Intergenerational Foundation webchat with Co-founder Angus Hanton on 9 April

It has been known for decades that the "Baby Boomers" were there. Why have developers not built suitable houses which older people would be happy to downsize into? Houses small enough for easy maintenance but with enough space for visiting family and for keeping treasured furniture and possessions, all on the ground floor with an accessible manageable garden?

Because it was more profitable to build either large expensive "executive homes" on postage-stamp plots with en-suites to every bedroom and double or triple garages, or to pack a lot of tiny apartments and studios vertically onto a similar postage-stamp plot.

I am no expert on the economics of housing, but regard the bedroom tax and other rhetoric on this subject as further examples of the sort of simplistic thinking that seems to pervade current legislation and government pronouncements (Gove is a case in point).

We stay in our house (?3/4 bedrooms, depending on what you use the rooms for) because:
- we worked our tripe out for decades working our way to the home that we wanted, where we moved 20 years ago.
- our children feel at home and grounded here and return frequently to recharge their spiritual batteries - much-needed in the rat race they find themselves in.
- we care for GC so their parents can work and need all our space for this.
- we are part of a caring community - if we moved away we would probably need to call on statutory care services.
- we are neither of us fit enough to contemplate all the hassle that is involved in a move. My OH has PD and a heart condition, both of which are exacerbated by stress - he would probably not survive a move.

Why am I sitting here justifying our right to live as we wish, harming no-one and reaping some rewards for a life of hard work and decent citizenship? Who do these people think they are, making simplistic pronouncements and forcing us to justify our existence? Who is paying this guy? - I can think of better ways of spending the money.

Gransnetters - if you have found your niche then just enjoy it! I am sure you have earned it.

And if the bigger loan was available, then of course it was taken up. We are back to greedy financial wizards who would get rich quick without looking ahead to the bursting of the bubble.

There is a parallel here with payday loans.

Just an aside, here. It wasn't just that the building societies/banks were lending on the basis of two salaries though, Elegran.
In the 60s it was a maximun of 2.5 x one salary.
By the late 80s it was 5x two salaries - a recipe for the disaster of unsustainable house prices and negative equity which blighted the lives of millions.

The rot started when the building societies stopped being mutuals and became banks, competing with each other and being answerable to shareholders instead of members.

It occures to me that one of the biggest expenses facing younger people today is the cost of buying a house. When we first bought a house (1963) we saved to put down a deposit (did have some help with that from in-laws, as we in turn helped our children at the same point) and then applied for, and got, our 95% mortgage.

But that was only on one salary, and the repayments were (just) within our ability, while two salaries were coming in. Once the children started joining us, money became very tight. I remember that a friend of DD1 had a Zoo membership, but we could not afford the £1 a year for the luxury.

Then all the pressure for women to have equality in the workplace and not be considered second-class citizens bore a little fruit, and mortgages were available on the aggregate of two salaries. From that point the price of houses began to soar.

So perhaps women should have stayed as second-class citizens with no borrowing rights? Would the Intergenerational Foundation have preferred that scenario?

We were forced to downsize several years ago when both my husband and myself were made redundant. We worked hard and desperately to keep a roof - any roof - over our heads; a roof which belongs to us. Why do you think you have the right to make us feel guilty for existing. I think Elegran's words are perfect and speak for me too.

Another point Angus - it is my impression that a lot of adult children are very resistant to the idea of their parent or parents selling the family home. It suits them rather well to be able to go home to their childhood home, catch up with school friends and, often, store all that stuff that they don't really want but don't really want to throw away. Maybe they also fear that their parents will squander some of their inheritance on expensive holidays etc. Any thoughts on how these younger adults could be persuaded to be less selfish?
Having thought about this thread over the last few days it seems clear that if a government wants to help the housing crisis they need to find ways to promote the construction of social housing, including shared ownership properties. This is the only realistic way for the majority to get a foot on the housing ladder - but there are few of these shared ownership properties being built. Instead the so called "help to buy" programme is putting government money into a scheme that is going to further inflate the private housing market.
I find it strange that you are described as "left leaning" but you are espousing your divisive downsizing idea. What are you not pushing for more social housing instead?

How can you make someone vote? What is stopping them going to the polling station getting their voting paper and then putting an unmarked or spoiled ballot paper in the box?

If voting, or turning up at a polling station became compulsory I would stop voting immediately. It may be inconvenient, but the whole point of democracy is freedom to choose whether to vote or not.

Is it surprising that people, especially young people, are alienated from voting when governments run roughshod over everybody while trumpeting rubbish about localisation and decentralisation. I live in an area scheduled for fast economic growth, which means more houses. Villages have been encouraged to draw up village plans and identify land that could be built on. My village did this. We assessed and voted on six sites that could provide land for several hundred houses. The site everyone identified as not suitable for building because of poor access and flooding, was the first to get planning consent. In the next village, they were asked to identify land for 200 houses, they did, over 4 sites and were then told none of these was acceptable, government decree said that all 200 houses should be on one large plot of land.

It might be a good idea if at the next election as many voters as possible boycotted the polls so that voting levels fell to by-election levels, and the resulting government had so little credibility they had to do something about it.

I mean the question posed by the report is interesting, not redblue's baffling comment.

www.if.org.uk/archives/4179/should-young-people-be-forced-to-vote

Another Intergenerational Foundation report (have we been infiltrated?)

Interesting question because voting in some countries (eg Australia) is compulsory

redblue can you explain your comment/question

This thread makes me totally understand why the younger generations do not vote.

The older generation today are better off and far healthier than any previous age. Most of us help our children with money, goods and child care in a way that no generation before us has ever been able to do.

I am convinced that more wealth is cascading down from the over 50s to the 40s and under than at any previous time in history.

Very well put, GadaboutGran. The sense of entitlement amongst some of GenerationX is staggering. Not all, but definitely the ones who shout loudest in the media.

The overt reasons for the Foundation are anti-baby-boomer & anti-pensioner. What are your covert motives for such a divisive stance which does not help anyone when co-operation is what is needed to solve complex economic problems? You aim to be fair to each generation but there is a great deal of unfairness in your attitudes to ours.

What do you mean by fairness to each generation & how do you intend to promote it? Is this possible when each generation is at very different stages of their life cycle and experienced the equivalent stage in very different socio-economic circumstances. If you compare our generation at the same age as the current younger ones, they have and expect far more than current pensioners. It was the norm, I remember, to have a sense of duty to work hard, do well & be independent of our parents. From what I see now, the norm of the young is to feel an entitlement to things they want which we never dreamed of having or needing.
In my own case, we never had any help from parents & have always paid our own way, unlike my daughter & her husband. We choose the money we pass down to support our children & the way we do it & have no wish to live in an authoritarian regime which tells us how to live.
The IGF & Mr Willetts have made me very angry because of their unfair, inaccurate & divisive statements.

[Hmm]

www.if.org.uk/archives/1229/hoarding-of-housing-the-intergenerational-crisis-in-the-housing-market

[[www.if.org.uk/archives/1229/hoarding-of-housing-the-intergenerational-crisis-in-the-housing-market ]]

I have just looked up the background of the author of this report. This is his description on the Intergenerational Foundations website

Matt Griffith is a Director of Priced Out, a housing campaign for first-time buyers, and an Associate Fellow of the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR). Previously an Economic Advisor for the Commission for Rural Communities and a Trade Policy Analyst at CAFOD, Matt brings a wealth of expert housing knowledge and lobbying experience to the Intergenerational Foundation.

This puzzles me. Why is he advocating a policy that will make house buying more expensive for first time buyers? Where did he get all thus 'wealth of expert housing knowledge' that is claimed for him in this blurb.

The cost to parents of raising a child to graduation age is estimated to be between £220,000 and £250,000. Discuss.

Kat, Will Angus answer the questions raised in this thread or only those asked by those taking part in the live webchat?

My MIL downsized a little (3 bedrooms down to 2) when she became unable to climb her stairs. Her family actually had to chip in to the cost as there was a shortage of bungalows in the area and it was actually more expensive than her 3 bedroomed house. She is extremely infirm and fragile but we are able to keep her going in her own home, into her 80s, because every weekend one family member drives (for 2-3 hours) on a Friday to spend the weekend with her. Her second bedroom is big enough for a single bed and without this the visiting person would have so sleep on the sofa or floor, not really an option for middle aged people who work extremely hard all week.

janea and miceElf - having googled this organisation (very biased) I too found the blog which expressed what a lot of us feel about this man and this organisation

I know someone that spent years looking after old sick parents [saving the NHS a fortune in the process]; unable to work himself due to a chronic back problem he now spends a lot of time looking after his grandchildren. The bedroom tax has crippled him .

Thanks for the link janea and MiceElf I hope Angus Hanton reads and inwardly digests the facts put down here, all highly relevant and mostly conveniently ignored

blog.barrypearson.co.uk/?p=2732
I think this is it MiceElf

There's a critique here:

blog,barrypearson.co.uk/?p=2732