Let's tax pensioners

[Hacker Khan]

it would probably do us better for both generations to understand each other a bit better. Young people probably think most old people are Daily Mail reading Brexit voting little Englanders from the university of life who drive slowly everywhere and are perpetually confused by smart phones, chip and pin and mini roundabouts. Old people think young people are mostly work shy hoody wearing lily-livered socialists who are studying media studies at the University of Stockton, want everything for nothing and are out all night partying using easily available credit.

Where as neither is true. However society has changed a lot since most of us were a lad or lass and more understanding of the pressures each generation is facing when it comes to housing, employment, finance, the environment and inclusion can only make things better.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Not saying your wrong, but that 10k increase would be spread over a 35 year mortgage term, so insignificant in the scheme of things.

An equivalent number to the point you're trying to make would be closer to house prices rising by £100k, which won't happen.

The "market" makes no sense.

If we ate to believe that the young cannot afford to buy houses then, at the lower end of the market, prices should stagnate or reduce due to lack of demand.

This would then filter upwards as the existing owners of the lower priced properties struggle to sell when they wish to trade up.

However, in London at least, prices seem to be determined by the demand at the top end of the market.

Truly a confusing development of the Market Economy.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Of course there are, some visible and some unseen. I have quite a few friends who like me took out a private pension to try and give them a better standard of life in old age. If you couple Mr Browns raid on the pension investments made, along with the current flavour of Governments idea that you should sell your family home to fund your care home provision, where is the incentive to save and try and make provision for when you get old?
My parents worked hard all their life and brought us up in a responsible way. They weren't a burden on the state,never spent what they didnt have and looked after what they had. They took the view the ( 3 bed terraced) family home would be their financial legacy to myself and my 2 brothers when they left us. When my mother had to go into a care home, the house we grew up in and all the memories in it were sold to fund her at the home. Other residents within the home were funded by the council because they didn't have the house my mum and dad had worked hard for.

As friends of mine all around the same age as myself have said, where is the point in saving or trying to make provision for yourself when you're penalised if you do have anything when you get old?
It's hard to not take that view in the current situaion.

I can't be 100% sure - but I don't think my parents ever really considered the family home as their legacy to us or our inheritance from them when they were gone. Their investment was in their children as we grew up - trying to instill in us the best of values; the best that state education could provide; and a love of and for our country (Scotland). That I hope that I am today living the values that they believed in; that I was very well educated through school and university; and that I do indeed have a deep love of my country - in these things I have all of the inheritance I need.

That they are both now departed and the family home sold - we can use what we have from that to support our children in the much tougher financial environment today than when I was their age. And at the same time pass on all the non-monetary things that my parents instilled in me and that they set the groundwork for with our children when they were alive. Well at least I can try.

 

[Hacker Khan]

The "market" makes no sense.

If we ate to believe that the young cannot afford to buy houses then, at the lower end of the market, prices should stagnate or reduce due to lack of demand.

This would then filter upwards as the existing owners of the lower priced properties struggle to sell when they wish to trade up.

However, in London at least, prices seem to be determined by the demand at the top end of the market.

Truly a confusing development of the Market Economy.

The relatively cheaper houses may well be bought by people who are looking to make a profit out of them such as buy to let or student housing. Meaning, unless there is a large scale building initiative in this country, there still will be demand but not from the younger generation.

 

[SwingsitlikeHogan]

Intergeneration disparity must be stopped...

All over 50 golfers from provincial towns will be rounded up, transported to the inner cities and forced to join gangs!

More "free unicorn" theory dreamt up by folk who might benefit from 10 mins in the real world.

and the real world is what we make it and make of it.

 

[Pathetic Shark]

This is nothing more than a crap piece of PR purposely put out for the day after a Bank Holiday to get themselves on the news and on the box. It's utter rubbish.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

The relatively cheaper houses may well be bought by people who are looking to make a profit out of them such as buy to let or student housing. Meaning, unless there is a large scale building initiative in this country, there still will be demand but not from the younger generation.

You may well be right although I find it difficult to believe that the Investment Property market is large enough to compensate for the loss of the first time buyers.

More restrictions need to be imposed on the developers to ensure that adequate numbers of affordable homes are built.

In the near 40 years that I have lived in this village (pop: 2400) 95%+ of the houses built have been large 4, 5 or 6 bedroom properties.

This creates an imbalance as the average age creeps up and those younger people who have grown up here can't find anywhere affordable if they wish to continue to live here.

 

[TheDiablo]

The "market" makes no sense.

If we ate to believe that the young cannot afford to buy houses then, at the lower end of the market, prices should stagnate or reduce due to lack of demand.

This would then filter upwards as the existing owners of the lower priced properties struggle to sell when they wish to trade up.

However, in London at least, prices seem to be determined by the demand at the top end of the market.

Truly a confusing development of the Market Economy.

Sorry, I don't agree with any of that. The bottom end of the market is completely propped up with buy to let investors. Over 5 million properties and approx 12-15m living in private rented accommodation.

The top end of the London property market is its own beast with international investors and has very little relevance to the overall housing market.

 

[Hacker Khan]

You may well be right although I find it difficult to believe that the Investment Property market is large enough to compensate for the loss of the first time buyers.

More restrictions need to be imposed on the developers to ensure that adequate numbers of affordable homes are built.

In the near 40 years that I have lived in this village (pop: 2400) 95%+ of the houses built have been large 4, 5 or 6 bedroom properties.

This creates an imbalance as the average age creeps up and those younger people who have grown up here can't find anywhere affordable if they wish to continue to live here.

I am sure there are plenty of first time buyers, it's just that they are not youngsters anymore. And it is a serious question for society and government to answer, should we be making it easier for the young to get on the property ladder. Or shall we just leave it to the market which I believe will only increase the buy to lets. Or we could take the attitude as they do in other countries where letting is common place, but that will be a big cultural shift.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Sorry, I don't agree with any of that. The bottom end of the market is completely propped up with buy to let investors. Over 5 million properties and approx 12-15m living in private rented accommodation.

The top end of the London property market is its own beast with international investors and has very little relevance to the overall housing market.

Did not the Stamp Duty changes significantly reduce the demand for "buy to let"?

It certainly resulted in a large reduction in the demand for mortgage finance in that sector.

 

[Hacker Khan]

Did not the Stamp Duty changes significantly reduce the demand for "buy to let"?

It certainly resulted in a large reduction in the demand for mortgage finance in that sector.

http://www.cityam.com/283566/number-uk-buy-let-investors-hits-record-25m-high

 

[TheDiablo]

Did not the Stamp Duty changes significantly reduce the demand for "buy to let"?

It certainly resulted in a large reduction in the demand for mortgage finance in that sector.

Yep, it has reduced somewhat and was a good step the govt made. But it hasn't created liquidity because it wasn't retrospective and hasn't penalised those already in private hands (in no way am I suggesting it should have been)

The government has created some good initiatives in the last 10 years or so, but with the prices continuing to spiral they have been on far too small a scale to have any real impact.

Regarding the specifics of the topic in the OP, it will never happen anyway as no government ever takes on pensioners due to the power of their vote.

IMO pension policy needs a radical overhaul and needs to be controlled by an independent body with a long term view (similar to BoE) as opposed to a govt with a maximum 5 year cycle

 

[Deleted member 18588]

http://www.cityam.com/283566/number-uk-buy-let-investors-hits-record-25m-high

But the figures quoted in the report do not equate to over 5 million properties and seem to suggest that there are significant regional variations.

It also appears that rental yields are moving downwards which may reduce demand.

 

[Deleted member 18588]

IMO pension policy needs a radical overhaul and needs to be controlled by an independent body with a long term view (similar to BoE) as opposed to a govt with a maximum 5 year cycle

Within the overall pension policy there's the question of non-State provision and as Employee Benefits Consultant, now retired, I would have to agree that control and regulation of the sector has not been successfully handled by any Government within the last 40-50 years.

 

[IanM]

The "market" makes no sense.


Truly a confusing development of the Market Economy.

Apologies if I disagree... your note is correct if there was only a single housing market in the UK. Far from it/

 

[Deleted member 18588]

Apologies if I disagree... your note is correct if there was only a single housing market in the UK. Far from it/

Yes that was really my point. The housing market is so fractured that it defies the usual principles of market economics.

The major disconnect comes from house purchase not being seen as the provision of a basic requirement for living but rather as an investment.

This then results in the paradox of people complaining about increases in the price of other basics such as food and energy whilst, at the same time, being upset if the cost/value of housing doesn't increase.

In this country we have a wonderful habit of overlooking the basics and hence housing becomes an investment and pension provision becomes tax-saving.

 

[chrisd]

So, the OP is about taxing pensioners.

So, as a newly retired pensioner I get about £2.5 k a year untaxed after my state pension takes up most of my allowances, so, if i take any of my work pension, or my employment earnings I'm going to pay tax at the same rate as a 20 year old. Yes I do save national insurance but if pensioners were to have to pay that their pensions would have to go up to fund it.

 

[bobmac]

So kids today leave school, go on a gap year or 2, spend 3 or 4 years at college and then get gifted £10,000 of my hard earned pension to buy a house?

Not on your nelly.

 

[User62651]

So kids today leave school, go on a gap year or 2, spend 3 or 4 years at college and then get gifted £10,000 of my hard earned pension to buy a house?

Not on your nelly.

Watching your house value increase in value 6x the rate of inflation or more is not hard-earned, just luck. Not saying you didn't work hard but people who bought pre 1995 or so have seen their primary asset's value sky rocket which is a big advantage.
Sell up, downsize and retire comfortably on profit whilst the next generation struggle, not your problem I get that but govt's need to address the situation somehow. Current generation 35% of whom will not be able to buy a house have it harder, no question. Would you like to be still living with your parents at 35? Many (including hard working folks) have no choice because a deposit on property is unattainable and 3 or 4 x salary for mortgage buys nothing.

 

[fundy]

sat at a poker table the other night, there was an interesting discussion between the generations (its one area where you get a mix of the two generations a lot, a large majority are 20 something or 50+)

one of the lads in his mid20s was moaning about how hard it was for him and how he would never be able to afford a house as it was impossible to save any money on his salary despite living at home. On further discussion turns out by start of May hes had 2 overseas holidays already, bought a brand new car (on finance), had an Ipad and the latest Iphone on him with a natty pair of Bose wireless headphones and was dressed head to toe in designer clothing. oh and the buy in to the tournament was 110 quid

im not saying he represents all of the generation, but the attitude was very much of not wanting to sacrifice anything to be able to save for a house, if thats the case fine but dont moan youre unable to save when youre actually choosing not to