Only the middle class can’t afford babies
Discussion
polus said:
Surely if there are enough houses for people to rent, there are enough for people to own their own?
I don’t mind owning something small, but I don’t want my existence to be about lining someone else’s fat-cat pocket with rent (as it currently seems to be).
There is still a lower volume of housing than demand. The people who would preffer their own house aren't sat in a rented house of their own. They are using the UK's housing stock more efficently by living in a multiple ocupancy dewelling or living with their parents.
The reason for the increase of demand for houses has to do with the rise of the single person. This is cause by young people wanting to buy their own houses as a single person and is also down to the increased divorce rates splitting families so that they need twice as many houses.
silversun said:
An interesting read, though I feel that the case is often that the middle class, middle earners are not having babies more because they don't want to sacrifice the lifestyle they have chosen for themselves, rightly or wrongly. They feel that they have worked hard to afford the house/cars/holidays lifestyle and are simply not ready to stop maintaining that in order to have children. After all, if someone came up to the majority of people on these boards and said, "You can have a car or a baby but you can't have both." then I suspect the car would win.
Perhaps true of some people, but not of me(in respect to the car)
As regards the house however, if you have a child you would want it to grow up in a reasonable nice area, where houses are usually expensive.
>> Edited by Jaglover on Sunday 26th February 20:25
Jaglover said:
Interesting stuff
Very interesting Fish, though not all of the housing price boom is due to planning constraints. Rapid growth in house prices has been widespread throughout the developed world over the past few years.
Quite a lot of it due to the high rate of divorce creating the need for two family homes.
wanty1974 said:
Tony like previous governments realise that there is a problem with single mothers and other benefit sapping spounges taking the mickey but unfortunately nobody will have the guts to actually do something about it, there will always be "do gooders" forming an opposition.
To get into power, you have to appeal to the masses, not just the right wingers who actually could run things a lot better. As time progresses, the percentage of the masses made up by government-dependents increases and suddenly you're in a catch 22.
If Dave has the bottle, he'd pander and the masses to get in and then follow a traditional Tory agenda to slim the social state in a big way. But can it happen again like it did in the early 80s? That's a tough question....
I think it was on Pistonheads that I read that 44 pct of the population derived at least half their income from the government
>> Edited by andy 308gtb on Sunday 26th February 22:13
A atrsightforward method to assist those "in-work-having-children" is to introduce the ability to transfer the "tax-free allowance" between partners. Thus if one partner does not work and stays at home to bring up baby (or do whatever else, frankly) that one's tax-free allowance can be utilised by the working one to reduce their tax burden.
Its highly targeted. It helps those who work and who maintain a traditional family unit.
It's not much but it's a start. Would you believe it was an "incompetent Tory chancellor" who first proposed the idea? Never got it done. Crying shame.
Its highly targeted. It helps those who work and who maintain a traditional family unit.
It's not much but it's a start. Would you believe it was an "incompetent Tory chancellor" who first proposed the idea? Never got it done. Crying shame.
andy 308gtb said:[pedant]... derived at least half their income from the taxes paid by the rest of us[/pedant]
[quote=JoolzB]...
If Dave has the bottle, he'd pander and the masses to get in and then follow a traditional Tory agenda to slim the social state in a big way. But can it happen again like it did in the early 80s? That's a tough question....
I think it was on Pistonheads that I read that 44 pct of the population derived at least half their income from the government
The government doesn't have any money until it takes it off us in taxes.
>> Edited by victormeldrew on Monday 27th February 09:36
MeepMeepNeeaaar! said:
Surely if there are enough houses for people to rent, there are enough for people to own their own?
Correct.
I don't buy into this idea of the current price boom being caused solely by a housing 'shortage' - for prices to double in five years, surely the population would have had to double as well. I read a study a while back, can't remember the exact details but the suggestion was that demographics is causing an upward pressure of only 1 or 2 percent - nowhere near the scale of increases we've seen.
This is a classic asset price boom fuelled by cheap credit, the fashion for buy-to-let, greed and fear. Too many amateur investers have been suckered into buying properties that would otherwise have gone to first-time-buyers. For the majority who did this since August 2004, with a mortgage greater than 80% of the value, most of the time the yields don't cover their costs, due to the resulting oversupply in the lettings market keeping rents flat or pushing them down. So they rely on future capital gains - but who are they going to sell to in the future to realise those gains? A first-time-buyer? Unlikely, given that they can't afford current prices. Another buy-to-let invester? If he can find one dumb enough. It's starting to look like a pyramid scheme.
Meanwhile, with all these potential first-time-buyers forced into renting, who are the folks with 'next-rung-up' properties going to sell their houses to? And so on up the chain.
The total household debt figure in this country now exceeds the annual GDP. We avoided the global recession in the early 2000's by putting it on the credit card. The trade deficit is four times what it was in the early 90's. Retail has fallen off a cliff. And people say house prices only ever go up. Fine, I could believe it if the economic fundamentals didn't look so dire. Where exactly is all this money going to come from to pay these ever-increasing prices? Especially if the flow of cheap credit is turned off.
There is an interesting article here, I didn't know about the 'carry trade', but it looks like we may be about to say goodbye to 0% credit cards.....
http://portal.telegraph.co.uk/money/m
This is the sort of thing that could lead to global credit tightening.
You are right about the housing market. I heard it described as "pyramid scheme" for the first time last week and thought it was a great observation. Pretty much everyone I speak to now thinks that rising house prices are a bad thing for the UK (notwithsanding any personal benfit some of them might get). It seems now to be only the media that thinks rising prices are good in general terms. Too many newspaper editors with a lot of money in property I think. Though some might see me as a bit of a "leftie" I am getting very sypathetic towards the "middle classes". The UK is splitting into factions more than ever with some people stuck down at the bottom (possibly content there in some cases), another group lauding (spelling?) it at the top with vast amounts of money invested in property and other assets, and the "middle classes" actually supporting both groups from the middle crippled by rising house prices.
Jaglover said:
Interesting stuff
Very interesting Fish, though not all of the housing price boom is due to planning constraints. Rapid growth in house prices has been widespread throughout the developed world over the past few years.
Most of the starter homes/flats in this area got sweeped up in 1999-2001 by fairly smart 50 somethings who realised their pensions had been nailed and that they needed a second income ready for when they retired.
We went up against a few people on the property ladder who were going to outprice us every single time. You just begin thinking - whats the point?
Missed this thread yesterday, but it sums up EXACTLY where me and Becs are:-
- We're getting married this year;
- We're looking to move out of Coventry next year - not bringing a kid (or two) up there...this will mean doubling our mortgage however;
- We've just got to the position where we can afford the nice things in life (I've just put a deposit on an S2000 for the weekends for us, we've started holidaying outside of 'Mediterranean package deal' territory). And we don't want to stop just when we've started enjoying such things.
But if we have kids, we're going to lose THOUSANDS in income. The S2000 will have to go, the holidays will be camping in Europe at best, the new house will be a burden not a home. Either that or Becs goes back to work full time ASAP and someone else brings up OUR child in some communal creche where he/she will get minimal attention. Call me old-fashioned but that doesn't seem right.
So what are we going to do? I'm leaning against having children, because I'm selfish, because I'm not ready for that burden, and because I'm generally worried about bringing a child into a country which is clearly in social decline. Becs is leaning strongly towards kid(s) in a few years, but we still cannot resolve how to look after it/them - my parents are >100miles away, hers are already 45mins away and will be more if we move closer to my work (current plan), and good childcare would eat up 75% of Becs' net salary.
And of course living in Coventry we see teenage mums wearing designer logos, £100 trainers, and more jewellery than an episode of Footballers' Wives all the time. Sick? I'm f'ckin' livid!!!
- We're getting married this year;
- We're looking to move out of Coventry next year - not bringing a kid (or two) up there...this will mean doubling our mortgage however;
- We've just got to the position where we can afford the nice things in life (I've just put a deposit on an S2000 for the weekends for us, we've started holidaying outside of 'Mediterranean package deal' territory). And we don't want to stop just when we've started enjoying such things.
But if we have kids, we're going to lose THOUSANDS in income. The S2000 will have to go, the holidays will be camping in Europe at best, the new house will be a burden not a home. Either that or Becs goes back to work full time ASAP and someone else brings up OUR child in some communal creche where he/she will get minimal attention. Call me old-fashioned but that doesn't seem right.
So what are we going to do? I'm leaning against having children, because I'm selfish, because I'm not ready for that burden, and because I'm generally worried about bringing a child into a country which is clearly in social decline. Becs is leaning strongly towards kid(s) in a few years, but we still cannot resolve how to look after it/them - my parents are >100miles away, hers are already 45mins away and will be more if we move closer to my work (current plan), and good childcare would eat up 75% of Becs' net salary.
And of course living in Coventry we see teenage mums wearing designer logos, £100 trainers, and more jewellery than an episode of Footballers' Wives all the time. Sick? I'm f'ckin' livid!!!
havoc said:
So what are we going to do? I'm leaning against having children, because I'm selfish, because I'm not ready for that burden, and because I'm generally worried about bringing a child into a country which is clearly in social decline. Becs is leaning strongly towards kid(s) in a few years, but we still cannot resolve how to look after it/them - my parents are >100miles away, hers are already 45mins away and will be more if we move closer to my work (current plan), and good childcare would eat up 75% of Becs' net salary.
Snap. In exactly the same boat mate. I know how you feel, it's a bit of a ticking bomb in any relationship this issue is.
timmy30 said:
Snap. In exactly the same boat mate. I know how you feel, it's a bit of a ticking bomb in any relationship this issue is.
You DO wonder if some sociopathic **** in government somewhere has pushed things in this direction because they know the Middle Classes aren't their core voters. OK, a bit conspiracy-theory-ish, but FFS, the government can't be THAT blind to cause-and-effect, can it?!? And they have been steadily removing the state handouts to the 'have-a-little-bits', all the while giving the family silver to the chavs.
From a slightly different angle but similar issues...
I live away from my wife and kids, not because I want to, but because I have to. There is no work in the area where they live that will pay enough to support the quality of life I would like to give them. And No, I wouldn't move them to anywhere in this country that pays, I'd rather see my kids grow up in a country environment, where the schooling is good and they stand a chance of not being tainted by the chav-filth and twisted anti-competitive attitudes that pervade our towns and cities. So I take the hit. But even as the politically correct scum that have plotted the downfall of the traditional family giggle into their lattes, think again bozos, 'cos' I've just declared my wife and I separated, so just think of her working families tax credit, reduced council tax bill and all those other little "benefits" that she'll be reclaiming, just some of that money stolen from us by this government and the filth who would "know" what's "good" for us.
Edited to add: You see, it's not cost effective to be married anymore. Especially if you are in my situation.
>> Edited by TeamD on Monday 27th February 11:22
I live away from my wife and kids, not because I want to, but because I have to. There is no work in the area where they live that will pay enough to support the quality of life I would like to give them. And No, I wouldn't move them to anywhere in this country that pays, I'd rather see my kids grow up in a country environment, where the schooling is good and they stand a chance of not being tainted by the chav-filth and twisted anti-competitive attitudes that pervade our towns and cities. So I take the hit. But even as the politically correct scum that have plotted the downfall of the traditional family giggle into their lattes, think again bozos, 'cos' I've just declared my wife and I separated, so just think of her working families tax credit, reduced council tax bill and all those other little "benefits" that she'll be reclaiming, just some of that money stolen from us by this government and the filth who would "know" what's "good" for us.
Edited to add: You see, it's not cost effective to be married anymore. Especially if you are in my situation.
>> Edited by TeamD on Monday 27th February 11:22
havoc said:
Snap. In exactly the same boat mate. I know how you feel, it's a bit of a ticking bomb in any relationship this issue is.
You DO wonder if some sociopathic **** in government somewhere has pushed things in this direction because they know the Middle Classes aren't their core voters. OK, a bit conspiracy-theory-ish, but FFS, the government can't be THAT blind to cause-and-effect, can it?!? And they have been steadily removing the state handouts to the 'have-a-little-bits', all the while giving the family silver to the chavs.
I'm highly suspicous that altering demography in the governments favour is exactly what they're doing, social engineering has always been at the core of labours policies.
As an anecdote a female friend was telling me the other day that she knows literally tens of thirty something, middle class women who are either becoming resolved to or simply accpeting the fact that they will never have children.
The problem is that those chav kids will not grow up to be net tax payers but receivers, in the UK it is only the middle class who are net payers of tax. Without middle class children in 10-15 years time there is going to be a collapse in the tax paying population even if the overall population remains stable. 70% income tax anyone?
The article said:
Yet although the government is all too conscious of the numbers of teenage pregnancies and abortions and sexual disease here — the highest rates in Europe — it continues to allow sex education books for children in secondary schools that describe anal and oral sex in vulgar, matey terms too rude to repeat. Neutral or positive descriptions of sex suggest permission or virtually encourage. Certainly the explosion in sex education has coincided with an explosion in teenage sex (along with abortion and sexual disease). Surely there is some inconsistency here.
Ah yes, of course, we should stop talking about sex, because then the lower classes won't know how to do it! The mental gymnastics needed to go through to equate descriptions of anal sex with pregnancy are quite stunning. Maybe the author didn't go to sex education lessons.
Whilst I agree we're in a ridiculous state, this sort of nanny-state "ban it!" mentality plays directly into Labour's hands. They love the moral high ground as it's keeping them in power.
The basic fact is that all of our media is highly sexualised and that's not something that's going to change soon. It doesn't have to lead to high levels of teenage pregnancy (c.f. some Scandiwegian countries, where sex education is thourough and apparently effective). However, we're inheriting the American double standard of mock Christian prudishness which prevents these issues being delt with head on. How can kids learn responsibility if we refuse to acknowledge the fact that (some of them) are going to have more than just a grope behind the bike sheds?
Sadly it only takes one idiot crying "just think of the children" and we clamp up and stop giving them usefull information. Instead they turn to MTV and learn their role models from the gangsta's and ho's - without anyone actually explaining the consequences.
[quote=timmy30
As an anecdote a female friend was telling me the other day that she knows literally tens of thirty something, middle class women who are either becoming resolved to or simply accpeting the fact that they will never have children.
[/quote]
And that's a bad thing?
It amazes me that the default option for nearly everyone I know is: get job, get married, have kids. It seems that most people still struggle to escape their social and biological programming.
As an anecdote a female friend was telling me the other day that she knows literally tens of thirty something, middle class women who are either becoming resolved to or simply accpeting the fact that they will never have children.
[/quote]
And that's a bad thing?
It amazes me that the default option for nearly everyone I know is: get job, get married, have kids. It seems that most people still struggle to escape their social and biological programming.
minicity said:
... I heard it described as "pyramid scheme" for the first time last week and thought it was a great observation. Pretty much everyone I speak to now thinks that rising house prices are a bad thing for the UK (notwithsanding any personal benfit some of them might get). It seems now to be only the media that thinks rising prices are good in general terms. Too many newspaper editors with a lot of money in property I think. Though some might see me as a bit of a "leftie" I am getting very sypathetic towards the "middle classes". The UK is splitting into factions more than ever with some people stuck down at the bottom (possibly content there in some cases), another group lauding (spelling?) it at the top with vast amounts of money invested in property and other assets, and the "middle classes" actually supporting both groups from the middle crippled by rising house prices.
Excellent post. I've also reckoned that "investment" in property seems to be just forcing prices up for future generations. Of course there are people who add geniune value, renovations / conversions etc, but buying something and selling it on for more money without adding value - certainly isn't. If people can't afford housing they may get p!ssed off and can either let go, and live off the state, or go on strike if they can to get more money hence stoking inflation. This all links in with the thread on the middle classes not affording children as the honest people in the middle are being squeezed at both ends.
Achievement to me is producing goods and selling overseas, as another little known fact is that that when more goods are imported than exported - this helps force taxes up since the flow of money is b*ggered up.
My mark of a decent country is good transport and good value housing. This country has neither
GingerNinja said:
And that's a bad thing?
It amazes me that the default option for nearly everyone I know is: get job, get married, have kids. It seems that most people still struggle to escape their social and biological programming.
And you would replace it with? A country full of bitter old spinsters and pissed up old codgers. Very positive.
MeepMeepNeeaaar! said:
Well, I'm sure the fact that approx. 93% of first-time-buyers - people in their late 20's who would now be buying a property to raise their familes in - have been priced off the housing ladder, doesn't help matters.
It really makes my p1ss boil when smug commentators in the media constantly imply that high house prices are a good thing. Good for who, exactly? There are countless people up and down the UK, wanting to start a family, in a state of utter despair at what they are expected to pay for some crappy little terrace. I'm amazed so many of them continue to get out of bed in the mornings.
>> Edited by MeepMeepNeeaaar! on Sunday 26th February 13:09
And you know what makes it worse?
This 'affordable housing' scheme that Prescott has put in place operates on a limited list where the housing is prioritised for 'key workers'.
'key workers'=public sector workers=on government's payroll.
So in short, through paying these people's wages with our taxes, they're just channelling the money back into their own coffers and probably picking up some votes on the way.
I know a lot of people who have been drawn to the public sector in the name of an easy life - I mean, why go into business or become an entrepreneur and dig your way up a slippery and expensive slope when you can join the civil service and it all gets done for you?
These so-called 'affordable developments', with enough room for a Smart shared between two houses, no garages, no defined pavements, speed humps the size of Kilimanjaro and walls made of paper; will all be inhabited almost solely by government workers. It's like the Soviet Union never happened isn't it? As for having kids - of course it's hitting the middle classes hard. Most of my generation are not only priced out of the housing market but are also severely disadvantaged in the job market too - no-one can be bothered training graduates any more, so if you're rich, have access to London properties and can afford to work for free for a year to gain 'experience' then you're away, but if not, you're stuck at home, stabbing in the dark until something bites, one week to the next uncertain as to where you'll be and what you'll be doing.
So how are we supposed to form and conduct adult relationships at all, let alone have kids? By the time we finally get our feet on the job and housing ladders we're pushing 30 and probably single, and paying taxes through the nose.
And all the while, the chav kids breed, kids bring up kids who bring up kids - rapidly-expanding generations of juvenile irresponsibility with no male role models, no work ethic, no moral compass and no transferable skills. Yet I bet if you look at the native population, that's the group expanding the fastest.
Look what you've done, Blair.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff