Calls for Help Freeing Up Family Homes

[CogitoErgoSometimes]

Free Up Family Homes The charity 'The Intergenerational Foundation' is recommending tax breaks to encourage older people to leave oversized homes. They estimate that there are 25 million unused bedrooms in England. Half of over 65's have 2 or more spare rooms in their home. Housing minister Grant Shapps doesn't sound keen on the idea. But what do you think? Should home-owners and tenants be encouraged to trade down for public-spirited reasons? Or should they be able to rattle around in their multiple spare bedrooms and left alone?

Another point is if housing cost diminishes care may cost less as living expenses cost less.

It's complicated, isn't it, Iggly. I don't pretend to have any answers really - even though my last post was a little strident!

Board and lodging costs in care homes should be met by the person (you pay this the rest of your life so why not when older) , medical costs are met by the NHS. Personal care is a grey area (I occasionally think some of the policies in Scotland will not pass the test of time). It gets complicated when people complain about others getting "something for free" if they do not have the funds to pay. The best of course is cared for by family (hard when both members of the couple have to work to keep a roof over their heads).

I think you've put your finger on it, Iggly. It's when we push for the government to bring in policies that satisfy people's feelings of envy or resentment or greed that we go wrong, I think. Also, there's no point in wanting to punish people, either for being rich or for being feckless, IMO.

A poster further up thread pointed out that while she would have been happy to live with her father-in-law, she would not have been able to stand her mother-in-law for very long. My ex lived as a child with both his grannies. They had to share a bedroom! (Like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory)

I would not (as a grannie myself) want to live with any of my kids. I know what a strain having an elderly parent can put on a marriage. But I would like to live nearby. I intend to buy a caravan or a houseboat, and go and stay near each of them for a few months a year.

But small family banks that rely on trust and honour, as an extension of the 'bank of Mum and Dad', are the way to go, IMO. I wonder if I have just had a good idea that will make me very rich. You saw it here first.

Ouch, just lost my long reply. ALl I was going to say was that people in their 40s have not had a lovely easy time. We started out with no tax credit, no maternity rights until you'd been employed 2 years, I had 2 weeks off with each baby and then back to full time work. Tax rates were 33% basic in my first job and childcare was 100% of one of our salaries. Then we had interest rates of 12%. Then in the 90s there was n egative equity. We sold 2 flats at at least a third less than we bought them for. The property market has never been a clean upwards line of increases.

The benefit of any equity in a house now for those in their 40s is in reality nothing much. I still need to house the family, some share a room. We aren't aged 40+ and living in some financial nirvana. We have student children to help through university, some of we women have had to fund expensive divorces, I have also had both parents ill and dying whilst in my 40s too. I think the idea that others have a lovely easy life but the 30 something with chidlren who is finding it hard to get a mortgage or pay one does not, is just someone sitting there thinking the grass is always greener.

Life has always been hard for most people and always will be. What did change in the 90s was that some spoilt people who perhaps watch too much television got an overinflated view of their financial entitlement and believed what they saw in films about material possessions and their rights. Instead if they thought about what they could give and their duties they might find life easier to manage.

Point taken, Xenia - I agree, we have seen a lot of changes.

But I benefited enormously from Working Families Tax Credit (for one year) - in fact I would say that it was mainly responsible for my being able to work and bring up kids on my own. Well, that and my free education and health care, of course.

Maybe it's not relevant whether we have had an easy time of it or not. Maybe all that matters is that we help our kids and old people as much as we can.

Wow. I just love the claim that it was doctors and nurses and teachers that plunged the world into the worst financial crisis since the '30s Depression, and not those kindly, competent, sensible bankers at all. Nothing to do with trading poisonous complex financial instruments they didn't understand. Oh no, sirree, not at all.

The only people who will agree with Anatole whatshisface's special pleading for his banker mates and political allies are those who are idealogically determined to think 'public sector evil, private sector angelic'. Everyone else kind of noticed Lehman's and Northern Rock and RBS and that tiny matter of the £1.62 trillion bail out (the cost at the last peak of the crisis - and it seems there's another one coming). A National Audit Office report in July said the fuckers still owed us £456.33bn - and given things have got worse since, I don't expect it's any less now. So much for the banking industry's claims to be part of the private sector. They are the biggest drain on the public sector. Not doctors and nurses and teachers.

Kaletsky must be thrilled that the cuts in Greece mean diabetics can't afford insulin and will die. The kind of 'rolling back the state' that his kind love.

Xenia I agree with your grass is greener comment. It's what I was trying to say about not blaming the baby boomers as a homogeneous group - there are winners and losers in every generation. Some of this is down to luck, some is down to wise financial planning.

And I agree with you about this strange sense of material entitlement that some people have. A close friend of mine hates her job and would like to do something else, but feels she can't afford the short term drop in salary that a career change would involve, because amongst other things she wouldn't be able to keep up the repayments on her sports car. At my (obvious) suggestion that she trade down to a smaller, cheaper car, and live a bit more frugally for a while, her response was that 'at her age she deserves to drive a nice car'. And she gets more bitter as the years go by.

the only debt we have ever had is our mortgage. We once had a small car loan but that worked out cheaper than buying with cash. We are in the 40-60 group. If we can't afford it we don't have it.

I think my own dc will have to have loans for their fees but maybe we may be able to help them with deposits for houses later when we have hopefully paid off our mortgage in 5 years' time.

I don't think I have ever felt this cash strapped for a long time.

I think the 2nd home ownership hasn't helped plus too many people coming into GB over the last 15 years' putting a huge strain on social housing.

The thing is, Edam, a lot of us didn't notice/understand anything at all of what was going on.

The banks have behaved in a shocking, despicable way - agree 100%. But I still think that we all have to take responsibility for keeping ourselves informed and voting sensibly - and not being greedy and selfish.

While the banks continue to suck up the government's resources,we will never have the money to solve the housing crisis, or anything else.

Edam
"Wow. I just love the claim that it was doctors and nurses and teachers that plunged the world into the worst financial crisis since the '30s Depression, and not those kindly, competent, sensible bankers at all. Nothing to do with trading poisonous complex financial instruments they didn't understand. Oh no, sirree, not at all. "

I have nothing to do with the banking industry and DH is an NHS doctor.

The cost of living in the form of housing has increased significantly(price earning ratio for 1983 was 3.499 for April to April 1983, and 4.467 for July 2010 to July 2011, Halifax pricing index). Xenia private schools "Private school fees have risen at three times the rate of household income since the early 1990s, according to new research." from Telegraph and Guardian (but you obviously do not trust newspapers).

There is a problem....... I have quoted figures from the Governments own investigation into pension liabilities and figures (admitedly through a journalist) quoted from the IMF. I see the problems this housing market is creating and will help my child in anyway they can.

This 5% inflation we have is nothing. I remember the 1970s when we had 18%, 21% and 22% in 3 consecutive years. People's savings were being wiped out. Highest tax rates on realtively modestly paid doctors were up to 66%. In some ways Lord Young's we have never had it so good comment was not that far off the mark given the low low interest rates we now have.

However the mess we are in is purely because we spent more than we could afford. I don't really care if the rather thick populace choose to prefer to blame banks but they cert ainly are dependent on banks to get them out of the mess. The nation lived bey ond its means. the UK as we are not in the euro is paying cheaper interest rates so we can afford our debt at present even though it is one of the biggest around However we need to get on with paying it back and we really have made only pathetic cuts so far. We need many many mroe and a mvoe to a system of self reliance and a state where people think what can I give not what can I take.

How does cutting benefits even more lead to self-reliance, Xenia??

It's not rocket science: shove more people into absolute poverty and you get more pressure on the health and education services, more crime, and fewer people paying taxes and buying things to keep the economy afloat.

You can't just wipe the poor and needy off the face of the earth, you know.

I like your last sentence. I think it applies to the banks more than anyone else.

I agree with every word Xenia.

Everyone wants out of this mess but pointing at bankers and bleating, " They did it!" helps no one.
The annual welfare bill in the UK alone is more than we bring in in income tax, £200Billion a year.
All those anti the cuts all want someone else to pick up the slack, usually The Rich. It's always, tax the rich, tax them not me. I'm not going without my Starbucks or my iphone . Tax the rich more, go on, get them.

right, so if this mess is because 'we (non-bankers) spent more than we could afford', how could we 'afford' to bail out the banks? The argument that it's all the irresponsible populace fails even on its own terms - if we were already in debt, how did taking on trillions of pounds of more debt help in any way, shape or form?

"Everyone else kind of noticed Lehman's and Northern Rock and RBS and that tiny matter of the £1.62 trillion bail out (the cost at the last peak of the crisis - and it seems there's another one coming). A National Audit Office report in July said the fuckers still owed us £456.33bn "

Wow there doing pretty well in that short space of time [hgrin] ......sorry couldn't stop myself.

The Govern ment spent the money. Mostly the labour Government. This Government took office, open the door as it were and found that the cupboard was bare. I remember the days when we were paying back the national debt. T hey didn't think hard enough in the next 10 years as they gave money out hand over fist that good times might not be around forever and we and plenty of other states from Greece to Ireland lived beyond their means.

I have never blamed the populace although those who took on imprudent debt have only themselves to blame.

We need a much much smaller state and unless we can get the economy roaring again which is quite hard given the world situation at the moment, we are going to have to make huge changes to what people expect. There are obviously loads of things we can do. At present 25% of the UK population pay out more in tax than they gain and I assume I am one of them. It is as if one in four of us are carrying around 3 other adults - those whom we support. Obviously I don't expect much gratitude from my four elderly, disabled or fit but unemployed dependents but there will not be enough "mes" around to keep those people for much longer unless we take radical action.

We could start with no benefits unless you work for them. We could ensure state provision kept you warm and fed but not much else so that it was very unpalatable to turn down those August jobs picking turnips etc etc

Iggly, have to admit at face value it does like like a bit of a drop. But the amount the NAO said was still outstanding even before the latest phase of the crisis is still enough to run the entire NHS for more than four years.

Bang on, Xenia.
We were away for a few days last week. We both said how we couldn't remember the last time we had been served by non East European staff for several years. The entire ( 5 * BTW) hotel has an Eastern European staff. The local unemployment levels are above national average but it is easier not to work as the benefit system is so cushty if you have children.

No childbenefit for more than two children, regardless of income.
Workfare for benefits.
Vouchers for basics.
No one on benefits will be better off than anyone in work.

Should do for starters.
Xenia is quite right, there are simply not enough of The Rich to carry so many.

Xenia - no benefits unless you work for them? How can disabled people work for them? Isn't the purpose of benefits to help people who can't work for one reason or another? And even if they could work, there aren't enough jobs. Vegetable picking might not be appropriate if you live in London.

Xenia already said she wasn't counting the disabled but fit, healthy able bodied people of working age.

London? That's a laugh. Any idiot can get a job in London.After all, millions of immigrants have. Stop making excuses.

Why would anyone make excuses for people not working?

All I know is that life ain't fair. Some are lucky, some are not. It's up to the more fortunate ones to help the others. That's what being a human being is. We all need each other.

It's unlucky not to take a job because it's easier to sit on the dole, is it?

It's lucky to work 70, 80 hour weeks to do well for yourself , is it?

Actually, no, we don't need feckless useless lazy twats who refuse to take a job.

I don't know feckless useless lazy twats, Slacking. I believe they all live in mansions in the south. But I do know lots of people who work 70 or 80 hours a week. Starting with the cleaner at work who has 3 jobs and gets up at 4 in the morning.

Hard work does not equal lots of money. It never did and it never will.