Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

[CliffEdge]

I don't think anyone here is under the impression that there would or even should be a society where everyone has an equally good life.

I just happen to think that in this country, one of the richest in the world, if someone works full time at a worthwhile job they might expect to be able to afford a warm and dry place to live and enough food to eat, without handouts. Increasingly in some places in the UK it seems that this is not possible.

John

Exactly, it's a disgrace.

Scrap all the handouts though? Not sure we could do that yet, if ever. To do that would need a lot of "unequal" infrastructure to be built which will never happen, the virtue signallers would be up in arms.

[UncleEbenezer]

Increasingly in some places in the UK it seems that this is not possible.

John

I'm not sure about "increasingly". Though a few chickens coming home to roost may be beginning to trigger a downturn.

Funnily enough, consumer price inflation could be a great equaliser, at least if it incentivises TPTB to stop printing ever more money. It restricts money pouring in to the Great Scheme for transferring wealth from the hardworking to the rich - namely, the property market. If only they could resist the pressure for ever more subsidies to landlords ...

[redsturgeon]

Scrap all the handouts though? .

Who said that?

[CliffEdge]

Increasingly in some places in the UK it seems that this is not possible.

John

I'm not sure about "increasingly". Though a few chickens coming home to roost may be beginning to trigger a downturn.

Funnily enough, consumer price inflation could be a great equaliser, at least if it incentivises TPTB to stop printing ever more money. It restricts money pouring in to the Great Scheme for transferring wealth from the hardworking to the rich - namely, the property market. If only they could resist the pressure for ever more subsidies to landlords ...

Rents are spiralling as ever more private landlords sell up and get out. Another brilliant government policy, spiralling downwards, rent controls next.
There is no joined up thinking in this country. Same old problem, equality versus fairness, effectiveness, and kindness. Same ignorance spouted everywhere. Concern is not enough.

[dealtn]

What of the single mum in somewhere like Cornwall, a worker, on minimum wage, no chance of buying a property,(all bought up by the rich as second homes) ...

No surprise (again) that its all the fault of the rich buying the second home, and no blame attached to the seller of that home, when there are 2 parties to such transactions. Which of the 2 more likely takes the money out of the local economy?

[redsturgeon]

What of the single mum in somewhere like Cornwall, a worker, on minimum wage, no chance of buying a property,(all bought up by the rich as second homes) ...

No surprise (again) that its all the fault of the rich buying the second home, and no blame attached to the seller of that home, when there are 2 parties to such transactions. Which of the 2 more likely takes the money out of the local economy?

I would share the blame equally.

John

[UncleEbenezer]

What of the single mum in somewhere like Cornwall, a worker, on minimum wage, no chance of buying a property,(all bought up by the rich as second homes) ...

No surprise (again) that its all the fault of the rich buying the second home, and no blame attached to the seller of that home, when there are 2 parties to such transactions. Which of the 2 more likely takes the money out of the local economy?

I would share the blame equally.

John

Both are doing something rational for them. Especially the vendor who needs to buy a new place in the same market.

The greater blame lies in the system that privileges property ownership with a state-enforced monopoly, but fails to charge the cost - either societal or economic - of that monopoly. The societal cost being pressure on housing and exclusion of poorer people, the economic cost being both the land itself and services such as police and fire.

Other countries recognise this. For example, with much higher charges on second homes reflecting societal costs. And higher annual charges are reflected in lower purchase prices, making them more affordable for the hardworking.

[CliffEdge]

What of the single mum in somewhere like Cornwall, a worker, on minimum wage, no chance of buying a property,(all bought up by the rich as second homes) ...

No surprise (again) that its all the fault of the rich buying the second home, and no blame attached to the seller of that home, when there are 2 parties to such transactions. Which of the 2 more likely takes the money out of the local economy?

I would share the blame equally.

John

Both are doing something rational for them. Especially the vendor who needs to buy a new place in the same market.

The greater blame lies in the system that privileges property ownership with a state-enforced monopoly, but fails to charge the cost - either societal or economic - of that monopoly. The societal cost being pressure on housing and exclusion of poorer people, the economic cost being both the land itself and services such as police and fire.

Other countries recognise this. For example, with much higher charges on second homes reflecting societal costs. And higher annual charges are reflected in lower purchase prices, making them more affordable for the hardworking.

Total rubbish. The sort of misguided, fraudulent, "Equality" thinking that prevents effective help for the poor.

[Clitheroekid]

It seems to me that the biggest cause of poverty - indeed, the biggest cause of discontent generally - is the insane housing system that we have in the UK.

The Government have for decades promoted home ownership as the Holy Grail, and have thrown money in the form of subsidies and grants into persuading people that owning one's own home is the be all and end all of life.

For many people this has proved true, and the sight of people making hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax-free profits for doing nothing has, not surprisingly, spurred others on to emulate them.

The net result is that people crucify themselves financially to get on that accursed property ladder. They spend up to their last penny of income doing so.

But this insatiable demand obviously causes house price inflation, and the situation has been hugely exacerbated by the zero interest rate environment of the past decade or so. When people can borrow at mortgage rates of less than 1% - and are then given Help To Buy and other such insane subsides on top of that - it's just throwing petrol on the flames.

And the rental market is even more dysfunctional. I can (just!) remember the old days of Rent Act protected tenancies, when it was effectively impossible to remove tenants or increase rents, and like most people I welcomed their abolition. But I've long since concluded that the present rental system has swung much too far the other way and is grossly unfair to tenants. How can it possibly be justified for a landlord to be able to turf out a tenant who's done absolutely nothing wrong on just two months' notice?

I was talking to someone the other day who's facing this situation. They've lived in their house for 15 years, and have brought up a family there. They have 4 children at local schools, yet they've been told to move out simply because the owner wants to sell up. They've not been able to find a suitable replacement in the area, so now face having to relocate, with all the huge disruption to both their own and their children’s lives that will entail. It's simply disgraceful that a landlord is entitled to behave like that – someone’s home should not be treated as if it’s a shareholding, or a classic car, to be disposed of at a nice profit when the value increases.

And it's not just the inability of so many people to afford decent housing that's the problem. It's the frankly obscene inequality that's come to exist because of the housing market. There are millions of people who are sitting on hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax free capital gains who have, quite frankly, done nothing at all to deserve those gains. They have worked no harder than people who have had to rent their houses and have nothing to show for it, yet they moan like mad when they have to surrender some of these wholly unmerited windfalls to inheritance tax.

Those gains should be subject to tax, so that housing would cease to be seen as an investment instead of somewhere to live. And the tax raised should be hypothecated to fund public housing at reasonable rents - i.e. rents that are designed to cover costs rather than generate profits. And without any right to buy, the ultimate triumph of private greed over communal good.

I realise that I'm in a tiny minority here - quite possibly a minority of one! - in propounding such socialist views, but over the past 40 years or so I've seen at first hand far too many victims of this ridiculous housing system. It really needs radical change, but with so many vested interests it'll never happen.

[Lootman]

the rental market is even more dysfunctional. I can (just!) remember the old days of Rent Act protected tenancies, when it was effectively impossible to remove tenants or increase rents, and like most people I welcomed their abolition. But I've long since concluded that the present rental system has swung much too far the other way and is grossly unfair to tenants. How can it possibly be justified for a landlord to be able to turf out a tenant who's done absolutely nothing wrong on just two months' notice?

I was talking to someone the other day who's facing this situation. They've lived in their house for 15 years, and have brought up a family there. They have 4 children at local schools, yet they've been told to move out simply because the owner wants to sell up. They've not been able to find a suitable replacement in the area, so now face having to relocate, with all the huge disruption to both their own and their children’s lives that will entail. It's simply disgraceful that a landlord is entitled to behave like that – someone’s home should not be treated as if it’s a shareholding, or a classic car, to be disposed of at a nice profit when the value increases.

I believe that you are referring there to Section 21 evictions, which allow a landlord to terminate a tenancy with 2 months notice, without needing just cause. I also believe that the current government is looking into restricting such evictions, and a Labour government certainly would do.

But as with any attempt to increase tenants' rights, there is the law of unintended consequences. If a property owner knows that a 6-month lease could turn into a 60-year multi-generational tenancy, then he/she might think twice before offering a long-term home at all. And instead let to students or do short-term Airbnb type lets. Such trends reduce the number of homes available for rent, thereby paradoxically driving up rents and creating artificial shortages.

Rent control, which is advocated by some, goes even further, again with the effect of reducing the supply of long-term rental homes. Perhaps the classic example of this is New York City's rent stabilisation programme. Introduced during WW2 as an emergency temporary measure (aren't they all?), it is still around to this day. Not only does the rent barely increase from one year to the next, but even if the tenant dies, the new tenant pays the same bargain rent.

This has led to so-called "ambulance chasers" who read the obituaries in the NY Times and then track down the family of the deceased, offering "key money" to the grieving relatives for the right to take over the tenancy. I actually know someone in NYC who got their apartment this way. They are quite wealthy and yet pay a pittance in rent, and of course can never be evicted.

Be careful what you wish for.

[Dod101]

And it's not just the inability of so many people to afford decent housing that's the problem. It's the frankly obscene inequality that's come to exist because of the housing market. There are millions of people who are sitting on hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax free capital gains who have, quite frankly, done nothing at all to deserve those gains. They have worked no harder than people who have had to rent their houses and have nothing to show for it, yet they moan like mad when they have to surrender some of these wholly unmerited windfalls to inheritance tax.

Those gains should be subject to tax, so that housing would cease to be seen as an investment instead of somewhere to live. And the tax raised should be hypothecated to fund public housing at reasonable rents - i.e. rents that are designed to cover costs rather than generate profits. And without any right to buy, the ultimate triumph of private greed over communal good.

I realise that I'm in a tiny minority here - quite possibly a minority of one! - in propounding such socialist views, but over the past 40 years or so I've seen at first hand far too many victims of this ridiculous housing system. It really needs radical change, but with so many vested interests it'll never happen.

As far as taxing gains on housing profits is concerned, I think there is something in your comments, although many have scrimped and saved in order to get on the housing ladder in the first place. I have no concern about my estate having to pay inheritance tax, in fact I think the allowances added not so long ago on houses was completely unnecessary.

Paying a modest CGT on housing profits as people sell up and move seems perfectly reasonable and would result probably in a general reduction in housing costs at least until the whole system adjusted to it, but the fundamental problem is that we have too many people (or not enough housing in general) who are seeking housing in the first place.

Dod

[dealtn]

The greater blame lies in the system that privileges property ownership with a state-enforced monopoly,

What state enforced monopoly?

[CliffEdge]

It seems to me that the biggest cause of poverty - indeed, the biggest cause of discontent generally - is the insane housing system that we have in the UK.

The Government have for decades promoted home ownership as the Holy Grail, and have thrown money in the form of subsidies and grants into persuading people that owning one's own home is the be all and end all of life.

For many people this has proved true, and the sight of people making hundreds of thousands of pounds in tax-free profits for doing nothing has, not surprisingly, spurred others on to emulate them.

The net result is that people crucify themselves financially to get on that accursed property ladder. They spend up to their last penny of income doing so.

But this insatiable demand obviously causes house price inflation, and the situation has been hugely exacerbated by the zero interest rate environment of the past decade or so. When people can borrow at mortgage rates of less than 1% - and are then given Help To Buy and other such insane subsides on top of that - it's just throwing petrol on the flames.

And the rental market is even more dysfunctional. I can (just!) remember the old days of Rent Act protected tenancies, when it was effectively impossible to remove tenants or increase rents, and like most people I welcomed their abolition. But I've long since concluded that the present rental system has swung much too far the other way and is grossly unfair to tenants. How can it possibly be justified for a landlord to be able to turf out a tenant who's done absolutely nothing wrong on just two months' notice?

I was talking to someone the other day who's facing this situation. They've lived in their house for 15 years, and have brought up a family there. They have 4 children at local schools, yet they've been told to move out simply because the owner wants to sell up. They've not been able to find a suitable replacement in the area, so now face having to relocate, with all the huge disruption to both their own and their children’s lives that will entail. It's simply disgraceful that a landlord is entitled to behave like that – someone’s home should not be treated as if it’s a shareholding, or a classic car, to be disposed of at a nice profit when the value increases.

And it's not just the inability of so many people to afford decent housing that's the problem. It's the frankly obscene inequality that's come to exist because of the housing market. There are millions of people who are sitting on hundreds of thousands of pounds of tax free capital gains who have, quite frankly, done nothing at all to deserve those gains. They have worked no harder than people who have had to rent their houses and have nothing to show for it, yet they moan like mad when they have to surrender some of these wholly unmerited windfalls to inheritance tax.

Those gains should be subject to tax, so that housing would cease to be seen as an investment instead of somewhere to live. And the tax raised should be hypothecated to fund public housing at reasonable rents - i.e. rents that are designed to cover costs rather than generate profits. And without any right to buy, the ultimate triumph of private greed over communal good.

I realise that I'm in a tiny minority here - quite possibly a minority of one! - in propounding such socialist views, but over the past 40 years or so I've seen at first hand far too many victims of this ridiculous housing system. It really needs radical change, but with so many vested interests it'll never happen.

Sound like the politics of envy again. Why do you say people who rent have nothing to show for it?
There's no way now that I would get into buy to let which is a shame as I would quite like to provide a nice place for someone to live at a reasonable price.
Same old problem, so called goal of equality preventing solutions. Someone somewhere with a brain will call it out, I hope. It won't be one of the ignorant "socialists" or selfish wealthy.

[UncleEbenezer]

The greater blame lies in the system that privileges property ownership with a state-enforced monopoly,

What state enforced monopoly?

The one that puts the organs of the state - police and both civil and criminal justice systems - at your disposal if I and my very large and intimidating friends take up residence in your home without your permission.

[Lootman]

The greater blame lies in the system that privileges property ownership with a state-enforced monopoly,

What state enforced monopoly?

The one that puts the organs of the state - police and both civil and criminal justice systems - at your disposal if I and my very large and intimidating friends take up residence in your home without your permission.

So your "monopoly" is in fact the rule of law?

The same rule of law that protects your safety, liberty and possessions from the malignant designs of others?

[Clitheroekid]

Sound like the politics of envy again.

You could wheel out this old cliché about any strategy that's designed to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

Do you think that such strategies are fundamentally wrong?

[Lootman]

Sound like the politics of envy again.

You could wheel out this old cliché about any strategy that's designed to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

Do you think that such strategies are fundamentally wrong?

A certain amount of redistribution is prudent and reasonable in society, and of course we already do that. The richest few percent easily pay at least half of all taxes.

The issue of "envy" arises, in my view, when people advocate for ever higher taxes on the rich more because they appear to want to punish the rich rather than help anyone specifically. I recall walking by a small protest in London recently and someone was holding up a sign that just said "Tax the Rich". This person did not appear to have a coherent policy nor a specific target for the funds. He merely wanted to stick it to the man.

Mindlessly advocating to confiscate wealth out of some misguided sense of class warfare does strike me as a manifestation of envy. And I do not believe it is healthy to covet the rewards of success through the back door in that way, nor to punish success.

[Dod101]

Sound like the politics of envy again. Why do you say people who rent have nothing to show for it?
There's no way now that I would get into buy to let which is a shame as I would quite like to provide a nice place for someone to live at a reasonable price.
Same old problem, so called goal of equality preventing solutions. Someone somewhere with a brain will call it out, I hope. It won't be one of the ignorant "socialists" or selfish wealthy.

I do not think that CK or anyone else is advocating the goal of equality. CK has proposed one possible way forward. What do you suggest?

Dod

[Dod101]

The greater blame lies in the system that privileges property ownership with a state-enforced monopoly,

What state enforced monopoly?

The one that puts the organs of the state - police and both civil and criminal justice systems - at your disposal if I and my very large and intimidating friends take up residence in your home without your permission.

What a very odd way of looking at life. So you do not believe in our capitalist society?

Dod

[Dod101]

I have read through CK's post again and can see nothing in it which is trying to promote equality, just a slightly better way of trying to tackle the housing crisis in this country.

It is no good shouting the politics of envy or the goal of equality or whatever. Come up with a solution to our housing crisis, and the ridiculous cost of housing (in relation to incomes) in this country.

Dod