Southerners and Northerners are paying higher taxes, but only the Southerners are benefiting.

Great points Doodledog. There's a huge diversity between different areas. It really isn't just a north versus south divide. That's why I keep arguing that it's more about individuals, who can end up in all sorts of different places for different reasons. Concentrating on areas encourages tribalism, which is a distraction from the real issues.

For all sorts of planning reasons, it's useful to concentrate on areas, for example when allocating funds for regeneration, but this isn't one of them. This is about individuals.

Prices are not lower in Wales or the West Country (or the North, or Scotland) because houses are isolated. They are lower because they are not near London, and the transport links are poor, employment is less plentiful and there is less by way of free entertainment.

People retiring to 'non-Southern' areas are not saving the economies of their new home towns - they push up house prices, particularly on bungalows and purpose-built flats for older people, making them less readily available to local older people, and then pay less to local councils than local families if they are single-person households and get a rebate on council tax.

Older people tend to buy fewer household items, or items such as children's clothes that need to be replaced frequently. They tend not to stay out late, so local nightlife venues don't benefit from them living there. They eat less than families, so such remaining grocers, butchers and so one as there are will not benefit from an influx of older people. Other shops, such as clothes shops aimed at younger people go out of business, so New Look and equivalent get replaced by Seasalt and similar outlets, and the town becomes less attractive to young families and more so to older people. Larger houses are sold to care home businesses, and the cycle continues.

It's not necessarily North versus South, but it is far more likely that an older person from the South will buy property outside of it than the other way round, leaving the South with wage-earning residents who pay full council tax and use all the local facilities.

Casdon

They do often more to cheaper areas of the country, but that brings its own issues when the burden of the care costs fall on that Local Authority.

Seaside towns in the south suffer from too many retirees as well, as does my town in the Midlands.

Katie59

growstuff

Katie59

House prices only rise with the buyers ability to pay, wages in the North are lower on average so house prices and rents are lower. Income tax and NI rates are the same so buying a house from taxed income is harder in the south, overheads of everything else is higher too so lots of things cost more.

There is no “fair” way of reducing the impact of care costs unless it is free as it is in Scotland, although I hear it’s not really free there and very hard to access, maybe someone will tell us how their system works in practice.

What about people who earn their money and make a substantial profit on properties in the "south" and then retire to areas in the "north"? This isnot about north/south - that's a distraction from the real issue, which is about people with lower value assets paying proportionately more.

Plenty of “southerners” retire to the West Country, Wales, or overseas, where prices are lower because they are isolated. They often buy a derelict property or barn and renovate it bringing the work for local builders as well as trade for local shops

Indeed! Which is yet another reason why this isn't about a north/south divide.

They do often more to cheaper areas of the country, but that brings its own issues when the burden of the care costs fall on that Local Authority.

growstuff

Katie59

House prices only rise with the buyers ability to pay, wages in the North are lower on average so house prices and rents are lower. Income tax and NI rates are the same so buying a house from taxed income is harder in the south, overheads of everything else is higher too so lots of things cost more.

There is no “fair” way of reducing the impact of care costs unless it is free as it is in Scotland, although I hear it’s not really free there and very hard to access, maybe someone will tell us how their system works in practice.

What about people who earn their money and make a substantial profit on properties in the "south" and then retire to areas in the "north"? This isnot about north/south - that's a distraction from the real issue, which is about people with lower value assets paying proportionately more.

Plenty of “southerners” retire to the West Country, Wales, or overseas, where prices are lower because they are isolated. They often buy a derelict property or barn and renovate it bringing the work for local builders as well as trade for local shops

lemongrove

It isn’t just about house prices, services are more expensive in some areas too, hairdressers, plumbers, building etc.
As others say though, it isn’t just a North/South divide.
It’s true though that pay in many places in the North is much the same as the South ( apart from London weighting.)
Not just for the public sector either, as DS was recently offered a move to a Northern city with new offices there, and the pay was just the same.

It's not just a question of equal pay for equal jobs in different areas. There are fewer opportunities for promotion in many areas of the country, so many people hit a glass ceiling.

Katie59

House prices only rise with the buyers ability to pay, wages in the North are lower on average so house prices and rents are lower. Income tax and NI rates are the same so buying a house from taxed income is harder in the south, overheads of everything else is higher too so lots of things cost more.

There is no “fair” way of reducing the impact of care costs unless it is free as it is in Scotland, although I hear it’s not really free there and very hard to access, maybe someone will tell us how their system works in practice.

What about people who earn their money and make a substantial profit on properties in the "south" and then retire to areas in the "north"? This isnot about north/south - that's a distraction from the real issue, which is about people with lower value assets paying proportionately more.

What should have happened is that the previous proposal (by George Osborne) was accepted, ie, people should be left with a certain amount as a minimum. That way, those with most would have paid more and people would still have been left with a not insignificant sum if they had it.

For some reason (which I have never understood), the Labour Party refused it - as did the very rich, which I do understand.

growstuff

Doodledog

It's very unfair, and more so as it doesn't apply across the board. The rich will be able to cover the cost of care in old age, the poor will get it paid for, and it's those in the middle that get hammered. Every time.

Not quite true. There will be many with below median assets who will lose most of their assets.

Well, I suppose it depends on your/my definitions of 'poor' and 'in the middle'. I wasn't being absolutely literal when I said those in the middle - I just meant those who were neither rich nor poor. If you have no assets to be taken you will be ok, as you will if you have enough wealth to hire a nurse, or to be able to pay the fees without selling your house. If you do have to sell, as has been said, the percentage of your assets that will be left will increase in line with the value of your house, and those with least will have most taken away, percentage-wise.

A pledge that nobody would have to lose more than X% of the value of their house would have been fairer, but (a) that would skew the cost differentials between home owners and renters, and (b) would be a massive vote loser in the south, where many people have unearned wealth in their homes. This is why I believe that we should all pay into an insurance fund that covers everyone, regardless of assets. Most people don't need social care, so their contributions would cover the costs of the ones who do.

I own a 2 bedroom flat in North Wales. There will be little money left if I need to sell for my care.
Friends in Harrogate, Yorkshire own a house worth almost a million.
So it really is just about the amount you have left after you sell to pay for care.
Not a North/South divide.

I think we’ll go on a couple of world cruises, sell our house and just rent instead…?

It’s not true that the average salary in the north of England is the same for the average worker as it is in the South. Public sector workers are the exception, not the rule.
www.statista.com/statistics/416139/full-time-annual-salary-in-the-uk-by-region/

House prices only rise with the buyers ability to pay, wages in the North are lower on average so house prices and rents are lower. Income tax and NI rates are the same so buying a house from taxed income is harder in the south, overheads of everything else is higher too so lots of things cost more.

There is no “fair” way of reducing the impact of care costs unless it is free as it is in Scotland, although I hear it’s not really free there and very hard to access, maybe someone will tell us how their system works in practice.

It isn’t just about house prices, services are more expensive in some areas too, hairdressers, plumbers, building etc.
As others say though, it isn’t just a North/South divide.
It’s true though that pay in many places in the North is much the same as the South ( apart from London weighting.)
Not just for the public sector either, as DS was recently offered a move to a Northern city with new offices there, and the pay was just the same.

There are certainly expensive homes in the north. Quite close to where I live is the most expensive area in Scotland. 2 million pounds for a little pied a terre overlooking the Old Course. I'm going to hazard a guess that it wasn't bought by anyone who'll be relying on the state for their care later in life.

And yet watching George Clark on Channel 4 last night, there was a single person down South somewhere who bought a little 2 up 2 down 16 years ago for a quarter of a million pounds. She had £100,000 to spend on it. She wasn't independently wealthy, she was still working.

So there are well off people in the north and poorer people in the south, but I look at property prices in the south with absolute amazement.

I think really what this all boils down to is the fact that the U.K. has one of the highest disparities between the most and least wealthy.

Nothing this government will do will change that fact

Rosiehaha

Please stop this north/south divide. House prices have always been so much higher in the south. Those in the north will soon be moaning when they have to pay over 750k for a basic property. My daughters friend who lives in the north can’t believe how much we pay for a house. As said before there are many many areas in the south that are very very poor. Levelling out might not actually suit a lot of people. Be careful what you wish for!

But you've just contributed to the north/south divide narrative.

Please stop this north/south divide. House prices have always been so much higher in the south. Those in the north will soon be moaning when they have to pay over 750k for a basic property. My daughters friend who lives in the north can’t believe how much we pay for a house. As said before there are many many areas in the south that are very very poor. Levelling out might not actually suit a lot of people. Be careful what you wish for!

Doodledog

It's very unfair, and more so as it doesn't apply across the board. The rich will be able to cover the cost of care in old age, the poor will get it paid for, and it's those in the middle that get hammered. Every time.

Not quite true. There will be many with below median assets who will lose most of their assets.

maddyone

People in the south paid more for their houses in the first place. A teacher in the north earns the same as a teacher in the south, but the southern teacher can buy a smaller house and pay a lot more for it than the teacher in the north who can benefit from cheaper housing and have a bigger house. This is true for many jobs, same pay, more expensive housing in the south.

Generally, that's only true for public service workers, who receive London weighting anyway.

The fact is that wages are on average lower and unemployment is higher in the north and some other regions.

It is also a fact that people in the south (and some other regions) have seen their property values rise more steeply than other areas. In other words, they've made a profit without lifting a finger.

However, as I keep saying, this isn't primarily a north/south issue. It's about wealth/poverty. People with less are being expected to pay more.

People in the south paid more for their houses in the first place. A teacher in the north earns the same as a teacher in the south, but the southern teacher can buy a smaller house and pay a lot more for it than the teacher in the north who can benefit from cheaper housing and have a bigger house. This is true for many jobs, same pay, more expensive housing in the south.

It doesn't take that much skill to persuade the voters when the overwhelming majority of national newspapers do the job for them - the Telegraph, the Sun, the Daily Mail, the Express, the Times, all owned by foreign or tax dodging billionaires.

From the evidence of my entire life all I have ever seen is that this is the Tories doing what they do.

They break promises, lie and rob the poor to pay the rich. They protect their own. They operate in a bubble of rich, connected, entitled people who are in a club we will never be allowed or able to join. This club has its roots in London...not the North. They don't care about the weak, sick, poor, disadvantaged, young or old. If you vote for them, this is what you voted for and this is what you get.

Surely if you are poor, or old, or ill, or have children in education or if you simply care about people in those positions then voting Tory is an act of self harm?

So true Coast path, as people say, the skill of the tories is in persuading people to vote against their own best interests, I know several people who swear by the Tories, although they fleece people without money and give to the rich. Tide is turning though, and will continue to turn when people discover they have to pay for healthcare or go without

It's very unfair, and more so as it doesn't apply across the board. The rich will be able to cover the cost of care in old age, the poor will get it paid for, and it's those in the middle that get hammered. Every time.