Posted on 05/08/2018 3:38:08 PM PDT by risen_feenix
It already happens in the U.S. It’s called the earned income tax credit... and they get it every year and can spend on anything they like from giant TVs to meth.
Bump. Agree 100%. The libs are bound and determined that the young generation should feel no pain as they move into middle age. The pain is going to be felt in any case and the longer it’s delayed to more painful it will be.
$13,500 ain’t squat, pimple on a gnat’s ass. En mass it will create a temporary economic ripple. Pfffft!
Flip the $ around. The more flips, the more the lenders get each time. Percent, percent, percent.
$13,000? That’s called a JOB
Nonsense that will end badly.
How about they work hard and earn whatever money they want - just like every generation of productive people has done?
There are a lot of young looking members of the “Resolution Foundation,” which might explain their conclusion.
https://www.resolutionfoundation.org/about-us/team/
gEtting angry about this without seeing the difference between the UK and the USA is like the Democrats asking why the USA can't be like Norway (hint Norway is a country of 5 million in a far smaller space and far more demographically coherent)
In the case of the UK tehre is very little space in the south-east where the bulk of the economy is. London housing is constrained by the "Green belt" - a wide belt around central london that you can't build in. So housing is scarce. This it UTTERLY unlike the US.
Also factor in that in recent years the overall number of new homes built has dropped below the 200,000 a year level that is widely believed to be necessary to keep up with population growth.
Price to income ratio in London is 10:1 -- in New York Manhattan it is 8:1. Plus also London doesn't have the tall housing blocks as in New york
Finally, the UK implemented socialist policies so the boomer generation got jobs and guaranteed pensions for life - fixed benefits pensions that are the same reason US police forces are bankrupt.
Many elderly brits rent out their houses and live in Spain. The rents go up and up in London and the housing isn't increasing.
hong Kong is worse, but it has the tight communal blocks (basically vertical slums) - London doesn't have this
add in to this the blight that zero-hours contracts give, another socialist policy that the expense of hiring people is so high (as you can't fire them), that people under 40 don't get permanent jobs, so are constantly itinerant.
Baby boomers in the UK when they were below 30 spent up to 15% of their income on renting -- millenials below 30 need to spend 25% of their income on renting
or moreThe better scheme would be to destroy the defined pensions, reduce them, then also make it mandatory for properties to be used, not held out to rent to rcih Russian oligarchs. And free up the job market
But these are all solutions for a very south-England problem. It is not directly relevant to any US situation
I bet the fertility rate for native Caucasians is low enough so not to be the problem.
In the UK the disgruntled millenials i.e the ones affected are mostly white. The indians stay with their families and have no problem, while the the Pakis are in depressed cities (no wonder) or ghettos.
“British Millennials and their peers in other developed countries have fallen behind older generations when it comes to wealth, income and home ownership, a trend that politicians have been slow to address in the wake of the global financial crisis.”
The title of the article and the article itself is about income and wealth. That is what the other posts are about. Your response is mainly about housing, a related but different issue. The Resolution foundation solution to the problems created by Socialism is (surprise) more socialism. Rent controls? Really? Where as that ever worked? If there a severe lack of housing build some in the “green belt”, or go vertical, or clear out the welfare wogs sucking the system dry and taking up space. Its a matter of choices.
the income and wealth are tied to housing - it’s not a different issue. In the 80s people who lived in government housign got their public funded housing cheap. Then the prices zoomed up into the stratosphere and at the same time the green belt etc. prevented the under 40s from getting into the housing market. Now the old have their jobs and retirement pensions fixed and go ans spend it in Spain, while the young are pretty much screwed as they have to pay for the old timers NHS - it’s a ponzi scheme
“the income and wealth are tied to housing - it’s not a different issue.”
Everything is tied to income and wealth, that doesn’t mean the article was about the price of cars. Housing was not the main focus of the article, it was about how much more wealth and income the older folks have than younger. That was what the proposal to give $13K to millenials was meant to address.
Public pensions are a major factor in bankrupting cities and states. For example in NY, State Troopers can retire after 20 years of service at essentially full pay. If they start at 20 YO they can retire at 40. The state can be paying them for an additional 50 years. In the meantime they have to hire a replacement trooper who works for 20 years until he retires. Then the state then has to hire another trooper. They are paying 3 people for 1 job. No wonder the state is going broke.
And your second paragraph is correct -- the retirees are living off the young who are broke.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.