Policies are put in place to address the issues of the time. There's an enormous baby boomer population retiring and about to retire now, sitting on and owning a disproportionate amount of wealth. When demographics change in the future, no doubt proposed policy will too.
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
Policies are put in place to address the issues of the time. There's an enormous baby boomer population retiring and about to retire now, sitting on and owning a disproportionate amount of wealth. When demographics change in the future, no doubt proposed policy will too.
I'm not sure I blame anyone who bought a house when they were cheap, and has lived in that one (single) house during their lifetime, and now wants to pass it on.
If you've used that good fortune (of buying when prices were sane) to create a property portfolio of 3+ houses, purely for BTL income, then yes I have no sympathy.
But when you talk about a disproportionate amount of wealth, you know where wealth is really disproportionate, don't you... For starters, the 2% we keep hearing about, who own something like 50% of assets in this country. Then the BTL with vast portfolios (often tens or hundreds of houses).
The BTL with a handful of properties don't get any sympathy, but they are small fry.
However the "baby boomer" pensioners who only ever owned one house; who still only own one house, and who now can't pass that on... I can't blame them for any wrong-doing. They are not "disproportionately wealthy" by any definition. It is sad that this policy will hurt these people the most.
So its time to hate and take the wealth off them since they done well in their lives?
Just start a separate thread for your BTL issues. You've been banging on about it for goodness knows how long, and weaving into every other single point you want to make just cheapens the discussion.
They are disproportionately wealthy compared to the current generation of people aspiring to buy their first home. You've already mentioned in this post that, in the past, people bought homes 'when they were cheap'.
Where's the hate? The discussion is centred around asking them to use some of that wealth to pay for their own specific needs that impact their specific generation.
It's much, much more naunced than that blanket statement.
They may or may not have "done well", by anyone's definition. They had the good fortune of being able to buy houses for a reasonable multiple of the average salary (4x or so).
*Some* of them took advantage of this good fortune to make money from the bad fortune of subsequent generations. Others did not.
I do not begrudge anyone who bought a house and lived in that house, only taking what they needed, their good fortune. They are not the ones to blame for the current housing crisis. It's the people who profited from their good fortune, bought up more property than they needed, and bent over their children's generation. Those are the people who can pay their own care costs.
You might not like it, but BTL is one of the driving forces of the current situation. Lack of building, yes, but property speculation and BTL continue to play their part in making this housing "crisis".
You can't say "make your own thread" when the two issues are linked hand in glove. They are almost the same issue.
Some are vastly more wealthy than others. Some only own their own home (one), and want to pass it to their children who have literally NO HOPE of buying their own house, EVER.
Some own 5, 10, 20 properties, and used their fortune to grab as much as they could, for reasons of greed.
Are they the same? Should we treat them the same?
In the context of paying for a service, yes - why shouldn't they pay for a service... none of them are poor - they've all got plenty of wealth. I don't see much point with comparing wealthy people and even more wealthy people, it is irrelevant.
On the other hand doing something for people who don't have that level of wealth is reasonable.
I know from my own experience in buying a flat in Manchester and from whats been built afterwards that pretty much all the new developments in Manchester don't even allow you to buy them, they are exclusively for investors to BTL, indeed most are all sold off plan to the same investor.
Not sure I agree. Down here, property developer LXB has just been instructed (by a shareholder vote) to sell all its land and property and return the proceeds to the shareholders, then wind itself up.
I read their report to shareholders the other day. In it, they state that they are having issues selling the land they purchased near me, despite it having a valid planning permission, and they blame Brexit along with "the reluctance of house builders" due to insufficient profit margins.
Atm everything is ruined by greed. Land owners want too much for land. House builders want too much profit. So do developers.
Other developers due to build near LXB's plot have gone cap in hand to the local council, and asked them to buy the land. They want the council to buy the land before they will start developing - they want the cost to be borne by the public purse. How that would work I have no idea. Who would get the money from the sale of the newly built houses... etc.
Again, I think it's greed that is causing much of the problem here.
Assuming we're still discussing the baby boomer generation, then what's the difference between one who's bought their own home and saved £300,000 into a pension, and another who's bought their own home and bought two £150,000 other properties instead of saving into a pension? Is one more greedy than the other? Does one value their children more than the other? Should we treat them differently?
And this is something the Tories will not address, nor do they want to.
Much easier to go after soft targets who can't defend themselves, rather than address the elephant in the room, which is the foreign property speculators and BTL tycoons.
Basically, Tories gonna Tory.
What about the person who bought a house years ago, and has little/no savings? The house is basically all they have.
These are the people who are wrongly being treated as "wealthy" here. A single house + state pension does not somehow make you wealthy.
Both of the people in your scenario could be expected to pay their care costs. Both have real, tangible wealth above and beyond a home to live in. Be it £300,000 savings or three properties.
how are they wrongly being treated as wealthy - they either have the wealth or they don't - no one is kicking them out of their home so that it is their only house isn't really too relevant
Not just wealthy, the quote was "disproportionately wealthy".
A term that I strongly object to people having only a single house and a state pension.
This is an attack on working and lower-middle-class families - not the classically "wealthy". The well-off, including the middle and upper classes will have the money to pay for their care and still allow their children to inherit their privilege.
The working-class home owner will have his sole asset - his house - taken from him so that his children lose out.
- Joined
- 9 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 13,159
The Tory manifesto is looking quite left-wing to me - will this be positive or not for them. It looks like they might lose some pensioners.
You're conveniently avoiding the previous question.
The house is basically all they have? That asset of significant value they they're living in, that they can keep living in, that some value of which may be used in the future to pay for their current care needs? A single house + a state pension makes many people very wealthy in terms of their net worth.
What you're objecting to is the value of the 'family home' being called upon to support the needs of its owner, but willing to see the other non-family home assets of a smilier person be used to meet those same needs. You're placing a higher value on an emotional asset with the same financial value, perhaps because you have a vested interest in your own personal situation.
No he won't, because it isn't sold - the equity is used to pay for care. There will be at least £100k protected. That's more than enough to be passed on.
- Status