yes, but the situation now is better than it was under British Rail.

BR hasn't existed since 1997. That's a long time ago. Modern state-run rail networks in other countries are performing well. There is no reason to believe that a 21st century state-run railway in the UK would be a failure.

Let's not forget that the UK's rail industry started off in private hands. After a few boom years, things were going downhill. Many companies were losing money. The idea that a private rail network must always be better than a state-run network is just not borne out by history if nothing else.

 

[Tefal]

My brother and I would need to participate in the housing market post-sale. Whilst we are separate legal entities from our mother, we are a single family unit.


I do wonder what the combined cost to the state of my brother I being homeless would be?

We would both claim housing benefit, or look to state subsidised housing schemes. We would be on income support, etc... hopefully paying less council tax, etc.

I wonder if you tot it all up, who would benefit?

you'd have 50k in cash you could easily get a mortgage to buy a semi reasonable small house.

im confused as to why you only do some seasonal min wage work though and expect to some how be abkle to live compared to a person in full time above min wage employment and blame your position on the government.

 

[FoxEye]

you'll still likely inherit 200k between the pair of you - if she sadly passes when you're still living there then it will take a while before you burn through that and get to the 16k threshold for housing benefit... maybe by then you'll have a job, partner etc.. and can afford to rent somewhere via an evil BTL landlord


Yes life is so unfair - you perhaps won't be able to live in a mortgage free home while only undertaking sporadic seasonal work for minimum wage...

Tell me, do you have less of an issue with a russian billionaire buying up the property? Perhaps he inherited his business/his wealth/his connections from his parents?

This is too funny. It's *not* OK to inherit your family home. That's communism.

But it's OK to sell off your housing stock to foreign (and London) investors, who may have inherited their wealth/power from their parents.

Because when you're rich you always earned it; when you're poor you deserve nothing, pleb!

e: Putting it another way - it's not OK to inherit your family home, but it's OK to inherit privelege (that's just good breeding, dear chap!). It's a fact that something like 3/4 of the best paid (CEOs, etc) came from privileged backgrounds, only 1/4 coming from poor backgrounds, etc).

This is the hypocrisy of your average Tory voter. Down-playing the effect of the privelege that was bestowed upon them by their parents, whist seeking to deny work-class parents from helping their kids. Classical Tory.

 

[ubersonic]

BR hasn't existed since 1997.

/snip

The idea that a private rail network must always be better than a state-run network is just not borne out by history if nothing else.

You said at the start that BR has been dead for 20 years, so history does bear it out. Services are much better now than they have ever been, stations that were closed during nationalisation have re-opened, passengers numbers are well up on nationalisation figures, quality of services improved. Yes prices have gone up but that would have happened under BR too, the difference is now the whole country isn't paying for London to get cheaper tickets.