Housing Market: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 119:
==Extracting the asset==
One of the ways the first time buyers could previously move up the ladder was by family assets becoming available as the older generation died. This wealth staying in the family was very important to those who were not wealthy as it provided a large boost to their financial prospects. One of the biggest assets has always been property. This has been particularly important when a generation could move up the housing ladder and accordingly create a more valuable asset to pass on to family members.
The government has began to target this asset
Line 132:
The Conservative party also intended to make the families of those requiring care to pay from the value of their house. The plan being that the family could retain £100,000 of the value of the property. This would have meant once costs of sale were taken into account, it was likely that families would see the asset stripped. They backed down on this policy due to a negative public reaction. This is a completely
In September 2019 the plan to charge the elderly for their care was re-introduced, again targeting their property to make them pay. In proposals by the Social Market Foundation<ref>Social Market Foundation. Think tank proposing extraction of wealth from the elderly - http://www.smf.co.uk/</ref> (SMF) the following was put forward:
Line 138:
* People with assets topping £150,000 when they hit 65 should be charged £30,000 per year to fund social care
* The levy, covering personal care rather than going into a home, would generate £
* It is thought around 233,000 people – or 41% of 65-year-olds
* Poorer people with houses worth over £150,000 but no cash in the bank would be able to defer the charge until after their deaths
It is also worth noting that once a policy like this is introduced it can easily follow the same route as student
===Who are the Social Market Foundation===
Line 153:
<div style="margin-right:6%">
:'''"British politics is in flux. The ideas of the radical centre need a champion. People – of all parties and none – who reject the strident extremes that too often dominate political debate today need a home.
So not only are they a think tank, of which we unfortunately already have many who are undemocratically influencing government, they clearly state that they are opposed to the policies of the Labour party of removing private companies
===Only a think tank - why should we care what they think?===
The SMF is not a think tank outside the bubble of Westminster. Its [http://www.smf.co.uk/about-us/#people Executive body] has a proportion of serving MPs. The very ones that are making the decision to take these policies to
Here is their roll call:
Line 216:
===Private Finance and the extraction of housing assets===
It is fair to say that social care comes at a price. The government has for some time stated that it is a price too high not to require
In December 2017 Four Seasons Health Care, the country’s largest care homes operator, was in financial difficulty. The Care Quality Commission
One of the causes is the pressure fees are under due to local authorities social care budgets
|