Younger people should be rewarded for lockdown via affordable housing

[Ordree]

As others have noted, young people (not just those in frontline roles) are making enormous sacrifices to protect others, mostly but not exclusively from much older age groups. They will be bequeathed a damaged planet, a ruined economy and they will have done further damage to their mental health by staying indoors for months on end. They are the ones paying older people's pensions when they won't have anything like the same financial security to look forward to themselves. Yes I know older people paid their elders pensions during their working lives, bit never has there been such an imbalance. As the economy is likely to be ruined short to medium term anyway, would it not be reasonable to start the biggest givernment-funded housebuilding programme ever, allow younger people who have just bought to write off negative equity losses against tax, and essentially redress some of the appalling imbalance between generations and classes?

Alsohuman it does beggar belief sometimes 🤣

00100001 The serious point was that my 'suggestion' is clearly ridiculous, as you rightly pointed out. Unfortunately this is exactly sort of the wealth redistribution (from old to young) that the op is alluding to.

That can be prevented though Harriet. It’s possible to build social housing as part of general housing development. One obvious place to build is on hopping centres! Who needs this massive acreage now? That’s all brownfield sites.

Also we cannot deny people need housing. Private landlords have come to the fore because the state opted out. The state can build and rent out homes if it wants to. It just hasn’t wanted to. People who need homes benefit from new housing. Where do you see vast estates of unsold houses. There is, of course, profit in building. Lots of firms make profits from house building and thousands are employed from planning officers, to engineers, architects and bricklayers. Never think we don’t need houses. We do.

Aaaah! Shopping centres.

@ZombieFan sorry for being so dumb... D'oh

@Alsohuman Maybe you should have so you wouldn’t rush to the wrong conclusion. The policy on “triple locking” pensions is an ageist policy that clearly discriminated against “the young”

Bit rich of the OP to denounce everyone as having "no counterarguments" when OP has no answers to all of the questions being asked of them

I was so angry at the idea that young people should be rewarded for staying at home for a few months

Is that really all you think this'll cost them?

@pigsdofly - no, I am sorry I misunderstood your comment! My parents were active during WW2 as well - my father was a medical student and my mother was at Bletchley Park so I do understand where you are coming from. Friends???

triple locking” pensions is an ageist policy that clearly discriminated against “the young”

You might like to explain this because I’m so stupid I don’t understand.

Thank you Zombie for your illustrations.

One obvious place to build is on shopping centres
Last time I was at a shopping market their was massive queues of people outside it desperate to buy food. Are you suggesting we starve older people to death just so the 'young' can have cheap houses?

That will go down well.

Private landlords have come to the fore because the state opted out
Ummm no, because of things like Gordon Browns £100,000,000 raid on our pensions people had to secure an income for their old age. So many turned to bricks and mortar as the only option. Are you suggesting stealing pensions to give 'young' people a cheap house.

The state can build and rent out homes if it wants to. It just hasn’t wanted to a) The state doesn't currently have a large building company in its control b) Labour/Cons & coalition governments have all tried to build many more homes. Its not as simple as clicking your fingers. Its difficult!

There is, of course, profit in building
I imagine if private building companies were forced to compete with the state building very cheap subsidised homes for 'young' people, their would soon be a lot of bankrupt building companies.

The policy on “triple locking” pensions is an ageist policy that clearly discriminated against “the young” No its not, the elderly generally have a fixed income (the state pension) and cant go out to earn more money when costs go up. Unlike the 'young'. Which is a fair balance in a civilised humane society.

plainsailing01 It's still based very roughly on property values, until you get to the exceptionally high worth properties of band H and above. Where houses have increased in value, in general similar houses in the same area have increased by the same amount so AS A GENERALISATION if a house was band D worth £70k in 1991 and is now worth £250k, then their neighbour's identical house will also be band D and now worth around £250k. Of course if the owner spent a fortune of their (already taxed) savings on extending, their property will be worth more. You can also get your house band revalued, and the VOA can increase the band as well if in their view the house is now worth the increase in banding.

Unless someone spends the time valuing every single property every year, the only way you can say for sure what the current valuation of a house is, is when it changes hands either through sale or inheritance.

@ZombieFan “ the elderly generally have a fixed income (the state pension) and cant go out to earn more money when costs go up. Unlike the 'young'. Which is a fair balance in a civilised humane society.”

The young can just “go out there and earn more money”? On behalf of the young, thank you for that invaluable piece of advice. We will now be able to pay for our avocado toast, kombucha tea and still be able to pay these ridiculous property prices as if we need more money, we could just go out and make more!

ZombieFan: have you ever been to a shopping centre that’s just a supermarket? Don’t be ridiculous. There are empty shops everywhere and this will continue. Use the land for homes. It’s not rocket science!

The conservatives have reduced the amount of pension fund you can have before it’s taxed. By the way, houses that are owned by private landlords cannot be in pension schemes. The private landlord did come to the fore before all of this. It was to bridge the gap when council houses were sold and councils couldn’t build new ones. The market for rented homes didn’t evaporate with these Thatcherite policies. You possibly need to study history a bit more!

Building companies would have to do the building work if the state commissioned more homes. The state doesn’t have the workforce and never did. Why would it be any cheaper to divert planning, utilities costs, architecture, engineering, road building, bricklaying, site monitoring and all
the other necessary trades to the state when the builders are the experts? Nationalising house building isn’t the way forward. I am well aware how difficult it is to build new homes. Often 2 plus years getting planning permission.

However that could be speeded up and the identified sites cracked on with. My DH makes an exceptional living from trying to help developers get pp on land identified for development. No, it’s not easy and it’s bloody expensive. There needs to be a much quicker and cheaper process.

A minority of elderly have an income which is just the old age pension. They would get additional benefits if they did. Also older people with houses to rent as part of their pension planning rather prunes the elderly are not deprived financially! The state pension, incidentally, is paid for by current tax payers. If you have draw-down pension you will see fluctuations, but the under 35s will be paying more and more for the elderly and they will resent it if their prospects are diminished. It’s inevitable.

@MilkTrayLimeBarrel Friends? Of course.

I think I was more horrified, when I read your post, that you must have thought I was some sort of monster.

My post was probably a bit extreme, but I keep reading on MN - and other places - people comparing this to a war, which is fair enough, but when I read the OP talking about the 'sacrifice' young people are making it just, well, as you've probably gathered really annoyed me.

I'm glad I've had the chance to clear this up. I'm not a monster, honestly

The young can just “go out there and earn more money”? On behalf of the young, thank you for that invaluable piece of advice. We will now be able to pay for our avocado toast, kombucha tea and still be able to pay these ridiculous property prices as if we need more money, we could just go out and make more!

You have decades to earn more. When you’re young, you’re at the bottom of your working life with decades to improve your situation. When you retire, that’s it. No more money, no more potential.

BubblesBuddy

There are empty shops everywhere and this will continue. Use the land for homes. Retail premises are converted to homes all the times. Suggesting we bulldoze shopping centres just to build houses is nuts, we still need the supermarkets inside them. Plus brownfield sites are a lot more expensive to develop so expect any property on them to be expensive.

By the way, houses that are owned by private landlords cannot be in pension schemes That does not mean second homes aren't used my many pensioners as their main income in retirement.

Building companies would have to do the building work if the state commissioned more homes And building companies would go bust if the state ordered them to build massive amounts of houses at below market rate.

There needs to be a much quicker and cheaper process Not to sound repetitious but all governments have been trying to do this for decades, its not that simple.

the under 35s will be paying more and more for the elderly and they will resent it if their prospects are diminished. It’s inevitable. And in 30-40 years those under 35s will be relying on the next load of youngsters to fund their pensions. It the circle of life. But I agree those with money should pay more and I was/am in a minority that supported Theresa Mays plan to take the cost of a persons old age care out of their estate after they died. aka the death tax.

Retail spaces are rarely converted to homes because, in planning terms, the land is for business/shopping. It’s not designated as residential and getting that changed is a big problem due to local plans that may not have grasped the need to do this. Or area plans which drive the local plans. Most of us have seen vast out of town shopping areas and town centres enlarged in the last 20/30 years. This has to be reversed.,

Supermarkets are not the only shops in shopping centres! What planet are you on if you think this??? The government could subsidise development of brownfield sites if necessary but it keeps the uk greener for longer.

If pensioners have second homes and homes and third homes they are rich. They could sell these homes and invest the money elsewhere. They are not part of pensions and attract CGT so not always the best investment anyway.

They wouldn’t built below cost! Who said they would? The homes would be commissioned by the housing associations for long term rental. The reason more homes are not built for rental is because the housing associations have to raise money on the open market. This could be changed. The government could put in more money.,

Governments have not tried hard enough! Councillors block planning. Costs are huge and the debate goes on for years with QCs involved. It’s ludicrous. It could be streamlined and needs to be.

I totally agree that Teresa May was right about funding care fees. An insurance scheme for everyone would be better.

Retail spaces are rarely converted to homes I never said it was the solution but their are several hundred retail spaces converted every year.

The government could subsidise development of brownfield sites if necessary Of course it could, but if its that easy then why didn't Blair, Brown, the coalition or Cameron do it? Because giving young people a 'reward' of cheap housing is way down the list of priorities our country has. It just isn't that big an issue.

it keeps the uk greener for longer Does it? their is a LOT of green belt land that isn't 'green' and should be built on, imo.

If pensioners have second homes and homes and third homes they are rich You have no idea if that is true. Prior to the 'crash' it was common to use interest only mortgages, so after 25+ years they still owe 100% of their original mortgage. Because of the changes since most of them were bought they will get small returns on their investment and lose their main income. And if their is a decent return where can they invest short term that will provide an income equivalent to their rental income for life? They are not a good investment now but they were 15 years ago when they were planning their retirement.

The homes would be commissioned by the housing associations for long term rental I am pretty sure Philip Hammond gave HA access to cheap loans guarantees to do exactly that.

Governments have not tried hard enough! Perhaps you should stand for election then. I imagine its possible but its probably just not affordable.

Are you implying that anyone with the means to do so would leave the UK, if they could have a better lifestyle elsewhere, Should a government take large chunks of peoples money to redistribute to the unemployed, the shelf stackers

Well it happened the last time they tried this.

plainsailing01

On wealth. Not income. Capital gains and appreciation of assets via measures such as inheritance tax, higher taxes on owning property (council tax) similar to the US where you pay taxes proportional to the value of your home

So you would tax savings. Wouldn’t this affect young people saving for a deposit as well or will it just be on those over a certain age with savings.
We already have CGT
Or are you suggesting you tax people on any profits you make from your primary residence.
Wouldn’t that mean that you can then get running costs and expenditures on this property against tax and if it is sold for less than you bought it for you could offset the loss against any tax.

Or more than likely the houses wouldn’t be sold but just passed around the family or left empty when people moved.

Isn’t council tax based on the value of your home already.

Ageist tax? Is that what they calling university fees these days? Or the fact that pensions have been "triple locked" when junior doctors havn't seen a pay rise in 10 years

University is a gamble. It isn’t something that the majority of people need.

You choose to go to university, you know the costs and you know that it is a gamble that you may or may not be one of the 17% that is in a job for long enough and earn enough over the course of time to pay back the loan and catch up with your peers who didn’t spend 5 years getting A levels and going to university and who bought their first house before you had got your first job.

Dp when he was in work hadn’t had a pay rise in 10 years either. It isn’t just one section of society.
I don’t know anyone who had any sort of pay rise either

Can’t comment on pensions as I don’t have one.

Actually university is not a gamble for the majority. The bigger problems are faced by the art grads where work is poorly paid. There is plenty of evidence that good degrees from the better universities is worthwhile financially. Many jobs require degrees now too.

If any pensioner has several houses that they rent out then, by definition, they are rich. If they have not taken advantage of putting money, tax free, into a pension scheme as well then they are stupid!

Why do we keep saying that because firmer governments didn’t do something, that’s evidence that it cannot be done by a future government? Of course policies can change.

There is little evidence that large out of town or larger areas of under used half empty shopping facilities have been re used for housing. They are just left half empty. This needs to be evaluated as to suitability for housing. In the future we simply do not need this level of shopping facilities. We need homes near transport links and town centre housing has many advantages.

I am well aware of the green belt not being so green but the green belt has nothing to do with the majority of the country where there is no designated green belt! Just fields and farmland.

I don’t know anyone who hasn’t had a pay rise!

@Oliversmumsarmy

• CGT rates are too low. Capital gains is how most of the wealthy make their money and this needs to be revised upwards to prevent the brunt of the tax burden falling on those who pay it via incomes.
• Council tax taken each year as a % of the property’s current value. This is what is done in the US today, taxes are approximately 2% of current year property value. Council tax in the UK is based on value from 1991 and in bands which tops out at £320k. This means irrespective of if your property is worth £20M or £5M or £800k today, if your property was valued at more than £320k in 1991, then you all pay the same amount of council tax.
• Much higher rates of council tax need to be levied on all properties owned except primary residence.
• University is most certainly not a gamble! The 17% you mentioned have limited their career options and earning potential because they don’t have a formal degree.