Do you want to discuss boring politics? (32 Viewers)

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

but interest rates were 15% for a while once!

It’s almost like they say they want better for their kids but secretly want them to have it as bad.

I’m lucky - got a deposit from my grandad and got 2 kids, got a good job and on the housing ladder. Bought my current house 2 years ago and it’s so cut throat

 

---

[MalcSB]

Interest rates were artificially lowered to reflect that no one could afford to buy at the insane levels prices had reached.

Income multiples had to be scrapped for the same reason. Like someone else said, that wasn't to help people new on the ladder.

It was to prevent a collapse in the value of homes people had got used to using like piggy banks and get rich quick assets.

I can't wait until no one mentions 15% rates in isolation to deflect from the fact that the cost of living is bonkers now vs. then.

That wasn’t the reason interest rates were lowered, it was trying to address the aftermath of the recession.

 

[mmttww]

That wasn’t the reason interest rates were lowered, it was trying to address the aftermath of the recession.

the same recession caused almost entirely by over inflated property prices. I worked at a lender over that period and had to study all the changes from the MMR. All the changes I talked about were to stop the property market collapsing.

 

[fatso]

The interest rate of 15% on a 10k house is a lot less than 6% on a 250k house.

also selling off the housing stock without rebuilding has led to the housing crisis.

boomers would definitely be the pull the ladder up generation, and are now surprised the millennials and latest generation aren’t thanking them for that

This is nonsense on so many levels, when boomers bought their homes at 15% interest rates their wages were nowhere near what they are today, as I said, the percentage of take home pay that my mortgage swallowed up is around the same as it is for the equivalent property would cost today. And for the vast majority of the last 15 years, mortgage rates have been available at around 3%.

Also, selling housing stock has absolutely zero effect on the housing crisis, do you actually think the houses are empty or demolished??? The people who own them now would still be living in them if they weren't sold off, so the demand would be exactly the same.

The demand has increased as our population has increased, and there are also a lot more divorced couples who now occupy 2 properties rather than 1. And in many cases (not all) 1 or both divorced parties are claiming some kind of benefit in order to pay their rent/mortgage.
That's a drain on the economy and the housing market.

We now have the rediculous situation when working families can't claim child benefit for a third child, and millions of pensioner's have lost their winter fuel allowance, while illegal immigrants are housed, fed and clothed, at the states expense with no fear of expulsion.

Also most boomers joined the workforce at 15 or 16, we didn't all bum around in 6th form or uni until we were 21, so we will work on average 10% longer than today's generation, and have seen our pension age increase due to the effect of relatively recent economic policy.

We also didn't have any of the modern HR policy protections that today's workforce enjoy, no minimum wage for us, no 37 hour week when I started work, no sick pay, fewer holidays, no redundancy safeguards, and as for paternity leave, don't make me laugh.

 

[MalcSB]

the same recession caused almost entirely by over inflated property prices. I worked at a lender over that period and had to study all the changes from the MMR. All the changes I talked about were to stop the property market collapsing.

So greedy banks in the US had nothing to do with it then.

 

[mmttww]

So greedy banks in the US had nothing to do with it then.

Yeah, they did, and UK lenders were heading down the same path (see Northern Rock). Luckily not to the same extent. I'm not sure what point you're making. I can't be arsed getting into this in loads of detail esp. when you just keep moving the goalposts every time I respond.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Household disposable income grew 0.3% per year in the last parliament. According to OBR it is projected to grow at just 0.4% per year in this one. .

What is Labour for?



The lack of household spending power is catastrophic for a service economy like ours.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[fatso]

the same recession caused almost entirely by over inflated property prices. I worked at a lender over that period and had to study all the changes from the MMR. All the changes I talked about were to stop the property market collapsing.

The housing crisis was solely caused by the financial banking collapse in the USA which was a result of unregulated bankers.

Banks in America and the UK went bankrupt as a result and had to be bailed out to the tune of billions of pounds, which of course is public tax payers money. This caused the recession.

 

[MalcSB]

Yeah, they did, and UK lenders were heading down the same path (see Northern Rock). Luckily not to the same extent. I'm not sure what point you're making. I can't be arsed getting into this in loads of detail esp. when you just keep moving the goalposts every time I respond.

I haven’t moved the goalposts at all.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

This is nonsense on so many levels, when boomers bought their homes at 15% interest rates their wages were nowhere near what they are today, as I said, the percentage of take home pay that my mortgage swallowed up is around the same as it is for the equivalent property would cost today. And for the vast majority of the last 15 years, mortgage rates have been available at around 3%.

Also, selling housing stock has absolutely zero effect on the housing crisis, do you actually think the houses are empty or demolished??? The people who own them now would still be living in them if they weren't sold off, so the demand would be exactly the same.

The demand has increased as our population has increased, and there are also a lot more divorced couples who now occupy 2 properties rather than 1. And in many cases (not all) 1 or both divorced parties are claiming some kind of benefit in order to pay their rent/mortgage.
That's a drain on the economy and the housing market.

We now have the rediculous situation when working families can't claim child benefit for a third child, and millions of pensioner's have lost their winter fuel allowance, while illegal immigrants are housed, fed and clothed, at the states expense with no fear of expulsion.

Also most boomers joined the workforce at 15 or 16, we didn't all bum around in 6th form or uni until we were 21, so we will work on average 10% longer than today's generation, and have seen our pension age increase due to the effect of relatively recent economic policy.

We also didn't have any of the modern HR policy protections that today's workforce enjoy, no minimum wage for us, no 37 hour week when I started work, no sick pay, fewer holidays, no redundancy safeguards, and as for paternity leave, don't make me laugh.

Wages to house prices have never been higher, added on to the highest taxation since WW2 and highest energy crisis. So the take home pay is massively lower.

in terms of the housing stock I’m on about social housing. Maggy stopped the local authorities rebuilding. Meaning as you’ve said nobody has moved out of them.

affordable housing is few and far between. And anytime the developers look to build you get someone against it because they like to walk their dog

 

[mmttww]

This caused the recession.

and I wasn't talking about the recession or it's causes. I was talking about measures taken in the UK to prevent prices collapsing. It's not a matter for debate, it was policy.

It was let prices contract to the point where they were affordable vs. wages, or make money artificially cheaper and force lenders to ditch income multiples for 'affordability'.

The second part was mandated through the MMR. I worked on implementing new systems to deliver it. It wasn't a choice for lenders. It was to prop up the market.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Yep can't argue with that. Told to save and invest. I have a house that is only worth what it is whist I'm in it and as you say daughter will get hammered when I pass it on. Crap savings rate on what I put aside and my pension plan wont last if they remove or keep pushing up the age for state pension.

Currently also fed up with seeing minimum wage rising and ers NI rising meaning no real rise for employees as businesses can't afford it, unless you're in the public sector of course. I get that's where Labour's core votes come from so looking after them is to be expected, but also a bit cronyism which they're supposedly against. Once again middle earners forgotten with no raise on the outdate £50k threshold meaning even more fiscal drag. Pretty uninspiring first budget for me and all I see is whataboutery despite them having had full access to the numbers whilst in opposition, so to now claim they keep finding stuff is clealry bollocks. So much for putting more in workers pockets.

Yet despite this many people who have significant shareholdings are making a mint. How are they doing this if businesses can't afford it?

They can afford it, just our fucked up system has been programmed to think giving it to a small number of people who do fuck all is better than giving it to a large number of people who actually do something.

 

[MalcSB]

Yet despite this many people who have significant shareholdings are making a mint. How are they doing this if businesses can't afford it?

They can afford it, just our fucked up system has been programmed to think giving it to a small number of people who do fuck all is better than giving it to a large number of people who actually do something.

Why are you bringing the chronic unemployed into it?

 

[rob9872]

It seems the main gripe is being able to afford to own a house, the very thing levelled against the generation that can.

Owning a house isn't the only option, so it must simply be jealousy and again someone have something that they can't afford, whilst watching their 55in tv and typing on their laptop or iPhone 16 having driven home in a relatively new car that wasn't needed or wearing £250 Nike trainers, £1000 watch and £100 aftershave/perfume, all of which are of course immediately essential.

 

[fatso]

and I wasn't talking about the recession or it's causes. I was talking about measures taken in the UK to prevent prices collapsing. It's not a matter for debate, it was policy.

It was let prices contract to the point where they were affordable vs. wages, or make money artificially cheaper and force lenders to ditch income multiples for 'affordability'.

The second part was mandated through the MMR. I worked on implementing new systems to deliver it. It wasn't a choice for lenders. It was to prop up the market.

But wasn't the MMR brought in (in part at least) to curb irresponsible lending by financial institutions that ignored affordability, allowed deposit free lending, 100+% lending, allowed self cert mortgage lending etc etc, all of which facilitated the house price boom rather than allow prices to better match incomes.

In other words irresponsible lending, much the same as in the USA where brokers were paid huge bonuses to lend, and so ignored affordability, which ultimately meant huge levels of defaulting when interest rates increased.

 

[rob9872]

Yet despite this many people who have significant shareholdings are making a mint. How are they doing this if businesses can't afford it?

They can afford it, just our fucked up system has been programmed to think giving it to a small number of people who do fuck all is better than giving it to a large number of people who actually do something.

Huge corporations might, small businesses can't.

 

[rob9872]

Also, how do those big businesses do it? They put their prices up so we have to pay even more of our now reduced disposable income.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Yep can't argue with that. Told to save and invest. I have a house that is only worth what it is whist I'm in it and as you say daughter will get hammered when I pass it on. Crap savings rate on what I put aside and my pension plan wont last if they remove or keep pushing up the age for state pension.

Currently also fed up with seeing minimum wage rising and ers NI rising meaning no real rise for employees as businesses can't afford it, unless you're in the public sector of course. I get that's where Labour's core votes come from so looking after them is to be expected, but also a bit cronyism which they're supposedly against. Once again middle earners forgotten with no raise on the outdate £50k threshold meaning even more fiscal drag. Pretty uninspiring first budget for me and all I see is whataboutery despite them having had full access to the numbers whilst in opposition, so to now claim they keep finding stuff is clealry bollocks. So much for putting more in workers pockets.

Why do you keep up this public v private nonsense?

From the IFS

Key findings

1. Average pay in the public and private sectors has performed very differently since the election in 2019. Real public sector earnings initially grew substantially during the pandemic (whereas private sector earnings fell as many were furloughed). But the ensuing rise in inflation hit public sector pay much harder due to government pay restraint. Overall, between December 2019 and November 2023, inflation-adjusted average private sector pay grew by 2.3%, whereas public sector pay fell by 0.3%.

2. These recent trends come on top of poor earnings performance in both sectors since 2007. Real public sector pay at the end of 2023 was still 1% lower than its level at the beginning of 2007. Real private sector pay increased by 4% from 2007 to 2023.

Given in some parts of the country including Coventry, the public sector represent a significant chunk of the workforce, to who's benefit is their pay being cut in real terms? Certainly not the local economy aka the private sector.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[MalcSB]

and I wasn't talking about the recession or it's causes. I was talking about measures taken in the UK to prevent prices collapsing. It's not a matter for debate, it was policy.

It was let prices contract to the point where they were affordable vs. wages, or make money artificially cheaper and force lenders to ditch income multiples for 'affordability'.

The second part was mandated through the MMR. I worked on implementing new systems to deliver it. It wasn't a choice for lenders. It was to prop up the market.

It was to protect the banks, not the houseowners.

 

[fatso]

Wages to house prices have never been higher, added on to the highest taxation since WW2 and highest energy crisis. So the take home pay is massively lower.

in terms of the housing stock I’m on about social housing. Maggy stopped the local authorities rebuilding. Meaning as you’ve said nobody has moved out of them.

affordable housing is few and far between. And anytime the developers look to build you get someone against it because they like to walk their dog

But there's more housing currently being built than we've seen in donkeys years, (it may be a few years late) but i expect the demand has probably peaked, the UK birth rate has dropped off a cliff, we're seeing the fewest babies being born for generations,

Fertility rate in England and Wales drops to new low

Just over 591,000 babies were born in the UK last year - the lowest number in four decades

www.bbc.co.uk

which makes me wonder who's going to be living in these houses in 25 years time when the boomers are all dead or In nursing homes?

 

[rob9872]

Why do you keep up this public v private nonsense?

From the IFS



Given in some parts of the country including Coventry, the public sector represent a significant chunk of the workforce, to who's benefit is their pay being cut in real terms? Certainly not the local economy aka the private sector.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

Keep? Where else?

Aso, I'm talking about this specific government which will undoubtedly try to redress that balance you're quoting which as I said in the post is to appease their voters. If anything you're agreeing with me, so not nonsense!

 

[fernandopartridge]

Keep? Where else?

Aso, I'm talking about this specific government which will undoubtedly try to redress that balance you're quoting which as I said in the post is to appease their voters. If anything you're agreeing with me, so not nonsense!

You are keeping up a general myth. I am pretty sure you've posted about it before.

Anyway, even if the Labour government does try to redress the balance (which it won't), it's a good idea and it isn't at the cost of private sector pay in any event.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[MalcSB]

But there's more housing currently being built than we've seen in donkeys years, (it may be a few years late) but i expect the demand has probably peaked, the UK birth rate has dropped off a cliff, we're seeing the fewest babies being born for generations,

Fertility rate in England and Wales drops to new low

Just over 591,000 babies were born in the UK last year - the lowest number in four decades

www.bbc.co.uk

which makes me wonder who's going to be living in these houses in 25 years time when the boomers are all dead or In nursing homes?

I also wonder where the tax revenue would come from if house prices plummeted. So much less from SDLT and then hugely reduced Inheritance Tax Revenues. Us boomers won’t have to make the shortfall up, we will be long gone.

 

[rob9872]

Well I've just been back on my posts over the past year on this thread which tbh I mostly try to avoid these days as it's an echo chamber I end up arguing every time. I probably have posted about it before but certainly not in the past year so I'd certainly not consider that 'keep'

I need to retreat again I think

 

[rob9872]

Before I do depart, it's interesting those on the side of debate on here that are against 'boomers' wealth because they can't afford it themselves. Once again showing that whilst they pretend to want everyone to share wealth their real first thought is me me me

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

It seems the main gripe is being able to afford to own a house, the very thing levelled against the generation that can.

Owning a house isn't the only option, so it must simply be jealousy and again someone have something that they can't afford, whilst watching their 55in tv and typing on their laptop or iPhone 16 having driven home in a relatively new car that wasn't needed or wearing £250 Nike trainers, £1000 watch and £100 aftershave/perfume, all of which are of course immediately essential.

Not at all. What the issue is, is the affordable housing is being brought up in buy to let. From a generation that already has one house…

and you’re right - owning isn’t the be all and end all, you could rent. But then the prices are 2x or 3x a mortgage. Becuase god forbid the land lords don’t make a profit.

the generation that can - usually bought their property in the right to buy then bought another one to feather their pensions.

But there's more housing currently being built than we've seen in donkeys years, (it may be a few years late) but i expect the demand has probably peaked, the UK birth rate has dropped off a cliff, we're seeing the fewest babies being born for generations,

Fertility rate in England and Wales drops to new low

Just over 591,000 babies were born in the UK last year - the lowest number in four decades

www.bbc.co.uk

which makes me wonder who's going to be living in these houses in 25 years time when the boomers are all dead or In nursing homes?

The issue is the developers aren’t building enough affordable housing. They build the bare minimum . Which are then bought out by people who are leveraging their own property to buy another

 

[mmttww]

It was to protect the banks, not the houseowners.

FFS! How can you split the two? Like the idea a government would have the guts to tell most homeowners (aka voters) 'Yeah, we're gonna let your home will lose 20% of its value LOL'.

 

[mmttww]

But wasn't the MMR brought in (in part at least) to curb irresponsible lending by financial institutions that ignored affordability...

'Affordability' was a model that almost always meant you could borrow more vs. lower risk lenders who stuck with income multiples.

Lower risk lenders were compelled to ditch multiples and use Affordability instead so that they would lend people more, and keep sales ticking.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Why are you bringing the chronic unemployed into it?

What the fuck are you on about?

Clearly I'm talking about shareholders, who receive by far the biggest benefits from profits yet do the least for it.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Huge corporations might, small businesses can't.

Small businesses the owners also tend to do the work, so got far less of a problem with that.

They also tend to pay their tax, whereas those with large portfolios etc. tend to employ people to ensure they don't.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

It seems the main gripe is being able to afford to own a house, the very thing levelled against the generation that can.

Owning a house isn't the only option, so it must simply be jealousy and again someone have something that they can't afford, whilst watching their 55in tv and typing on their laptop or iPhone 16 having driven home in a relatively new car that wasn't needed or wearing £250 Nike trainers, £1000 watch and £100 aftershave/perfume, all of which are of course immediately essential.

Ah yes, the old 'young people waste their money so can't afford a house' trope. Because most of us didn't have to clear a house of tons of crap that their parents/grandparents bought at a time they supposedly had no money and were putting everything towards the mortgage... And they never spent nights down the pub spending their cash unnecessarily.

Fact is a lot of people at that time had social housing which cost far less in rent than current private sector rents allowing the ability to save along with some luxuries of the era (and there wasn't the same level of products and consumerism trying to get you to part with your money then either). And you don't get the option of buying your house off the landlord for a knock down price either.

Whether you like it or not, the ability to get housing back then was easier than it is now.

 

[SBAndy]

Surely the increase in house prices is basic economics of supply and demand. we have more people in the country now than back then, meaning less housing available. Yes prices were cheaper, but wages were less and often only one income as mums generally stayed at home. Lower divorce rates would have also meant generally a traditional family unit all under a single roof.

You can blame the older generation for some things, but their only benefit really is the advance in medical care which I take as a good thing for us all and the increase in house prices which isnt their fault and of no benefit to them until they sell up and down-size. Everything else is simply jealousy by a generation (of which I am part) who arent prepared to mend and make do but want everything and want it now. Cars, phones, TV etc in addition to subscriptions that you mention.

Rob, just dragging it back to this. You mentioned that whilst house prices were cheaper, wages were less and there was usually only one income in the household. Does this not demonstrate to you the property bubble? Most houses now will be seeing two income sources to maintain various payments. You’d struggle to get a property suitable for a family without two incomes now.

 

[mmttww]

You’d struggle to get a property suitable for a family without two incomes now.

but interest rates were 15% and younger people can't save deposits because they buy coffee and Netflix.

 

[rob9872]

Rob, just dragging it back to this. You mentioned that whilst house prices were cheaper, wages were less and there was usually only one income in the household. Does this not demonstrate to you the property bubble? Most houses now will be seeing two income sources to maintain various payments. You’d struggle to get a property suitable for a family without two incomes now.

It does and I get it. I have a huge mortgage despite decent household income, I'm just not prepared to slag off the old because they won the born at the right time lottery. In fact it seems most on here think similarly in terms being fortunate where we are born so no idea why that doesn't translate to when and be happy for them rather than bitter or jealous.

 

[HuckerbyDublinWhelan]

It does and I get it. I have a huge mortgage despite decent household income, I'm just not prepared to slag off the old because they won the born at the right time lottery. In fact it seems most on here think similarly in terms being fortunate where we are born so no idea why that doesn't translate to when and be happy for them rather than bitter or jealous.

It’s not bitter or jealousness, it’s the fact that the last 14 years has seen every advantage that generation had been taken away from them.

it’s that generation that predominantly voted Brexit (freedom of movement gone) it’s that generation who continually voted conservative - great if you already had the property and good job not so much if you weren’t,

All this whilst batting down any issues the younger generation said with “well in my day…” as long as the older generation were fine, fuck everyone else.

like I said before - I’ve got a house, I’ve got a good job. But it doesn’t stop me being sympathetic to the younger generation