That Starmer fella...

Release equity where and how? They are already in the smallest house they can be in their area. Are you talking forced deportation to other areas of the country?

It's just their "luck" to have a home now worth what it is. They also couldnt afford the fees and stamp duty to move.

Maybe, Starmer and Reeves are just crap at politics and nothing in their economically orthodox approach to the state's finances has prepared them for the shitstorm they've managed to unleash?

That sounds about right to me.
I get the feeling from them that they privately think that they’ve been very clever to get where they have, but it’s more probable that they’ve only formed a government by boring the shit out of everyone.

Release equity where and how?

I assume by using an equity release firm that gives a lump sum in exchange for a proportion of the property value when they die.

It's an area with a bit of a bad reputation in the UK and there seem to be plenty of dubious companies operating in the space but given the increasing value of properties I can see it getting more popular.

Companies which advertise endlessly on daytime TV.

No way a pensioner doesn't know about them.

But that was the plan and they told us so. They openly said they wanted a government that just got with it and didn't shout about it.

boring the shit out of everyone

nice change from the Tory psychodrama, isn't it?

Ha, yeah, I suppose it is!

The funny thing there though is that if you do obviously good things, it's good politics to shout about it.

If we get to the next election cycle and the government has been quietly tinkering while larger problems like stagnant wages and high housing costs haven't moved in a positive direction…

I'm not sure how clever a position it really is.

A loud news cycle and shouting from minority fringe extremists don't make a government. The UK electorate actually quite like boring continuity, and have voted for it almost continuously since the beginning of time.

A loud news cycle and shouting from minority fringe extremists don't make a government.

Has anything I've said even come close to suggesting this?

Anyway, the Rental Reform Bill is getting its first reading today. Will be interesting to see what comes of it.

I find it strange how all the narrative on the winter fuel payments is about the most vulnerable even though it is means tested, and how Labour aren't just absolutely hammering that it is means tested and the most vulnerable will keep the payments.

e.g. Chancellor Rachel Reeves responds after Sky's @pkelso
asks whether she wants to be thought of as "someone who takes money from the most vulnerable".

https://x.com/SkyNews/status/1833803702190149725

What the others have said, there are companies that specialise in it for the retired, it's fairly common way to fund care, you are in effect selling a portion of your house when you die for money now. There has been bad press about it as some fairly rogue actors taking advantage of people in tough circumstances.

Also hated by those who thought they were going to inherit a house and now get less than they think they deserve.

equity release is essentially privatised inheritance tax for those who are asset rich and cash poor. disproportionately predatory towards modest working people who, due to no fault or planning of their own, find themselves with a relatively normal house which turns out to be a gold mine. due to property speculation running rampant over their lifetime.

private equity company comes, skims out percentages of the property to allow elderly pay for elderly care and bills. where a couple might want an in house carer and live in their own home, or local care homes are not right for their need, or have pensions which put them above state help. these are maybe not people in poverty, but they're not wealthy other than in the relative sense to younger people. these equity firms do nothing other than sucking up funds and assets of generational wealth transition, which might have become active money (family selling the house, using it to pay for work on their own, buy stuff for their kids, holidays, starting businesses etc) to instead sit in equity funds doing vampire capitalism.

if this is an earnest response to ways to pay for elderly care, you'd be better of paying for the elderly care as a government while they're alive and then reclaiming that tax at the end of life. instead of the equity firm. as those most targetted by these firms are not mogul ultra rich moving money around to avoid such things. the money would at least go to improving lives and care accross the board at a state level.

Great British Energy

Ah yes, GBE the ...checks notes "investment vehicle, not an energy company".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9xxpypr8d0o

Equity Release feels very much like a product that should be dominated by building societies and/or cooperatives.

On the face of it, it seems a no-brainier. Your house is worth lots, you need a regular income for an undetermined, but finite period.

It's supprising that there isn't a commonly used, straight forward and fairly priced product from a reputable organisation.

What's you're point?

That State investment is a hallmark of Neoliberalism?

Agreed but would make sense for pension age folk to be able to borrow for things like care against the value of their house from national or local government for it to reclaimed at end of life.

Not sure the Starmer gov want to grow the state's holdings in that way, or what the granular mechanics of that would need to be, but I guess it could sneak by under the guide of another national interest investment scheme or however they are doing nationalisation-not-nationalisation this week.

On the face of it, it seems a no-brainier. Your house is worth lots, you need a regular income for an undetermined, but finite period.

But on what terms? Whoever takes on the lending risk will want their money back, and more on top. You can end up with this rapacious bullshit:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-nottinghamshire-67122324

"You can end up with ... " is not an argument. You can find awful precedents for most things.

Terms would be for gov to establish.

That anyone thinking that a company, with minority state investment or otherwise, is the right "vehicle" for for delivering public services hasn't really been paying attention (c.f. Thames Water, and the recent Housing chat)

"You can end up with ... " is not an argument.

It wasn't an argument, it's an example of how equity release may not be the no-brainer it was described as, and can be problematic if left to the market without sound product governance ensuring it works in the customer's interests.

I think we're all on the same page there. State level scheme or more external public body would be my vote

But on what terms? Whoever takes on the lending risk will want their money back, and more on top

Well yes. And I don't see anything wrong with that. Why shouldn't a lender make a fair return? Much like a residential mortgage.

Although I do find the idea of a state provider attractive.

Some kind of incentive or IHT write off to get cheap equity release to fund insulation upgrades would be good, would improve the building stock at the same time as reducing bills and increasing pensioner poverty, again this only benefits those (the majority) fortunate enough to own a house