"the private rental sector does not work as well as it could"

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by Kape65 View Post

    The reason homelessness is not a bigger issue is because children are having to live with their parents until they are in their thirties.
    Yes I agree that is a factor for the "housing shortage" problem.

    But when you think about it, the baby boomer generation have amassed a vast number of family homes, and they are holding onto them, despite their children either moving out (because they can afford to buy or rent) or staying in (because they can't afford to move out).

    Why should this generation need to hoard these houses when it can be better used for millennials to raise their children? The boomers don't need the space any more. They can downsize into retirement flats.

    But this doesn't happen because they don't want to and they don't have to. They don't have to because they are getting state funded pensions and many also receive very generous DB pensions also. Cost of living is also low. They don't need the capital from their homes to support their lifestyles.

    And of course, the children of the boomers can always stay with their parents and raise their kids there if the house is big enough. Nothing wrong with that. No one has the right to live independently from their parents.

    So given the above, it is not necessarily true that we need to build more houses. We need to encourage people to stop hoarding houses and/or end the mentality that everyone deserves their own home. It simply is not efficient.

    Comment


      #17
      Why should people who have worked hard all their lives to make a beautiful family home downsize just because it suits someone else? We live in a capitalist society and we are free to spend our money on what we want and if older people want to keep their large homes why should they not?

      I spent 25 years of my adult life living in Army Housing and only bought my 4 bed family home in my 50s and as a result of hard work & saving. I have no intention of 'downsizing to a retirement flat' unless I can no longer live comfortably in my house.

      There is a social housing shortage and the answer IS to build more houses because that would take the steam out of the PRS and allow people to save to buy their own home. Because builders are businesses they have no reason to flood the market with affordable housing - that would reduce their profit - so we need central & local Govt to build. This they have failed to do for decades hence the situation we are in now.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by jpucng62 View Post
        Why should people who have worked hard all their lives to make a beautiful family home downsize just because it suits someone else? We live in a capitalist society and we are free to spend our money on what we want and if older people want to keep their large homes why should they not?

        I spent 25 years of my adult life living in Army Housing and only bought my 4 bed family home in my 50s and as a result of hard work & saving. I have no intention of 'downsizing to a retirement flat' unless I can no longer live comfortably in my house.

        There is a social housing shortage and the answer IS to build more houses because that would take the steam out of the PRS and allow people to save to buy their own home. Because builders are businesses they have no reason to flood the market with affordable housing - that would reduce their profit - so we need central & local Govt to build. This they have failed to do for decades hence the situation we are in now.
        No one is forcing you to do anything.

        But by your very argument of a "capitalist" society, why should the older generation get generous state pensions and free healthcare when you have the capital to pay for it yourself? Why should the younger generation be saddled with public sector debt that will likely have to be paid by them mostly?

        Comment


          #19
          If you turn off the generous government funded tap that supports older people, this will force them to sell their family homes and downsize, reducing prices whilst public sector debt reduces also, and you should have affordable housing again.

          That is true capitalism.

          Comment


            #20
            1) increase the number of Council Tax Bands - so that multi-million ££ properties pay a much, much larger amount - that money should be ring-fenced to build starter homes by the Council

            2) social tenants should have a fixed term lease - when the tenants children reach 18, the property is handed back to the Council and (if they still qualify) a one bedroom property be allocated. That would free up so many family homes. I remember reading it was planned some years back but no idea what became of it. And NO, social tenants with rents paid by the taxpayer should not have a right to stay in a property for ever.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Kape65 View Post

              The reason homelessness is not a bigger issue is because children are having to live with their parents until they are in their thirties.
              Very true..... plus add in the ' emergency ' accommodation solution which can be anything from a one room B&B that you would not wish on your worst enemy, to an over crowded flat on an estate with the same risk of violence as the DRC.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by leasee123 View Post
                I this will force them to sell their family homes and downsize,

                That is true capitalism.
                That is the exact opposite of capitalism, it is more akin to communism, and total state control of peoples free will. When i see the term ' force ' and 'capitalism ' in the same sentence i would be running for the hills.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by Hudson01 View Post

                  That is the exact opposite of capitalism, it is more akin to communism, and total state control of peoples free will. When i see the term ' force ' and 'capitalism ' in the same sentence i would be running for the hills.
                  And you seem to have missed the rest of my post. I wonder why that maybe?

                  If you want capitalism, lets stop all forms of support - including government pensions.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by leasee123 View Post

                    If you want capitalism, lets stop all forms of support - including government pensions.
                    The state pension i will receive is paid because over the past many decades i have paid into it, it is not '' support '', it is me getting back what i have paid in, the kind of support i see every day in my job is paid to those who have paid absolutely nothing into the system, but take out far in excess of others. They add nothing to the public purse but cost every tax payer a fortune in a variety of benefits and then cost us all again in Police, Housing, NHS and others.......... they will no doubt receive the exact same state pension as myself but without paying one penny into it, that is the worse of the state/capitalist system. Those who pay less, should get less.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by leasee123 View Post

                      No one is forcing you to do anything.

                      But by your very argument of a "capitalist" society, why should the older generation get generous state pensions and free healthcare when you have the capital to pay for it yourself? Why should the younger generation be saddled with public sector debt that will likely have to be paid by them mostly?
                      I'm not sure that I agree that state pensions are 'generous' and I think you will find that most older people living in big houses have made other pension provision over the years to enable them to live comfortably in retirement.

                      The Govt tap you refer to also supports other sections of society with in & out of work benefits, housing etc. I'm not sure why you think older people are the only beneficiaries.

                      We all get 'free healthcare' - it is 'free at the point of delivery' not 'free' and everyone who works contributes via NI contributions. Those who earn more pay more - so the well-off have contributed more in tax & NI, will probably use their assets to pay for care in old age and when they die they will probably pay CGT whereas someone who has lived their whole life on benefits will have paid nothing into the system and is more likely to have poor health as well as needing state funded social care in their old age.

                      As to the young being saddled with the debt, I agree this appears unfair, but every generation takes its turn to be the engine of the country and I think you will find covid has caused more debt than anything for this generation.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by landlord-man View Post
                        1) increase the number of Council Tax Bands - so that multi-million ££ properties pay a much, much larger amount - that money should be ring-fenced to build starter homes by the Council

                        2) social tenants should have a fixed term lease - when the tenants children reach 18, the property is handed back to the Council and (if they still qualify) a one bedroom property be allocated. That would free up so many family homes. I remember reading it was planned some years back but no idea what became of it. And NO, social tenants with rents paid by the taxpayer should not have a right to stay in a property for ever.
                        Christ, it's bad enough for kids as it, without chucking them all out and making them homeless at 18. Half of them are still at school at that age!

                        And yes, what became of it was the so called 'bedroom tax' which created more homeless than any other government policy for many years.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Jon66 View Post

                          And yes, what became of it was the so called 'bedroom tax' which created more homeless than any other government policy for many years.
                          Not quite sure this is true.

                          The 'bedroom tax' - a charge to social tenants for a bedroom their household was not entitled to due to being overhoused based on the size of their household - such a misnomer! When the demand for social housing is so great and the cost of LHA to the tax payer so large, why does anyone believe they should be entitled to a free spare bedroom?

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by jpucng62 View Post
                            When the demand for social housing is so great and the cost of LHA to the tax payer so large, why does anyone believe they should be entitled to a free spare bedroom?
                            Because policies need to be revised and change with the times.

                            It became apparent almost immediately that the change had a detrimental affect on people who were bedbound, who typically don't sleep with their partners, or people who needed space for life critical equipment.
                            Which isn't that many, but it would have taken a few hours to draft an exception to the policy.

                            And, now, post Covid, a "spare" room is not "spare" for a lot of people, as it's likely to be their workplace.

                            My rule of thumb for whether changes are good or not, is, does it make anyone's life better now?
                            If the improvement is long into the future or is indirect and the change is negative now, it's usually a bad idea (or some party making a political point).

                            Reducing people's benefits in social housing, when the occupants moved in when this wasn't a disadvantage, they had very little or no choice of where they lived in the first place, and there's no stock of smaller properties to move into was basically bullying poor people to look "tough" on "benefits", which is attractive to voters.

                            Lots of people were made worse off for no real benefit.
                            When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                            Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                            Comment


                              #29
                              I believe exceptions were made for carers, equipment etc, and I accept that there is a problem with downsizing in the social housing sector, but the fact remains that whilst there are so many families desperate for family homes those occupying houses bigger than their requirements should be encourage to move to a smaller property - paying the 'bedroom tax' may encourage this.

                              The problem really is that the social housing sector is not fit for purpose and anything short of a huge building spree is tweaking around the edges.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                On the whole i agree with the 'bedroom tax ', as a basic line in the sand, a person who receives a free flat/house from the state, should only be given what they need, not what they want. A few years back a relative of mine who had never worked a day in his life, and was being ' asked' to move to a smaller property/pay the tax was not happy to say the least, he was in this pickle due to him being a single (able bodied) man in a two bed property, he said to me, with a straight face i may add......... '' well you will have to pay the tax if you want to keep your 3 spare rooms''...... i own my house outright and my kids had left home ! This total lack of understanding of what had been provided to him at the tax payers expense over the years even surprise me, and that took some doing.
                                Last edited by Hudson01; 10-05-2021, 17:40 PM. Reason: spelling

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X