Wij
I am a FH squatter
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2003
- Messages
- 18,215
OK - my theory as to why we're so fucked (or a major part of it)
Sustained economic growth, even if it was a bubble based on increased borrowing, lead people and governments to be happy to be spending at their limit. Nothing's gone wrong for the last few years so it won't go wrong. No need for some slack in our budget.
Labour spend a load of the money it thought it would permanently have coming in, not just on low income families, but also on middle-income ones.
The problem is, once you are comfortable, and crucially, don't feel the need for any slack, any extra income that comes in you treat as totally disposable. You don't need more consumer goods and you aren't going to save. So you spend it on the biggest house, and mortgage, you can afford. As middle-income families got 'better off' they borrowed the largest amount they could, fueling house price inflation. As house prices went up banks decided to lend more as a proportion of income to match what families could now afford (this much we know already.)
As a net result, despite all the benefits, most familes are not better off at all, they simply have bigger mortgages. Now when we are talking about reducing benefits for middle-income families, they are, with a degree of legitimacy, saying they won't be able to afford to live. Realistically, they might have to move to a much smaller house or rent.
So the problem is, benefits to those who aren't actually in poverty hasn't made them better off, it's just made house prices go up and the banks have allowed lending to soak up all spare income.
Those mortgages are still out there for the next 20 years. Big problem.
Discuss
Sustained economic growth, even if it was a bubble based on increased borrowing, lead people and governments to be happy to be spending at their limit. Nothing's gone wrong for the last few years so it won't go wrong. No need for some slack in our budget.
Labour spend a load of the money it thought it would permanently have coming in, not just on low income families, but also on middle-income ones.
The problem is, once you are comfortable, and crucially, don't feel the need for any slack, any extra income that comes in you treat as totally disposable. You don't need more consumer goods and you aren't going to save. So you spend it on the biggest house, and mortgage, you can afford. As middle-income families got 'better off' they borrowed the largest amount they could, fueling house price inflation. As house prices went up banks decided to lend more as a proportion of income to match what families could now afford (this much we know already.)
As a net result, despite all the benefits, most familes are not better off at all, they simply have bigger mortgages. Now when we are talking about reducing benefits for middle-income families, they are, with a degree of legitimacy, saying they won't be able to afford to live. Realistically, they might have to move to a much smaller house or rent.
So the problem is, benefits to those who aren't actually in poverty hasn't made them better off, it's just made house prices go up and the banks have allowed lending to soak up all spare income.
Those mortgages are still out there for the next 20 years. Big problem.
Discuss