iiinova — where your digital self keeps evolving

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 13h

Yes, I'm not denying people on high incomes generally end up wealthier - but that pension or housing equity isn't accessible (or they'd spend it!) The mindset of saving vs "spend it all now" seems to me to be very innate in the people I know. And doesn't change easily even when incomes rise or fall.

120 2

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 13h

I think living paycheck to paycheck is much more about your attitude to money than how much you earn. It's absolutely possible to earn ££££ but still spend it all every month, especially if you buy on HP. But also possible always have rainy day money set aside, even if your income is very low.

110 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 16/10/2026

Rent as a proportion of income is a pretty meaningless measure for those not in work (so zero actual income). Either the rent is covered by LHA or it isn't. That's what matters.

000 0

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 16/10/2026

For clarity, Simon Dudley's comments about Grenfell were "Sadly, you know, everyone dies in the end. It's just how you go".

010 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 16/10/2026

It's not saying that any of these terms are acceptable to call people or won't cause offence in at least in some contexts. It's saying that viewers are unlikely to be offended *by a character using them* on TV, etc.

000 0

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 15/10/2026

A proportion of PIP claimants didn't report higher costs to your interviewers, but presumably they would do so to PIP assessors? How feasible is it to prove whether people do or don't have higher costs?

220 2

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 15/10/2026

Heat pump subsidies are a subsidy to industry though - to help a new tech to scale. Not to households, who aren't generally saving money by having one as yet. Government knows this so if they axe the subsidy for those reasons they're just looking for an excuse.

140 4

Reposted by Anna Clarke

Noble Francis @noblefrancis.bsky.social · 14/10/2026

UK brick deliveries are a useful proxy for new house building starts in the absence of monthly starts data. Deliveries in August 2026 were 8.7% lower than in July & 10.1% lower than a year ago, according to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science & Trade. (1/n) #ukhousing #ukconstruction

2167 16

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 14/10/2026

Not necessarily. They might just as well get it wrong if you polled 1939 Europe Vs modern day Russia or Canada.

000 0

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 14/10/2026

I think most people don't know much about military tech so are answering based on vibes. But also - if you'd polled people in 2021 about Russia Vs Ukraine, the "correct" answer would of course have been Russia based on military tech. Yet in reality, it drags on in stalemate.

140 4

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 13/10/2026

Would hazard a guess at the US being higher - in part because stay at home mothers are still more common there?

110 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

The concept of area effects and cultures of worklessness are deeply intertwined with social housing policy - because the way we allocate it (& high price of market housing) means we get concentrations of poor people in one place. Doesn't necessarily mean the area caused them to be poor though.

010 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

Ruth Lipton etc might not choose to use judgemental terms like cultures of worklessness. But the logic is the same - that you are influenced by people who live close to you (so logically, if they are unemployed you might be more likely to be or vice versa)

000 0

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

Sometimes. Though they're designed to be as coherent as possible. I can't think of a better unit of analysis that data exists at as an approximation to a street though.

100 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

An output area is a reasonable approximation to a street though?

100 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

Their implication is that people living in these areas develop a culture where not working is the norm. It's a pervasive theory (studied by academics as "neighbourhood effects"). But not one I've ever found convincing personally because, as you say, causation is very clearly in the other direction.

110 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

Or data mining/modelling? An alternative to surveys to find out about public opinion it sounds like.

020 2

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

That's a strangely bare website. What do they actually do?

100 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

I think "I don't have children" is a perfectly good way to describe that situation which doesn't make children sound like some kind of disease you want to be free of (or make yourself sound sadly lacking in life, if that's not how you feel about it)

2130 13

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

I do think promoting Aircon that can also do half your heating would be the fastest way to cut emissions. And could be done with v little grant, just relaxations of planning rules.

011 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

Entirely possible that they're briefing the worst so that when they make plans to start tapering it down (which does need to happen at some point) people just breath a sigh of relief. Does nothing to support confidence or investment in the industry though

010 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

I think allowing mayors to grant visas should be conditional on them facilitating sufficient levels of new housing in their area.

020 2

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 12/10/2026

Thanks Neil. Need to read in detail but on first glance they look broadly sensible proposals to be. Less radical than the Tories'recent proposals to cut build costs (for better and for worse)

010 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

Yes, but it's 7% of adults whose money is taxed before their children get it. 4% of estates are taxed because the first spouse's estate is counted as within the 96% which aren't taxed

110 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 09/10/2026

Because if you leave everything to your spouse and a few years later they die and it goes to your children, who pay tax on it, it's kind of your money that's getting taxed. That's how people tend to see it

100 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

I think there are serious practical difficulties with applying CGT to housing. Taxing estates seems a lot neater and fairer to me. But what the Tories are proposing here is the opposite - taxing the things that have already paid CGT and not housing, which hasn't.

100 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

You wouldn't need to wait until you are very old and frail to upsize. Could do it for 6 months in your 60s. Then got the ££££million IHT allowance for life

100 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Rollover relief would be easy enough if people move from one owned home to another. But difficult when people move in and out of owing and renting or households merge or separate.

100 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Taxing to make property expensive to consume isn't so difficult. But *over*consumption is very tricky to define, measure or reach agreement on. CGT would help if you could find a way to change it only at the end of life and not every time people exit the housing market.

100 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Fewer people downsizing could be avoided by retaining the current rules that preserve the family home allowance after selling up. But in combination with abolishing stamp duty that could lead to a real boom in temporary mansion owning. Ie: bsky.app/profile/anna...

110 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Now what's a marketing campaign I'd like to see.... 😄

010 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

I think Government may have been somewhat misled by a small number of large and vocal housing associations whose finances are in such a difficult place that they weren't able to bid. They maybe thought this was more common than it in fact was.

010 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Absolutely. But it really wasn't twice as big (despite all their claims). As a spend per year, in real terms, it was a lot less than under the previous Labour Government (which is the last time it was being expected to fund social rent at scale)

000 0

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

It feels like trying to be fair and ending up pleasing no-one. 40% of the funding doesn't build 40% of your plans - you need to first re-make new scaled down plans. Maybe dispose of some land, make new partnerships etc.

130 3

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

I'm aware of some councils (including ones with really solid track records) and major housing associations who've got nothing at all. And seems those who did get money didn't get what they asked for so will need to redraw their plans.

010 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Absolutely. Lots of very upset councils and housing associations currently, who were encouraged to "bid big, bid bold". S106 is more or less collapsing so they'll be squeezing into a very competitive place for the remainder of the grant funding (CME route)

010 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

It appears from what I've heard that the GLA have dealt with the programme being over-subscribed by cutting everyone's money down (rather than giving 100% of what was requested to the top scoring bidders and 0 to the rest, like Homes England did)

100 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Yes, it would be a boom for housebuilders building for the very high end of the market. But taking both their capacity and land away from building smaller/more affordable homes.

010 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

Ultimately, it's turning housing into a tax planning tool, rather than a place to live. Which is the last thing we need when there's a housing shortage.

1131 13

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

But this means you don't need to remain in the high value property for it to work as a tax loophole. You could buy it, live there a short while, then sell on. With no stamp duty, this becomes a very attractive option for people with substantial wealth.

150 5

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

There's currently rules that allow you to preserve your "family home allowance" if you downsize, move in with family, etc - as long as you've owned your home we some point you keep the allowance. Would assume they'd want to keep these rules (so as not to prevent downsizing etc)

120 2

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

It would obviously encourage over-consumption of housing - the one asset class that is a) unproductive (people would withdraw money from pensions, which are currently invested in businesses) and b) largely fixed in supply.

270 7

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 08/10/2026

The more I think about it, the more I realise how many problems you'd create by the combination of abolishing stamp duty and allowing unlimited exemption from inheritance tax for housing. You'd get a massive demand for "upsizing", putting all your wealth into housing, to avoid inheritance tax.

4297 29

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

I'd argue it leads to two alternate "consensuses", depending on your world view. Reality is that rent controls can *either* be relatively benign (just smoothing increases) OR can make rents significantly cheaper (with serious downsides). But not both.

110 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Would assume they might put in some length of residence requirement to limit this, but could still be an issue

010 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Yes, I think the combination of scrapping stamp duty and giving unlimited IHT exemption for "family homes" (preserved on downsizing, as per currently) would be very likely to do that.

110 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

(Only if you did this *without* abolishing stamp duty, of course!)

100 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

I agree that could be an issue - Though there's 12% stamp duty on anything over £1.5m, so you wouldn't dodge all tax that way - Could be a revenue spinner for Gov't in the short term if people upsized now, rather than having to wait for them to die. But could disrupt the housing market.

100 1

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

Yes, that would be a potential issue - people buying very expensive homes as a means to avoid inheritance tax. (Though once they'd owned them, they could then sell up and preserve the tax-free status of their estate!)

120 2

Anna Clarke @annaclarke.bsky.social · 07/10/2026

It's already defined for the purposes of the existing Family Home Allowance, and is any property you've ever owned and lived in. So no disincentive to downsize, either at present or if it was increased.

010 1