Most when they start will be living in shared accommodation as they would do at university or even in halls if their degree allows.

That's alright then, why would or should they ever want their own place
We could pay them a bit less, cos they're only nurses - not like proper doctors ??

If you really want to encourage people in to work then the benefits system needs to incentivise people who come out of unemployment to take insecure jobs and guarantee an 'income floor' for a certain period which guarantees that they will be better off than sitting on benefits.

So if you take low-paid part-time, variable hours work, the benefits system should smooth your income and avoid income gaps.

The big problem with the current system is because of the gaps in receiving payments when your status changes, people can't risk it because they don't have a cushion of savings to smooth cash flow problems.

There has been a lot of good thinking on welfare reform and incentive design from both left and right wing policy groups but the UC reforms have been undermined by the fact the government has targeted reducing the overall benefits bill, which means they look to chip away wherever they can, rather than thinking strategically how best to create a system that incentivises work.

With deposits on property so prohibitive, renting is the only option for younger people, unless they are very well paid or, they have parents who can "help".

Perhaps as parents that is what we should be doing - rather than passing on wealth when your kids don't really need it giving it them when they do. Maybe less spent on lavish weddings and more contributed towards deposits would be beneficial?

My estate has 110 houses cheapest £225k - the average inhabitant is well under 30 - so to say young people can't get on the property ladder is not the case, if they want a house it needs to be a priority - blowing £200 on a typical Saturday night out doesn't help.

The younger 'milennial' generation certainly seem to spend a lot less than even my generation (late 30s) did. I can remember going for nights out in the late 90s and early 2000s when we were totally carefree, but back even then the housing situation was different for say a university graduate of a redbrick uni.

The usual attitude back then was, get your 2:1 but have lots of fun while you do it. Start a grad job on about £20k, after about 5 years or so you can be on £45k to £50k. Banks back then let you leverage up many multiples and so getting a mortgage of £200k was feasible and you would be able to get a house for that, even in London. I know people in areas like Dulwich who just sneaked in when they could buy for £250k in the 2000s, and houses in their area are going for £600k now.

You could still enjoy yourself back then - without going mad - and have a chance of getting on the property ladder, if you made some sensible prioritising decisions.

But when I see the younger graduates where I work now, their situation really is grim. They are much less in to partying than we were, they are much more health-conscious but their whole life choices are on a budget because they are trying to save up deposits which now in London really need to be six figures. And given what rents are, it's hard to save. The grads these days are on about £28k to £32k and even on those salaries, landlords are creaming off half their salary in rent, and not giving them much for it.

Mind you, those that end up buying the 'new builds' in London (usually due to an inheritance or wealthy parents) are on to a loser too. The quality of the building in these is poor and there are all sorts of problems, and management companies are just wealth extractors like landlords, taking huge service charges and not providing any proper service.

I know a lot of 'boomers' like to believe easy prejudices that 'the young of today just think the world owes them a living', but you need to wake up and see what the experience really is like for young people today. It's even massively different from my 'early milennial' generation who at least had a bit of a fair chance.

Thats why younger milennials are attracted to radical politics (Corbyn, green), and just saying, ah they will come to their senses when they get older and get a house and car won't wash, a lot of these are going to be angry 40-50 year olds still trapped in poor housing situations and that will be when the political sands turn. I don't think this is unique to the UK either, I expect in about a decade you will see a wave of green/far-left movements with a huge block of committed votes behind them.

Great post.

Would you welcome some form shift away from income tax, towards greater wealth and property taxation?

I would welcome no income/ni for anyone would earns less than £15k for a start and you don't start paying tax until you are 22.

Banks need to be encouraged to relax the rules around house lending - not give away 100% mortgages but make it possible for youngsters to get on the ladder but at reasonable levels say: £100k house = 5% deposit, £200k is 10%, £300k is £15% etc so the risk is more appropriate.

I thought you implied it was directly caused by Labour when that isn't true. I think the Tories - by their own admission - took austerity too far. To offer balance, retrospectively Labour were going to implement austerity measures too.

Your poverty question is one I asked myself too. How the hell can 4 million kids be in poverty. We dont see it on our streets and as you allude to when you think of poverty you think of African kids/Live Aid/Bob Geldof type appeals.

A child is said to be living in poverty when they are living in a family with an income below 60% of the UK's average after adjusting for family size. Two thirds of children living in poverty have at least one parent in work, which strengthens the argument for a rise in the national living wage so parents can feed their kids. A rise in food banks *41,000 in 2009, 1.6million in 2018* highlights the issue. How long can these emergency services keep up with demand before we see kids on the street? Do we need to see that before we take action?



Should we not expect (demand?) more from our political leaders? I think you're absolutely correct in his strategy, but if we cannot - or more so our PM refuses/ducks being held to account - then do we really live in a democracy?

Not true. I didn't get a penny from either mine or my partners parents and we were on average UK salaries (£25K each approx). What we did was save £250 each a month (our outgoings were low with living at home) and within 16 months (ish) we had a nice deposit saved up. We took advantage of the brilliant help to buy ISA scheme that paid for solicitors fees and we are on the ladder with a 3 bedroom semi detached house bought at £147K. However in that year and half saving we were disciplined. No holidays/no wild night outs and the discipline to pay yourself first every month (I.e save). I think in schools we should educate - or certainly as parents should educate - our children about money and how to make it work for you. A great book I read in my early 20s was "the richest man in babylon". Some really easy, digestible and instantly actionable measures you can take to be better off.

I think what definitely has changed is both my dad and my father in law were able to buy a property in their early 20s on their own. That is unheard of now. I think you absolutely need 2 people in full time employment as the cost of living has gone up since then. It was relatively easy (certainly easier than now) to get on the housing ladder. Even if you by some chance have the money on your own, getting a bank to grant you a mortgage on 1 full time wage is rare.