Forum menu
-applicants must have 5 GCSEs (A-C) or equivalent.
I think you’ve missed the spirit of the idea. The aim is to help address an imbalance. Those who come from reasonably affluent families are more likely to do well at school, more likely to go into further education, more likely to go on to get a good job, and ultimately less likely to need the £10k to genuinely get a “leg up”. (And of course those people will also be best able to structure an application to “win” even though your vision is designed to prevent milking the system).
-applicants should have a letter of recommendation from someone other than their parents, ideally “someone of standing” in their community who they have known for at least two years.
again, those most likely to benefit from the money would be least likely to know someone of standing for two years.
-applications will be assessed by a locally based panel, based on merit. That “merit” might be the enrichment of wider society, some sort of benefit to the applicant improving their own quality of life, stimulating economic activity, etc; it will be entirely the panel’s decision how to weight relative merit and distribute or withhold funding.
so to top it all off there will be a totally non-transparent process with a postcode lottery.
It’s a terrible idea. After all no other generation got handouts from the government in the form of Right to buy, sales of state assets …
Actually, that’s a point in itself – why aren’t landlords liable for council tax rather than tenants?
Council tax is to pay for council services is it not? The tenant uses those, so pays for them? Plus as mike says they'd just get passed on, plus markup anyhow.
The simple constructive idea is just do away with landlordism. If people are only allowed 1 home and have to sell their others, that immediately floods the market with cheap houses/flats. Let that riot happen, then build the rest of the houses you need. After that, restart the property market.
Not going to happen mind.
Jesus wept if some of the people on here got together their ideas we'd end up like North Korea. Still you get a job and a house there...
A lot of the comparisons about income v average house price dont stand comparison, in 1986 income tax was 30% as a base rate and your personal allowance was about 25% of the aveage salary. I was on £190 a week in 1986 and was taking home £130 (that was a lot of Tax and NI) also interest rates were pushing 10%.
My first house was £38k (required complete renovation) I needed a 10% deposit at £3800 (7 months take home pay) and the bank kept back £3000 until some work was completed.
So even back in 1986 I needed about 12 months take home pay to get a house. I was proportionally paying a lot more tax and lot more interest.
I do acknowledge the fact that London and other areas skew the problem but we just need a lot more houses built.
Usual entitled snowlake whingers. They will make cracking lefties this lot.
Anyone who feels it's soooo unfair feel free to donate to a charity to help the poor darlings.
A great example of being bitter and selfish that I referred to earlier. Having that much hatred can't be any good for anyone - where does it come from, what has happened that causes it.
The simple constructive idea is just do away with landlordism. If people are only allowed 1 home and have to sell their others, that immediately floods the market with cheap houses/flats. Let that riot happen, then build the rest of the houses you need. After that, restart the property market.
Totally agree. Although I think over 50% of the Tory MPs are landlords aren't they so can't see that going far with this government....
The simple constructive idea is just do away with landlordism. If people are only allowed 1 home and have to sell their others, that immediately floods the market with cheap houses/flats. Let that riot happen, then build the rest of the houses you need. After that, restart the property market.
so even with the deflated prices this brings, people who currently live in rented accommodation will need to stump up several thousand immediately to buy the house they live in, or be turfed out onto the street by someone who can.
Although I think over 50% of the Tory MPs are landlords
It's 28%, and 11% of Labour. According to a C4 report from July 17. AFAIK none of them seem to believe it's a conflict of interest when they're voting on related matters such as tenant rights, responsibilities of landlords, that sort of thing.
The issue this proposal is also trying to raise is that wages have stagnated for a decade, while the value of assets and property has increased massively.
So while (mostly older) people with capital or property have effectively been handed a huge pay rise for doing absolutely nothing at all, (mainly younger) working age people (without property or assets) have seen no increase at all in the rewards for their efforts. In fact, most have seen a significant decrease. This gets more pronounced the younger you are.
This is totally unsustainable for all manner of reasons, and its going to have to be addressed at some point. And it doesn't look like its going to happen naturally, therefore there needs to be intervention. I'm not saying this is th answer, but this is a very real problem that needs to be at last discussed, and not just airily dismissed
What Binners said +1.
But a handout? Nah, not unless you can tie down it's use with Ts & Cs otherwise it's going on a lash up in Croatia - at 20 odd it's what I & most of my contemporaries would have done!
But a handout? Nah, not unless you can tie down it’s use with Ts & Cs otherwise it’s going on a lash up in Croatia – at 20 odd it’s what I & most of my contemporaries would have done!
I don't remember compaining too much when I was in my early twenties and the government not only paid for my education but also gave me a student grant "to improve my life" which in my case meant, variously buying a car and some clothes but was mostly spunked on going on the sesh with my mates.
I'd happily pay my taxes to ensure that today's youth can also benefit from the same bounty.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">oldtalent
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Usual entitled snowlake whingers. They will make cracking lefties this lot.
Anyone who feels it’s soooo unfair feel free to donate to a charity to help the poor darlings.
You're not even trying anymore.
</div>
Usual entitled snowlake whingers.
A snowlake whinger, yesterday...... "Ooooh! I'm so cold"
I think somebody just desperately wants a big hug, but his rufty-tuftyness is preventing him from asking for the one thing he truly craves
Sounds like a good idea. Implementation would be key but will never get the backing of the relatively wealthy who have done nothing other than to be born 50+ years ago.
I am indeed one of those people too but I haven’t got to the bitter and selfish stage yet and hope I never do….</span>
</div>
Don't worry sunshine, you are already there...
I left the hallowed halls of Bristol Poly in 1989 ( ) – the average graduate starting salary was £21k.
I left Uni in 2010 and the average Graduate starting salary was £25k
The average Graduate starting salary in 2018 is £22k (30k for those deemed as high flyers)
In 2001, my current house was sold (not to or by me) for £110k...it was valued last year at £450k.
In real world terms, salary has decreased dramatically.
Half of the 30+ "starter homes" on the new estate I've moved to have been bought by a single landlord, backed by HSBC & bought off-plan in one go. Nothing against free enterprise but that needs sorting out, surely...
I'm all for solving the housing crisis but through ownership, not mega Landlord creation.
Its not as though there were no buyers, they have a waiting list FFS.
Some of these building companies need a moral reality check.
I left the hallowed halls of Bristol Poly in 1989 – the average graduate starting salary was £21k.
I left art college in 1988 - the first job I was offered was on £3,500 (I accepted it but they withdrew their offer), finally starting a job on £7,000. I really don't believe that £21,000 was the average back then.
Handing 10k to people won't solve the housing price issue.
For starters, stop investors buying new property to let. On Buckshaw village near me there is a row of 6 newly built town houses all up for rent. This needs to stop. It's just pushing house prices upwards.
But if you look further than the housing, a lot of industry / manufacturing has disappeared from these shores, leaving us with a large service industry which in general isn't paying fantastic wages.
Add to that most young uns want the latest mobile phone, sky tv, spotify, netflix, fast food, etc.
They've spent half their monthly wage before even thinking about a mortgage.
Some of these building companies need a moral reality check.
They're not going to get one. Not in our present capitalist utopia.
If you look in Manchester City Centre, the skyline is clogged with cranes. All busy building 'luxury' apartments. They're going up all over town. But the latest figures from the City Council show that over two thirds of these are sold to buy-to-let landlords, a lot of them investors from oversees, often before a brick has been laid.
So young people couldn't even buy these, even if they could afford them, which they can't.
As a result of this, rents in Manchester have been increasing by 15-20% a year.
Given that wages have been stagnant for years, and that doest look like changing any time soon, this is totally unsustainable.
But ... hey.... someones making a hell of a lot of money, so everything is brilliant, right?
1987 - £6700 - geophysics degree.
Back then you were suppossed to be in the top 4% if you went to Uni, nowadays you are in the bottom 4% if you don't (it seems...).
All it will achieve is a corresponding rise in house prices.
Yep, no different to Help to Buy, just benefits house builders / land owners by raising prices by the corresponding amount.
I’m all for solving the housing crisis but through ownership, not mega Landlord creation.
A healthy economy needs a healthy rental market for labour flexibility. We just need to build a lot more houses....
so even with the deflated prices this brings, people who currently live in rented accommodation will need to stump up several thousand immediately to buy the house they live in, or be turfed out onto the street by someone who can.
Wouldn't be too difficult, the governemnt could issue low interest loans for first time buyers. Or guarantee them 100% mortgages. Not like they wouldn't be paying the rent anyhow.
That bit isn't really the difficult problem to get around.
Wouldn’t be too difficult for the governemnt could issue low interest loans for first time buyers. Or guarantee them 100% mortgages. Not like they wouldn’t be paying the rent anyhow.
All that achieves is a corresponding house price rise, doesn't enable any more people to buy as the problem is supply limited.
Our entire housing model in this country is now totally dysfunctional and unfit for purpose. The result of decades of being manipulated for political, not practical purposes
Homes are no longer primarily places for people to live, but are instead marketed as investment opportunities to funnel capital into
Until that changes, very very radically, things are just going to get worse.
And can you see anything changing with this shower in charge? Bearing in mind that our health secretary recently 'forgot' that he'd just purchased 7 luxury flats in a new development?
Like you do....
Add to that most young uns want the latest mobile phone, sky tv, spotify, netflix, fast food, etc.
200 a.month top's? If it will take you 10 plus years to save a deposit for somewhere you don't want to live why not forget it and enjoy yourself
All that achieves is a corresponding house price rise, doesn’t enable any more people to buy as the problem is supply limited.
You missed the part where i'm flooding the market with cut price buy to lets, and building cheap affordable(for the normal guy/lassie in the street) housing.
Own it's own, clearly charlatans are going to take advantage. If there's a will you can quite easily take them out the game.
There is no will though. That's the big problem, housing market equals nothing but profit to people.
Ok then... for the sake of argument let's assume that people who are more financially successful/stable didn't get there by parental privilege and a good upbringing or by being born at just the right time in the economy's boom and bust cycle.
Let's say it was all down to mountains of gumption and a spark of intelligence.. both genetic traits that you will have just simply inherited..
So just ****ing share stuff with people.. we have to contribute financially anyway... death and taxes and all that.
I'd much rather be giving someone lower down the ladder a leg up with my contributions, than be spending my hard earned paying for the obscene excesses of people who already have far more than enough.
Not all baby boomers had a great life you know. Plenty out there have worked hard their whole life and will still be piss poor in retirement.
That's true, and I think we should base all our considerations on one extreme or the other of the scale. But then again, even when I think about the most privileged millenials I know (specifically one with rich parents who is now a doctor), their parents bought them property, which they took over the mortgage on, which is still in negative equity and she can't afford to sell. Of course this may change, but...
The problem is that such a small proportion of people can afford to live well in the milennial and slightly - pre - milennial generation. Between myself and my older brother (4 yrs) there's a significant gap in ability to afford houses etc, despite both being fairly successful professionals. I imagine the trend has continued.
As alluded to above it will just further drive up the house prices, not enable more First time buyers.
Imo the issue lies firmly with the buy to let market. My mate just remortgaged his house to put down deposits on 2 buy to let's, his rational was that in 25 years time he would have 2 houses that had been paid by someone else...
Sound logic from a purely selfish perspective, but it's exactly these types of properties that would be the target for a first time buyer. So instead of being able to afford their own place, they have to rent and just subsidise his pension plans
I'd personally like to see the government make the buy to let market far less attractive, which would instantly drive down house prices and make society a far fairer place. Won't happen however
A lot of the comparisons about income v average house price dont stand comparison, in 1986 income tax was 30% as a base rate and your personal allowance was about 25% of the aveage salary. I was on £190 a week in 1986 and was taking home £130 (that was a lot of Tax and NI) also interest rates were pushing 10%.
My first house was £38k (required complete renovation) I needed a 10% deposit at £3800 (7 months take home pay) and the bank kept back £3000 until some work was completed.
So even back in 1986 I needed about 12 months take home pay to get a house. I was proportionally paying a lot more tax and lot more interest.
Just for comparison, currently the average deposit is £33K, and on the average salary of 27K that's about 20 months of take home pay. Yes tax and interest rates are different now (but don't forget many graduates are still paying a student loan. I'm 38 and still spending £100 a month on mine!) - but I think it's fair to compare.
Because also the flipside of higher interest rates is higher inflation. My dad's mortgage of 3 years salary in 1980 soon became worth only a few months' salary (late 80s). So there were tough years but also a big bonus as a result...
But this 10K idea is a fairly poxy solution to a massive structural problem, and surely would just be one of the first ideas floated and promptly dismissed by any group that was actually serious about sorting the issue.
The problem is that such a small proportion of people can afford to live well in the milennial and slightly – pre – milennial generation. Between myself and my older brother (4 yrs) there’s a significant gap in ability to afford houses etc, despite both being fairly successful professionals. I imagine the trend has continued.
There is more to living well than what size of house you live in or how you pay to live in that house. The options for leisure, entertainment, eating & drinking and holidays etc are all greater now than at any other time before. Not to mention a hell of a lot more affordable. House aside look at the typical contents of the 'stuff' that is owned now compared to previous generations and how easy it is to get hold of that 'stuff'. I can't see many young people now who when given the choice would actually go back and swap with their parents or grandparents time for the sake of cheaper housing.
Have we done foreign stag dos and extravagant weddings yet?
Ohh, sounds nice..
Where are we going?
Whilst it’s time that something should be done to ease the burden upon the young, handing out wads of dosh will not fix any problems just drive up property prices. Similar things happen when incentives to stamp duty etc are applied.
whilst the sentiment of many to removing the right to be a residential landlord is well intended it would cause chaos.
building large nrs of homes over a long period say two decades + slowly ramping up taxation upon landlords (other than social housing) would drive properties back on the market depressing the rampant property inflation
making those in social housing who are in the higher income bracket either pay market rates or invest the gap amount until they have a suitable deposit (if unused at retirement it would have to go in to a pension)