Mauve Monkey speaks on R4

[PurpleGorilla]

The solution isn't to throw money at the problem.

Prices need to fall through tighter lending, and future lending needs regulation.

Cheap housing is the answer, not more money to buy expensive housing.

[DimPrawn]

So they will setup UK Ltds and buy same houses.

If foreigners are fecking buying something for lots of money, then build more of it! Simples.

Big land owning companies (Tory donors too), own most of the available land, they sit on these land banks to restrict building, and force up prices.

They are like OPEC, but for UK housing....

[AtW]

another point is until we ban foreign investors buying homes all that will happen is that lots more housing would fall out of UK ownership and the next generations would still be sat on the side lines struggling to buy a nice family home.

So they will setup UK Ltds and buy same houses.

If foreigners are fecking buying something for lots of money, then build more of it! Simples.

[OwlHoot]

Im pretty sure I am missing a point. What did that have to do with the post?

It was the very reasonable point that if (in some parallel universe where Will Self's daftly idealistic idea was acted on) boomers were forced out of their homes, legally or by moral pressure, then their offpsring in the UK wouldn't benefit as intended if the said homes were immediately snapped up as investments by rich foreigners, as is allowed today.

At least, that's how I understood it.

[Mordac]

Im pretty sure I am missing a point.

Indeed you are. Along with most of the political elite. But don't let any of that crap ruin your day...

[MrMarkyMark]

You've only got to watch Escape to the Country on TV to see endless stream of older couples (usually retired teachers or other poverty stricken public sector types) living in a 5 bed detached house in Surrey valued at £1.4m to see how all the "wealth" is just sitting there, doing nothing.

Give it to the young 'uns, they will spend it on flash motors, boob jobs, iPhones, selfie sticks etc and the economy will boom!

Everyone's a winnah!!!

[DimPrawn]

You've only got to watch Escape to the Country on TV to see endless stream of older couples (usually retired teachers or other poverty stricken public sector types) living in a 5 bed detached house in Surrey valued at £1.4m to see how all the "wealth" is just sitting there, doing nothing.

Give it to the young 'uns, they will spend it on flash motors, boob jobs, iPhones, selfie sticks etc and the economy will boom!

[OwlHoot]

It would help if the antiquated rules on inheritance tax were updated.

AIUI, either of a married couple can pass on their entire estate to the other without being liable for any IHT. BUT, if anything is left to anyone else then IHT is payable on the entire estate, and that applies each time one of the couple dies.

So of course what almost always happens, by means of "mirror wills", is that the first to die can leave nothing to anyone other than their partner, to avoid being in the end clobbered twice for IHT on the whole lot.

So given that a second lot of IHT is usually avoided anyway, and thus in practice denied to the state, it would make far more sense to levy IHT only on the portion not passed to a partner.

That way legacies to the younger generation would be hastened, and perhaps put to more productive use rather than old biddies sitting on all their joint assets until both have popped off.

It would also benefit the Government, as IHT tax income would also be hastened, and as I say they would usually end up with the same overall amount in due course.

edit: The only group it might not benefit so much are bankers, as the older generation tend to have this quaint idea they should keep savings in banks and building societies. So the faster the funds trickled down to the next generation, the less liquidity the banks would have.

(But all this assumes I have correctly understood the current IHT rules, as summarised above.)

[bobspud]

You are sort of missing the point here. We are in a GLOBAL situation, so why the feck would we choose to tie ourselves down to a set of EU rules within which we have (at best) a squeaky little voice inside, or our political masters might be encouraged to grow a pair and tell the weapons grade morons to "do one".

Im pretty sure I am missing a point. What did that have to do with the post?

[Mordac]

I can see the sentiment but what are the boomers going to live in once its all gone?

another point is until we ban foreign investors buying homes all that will happen is that lots more housing would fall out of UK ownership and the next generations would still be sat on the side lines struggling to buy a nice family home.

You are sort of missing the point here. We are in a GLOBAL situation, so why the feck would we choose to tie ourselves down to a set of EU rules within which we have (at best) a squeaky little voice inside, or our political masters might be encouraged to grow a pair and tell the weapons grade morons to "do one".

[bobspud]

I can see the sentiment but what are the boomers going to live in once its all gone?

another point is until we ban foreign investors buying homes all that will happen is that lots more housing would fall out of UK ownership and the next generations would still be sat on the side lines struggling to buy a nice family home.

[NotAllThere]

Will Self argues that instead of holding onto money until old age, we should give children their inheritance when they're most in need of it.

I agree with this to an extent - but only so far as to prevent the estate incurring inheritance tax.

[vetran]

OPGQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CnVf1ZoCJSo

[DimPrawn]

BBC Radio 4 - Radio 4 in Four, Why baby boomers should sell up and give it all away