Re~Stirred Forum

Hope you feel the same when your over 60 jc, talk about ageism , well over 60's haven't much left to contribute, so give them a pittance let their kids put them up in a granny flat or whatever!!
You do realise the way this government is going we will have to work till 70 , or when we drop!! . what a future to look forward to . bet you were applauding "Barclies too"?

Sally123, if one is going to indulge in social experiments, there's no point in tinkering.

Citizen Income introduces financial responsibility, removing child benefit introduces parental responsibility and enforced council tax introduces community responsibility.

By the age of 60 a person has received forty years of citizens's income and made a lifetime's worth of choices.
Now that "cash for kids" has gone let's go for "look after your children and they will look after you".
Tumbleweeds who enjoy beans in their twenties can still live on them at seventy . They may have to live with other bean-eaters and buy in bulk, but that's their choice and fine by me.

This thread started about housing benefit.
The problem began when housing became an investment rather than a commodity. The main asset on death is now a house. Hiking inheritance tax will burst the bubble. Reduced  C.I. will encourage empty nesters to sell, move, share.
Why should the state pay for pensioners to leave valuable properties to their children.

Bring housing expenses down to reasonable level and give 18 year olds enough from the start to make proper choices.   

Re-introducing family responsibilty means living as an extended family. It doesn't mean putting a lock on the outside of the granny flat.

Everyone should live according to their choices. If a safety net turns into a trampoline or hammock the system is over compensating. Teach someone to walk the wire well at three feet above the ground and they'll concentrate properly at thirty-feet.

No idea what Barclays has got to do with this; but since you ask:
Treat them the same as tax dodgers and string them up by their knackers.

I heard a financial pundit comment on BBC radio yesterday that five million people were claiming Housing Benefit. This struck me as very high. Anyone able to discount or confirm this?

If five million are claiming, then it is time to end this.

I have always suspected that there is an expensive bureaucracy, as local government administer this benefit there is a strong element of inertia and resistance to reform.

As previously asked regarding 80% inheritance tax.

"what happens if the dead individual owned a commercial organisation employing perhaps a few dozen people & the inheritees have to stump up 80% of the value of the business in order to keep people in a job?"

It's about moving away from an asset based dead money world to a transaction based active money world.

You started from the assumption that the company is valued in the same way as it is today.

If it's difficult to realize the asset value then why would the value be high?

Also, remember that income tax is 45% on all income. So selling before death would save you 35%.

I would expect over time for more companies to move into mutual ownership with the founder receiving an annuity on conversion.

Entrepreneurs are still encouraged. Hard  work and ingenuity are still rewarded but each generation becomes a meritocracy where inherited wealth is less of a factor.

Your example is still possible, the company may close, but the diffence is that rather than having ignorant workers who are surprised to be out of a job, they take the job in full knowledge of the risk. It's their choice.

It's all about choices.


Meanwhile back in the world of family responsibilty and shared housing

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/beating-the-housing-shortage-one-home-three-generations-7626973.html

Sorry Jc I am now convinced against citizen Income, the way you speak "empty nesters can be encouraged to sell move or share" this is the the family home you speak of, you talk of family responsibility, why do you think people scrimp and save, so that they can leave something- of value to help the next generation-their kids.
Loads of young people live at home well into their late 20's these days, for many reasons, family responsibility already exists.
You speak of housing becoming a commodity , not an investment, for most people it's" home". In your world people appear to be the commodity, I E useful, not useful, shift them here , there or anywhere.
In alot of cases people sell their homes if they need long term care.
60 aint that far off for me, I have paid in re- tax and n i , for 40 years, ok i had child benefit, but nothing else. don't know why i am justifying myself, must be that some of your comments made me feel i ought to.

Sally123 don't throw the baby out with the bath water. As described by LiKW (without my modifications) Citizen Income still sounds better than the current benefits system,

I too believe that a house is a home and that people make a home, as such a family should live there. When it stops being a home then someone else should have the benefit and pleasure without it being out of reach based on background.

I am offering your children and grandchildren (and everyone elses) a guaranteed income plus 20% of what you leave. They have an equal chance to make something of themselves.

Some people are useful and some aren't. I have no problem with either. The one thing I don't do is treat people as a commodity. Each is an individual.
I haven't shifted anyone anywhere. I just want them to accept their role in society and the choices they make.

I'm not sure what your issue is. You appear to accept multiple generations living together and selling houses to pay for long term care .

I certainly don't believe in selling the family home to pay for long term nursing care, In saying that, I do think if the person requiring long term care lives alone, doesn't have any family to care for them,and needs the care of a hospice, maybe their property could be sold after their death, the sale procedes could be willed to the hospice.
JC you can see I am no economist, but it's people such as myself you would have to convince about citizen Income.
As for families sharing and extending the family home, thats fine if it works. Some people left home to get away from overcrowded living conditions.
The main reason extended family living ended was , - moving to find work, whole communities were broken up due to this. This was further encouraged by the "torie's" get on your bike Tebbit (sorry if I spelled his name incorrectly) . I also remember well who's original idea it was, that people out of work, should move to lesser accommodation - Mr Portillo.
I know there isn't an easy solution to the housing crises , but stating lack of family responsibility as a reason wont wash. how many kids left home , with parents stating "remember you always have a home here".
So the kids leave home to work miles away, then lose their jobs , they are under 25 , so yes they should get housing benefit

Five million is almost spot on, as it is available to both unemployed and lower paid workers. It may time to end it, but then we will have a serious shortage of affordable housing.

"At March 2012, the total number of people claiming Housing Benefit was 5.01 million, with 5.92 million claiming Council Tax Benefit."

SOURCE
http://research.dwp.gov.uk/asd/index.ph ... _summaries

Hold an enquiry and a review into it and ensure that any savings that can be made are used to build affordable and quality housing.

I always feel that social housing built today is of such poor design and aesthetic appearance that it is just building the slums of the future.

I don't understand this at all, bunnyson. Can you explain why you think it should be stopped, just because five million people claim it?

Leaving aside people falling into poverty, if it were stopped all London's public services would grind to a halt, because housing there would be outside the reach of people on public service wages. (And the rich bankers would find it difficult to get servants, which is why the Tories won't end it.)

A pensioner with a low income (Pension Credit) will get housing benefit. (If in rented property)

the problem is and the right will not admit this is that what we need instead of HB is low affordable social rented properties. When we had the mass sell off of council housing stock at massive discounts this started the whole damm issue.

what the right forget is that people HAVE to live somewhere

A market correction has to occur for HB to be reduced/abolished without state support. Either wages go up or rents come down. Are the right prepared to accept the social & economic cost of such a correction?

The real problem is that we have economic policies that support property owners by distorting the value of their properties. If we talk about artificial wealth then the UK property market is massively over-valued.

I live in a three generation family home.

Owner pegs it & because of your 80% inheritance tax rule, the home would have to be sold leaving the family to eat free rice pud under a bus shelter.

You don't have to wait until death before transferring property ownership.

Just before the last breath OK, or does the seven year rule apply?

If so, presumably it's also no good transferring to another family member that's not going to last at least seven years?

Seems a bit complicated to me transferring home ownership between family members to avoid paying tax. Why can't a family home be exactly that? A family home, owned by a family, with to tax paid against the home value upon the death of any individual occupant.

There are always ways round concepts such as jc's scheme. I suggest you re-read the motivations behind what jc proposes as stated earlier in the thread and challenge those.

totally agree and the real answer is as you said but no politican will ever dare suggest it eh ?

the false impression of wealth on housing is killing us and housing should not be an investment.