The boomers ate all the avocados
Comments
-
It's less of an argument than a statement of fact.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I mean, I will be helping them regardless, as a relatively high earner.
Where's the quid pro quo? Politically. I feel the boomers want their cake and eat it.
0 -
You are a high earner don't bother with the "relatively". How should a pensioner on £11k/annum help you?
Edit :- £18k average as posted earlier.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Sell the house to fund their retirement, if that's an option.
--
This is a good article on why there is conflict in the housing sector specifically, amongst other things (free to read if you have signed up to the FT, no need for a subbie). It's about the US, but the same logic is applicable. It's really good at highlighting the changing habbits and how each change further compounds the problems.
The usual problems with rising house prices making it more expensive yada yada. But because in turn, older people are hanging on to their family sized homes for much longer. At the same time the millennials move into family-rearing years they are increasingly competing for the same property. Boomers are not, in general "downsizing". ( I guess that is why I am quite comfortable creating incentives for boomers to do so!).
This causes more problems:
If housing is mostly a game of musical chairs, mortgage lock-in slows the music down: it results in fewer transactions. But when an older person decides not to sell, it’s like removing a chair from the game. The players left standing are disproportionately younger buyers.
0 -
Where are they going to live when they sell their house? I've asked you this numerous times and you never give an answer.
0 -
I would also argue that part of the housing supply issue is down to young people now going to uni then into their own place. It used to be far more common (at least in these parts) for people to live at home until they got married although they did also get married much younger.
0 -
-
And we're back to the 'boomers are the cause of the housing problems, so they should sort it out' plan.
0 -
The ones that first time buyers are hoping to buy but will now have to compete against Boomers with a suitcase full of cash? So you only care about your generation and don't care about Gen Z? The problem is a lack of housing, shuffling the deck isn't going to fix the issue.
0 -
So it's okay to shaft Gen-Z? Sounds like an I'm alright Jack strategy.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Why are they shafted? The younger the person is, the more the restrictive housebuilding environment hurts people, all other things being equal.
So the solution is that. As we have all established, that doesn't happen overnight.
In the meantime, there are some specifics in the housing market that put people at family-starting age in competition with a large amount of homeowners of family-size houses who are retired (and thus are not using all the space of a family home).
One is an actual solution to the problem, the other is a market dynamic which would alleviate some specific problems.
0 -
You want all the boomers to be competing with Gen-Z for the same (restricted?) housing stock.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You see, this is entirely the problem with *restricting the housing supply*
It becomes a zero sum game.
Who wants to restrict the housing supply? Overwhelmingly older retired people who a) have the time to object and b) are likely to be homeowners.
0 -
Ultimately it is the Planning Authorities (or, more often, the Planning Committees) who are restricting the housing supply. If they just followed their own and national policies when determining applications it wouldn't matter that people of any age objected unless they had a valid reason.
0 -
Fact or opinion?
Boomers only own 35.6% of housing stock.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
It didn't take long to move on to big houses.
0 -
Status innit, how can you show your parents you've done as well as they did if you have a smaller house?
0 -
id humbly suggest families who live together have a better use of family sized homes than those who do not
I don’t think families wanting family sized homes is really a status thing
0 -
I doubt if forcing elderly people to move houses is going to win the Chasey Party many votes. Maybe overhauling the planning system would, and it's a slightly more modest proposal. Your present campaign leaves the impression you want to make boomers pay for a broken planning system because, well, you don't like boomers.
0 -
I think I've got the hang of this thread now.
Avocados are responsible for the crap planning system that's stifled the housing market.
Damn, still not quite right.
0 -
I’d offer two choices. Either we dramatically loosen up planning laws and heavily water down the ability for locals to object or stall new home building or they introduce a homeowner tax, proportional to the amount of equity you have in your property.
Take your pick.
0 -
-
Well it's the first obviously, I've got no problem with the second using TBB's system (if I'm remembering correctly). However, if the theory that it is the Boomers preventing houses being built holds water it shouldn't be long before the taps can get opened as they cease to be a meaningful number.
0 -
I mean, you know better than me, but it takes time to object to stuff which is why the retired are disproportionately represented in this kind of planning objections.
0 -
Third choice, move somewhere with less NIMBYs. My home town for example currently has a new development underway of 6000 houses. Towns around here have expanded by 25-50% in the past 20 years. You end up with more choice and cheaper housing.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
-
I'm happy, yup!
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Ditto Exeter, which is expanding in all sensible directions, and there are whole new towns in East Devon (e.g. Cranbrook, which will be the second biggest town in East Devon when the current plots have all been developed). We've been over this before, but the mandatory targets were a good thing, but then Gove chickened out. Maybe he's a boomer.
0 -
Retirees are definitely the most vocal (especially in more affluent areas) and more likely to get a group together with a catchy acronym but we certainly get a fair share of younger homeowners at consultations. I even know of some staff from house builders that had to be escorted in and out of a planning inquiry by police. Pretty much anyone with a house will object against more housing in their area. I had (mainly younger) residents of a brand new housing development objecting to a cycle circuit on a former landfill site because of the impact on their view!
0
