The point is that she has paid someone - who may already have their own home (or, perhaps, homes) - for a place in which to live and, in so doing, has been unable to commence the process of purchasing, with a mortgage, her own home.
The disparity between the affluent and the vulnerable is, to many, obscene. There are people who seem content to defend this sorry state of affairs.
Do you believe she should live rent-free while she saves for a deposit? Do you believe that nobody should own two houses until everyone owns one? (owning a house is not a right, despite what Thatcher tried to achieve - and I would guess you are not a fan of Thatcher) Do you not pay for goods and services that result in a profit for the supplier?
Or do you believe that we should all live in mud huts (nobody has two mud huts until everybody has one) crunching carrots all day (nobody should have two carrots until everybody has one)?
The point is that she has paid someone - who may already have their own home (or, perhaps, homes) - for a place in which to live and, in so doing, has been unable to commence the process of purchasing, with a mortgage, her own home.
The disparity between the affluent and the vulnerable is, to many, obscene. There are people who seem content to defend this sorry state of affairs.
Sorry but that's rubbish. Nothing to do with being affluent or vulnerable. People need houses to live in. You can either buy one (usually with a mortgage) or rent one. You can rent from the council or Housing Association (if you qualify) or privately. If you cant afford to buy a house should it just be left empty just because you don't want someone else to buy it because they can. I have news for you......life isn't equal. Some people have more money than others. Some people clean houses & some people are film stars. Socialism & Communism hasn't worked.
As a pp said - renting puts the onus on the landlord to maintain the property & not the tenant. I've been both an owner with a mortgage & a tenant. Being a tenant brings a lot less stress when the boiler breaks or there is leak in the bathroom.
And there is nothing stopping a tenant from saving up & getting together enough money for a deposit so that they can buy a house. I agree property prices have gone mad over the past 40 years, especially in the South East.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
This latest conversation is politics not Finance, can we stay on Finance. I don’t think anybody being a respectable and legal landlord needs to defend themselves.
Or do you believe that we should all live in mud huts (nobody has two mud huts until everybody has one) crunching carrots all day (nobody should have two carrots until everybody has one)?
If it wasn’t for mud, where would the people of Stoke be?
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
Capitalism is a wonderful invention but it is often applied arbitrarily (or unfairly) and does have potential downsides. Economics should be taught in primary schools as a fundamental subject so that these issues can be debated sensibly!
You see the issues more clearly when you look at places where capitalism has been imposed by a totalitarian regime as in China. There's no doubt that life is infinitely better in China than it was but you wonder where it's all going....(10% growth and all that!).
The point is that she has paid someone - who may already have their own home (or, perhaps, homes) - for a place in which to live and, in so doing, has been unable to commence the process of purchasing, with a mortgage, her own home.
The disparity between the affluent and the vulnerable is, to many, obscene. There are people who seem content to defend this sorry state of affairs.
Sorry but that's rubbish. Nothing to do with being affluent or vulnerable. People need houses to live in. You can either buy one (usually with a mortgage) or rent one. You can rent from the council or Housing Association (if you qualify) or privately. If you cant afford to buy a house should it just be left empty just because you don't want someone else to buy it because they can. I have news for you......life isn't equal. Some people have more money than others. Some people clean houses & some people are film stars. Socialism & Communism hasn't worked.
As a pp said - renting puts the onus on the landlord to maintain the property & not the tenant. I've been both an owner with a mortgage & a tenant. Being a tenant brings a lot less stress when the boiler breaks or there is leak in the bathroom.
And there is nothing stopping a tenant from saving up & getting together enough money for a deposit so that they can buy a house. I agree property prices have gone mad over the past 40 years, especially in the South East.
What a load of bollox. Save a huge deposit (unless you want to be crippled with the repayments) and jump through hoops to prove you can pay a mortgage which is 60% of the rent you've been paying for the last decade without fail.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
If someone's earning /£30k a year they shouldn't be renting a flat/house at £1400 a month which is over 2/3rds of their take home pay, i'd agree in those instances they wouldn't ever save the deposit (but why £50k? 10% should be enough and they won't be buying a £500k property as their first home on £30k!).
Maybe they could do what the previous generation did when it was just so easy to buy your first house...... stay at home with parents if possible, if not, then like me rent a small room in a crappy area rather than a whole property in a preferred area, take a second job, go without and save that way.
Even for those that started this post (the twitter link) who may find it very difficult to save more than a little amount each month there is a way,
EDIT; the previous generation also didn't have help with things like LISA's or Help to Buy.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
If someone's earning /£30k a year they shouldn't be renting a flat/house at £1400 a month which is over 2/3rds of their take home pay, i'd agree in those instances they wouldn't ever save the deposit (but why £50k? 10% should be enough and they won't be buying a £500k property as their first home on £30k!).
Maybe they could do what the previous generation did when it was just so easy to buy your first house...... stay at home with parents if possible, if not, then like me rent a small room in a crappy area rather than a whole property in a preferred area, take a second job, go without and save that way.
Even for those that started this post (the twitter link) who may find it very difficult to save more than a little amount each month there is a way,
EDIT; the previous generation also didn't have help with things like LISA's or Help to Buy.
1. But they literally have to, unless they want to live in squalid conditions, or much further away from their place of work, in which case the price of transport basically make up the difference anyway
2. Have you literally ever looked at any of the new builds that most of the new government initiatives like help to buy loan etc actually cover? Easily north of £450k
3. So people should live with, raise their families at their parents home into their 30s?
4. Why kill yourself like that? Live in the real world please.
5. The previous generation bought lovely large homes for the same price as today's deposit.
The point is that she has paid someone - who may already have their own home (or, perhaps, homes) - for a place in which to live and, in so doing, has been unable to commence the process of purchasing, with a mortgage, her own home.
The disparity between the affluent and the vulnerable is, to many, obscene. There are people who seem content to defend this sorry state of affairs.
Sorry but that's rubbish. Nothing to do with being affluent or vulnerable. People need houses to live in. You can either buy one (usually with a mortgage) or rent one. You can rent from the council or Housing Association (if you qualify) or privately. If you cant afford to buy a house should it just be left empty just because you don't want someone else to buy it because they can. I have news for you......life isn't equal. Some people have more money than others. Some people clean houses & some people are film stars. Socialism & Communism hasn't worked.
As a pp said - renting puts the onus on the landlord to maintain the property & not the tenant. I've been both an owner with a mortgage & a tenant. Being a tenant brings a lot less stress when the boiler breaks or there is leak in the bathroom.
And there is nothing stopping a tenant from saving up & getting together enough money for a deposit so that they can buy a house. I agree property prices have gone mad over the past 40 years, especially in the South East.
What a load of bollox. Save a huge deposit (unless you want to be crippled with the repayments) and jump through hoops to prove you can pay a mortgage which is 60% of the rent you've been paying for the last decade without fail.
You're so out of touch with reality its unreal.
but bein a landlawwd is soooo haaaaard, i have to pay to maintain a livable property so i can recieve passive income Q_Q
The point is that she has paid someone - who may already have their own home (or, perhaps, homes) - for a place in which to live and, in so doing, has been unable to commence the process of purchasing, with a mortgage, her own home.
The disparity between the affluent and the vulnerable is, to many, obscene. There are people who seem content to defend this sorry state of affairs.
Sorry but that's rubbish. Nothing to do with being affluent or vulnerable. People need houses to live in. You can either buy one (usually with a mortgage) or rent one. You can rent from the council or Housing Association (if you qualify) or privately. If you cant afford to buy a house should it just be left empty just because you don't want someone else to buy it because they can. I have news for you......life isn't equal. Some people have more money than others. Some people clean houses & some people are film stars. Socialism & Communism hasn't worked.
As a pp said - renting puts the onus on the landlord to maintain the property & not the tenant. I've been both an owner with a mortgage & a tenant. Being a tenant brings a lot less stress when the boiler breaks or there is leak in the bathroom.
And there is nothing stopping a tenant from saving up & getting together enough money for a deposit so that they can buy a house. I agree property prices have gone mad over the past 40 years, especially in the South East.
What a load of bollox. Save a huge deposit (unless you want to be crippled with the repayments) and jump through hoops to prove you can pay a mortgage which is 60% of the rent you've been paying for the last decade without fail.
You're so out of touch with reality its unreal.
but bein a landlawwd is soooo haaaaard, i have to pay to maintain a livable property so i can recieve passive income Q_Q
Yeah that line pisses me off, its such hard work that landlords hoover up 15/20 properties.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
As a boomer, and a landlord, I would like to say that I agree with your sentiments.
I still own the house I was able to buy back in 1985 (selling it in summer). A while ago, I did an estimate of what had happened to the value of the house, compared with what had happened to the salaries of the job I had at the ad agency in London before I left in 1993. Basically at the time (some 20 years later), the salary appeared to have improved by 80% but the house value by 500%.
The major caveat, of course, is that we are talking London. But that is still a hell of a long-term imbalance.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
If someone's earning /£30k a year they shouldn't be renting a flat/house at £1400 a month which is over 2/3rds of their take home pay, i'd agree in those instances they wouldn't ever save the deposit (but why £50k? 10% should be enough and they won't be buying a £500k property as their first home on £30k!).
Maybe they could do what the previous generation did when it was just so easy to buy your first house...... stay at home with parents if possible, if not, then like me rent a small room in a crappy area rather than a whole property in a preferred area, take a second job, go without and save that way.
Even for those that started this post (the twitter link) who may find it very difficult to save more than a little amount each month there is a way,
EDIT; the previous generation also didn't have help with things like LISA's or Help to Buy.
Yeah those 4 bags really help get you over the line on a 300k gaff.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
If someone's earning /£30k a year they shouldn't be renting a flat/house at £1400 a month which is over 2/3rds of their take home pay, i'd agree in those instances they wouldn't ever save the deposit (but why £50k? 10% should be enough and they won't be buying a £500k property as their first home on £30k!).
Maybe they could do what the previous generation did when it was just so easy to buy your first house...... stay at home with parents if possible, if not, then like me rent a small room in a crappy area rather than a whole property in a preferred area, take a second job, go without and save that way.
Even for those that started this post (the twitter link) who may find it very difficult to save more than a little amount each month there is a way,
EDIT; the previous generation also didn't have help with things like LISA's or Help to Buy.
1. But they literally have to, unless they want to live in squalid conditions, or much further away from their place of work, in which case the price of transport basically make up the difference anyway
2. Have you literally ever looked at any of the new builds that most of the new government initiatives like help to buy loan etc actually cover? Easily north of £450k
3. So people should live with, raise their families at their parents home into their 30s?
4. Why kill yourself like that? Live in the real world please.
5. The previous generation bought lovely large homes for the same price as today's deposit.
1. No they don't, they choose to. I've had this conversation so many times with people at work. Moaning their rent is £1500 in somewhere like Battersea so means they can't save to buy a house. When I suggest they rent a room somewhere else, say Dartford for 3 years at £400 a month and save the best part of £10k a year after Travel expenses they aren't interested. That's a choice and many have moved out of their parents house in their early 20's where often they didn't even pay any rent!
2. LISA's you can use for a £75k property, £200k property etc, you are getting a 25% bonus on whatever you save (up to £4k savings a year) and if you invest it wisely much more, my daughters saved for the last 3 years the £4k so £12k in, government have topped that up to £15k and with growth it's almost £20k.
3. Not what I said,
4. It's what we did and almost everyone of my age that I know did the same to a greater or lesser degree, sometimes you have to make sacrifices for what you want, didn't have a car, worked 5/6 nights a week on top of the day job (the best part of the evening work was I also wasn't spending).
5. Depend's on when you are talking. I bought in about 91 and a family home was getting towards £100k and interest rates were well into double figures.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
If someone's earning /£30k a year they shouldn't be renting a flat/house at £1400 a month which is over 2/3rds of their take home pay, i'd agree in those instances they wouldn't ever save the deposit (but why £50k? 10% should be enough and they won't be buying a £500k property as their first home on £30k!).
Maybe they could do what the previous generation did when it was just so easy to buy your first house...... stay at home with parents if possible, if not, then like me rent a small room in a crappy area rather than a whole property in a preferred area, take a second job, go without and save that way.
Even for those that started this post (the twitter link) who may find it very difficult to save more than a little amount each month there is a way,
EDIT; the previous generation also didn't have help with things like LISA's or Help to Buy.
Yeah those 4 bags really help get you over the line on a 300k gaff.
Here's a wild thought, going off piste a bit, maybe save for a few years?
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
As a boomer, and a landlord, I would like to say that I agree with your sentiments.
I still own the house I was able to buy back in 1985 (selling it in summer). A while ago, I did an estimate of what had happened to the value of the house, compared with what had happened to the salaries of the job I had at the ad agency in London before I left in 1993. Basically at the time (some 20 years later), the salary appeared to have improved by 80% but the house value by 500%.
The major caveat, of course, is that we are talking London. But that is still a hell of a long-term imbalance.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
If someone's earning /£30k a year they shouldn't be renting a flat/house at £1400 a month which is over 2/3rds of their take home pay, i'd agree in those instances they wouldn't ever save the deposit (but why £50k? 10% should be enough and they won't be buying a £500k property as their first home on £30k!).
Maybe they could do what the previous generation did when it was just so easy to buy your first house...... stay at home with parents if possible, if not, then like me rent a small room in a crappy area rather than a whole property in a preferred area, take a second job, go without and save that way.
Even for those that started this post (the twitter link) who may find it very difficult to save more than a little amount each month there is a way,
EDIT; the previous generation also didn't have help with things like LISA's or Help to Buy.
1. But they literally have to, unless they want to live in squalid conditions, or much further away from their place of work, in which case the price of transport basically make up the difference anyway
2. Have you literally ever looked at any of the new builds that most of the new government initiatives like help to buy loan etc actually cover? Easily north of £450k
3. So people should live with, raise their families at their parents home into their 30s?
4. Why kill yourself like that? Live in the real world please.
5. The previous generation bought lovely large homes for the same price as today's deposit.
1. No they don't, they choose to. I've had this conversation so many times with people at work. Moaning their rent is £1500 in somewhere like Battersea so means they can't save to buy a house. When I suggest they rent a room somewhere else, say Dartford for 3 years at £400 a month and save the best part of £10k a year after Travel expenses they aren't interested. That's a choice and many have moved out of their parents house in their early 20's where often they didn't even pay any rent!
2. LISA's you can use for a £75k property, £200k property etc, you are getting a 25% bonus on whatever you save (up to £4k savings a year) and if you invest it wisely much more, my daughters saved for the last 3 years the £4k so £12k in, government have topped that up to £15k and with growth it's almost £20k.
3. Not what I said,
4. It's what we did and almost everyone of my age that I know did the same to a greater or lesser degree, sometimes you have to make sacrifices for what you want, didn't have a car, worked 5/6 nights a week on top of the day job (the best part of the evening work was I also wasn't spending).
5. Depend's on when you are talking. I bought in about 91 and a family home was getting towards £100k and interest rates were well into double figures.
1. You literally said "no they dont" and then the very next sentence repeated what i said - move further out, spend an hour on an overcrowded train and spend the difference in travel expenses. You're then suggesting they get a second job on top of that? Get real.
2. Where on earth are you seeing £75k properties? In the south east?! Are you mental?
3. Yes it is. You said they should stay with their parents well into their 30s, as that's how long it would take to save a decent deposit. You're also suggesting they "didn't have to pay any rent" at their parents house. I'm literally arguing with a stereotypical middle class, middle aged man, aren't i?
4. Bullshit its what "everyone" "your age" did. Another caveat - the average wage at that time made affording a home achievable, it isnt now.
5. Complaining about interest rates is literally like complaining about a hike in fees for a private members club.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
If someone's earning /£30k a year they shouldn't be renting a flat/house at £1400 a month which is over 2/3rds of their take home pay, i'd agree in those instances they wouldn't ever save the deposit (but why £50k? 10% should be enough and they won't be buying a £500k property as their first home on £30k!).
Maybe they could do what the previous generation did when it was just so easy to buy your first house...... stay at home with parents if possible, if not, then like me rent a small room in a crappy area rather than a whole property in a preferred area, take a second job, go without and save that way.
Even for those that started this post (the twitter link) who may find it very difficult to save more than a little amount each month there is a way,
EDIT; the previous generation also didn't have help with things like LISA's or Help to Buy.
Yeah those 4 bags really help get you over the line on a 300k gaff.
Here's a wild thought, going off piste a bit, maybe save for a few years?
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
As a boomer, and a landlord, I would like to say that I agree with your sentiments.
I still own the house I was able to buy back in 1985 (selling it in summer). A while ago, I did an estimate of what had happened to the value of the house, compared with what had happened to the salaries of the job I had at the ad agency in London before I left in 1993. Basically at the time (some 20 years later), the salary appeared to have improved by 80% but the house value by 500%.
The major caveat, of course, is that we are talking London. But that is still a hell of a long-term imbalance.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
If someone's earning /£30k a year they shouldn't be renting a flat/house at £1400 a month which is over 2/3rds of their take home pay, i'd agree in those instances they wouldn't ever save the deposit (but why £50k? 10% should be enough and they won't be buying a £500k property as their first home on £30k!).
Maybe they could do what the previous generation did when it was just so easy to buy your first house...... stay at home with parents if possible, if not, then like me rent a small room in a crappy area rather than a whole property in a preferred area, take a second job, go without and save that way.
Even for those that started this post (the twitter link) who may find it very difficult to save more than a little amount each month there is a way,
EDIT; the previous generation also didn't have help with things like LISA's or Help to Buy.
Yeah those 4 bags really help get you over the line on a 300k gaff.
Here's a wild thought, going off piste a bit, maybe save for a few years?
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
As a boomer, and a landlord, I would like to say that I agree with your sentiments.
I still own the house I was able to buy back in 1985 (selling it in summer). A while ago, I did an estimate of what had happened to the value of the house, compared with what had happened to the salaries of the job I had at the ad agency in London before I left in 1993. Basically at the time (some 20 years later), the salary appeared to have improved by 80% but the house value by 500%.
The major caveat, of course, is that we are talking London. But that is still a hell of a long-term imbalance.
And what was the interest rate in 1985? 13-14%.
again, complaining about interest rates is like complaining about a hike in fees at your private members club. Suck it up or sell, move back in with your parents, move to somewhere more affordable, perhaps? Get a second job? Go without? Did that sound like a realistic thing to do back then? Nope. Well, guess what, nothing's changed.
I know I'm generalising a bit here but when you see some TV programmes and they are interviewing twenty somethings about struggling to get on the housing ladder they are invariably down the pub and playing with the latest iPhone. If you want something that badly you have to make sacrifices but nowadays people want everything and then bleat when they can't afford to buy a property. It's about priorities in a lot of instances.
What a load of bollox. Save a huge deposit (unless you want to be crippled with the repayments) and jump through hoops to prove you can pay a mortgage which is 60% of the rent you've been paying for the last decade without fail.
You're so out of touch with reality its unreal.
A lot of negative equity scenarios arose in the nineties too - too simplistic to say it was easier back then than now.
London prices are the extreme examples to use.
Going forward the work from home options may help adjust prices a little and make some people realise they can be in Zone 4 and much further out where gradually affordability improves.
I didn't get this reference however to 'hoops' to prove you can afford the mortgage. Not sure that's much more than a monthly budget with all costs considered. That is not really unreasonable or new I don't think; and, is actually a good discipline.
I know I'm generalising a bit here but when you see some TV programmes and they are interviewing twenty somethings about struggling to get on the housing ladder they are invariably down the pub and playing with the latest iPhone. If you want something that badly you have to make sacrifices but nowadays people want everything and then bleat when they can't afford to buy a property. It's about priorities in a lot of instances.
Jeez, what should younger generations do, go to work, and have nothing else in their lives? How dare they might go for a drink, how dare they have something which allows them to function in a digital economy like the UKs. They should just do nothing, other then save so they buy a house/flat that is massively more expensive then the generation before had. Who could get a mortgage cheaper and easier on a property that was at worst 3 times their salary.
Must be a fucking breeze being a boomer, cheap property brought and sitting on massive profits, final salary pensions, massive sense of entitlement and a willingness to pull up the draw bridge on the ones coming behind, which they're parents would never have done.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
If someone's earning /£30k a year they shouldn't be renting a flat/house at £1400 a month which is over 2/3rds of their take home pay, i'd agree in those instances they wouldn't ever save the deposit (but why £50k? 10% should be enough and they won't be buying a £500k property as their first home on £30k!).
Maybe they could do what the previous generation did when it was just so easy to buy your first house...... stay at home with parents if possible, if not, then like me rent a small room in a crappy area rather than a whole property in a preferred area, take a second job, go without and save that way.
Even for those that started this post (the twitter link) who may find it very difficult to save more than a little amount each month there is a way,
EDIT; the previous generation also didn't have help with things like LISA's or Help to Buy.
1. But they literally have to, unless they want to live in squalid conditions, or much further away from their place of work, in which case the price of transport basically make up the difference anyway
2. Have you literally ever looked at any of the new builds that most of the new government initiatives like help to buy loan etc actually cover? Easily north of £450k
3. So people should live with, raise their families at their parents home into their 30s?
4. Why kill yourself like that? Live in the real world please.
5. The previous generation bought lovely large homes for the same price as today's deposit.
1. No they don't, they choose to. I've had this conversation so many times with people at work. Moaning their rent is £1500 in somewhere like Battersea so means they can't save to buy a house. When I suggest they rent a room somewhere else, say Dartford for 3 years at £400 a month and save the best part of £10k a year after Travel expenses they aren't interested. That's a choice and many have moved out of their parents house in their early 20's where often they didn't even pay any rent!
2. LISA's you can use for a £75k property, £200k property etc, you are getting a 25% bonus on whatever you save (up to £4k savings a year) and if you invest it wisely much more, my daughters saved for the last 3 years the £4k so £12k in, government have topped that up to £15k and with growth it's almost £20k.
3. Not what I said,
4. It's what we did and almost everyone of my age that I know did the same to a greater or lesser degree, sometimes you have to make sacrifices for what you want, didn't have a car, worked 5/6 nights a week on top of the day job (the best part of the evening work was I also wasn't spending).
5. Depend's on when you are talking. I bought in about 91 and a family home was getting towards £100k and interest rates were well into double figures.
1. You literally said "no they dont" and then the very next sentence repeated what i said - move further out, spend an hour on an overcrowded train and spend the difference in travel expenses. You're then suggesting they get a second job on top of that? Get real.
2. Where on earth are you seeing £75k properties? In the south east?! Are you mental?
3. Yes it is. You said they should stay with their parents well into their 30s, as that's how long it would take to save a decent deposit. You're also suggesting they "didn't have to pay any rent" at their parents house. I'm literally arguing with a stereotypical middle class, middle aged man, aren't i?
4. Bullshit its what "everyone" "your age" did. Another caveat - the average wage at that time made affording a home achievable, it isnt now.
5. Complaining about interest rates is literally like complaining about a hike in fees for a private members club.
1. Exactly they don't have to rent a flat in Clapham/London etc, and no the saving wouldn't all go on travel as I highlighted unless train travel from Dartford to London is now £12k a year. As for getting real, 2nd jobs were common place when I bought otherwise I'd have struggled to buy.
2. Who said anything about the south east? But in the SE £130k would get you a 2 bed house/flat in a reasonable area.
3. No, I didn't say stay with parents into your 30's, get married, have kids etc whilst living there. To be clear a lot (but certainly not all) say 22-25 year olds don't need to move out of the parents home.
4. Dunno what the average wage was, from memory I was on about £10k so bought at circa 8-9x salary (not the best example as I worked for a bank and got a cheap 5% mortgage).
5. Wasn't complaining, merely stating a fact, a 70k mortgage in the early 90's at 10% rate has about the same monthly repayment as a £350k mortgage now at 2% (allowing for inflation).
I'm not saying buying a house is easy now, but i'm also saying for most it never was, whether you were my parents (bought in the late 60's) where they lived the first few years of their married lives renting a room from a family member and saving every penny for 5 years to get a deposit or me (early 90's) doing two jobs and living in effect in a bedsit in Bethnal Green whilst I saved.
It's about choices, what gets me is when some people moan they can't afford a house when they clearly can but they choose to not be able to afford to due to the choices they make. What they really mean is I still want to be able to rent my flat in a nice area, go out, have a nice car, not sacrifice much and still want to be able to save a deposit. If i'd have gone down that route i'd probably also still be renting (although hopefully not a bed sit in Bethnal Green despite it being a much improved area!).
I'd happily run through with anyone their finances and show you what can be done. Done it many times with younger staff, some have took it on board to a greater or lesser degree, some not.
I know I'm generalising a bit here but when you see some TV programmes and they are interviewing twenty somethings about struggling to get on the housing ladder they are invariably down the pub and playing with the latest iPhone. If you want something that badly you have to make sacrifices but nowadays people want everything and then bleat when they can't afford to buy a property. It's about priorities in a lot of instances.
Jeez, what should younger generations do, go to work, and have nothing else in their lives? How dare they might go for a drink, how dare they have something which allows them to function in a digital economy like the UKs. They should just do nothing, other then save so they buy a house/flat that is massively more expensive then the generation before had. Who could get a mortgage cheaper and easier on a property that was at worst 3 times their salary.
Must be a fucking breeze being a boomer, cheap property brought and sitting on massive profits, final salary pensions, massive sense of entitlement and a willingness to pull up the draw bridge on the ones coming behind, which they're parents would never have done.
yeah because we never had to save mate, never had to cope with interest rates of 15%, never had the issue of negative equity, never had to worry about being made redundant on the very day we completed on a house purchase. You are right, it was a breeze.
The issue is we haven't as a country built enough houses for year's, and does she have the means beyond paying rent and bills to save for a deposit, especially as rates for both have been abysmal for years
100% - the social housing sold off by Thatcher has not been replaced and the buy to let market has filled the gap.
There should be a) much much more social housing built and b) there should be a Fair Rent act to control ever increasing private rents.
But I repeat, it is not a right to own a home.
I agree, but there’s a whole generation that it basically was, and they then post snotty remarks on message boards claiming there’s no reason why a renter can’t save £50k to buy a home, whilst paying £1400pcm in rent, paying bills and food and travel to work and only earning ~£30k a year.
If someone's earning /£30k a year they shouldn't be renting a flat/house at £1400 a month which is over 2/3rds of their take home pay, i'd agree in those instances they wouldn't ever save the deposit (but why £50k? 10% should be enough and they won't be buying a £500k property as their first home on £30k!).
Maybe they could do what the previous generation did when it was just so easy to buy your first house...... stay at home with parents if possible, if not, then like me rent a small room in a crappy area rather than a whole property in a preferred area, take a second job, go without and save that way.
Even for those that started this post (the twitter link) who may find it very difficult to save more than a little amount each month there is a way,
EDIT; the previous generation also didn't have help with things like LISA's or Help to Buy.
1. But they literally have to, unless they want to live in squalid conditions, or much further away from their place of work, in which case the price of transport basically make up the difference anyway
2. Have you literally ever looked at any of the new builds that most of the new government initiatives like help to buy loan etc actually cover? Easily north of £450k
3. So people should live with, raise their families at their parents home into their 30s?
4. Why kill yourself like that? Live in the real world please.
5. The previous generation bought lovely large homes for the same price as today's deposit.
1. No they don't, they choose to. I've had this conversation so many times with people at work. Moaning their rent is £1500 in somewhere like Battersea so means they can't save to buy a house. When I suggest they rent a room somewhere else, say Dartford for 3 years at £400 a month and save the best part of £10k a year after Travel expenses they aren't interested. That's a choice and many have moved out of their parents house in their early 20's where often they didn't even pay any rent!
2. LISA's you can use for a £75k property, £200k property etc, you are getting a 25% bonus on whatever you save (up to £4k savings a year) and if you invest it wisely much more, my daughters saved for the last 3 years the £4k so £12k in, government have topped that up to £15k and with growth it's almost £20k.
3. Not what I said,
4. It's what we did and almost everyone of my age that I know did the same to a greater or lesser degree, sometimes you have to make sacrifices for what you want, didn't have a car, worked 5/6 nights a week on top of the day job (the best part of the evening work was I also wasn't spending).
5. Depend's on when you are talking. I bought in about 91 and a family home was getting towards £100k and interest rates were well into double figures.
1. You literally said "no they dont" and then the very next sentence repeated what i said - move further out, spend an hour on an overcrowded train and spend the difference in travel expenses. You're then suggesting they get a second job on top of that? Get real.
2. Where on earth are you seeing £75k properties? In the south east?! Are you mental?
3. Yes it is. You said they should stay with their parents well into their 30s, as that's how long it would take to save a decent deposit. You're also suggesting they "didn't have to pay any rent" at their parents house. I'm literally arguing with a stereotypical middle class, middle aged man, aren't i?
4. Bullshit its what "everyone" "your age" did. Another caveat - the average wage at that time made affording a home achievable, it isnt now.
5. Complaining about interest rates is literally like complaining about a hike in fees for a private members club.
1. Exactly they don't have to rent a flat in Clapham/London etc, and no the saving wouldn't all go on travel as I highlighted unless train travel from Dartford to London is now £12k a year. As for getting real, 2nd jobs were common place when I bought otherwise I'd have struggled to buy.
2. Who said anything about the south east? But in the SE £130k would get you a 2 bed house/flat in a reasonable area.
3. No, I didn't say stay with parents into your 30's, get married, have kids etc whilst living there. To be clear a lot (but certainly not all) say 22-25 year olds don't need to move out of the parents home.
4. Dunno what the average wage was, from memory I was on about £10k so bought at circa 8-9x salary (not the best example as I worked for a bank and got a cheap 5% mortgage).
5. Wasn't complaining, merely stating a fact, a 70k mortgage in the early 90's at 10% rate has about the same monthly repayment as a £350k mortgage now at 2% (allowing for inflation).
I'm not saying buying a house is easy now, but i'm also saying for most it never was, whether you were my parents (bought in the late 60's) where they lived the first few years of their married lives renting a room from a family member and saving every penny for 5 years to get a deposit or me (early 90's) doing two jobs and living in effect in a bedsit in Bethnal Green whilst I saved.
It's about choices, what gets me is when some people moan they can't afford a house when they clearly can but they choose to not be able to afford to due to the choices they make. What they really mean is I still want to be able to rent my flat in a nice area, go out, have a nice car, not sacrifice much and still want to be able to save a deposit. If i'd have gone down that route i'd probably also still be renting (although hopefully not a bed sit in Bethnal Green despite it being a much improved area!).
I'd happily run through with anyone their finances and show you what can be done. Done it many times with younger staff, some have took it on board to a greater or lesser degree, some not.
1. how are you going to work a second job, when working late/staying on top of emails at home is a thing, and then have an hour long+ commute? Train travel is absurdly expensive, no doubt a flat in dartford that would be that cheap would be a bus ride/drive from the train station, that's added expenses.
2. BAHAHAHAHHAHAHA £130k?!? Dream on pal.
3. So, AGAIN, they're gonna be in their 30's when they can afford a deposit?
4. So you got a super cheap mortgage? This exchange gets better and better.
5. Then you should've done all of the above if it was that bad. Why didn't you?
Comments
Capitalism is a wonderful invention but it is often applied arbitrarily (or unfairly) and does have potential downsides. Economics should be taught in primary schools as a fundamental subject so that these issues can be debated sensibly!
You see the issues more clearly when you look at places where capitalism has been imposed by a totalitarian regime as in China. There's no doubt that life is infinitely better in China than it was but you wonder where it's all going....(10% growth and all that!).
You're so out of touch with reality its unreal.
Maybe they could do what the previous generation did when it was just so easy to buy your first house...... stay at home with parents if possible, if not, then like me rent a small room in a crappy area rather than a whole property in a preferred area, take a second job, go without and save that way.
Even for those that started this post (the twitter link) who may find it very difficult to save more than a little amount each month there is a way,
EDIT; the previous generation also didn't have help with things like LISA's or Help to Buy.
2. Have you literally ever looked at any of the new builds that most of the new government initiatives like help to buy loan etc actually cover? Easily north of £450k
3. So people should live with, raise their families at their parents home into their 30s?
4. Why kill yourself like that? Live in the real world please.
5. The previous generation bought lovely large homes for the same price as today's deposit.
I still own the house I was able to buy back in 1985 (selling it in summer). A while ago, I did an estimate of what had happened to the value of the house, compared with what had happened to the salaries of the job I had at the ad agency in London before I left in 1993. Basically at the time (some 20 years later), the salary appeared to have improved by 80% but the house value by 500%.
The major caveat, of course, is that we are talking London. But that is still a hell of a long-term imbalance.
2. LISA's you can use for a £75k property, £200k property etc, you are getting a 25% bonus on whatever you save (up to £4k savings a year) and if you invest it wisely much more, my daughters saved for the last 3 years the £4k so £12k in, government have topped that up to £15k and with growth it's almost £20k.
3. Not what I said,
4. It's what we did and almost everyone of my age that I know did the same to a greater or lesser degree, sometimes you have to make sacrifices for what you want, didn't have a car, worked 5/6 nights a week on top of the day job (the best part of the evening work was I also wasn't spending).
5. Depend's on when you are talking. I bought in about 91 and a family home was getting towards £100k and interest rates were well into double figures.
And what was the interest rate in 1985? 13-14%.
2. Where on earth are you seeing £75k properties? In the south east?! Are you mental?
3. Yes it is. You said they should stay with their parents well into their 30s, as that's how long it would take to save a decent deposit. You're also suggesting they "didn't have to pay any rent" at their parents house. I'm literally arguing with a stereotypical middle class, middle aged man, aren't i?
4. Bullshit its what "everyone" "your age" did. Another caveat - the average wage at that time made affording a home achievable, it isnt now.
5. Complaining about interest rates is literally like complaining about a hike in fees for a private members club.
We don't build enough, supply and demand.
A lot of negative equity scenarios arose in the nineties too - too simplistic to say it was easier back then than now.
London prices are the extreme examples to use.
Going forward the work from home options may help adjust prices a little and make some people realise they can be in Zone 4 and much further out where gradually affordability improves.
I didn't get this reference however to 'hoops' to prove you can afford the mortgage. Not sure that's much more than a monthly budget with all costs considered. That is not really unreasonable or new I don't think; and, is actually a good discipline.
Must be a fucking breeze being a boomer, cheap property brought and sitting on massive profits, final salary pensions, massive sense of entitlement and a willingness to pull up the draw bridge on the ones coming behind, which they're parents would never have done.
2. Who said anything about the south east? But in the SE £130k would get you a 2 bed house/flat in a reasonable area.
3. No, I didn't say stay with parents into your 30's, get married, have kids etc whilst living there. To be clear a lot (but certainly not all) say 22-25 year olds don't need to move out of the parents home.
4. Dunno what the average wage was, from memory I was on about £10k so bought at circa 8-9x salary (not the best example as I worked for a bank and got a cheap 5% mortgage).
5. Wasn't complaining, merely stating a fact, a 70k mortgage in the early 90's at 10% rate has about the same monthly repayment as a £350k mortgage now at 2% (allowing for inflation).
I'm not saying buying a house is easy now, but i'm also saying for most it never was, whether you were my parents (bought in the late 60's) where they lived the first few years of their married lives renting a room from a family member and saving every penny for 5 years to get a deposit or me (early 90's) doing two jobs and living in effect in a bedsit in Bethnal Green whilst I saved.
It's about choices, what gets me is when some people moan they can't afford a house when they clearly can but they choose to not be able to afford to due to the choices they make. What they really mean is I still want to be able to rent my flat in a nice area, go out, have a nice car, not sacrifice much and still want to be able to save a deposit. If i'd have gone down that route i'd probably also still be renting (although hopefully not a bed sit in Bethnal Green despite it being a much improved area!).
I'd happily run through with anyone their finances and show you what can be done. Done it many times with younger staff, some have took it on board to a greater or lesser degree, some not.
yeah because we never had to save mate, never had to cope with interest rates of 15%, never had the issue of negative equity, never had to worry about being made redundant on the very day we completed on a house purchase. You are right, it was a breeze.
2. BAHAHAHAHHAHAHA £130k?!? Dream on pal.
3. So, AGAIN, they're gonna be in their 30's when they can afford a deposit?
4. So you got a super cheap mortgage? This exchange gets better and better.
5. Then you should've done all of the above if it was that bad. Why didn't you?