Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
'Social Housing' .. and Rip Off Landlords
Comments
-
Reading this thread makes me aware of how differently I view things to the way many other people do.
There was something @kentaddick said above about shelter being a basic fundamental human right. I agree with that.I like to boil things down to the notion that if a person does an honest day’s work, without having to take a second job, then that ought to be enough to put a decent roof over their head.
I also agree with saving up, and not splashing out on fripperies, in my case it was hardly having a holiday beyond a tent in my motorcycle luggage and Youth Hostels.
However the assumptions about living at home, getting money from parents, having to be part of a couple and most especially working all hours seem to me to be a distraction from @kentaddick’s fundamental.
The cat came out of the bag above when it was suggested you put your place up for sale for £200,000. Find a buyer at that price, but somebody comes in at £250,000 so you let down the original buyer. It is framed as ‘good on yer mate, it is common sense to dump the original person for the more money’.
My question would be if somebody was happy, and able to manage their affairs at the £200,000, then salivating at the higher offer seems like greed to me. I simply don’t get the kind of thinking or mind set of a person who would do that.
Maybe it is an example of how much I am at odds with others that I don’t see what seems ‘obvious’ to many people.1 -
Feeling very targeted here.... as i step away from Charltonlife to jump on a train to finish my chest piece and look in the job shop windows for more work 😆AFKABartram said:I see little point in delving too deep into this as there is a such a generational difference between experience, market comparables, mindset and spend / lifestyle patterns.Housing was more attainable in previous eras but individuals in general were more disciplined in their approach to achieving it. This was before the spend easiness of online shopping, tap & pay and the mindset of happily debt building on credit card on non-essentials. You went out for evening with £30 and you had to ensure your evening stayed within that blah blah.Certainly non of our money when saving for a place was spent on gyms, nail parlours, tanning shops, tattoos, online betting, streaming, expensive bars and eating out / Deliveroo 4 times a week. Car purchases were happily modest yet I rarely see an U25 not in an Audi, Merc or BMW these days. If that’s how people want to spend their disposable, then fair enough that’s their choice. I probably wish my mindset was more frivolous in terms of spending than it still remains but I think once you have that mindset, it’s hard to change.Who knows what is right or wrong. Not saying I am. I feel very fortunate I first got on the housing ladder early when I was 22 and I fear the situation is only going to get worse for the next generations coming through and I really don’t know what the answer is. I find elements I agree with on both sides of the argument; it needs to be more achievable but there also could / should be an element of discipline & sacrifice attached to it. That may mean starting somewhere smaller, less desirable or further out. Never got my head around why someone wants to pay £2300 a month in Elephant & Castle when you can get comparable in say for Sidcup for £1500 a month. Allocate an extra £100 to your travel and you’ve an extra £700 a month to either save up or spend on a sleeve tattoo.4 -
Whilst not compulsory, it's an option, no?Greenhithe said:
I wasn’t saying it’s shit to do 2 jobs and work your arse off. I was saying it ain’t compulsory and it’s the sort of thing that’s becoming more and more lauded. Let’s ogle Philip Green and Jeff Bezos as heroes while we have to work 90 hours a week for years to get a few shiny things.Rob7Lee said:
Wow, first time I've ever heard anyone say working a second job to better yourself is a sh1t attitude...........Greenhithe said:
This is the shit attitude (IMHO) ingrained into people. If you want to do that fair play to you but instead of that being the only option why can t we have shitloads more affordable rents? Better social housing, rent caps etc etc. This brain washing where its always the people with nothings fault.Rob7Lee said:
Why is a second job so laughable? As well as they day/office job I worked 5 or 6 nights a week in a bar, overtime at work on a Saturday morning and weddings on a Saturday afternoon/evening. So about 90-100 hours a week in total.jacob_CAFC said:
To say just get a second job and work 15 hours a day for 2 years in order to purchase some property is just so laughable. I really doubt when you were living in a bedsit in BG you were paying over 50% of your wages on rentRob7Lee said:
So what about a second job etc? Work in a bar 4/5 nights a week and that alone within 2 years will give you the deposit on a property.kentaddick said:
Ok, I'll will myself shelter without becoming homeless or renting or home owning, why haven't we all thought of that?! Sometimes I think there are people on here who live on a completely different planet.Rob7Lee said:
I don't know your personal circumstances, but generally where there's a will there's a way.kentaddick said:
So if I don't use landlords and can't afford to buy, what do I do? The only option is to become homeless.Rob7Lee said:
Except I didn't say that did I, again you like to make up stuff. I simply said if you don't like them, think they are the devil reincarnated don't use them. Take responsibility yourself, take the risks yourself, do whatever you need to do to get away from these pesky landlords. Or are you actually quite happy to pass on the risk to someone else?kentaddick said:Rob7Lee said:
I'd suggest if you believe Landlords are greedy good for nothings you stop making use of the service they provide you. Go and buy your own place, take all the risk yourself and stop putting the responsibility at someone else's door and then moan about them.kentaddick said:
You mean to tell me some people on this thread aren't a home owner and ARENT homeless?! WHAT A SCOOP!Rob7Lee said:There's clearly a number on here who are anti Landlord, by some bizarre twist some of those use the services of a Landlord. Go figure.
“If you don’t like landlords become homeless”. Another to paste into the book of “completely unhinged stuff I’ve read on charlton life”Rob7Lee said:
In case you hadn't noticed many are selling up, plenty of buying opportunities right now. There's less than 5 million private rentals in the UK and shrinking fast, hence why rents are in part increasing, supply and demand.SELR_addicks said:
The landlords buying up all the properties to rent is precisely why people can't just 'go out and buy your own place'. What an idiotic statement.Rob7Lee said:
I'd suggest if you believe Landlords are greedy good for nothings you stop making use of the service they provide you. Go and buy your own place, take all the risk yourself and stop putting the responsibility at someone else's door and then moan about them.kentaddick said:
You mean to tell me some people on this thread aren't a home owner and ARENT homeless?! WHAT A SCOOP!Rob7Lee said:There's clearly a number on here who are anti Landlord, by some bizarre twist some of those use the services of a Landlord. Go figure.
If people are so anti Landlords then don't use them, it's quite simple.
That's better than we do!Algarveaddick said:
We make about 3.5%. Can I come back in now?Friend Or Defoe said:
Profit margins at a supermarket are around 1-3%. If landlords were only making that the situation would be far different.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Because both are making a profit from providing an essential service, so surely both must be greedy? Why is ok for a supermarket to make a profit, but a landlord not?Friend Or Defoe said:
I don't get the analogy. There are landlords who own a property outright so only have to pay utility bills and upkeep, whereas farmers work on the farm and have to keep buying things like livestock to keep the farms running. Furthermore people aren't paying half of their wages or more at the supermarket each week.Stu_of_Kunming said:
Change tenants for customers and the same point applies to a supermarket, they’re profiting from the ultimate fundamental things in life.kentaddick said:
I'm not saying it is, but lets be realistic, is it morally right to have an investment that is fundamental to people's living whilst that is completely out the reach of their tenants?valleynick66 said:
The landlord is proving access to a home which you can't or don't wish to buy for the long term.kentaddick said:
It's pretty clear when you buy food you're paying people for their productivity. You pay the supermarket for your food and they pay their suppliers, farmers etc. There's a much wider economy around it which helps grease the wheels of the country's economy. What productivity is a landlord contributing?Stu_of_Kunming said:
Do you hold supermarkets in the same contempt?kentaddick said:
I'm going to ask this for what feels like the tenth time, how is it not greed? How is it not sponging when you're contributing nothing to the productivity of the country? and, something i've definitely asked before - Why do people become landlords in the first place?PrincessFiona said:
Because you think it is greed but it isn't. No one is 'sponging'. You are entitled to your opinion but it doesn't make you correct. Am off to do some more work nowkentaddick said:
I've spent the last day or so being told that being a landlord has nothing to do with greed and sponging wealth off people, and now i'm told it is and it's fine because "it's a business".Friend Or Defoe said:
This is the point most people are missing. You're not trading crypto.kentaddick said:
The idea is not to have rents go down, but prices of properties to go down. Heaven forbid it'll be more affordable to buy your own property than live in some one else's. If there were no longer any private landlords, then i guess the state would have to look at providing social housing, again - heaven forbid..!PrincessFiona said:
I simply don't understand how you cannot understand the situation and think that landlords selling up means rents will go down. It's what is happening now and rents are definitely not coming down. If there weren't landlords, there wouldn't be properties to rent. Most business 'accumulate wealth off the back of some one else'!kentaddick said:
I don't know why you simply don't understand the rules of supply and demand apply to both tenants and landlords. If scores of landlords sell their properties then supply outreaches demand, prices go down, tenants who want to buy that otherwise couldn't afford to buy can now afford to buy - the whole social contract begins to work again. There is obviously the problem of foreign "investors" and domestic investo- i mean landlords then hoovering up the cheaper properties - but that's where maybe a fat stamp duty on a second property could be useful to then make it unprofitable for greedy landlords and investors. This extra stamp duty could then be funelled into building social housing. I know people who've purchased their own property, but they're either doing extremely well in life or have moved to areas that bring their commute up over an hour or more. As many have said on this thread, the current system is unsustainable and delaying the inevitable (prices dropping) is just roping more and more people of my age into the hellscape of negative equity in the future.PrincessFiona said:
Many more would have to sell up than currently are, which would be even worse for tenants - I'm not surprised you aren't able to purchase your own place if you don't understand the fundamentals even if you must have predicted the end in the recent low interest period that so many others didn't! I know lots of people in their 20s buying a propertykentaddick said:
And then the landlord passes it on to the tenant? What kind hearted people they are. If you can't afford to own a property and rent it out, sell it. It's quite simple - it's the market.PrincessFiona said:
Who is going 'dewy-eyed' about anything?. If you mean by 'overleveraged themselves' is this exactly the same as many owner/occupiers due to amongst other things, the worldwide economy? Don't be surprised when rents go up - and tenants have no choice about it and some of the reasons rents have gone up because the government has passed more costs on to the landlords.kentaddick said:
Right, I agree. But don’t become dewy eyed when the market turns on landlords who’ve overleveraged themselves and expect tenants to pick up the tab. Having your cake and eating it comes to mind - something for nothing.PrincessFiona said:
So all rental properties need to be mortgage free - that's going to work, NOT! Who decides a fair price? They tried something in Scotland that just made it worse for tenants. A fair price is market price.clb74 said:Manic_mania said:
I personally don't see a problem with buying a second property outright and then letting it out at a fair price.clb74 said:Seriously.
What's the matter with some people?
I'm 49 with no pension.
So if I decided in the next couple of years to buy a 2nd property as a pension, some would be happy to see it go tits up for me.
I do have an issue with taking out a mortgage and expecting tenants to pay for it.
You do realise a lot of businesses you buy from take out loans and by doing business with them you are paying off their mortgage loan
Yeah it was clearly meant as some kind of dig, but the majority of people of my generation (>50%) are now renters, it just comes across as hopelessly out of touch.Manic_mania said:
lots of people are in that position - that is not humorous - it's just unfortunately true.Covered End said:I'm getting a vibe that kentaddick is a tenant, who doesn't earn enough money to buy his own property.
The thing that sticks in my craw a little as someone in that position - I can just about afford to pay the monthly mortgage for the place I live in, as a renter - and in fact that is what I am doing - but apparently i'm not trusted enough to get a mortgage - but I can pay someone elses off and nobody sees the issue.
It's a bit sick tbh - the system seems kinda set up against me.
edit for clarity - 9 years of renting thus far. Never missed a single rent payment. seen my rent rise by 25 -50 quid a month each year in that time, (until recently) for a one bed flat. After the latest rise i requested to hand in my notice and planned to go back to parents - my (decent) landlord called me (first time in nine years i've even had to speak to the guy) and asked me what he needed to do to keep me in the place.Friend Or Defoe said:One of the craziest threads i've seen. Rents are high because are willing to pay them, people can't get on the ladder because they spend too much time on Charlton Life, buying property is like investing in crypto. WTF? Bet there's other gems that i've missed.
It's a bit weird, I'm still yet to be told why some one would become a landlord other than accumulating wealth off the back of some one else (their tenant).
Most businesses don't trade on a fundamental human need that then soaks up >50% of their customers wages. Although thinking about it in these terms sums up the attitude of landlords, it's just a business to suck up some wealth.
It is a reasonable that the landlord provides that 'service' and makes a profit as he carries all the risk - mortgage costs, no tenants , bad tenants, maintenance etc.
All we are really discussing is the market rate of rents which has grown hugely & to a level that (at least in London) isn't sustainable for many.
We either rely on market dynamics of supply & demand to push rents back down or some better legislation designed that makes the cost 'fairer'. Its not wrong to be a landlord per se.They could service all their suppliers at cost, if it wasn’t for pure greed, apparently.
I'm sure if you put your mind to it you can save a deposit and buy a property yourself,
What can you cut back on expenditure wise? Can you for now rent somewhere cheaper? Take a second job, change job, move to a different part of the country where the income multiplier is not like London/South east.
There will be lots of options if you really want to be a home owner and get away from greedy landlords.
It may surprise you (like it does my kids) that all of us were young once and struggled from time to time to one degree or another, I really enjoyed my time living in a bedsit in Bethnal Green (when BG was a sh1te hole) eating hula hoop sandwiches but that's what saved me from being homeless. I made a lot of sacrifices to get out of there, sometimes you have just got to suck it up and do what you need to do.
If anyone is struggling you have two options, cut expenditure or increase income, the easiest way to increase income is a second job, something many of us have done in the past to keep the wolf from the door.
My rent was about 25% of my main job, that's because I choose a bedsit in the cheapest and worst area I could find. Had I rented a flat near my office job (sidcup) it would have been about 40%. I was on just under £400 a month.
Its ALL and mean ALL that horrible witches fault.
Imagine that some people don't want to be upwardly mobile, would be quite happy with a fair wage for a fair days work and a fair rent amount and live a great life. But oh no we have to be Gordon Gekko. My god i hate capitalism and moreover Tories.
if i hear "hard working families" one more time - sound bit bullshit.
I agree with you on more social housing, not quite sure in the current climate rent caps is workable though.
probably saying it badly.I’d love the world to just calm down and stop consuming shit and thinking we all have to be rich and on the property ladder etc. it’s a fucking con to keep us in our place started by that horrible dead bitch.The chances of getting anywhere are the worst they’ve been for 50 years, inequality is rife and these pigs in charge play on how thick everyone is. A good example is this Roland Rat midget fucking the green agenda for years just to have an opposite view to that wanker Khan as that’s all they’ve got and they know it. And people will fall for it.
Whether it's what I did of working 90+ hours a week, coveredend as articulated sacrifices for 9+ years to get on the ladder then further one's when on, or my parents renting a room from an aunt for the first three years of their married life and saving to buy a sh1tty house in Rainham, kent.
You make your own choices, some sadly have very little choice and are really really struggling, but I see many people bemoaning their situation when in reality a few changes to their lifestyle would make a massive difference.
1 -
Going to a gym regularly is time/money well spent. Mine's £18/month, cheaper than a Charlton season ticket.1
-
Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.
4 -
The problem seems to me to be about a notion that if you don’t work 70-90 hours a week you have no right to bemoan the fact you’re homeless.2
-
I don't recall someone saying dump an initial buyer, more so someone offering above asking price. I moved in 2021, house was up for £925k (I think to illicit offers as it was cheap at that price IMHO), I bought it but ended up paying £962,500. Should the seller have let me have it for 925k? Even though all four parties were offering above that? Should they have gone with the lowest bid, rather than my highest bid?seth plum said:Reading this thread makes me aware of how differently I view things to the way many other people do.
There was something @kentaddick said above about shelter being a basic fundamental human right. I agree with that.I like to boil things down to the notion that if a person does an honest day’s work, without having to take a second job, then that ought to be enough to put a decent roof over their head.
I also agree with saving up, and not splashing out on fripperies, in my case it was hardly having a holiday beyond a tent in my motorcycle luggage and Youth Hostels.
However the assumptions about living at home, getting money from parents, having to be part of a couple and most especially working all hours seem to me to be a distraction from @kentaddick’s fundamental.
The cat came out of the bag above when it was suggested you put your place up for sale for £200,000. Find a buyer at that price, but somebody comes in at £250,000 so you let down the original buyer. It is framed as ‘good on yer mate, it is common sense to dump the original person for the more money’.
My question would be if somebody was happy, and able to manage their affairs at the £200,000, then salivating at the higher offer seems like greed to me. I simply don’t get the kind of thinking or mind set of a person who would do that.
Maybe it is an example of how much I am at odds with others that I don’t see what seems ‘obvious’ to many people.
I don't see the issue of achieving the highest possible price on something you are selling, property or something else. As always something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, many houses go for far less than the asking price, should that be allowed?
Where I think I would agree is dumping someone. We sold our house to a lovely couple, about a week before exchange a previous viewer came in with an offer of £8k more, cash, I declined on the basis I'd agreed a sale and my buyer had gone through expense of surveys, mortgage etc. Had they have offered at the same time as my buyer did, then that would have been different.3 -
Don't go out in the weekend, don't drink coffee, don't see the world, don't have kids and don't eat smash avocado on toast. Then when you're in your 40s you can start enjoying life.colthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.2 -
If we want to do it that way, by my maths, the 2023 repayment would now be around 90% of the net incomeRob7Lee said:
Whilst as lot of that is true I'd question the 1995 and only 29% of salary. On a gross basis (on £20k) that would be £480 a month/£5760 a year, I'd make it more like £700/£8400 or 40-45%, net I'm not sure but tax at that salary level was higher back then.Chunes said:1995.
Average London salary: 20k
Average house price: 80k.
Ratio to annual earnings: 4x
2023.
Average London salary: 37k
Average house price: 537k
Ratio to annual earnings: 14x
Mortgage Repayment as % of Salary
(For average London house, on average London salary)
1995: 29% of salary
2023: 79%* of salary
*The av. London house is no longer affordable to the average Londoner.
(All above calculations factor in the higher interest rates of the nineties, historic tax rates, MIRAS, etc).
-
But this is without even factoring the impacts on cost of living since the 90's.
London salaries have risen by 85% since 1995. But rent is up 200%+, transportation is up 140%, groceries up 100%+, utilities up 200%, entertainment up 200%. It goes on.
Everything is eating away at the money that was previously left over that used to go towards saving for a deposit.
If it was hard for you back at the bottom of the market, and you had to scrimp and save, it's now more than 10x harder, and all for a less desirable property than you got. If you find yourself wondering why there is less desire among young people to sacrifice, this is why.
Where I would agree, London is a harder place to buy than maybe it once was, but then again certainly the generation before me, i.e. my parents, couldn't afford London so their first houses were out in places like Rainham or Gillingham.
I did manage to buy in London, all be it Grove Park so one of the cheaper areas. EDIT, should probably add the only reason I could do that was I on purpose and purely from a housing/mortgage perspective changed jobs to a building society to get a 5% mortgage, salary in 1993 was £12,500.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
At last, common sense. Well spotted what people used to have to do. No gym, no car, no toby carvery, no going outcolthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.
As for commute have you ever tried cycling from Bethnal Green to Sidcup, onto Chislehurst then at midnight back to Bethnal Green? Although I admit some nights I slept in the office or conference centre where I worked the bar.2 -
The Karoshi culture.Rob7Lee said:
At last, common sense. Well spotted what people used to have to do. No gym, no car, no toby carvery, no going outcolthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.
As for commute have you ever tried cycling from Bethnal Green to Sidcup, onto Chislehurst then at midnight back to Bethnal Green? Although I admit some nights I slept in the office or conference centre where I worked the bar.0 -
Don't forget to save for your pension too, so you can enjoy life if you ever retire.Friend Or Defoe said:
Don't go out in the weekend, don't drink coffee, don't see the world, don't have kids and don't eat smash avocado on toast. Then when you're in your 40s you can start enjoying life.colthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.2 -
Nah, mate, nobody should have to make any sacrifices whatsoever these days.Rob7Lee said:
At last, common sense. Well spotted what people used to have to do. No gym, no car, no toby carvery, no going outcolthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.
As for commute have you ever tried cycling from Bethnal Green to Sidcup, onto Chislehurst then at midnight back to Bethnal Green? Although I admit some nights I slept in the office or conference centre where I worked the bar.
Entitlement is where it's at for a lot of folk in 2023. That and equating good honest advice to something that nobody has said or alluded to because the advice, to them, is an affront to that entitlement.
12 -
Was it hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.3 -
Even sacrifice your mental and physical health.Big_Bad_World said:
Nah, mate, nobody should have to make any sacrifices whatsoever these days.Rob7Lee said:
At last, common sense. Well spotted what people used to have to do. No gym, no car, no toby carvery, no going outcolthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.
As for commute have you ever tried cycling from Bethnal Green to Sidcup, onto Chislehurst then at midnight back to Bethnal Green? Although I admit some nights I slept in the office or conference centre where I worked the bar.
Entitlement is where it's at for a lot of folk in 2023. That and equating good honest advice to something that nobody has said or alluded to because the advice, to them, is an affront to that entitlement.
Here's some good advise, get a decent work life balance and exercise regularly.
That's another issue for young people that we haven't even mentioned! If you're in your 20s now you've probably got another half century to go.shine166 said:
Don't forget to save for your pension too, so you can enjoy life if you ever retire.Friend Or Defoe said:
Don't go out in the weekend, don't drink coffee, don't see the world, don't have kids and don't eat smash avocado on toast. Then when you're in your 40s you can start enjoying life.colthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.1 -
Tell that to the people in the 80's/90's who lost everything, including their home.Chunes said:Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst it was 70's/early 80's you could generally only get a mortgage from a building society, to do so you would have had to save with them for at least 3 years before they would even consider an application. Mortgages did get easier in the mid 90's though.
If I didn't have a second job I would have struggled to survive let alone save anything.0 -
You could have moved to a cheaper part of the country and commuted into London, or lived with your parents...Rob7Lee said:
Tell that to the people in the 80's/90's who lost everything, including their home.Chunes said:Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst it was 70's/early 80's you could generally only get a mortgage from a building society, to do so you would have had to save with them for at least 3 years before they would even consider an application. Mortgages did get easier in the mid 90's though.
If I didn't have a second job I would have struggled to survive let alone save anything.0 -
In answer to your first question, yes indeed the seller should have stayed at the original price. There is something rather fundamental wrapped up in the first come first served notion. Children understand that maybe better than adults.Rob7Lee said:
I don't recall someone saying dump an initial buyer, more so someone offering above asking price. I moved in 2021, house was up for £925k (I think to illicit offers as it was cheap at that price IMHO), I bought it but ended up paying £962,500. Should the seller have let me have it for 925k? Even though all four parties were offering above that? Should they have gone with the lowest bid, rather than my highest bid?seth plum said:Reading this thread makes me aware of how differently I view things to the way many other people do.
There was something @kentaddick said above about shelter being a basic fundamental human right. I agree with that.I like to boil things down to the notion that if a person does an honest day’s work, without having to take a second job, then that ought to be enough to put a decent roof over their head.
I also agree with saving up, and not splashing out on fripperies, in my case it was hardly having a holiday beyond a tent in my motorcycle luggage and Youth Hostels.
However the assumptions about living at home, getting money from parents, having to be part of a couple and most especially working all hours seem to me to be a distraction from @kentaddick’s fundamental.
The cat came out of the bag above when it was suggested you put your place up for sale for £200,000. Find a buyer at that price, but somebody comes in at £250,000 so you let down the original buyer. It is framed as ‘good on yer mate, it is common sense to dump the original person for the more money’.
My question would be if somebody was happy, and able to manage their affairs at the £200,000, then salivating at the higher offer seems like greed to me. I simply don’t get the kind of thinking or mind set of a person who would do that.
Maybe it is an example of how much I am at odds with others that I don’t see what seems ‘obvious’ to many people.
I don't see the issue of achieving the highest possible price on something you are selling, property or something else. As always something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, many houses go for far less than the asking price, should that be allowed?
Where I think I would agree is dumping someone. We sold our house to a lovely couple, about a week before exchange a previous viewer came in with an offer of £8k more, cash, I declined on the basis I'd agreed a sale and my buyer had gone through expense of surveys, mortgage etc. Had they have offered at the same time as my buyer did, then that would have been different.
I am heartened that you think dumping someone is wrong, but I suspect had it been £80k rather than £8k that principle would have been tested.
As a slight aside many here think it is disgraceful that an institution like Southend United should die off for the want of a weeks wages for a top footballer. The market is poison in that instance. Yes I know that Southend ought to have managed things better, but ultimately the free market mindset leads to Manchester City playing Manchester City reserves forever. Yet Manchester City needs an opposition to play, even Southend.
Anybody who has ever completed a game of Monopoly or Risk knows that it ends when one person has everything, and the rest nothing.
I suspect I do not think like you, or see the world in the same way. I see interdependence as a fundamental for a coherent society, and interdependence means sacrifice on occasion.1 -
No wonder people used to have midlife crisis at 40 and blow there family which they've grafted so hard to make and then give half/most of it away. I'm starting to realise that finally getting in the head space at 40 to buy, isn't such a bad thing after all.1
-
Sponsored links:
-
Maybe it is only me that detects an underlying negative judgement directed at others if they don’t work 70-90 hours a week in order to have a roof over their head.Rob7Lee said:
Where has anyone said anything about bemoaning homelessness? No one.seth plum said:The problem seems to me to be about a notion that if you don’t work 70-90 hours a week you have no right to bemoan the fact you’re homeless.3 -
You're only a reference to death away from completing the set. Most debates like this will eventually boil down to someone using death or another drastic reason for not wanting or having to do something. As I say, usually down to good advice being taken as an affront by others.Friend Or Defoe said:
Even sacrifice your mental and physical health.Big_Bad_World said:
Nah, mate, nobody should have to make any sacrifices whatsoever these days.Rob7Lee said:
At last, common sense. Well spotted what people used to have to do. No gym, no car, no toby carvery, no going outcolthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.
As for commute have you ever tried cycling from Bethnal Green to Sidcup, onto Chislehurst then at midnight back to Bethnal Green? Although I admit some nights I slept in the office or conference centre where I worked the bar.
Entitlement is where it's at for a lot of folk in 2023. That and equating good honest advice to something that nobody has said or alluded to because the advice, to them, is an affront to that entitlement.
Here's some good advise, get a decent work life balance and exercise regularly.
That's another issue for young people that we haven't even mentioned! If you're in your 20s now you've probably got another half century to go.shine166 said:
Don't forget to save for your pension too, so you can enjoy life if you ever retire.Friend Or Defoe said:
Don't go out in the weekend, don't drink coffee, don't see the world, don't have kids and don't eat smash avocado on toast. Then when you're in your 40s you can start enjoying life.colthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.2 -
Right, but I had hard.Covered End said:My son worked hard & saved & bought a flat last year.
He put down 20% on his flat last year from HIS savings.
He decided to act fast when we thought that mortgage rates were about to start rising.
He got in just in time.
ALL of his school friends have done the same.
It's about attitude in the main & being financially astute.
I had no privilege and nor did my girlfriend, unless you class living in council houses with our parents as privileged.
Neither set of parents had a "pot to piss in".
We had no car, no washing machine, no telephone. Our holidays were a day at the zoo or a hired caravan in Hastings. I'd never been abroad, we couldn't afford to buy biscuits or fizzy drinks, it was water or cordial. I'd never had a takeaway.
I remember wearing shoes that hurt and bent my toes, because they were too small & I didn't want to tell my mum because I knew she couldn't afford to buy a new pair.
Obviously no central heating, no heating upstairs, just one gas fire in the living room.
When I started work I paid my mum £100, saved £100 & spent £100 of my £300 pm wage.
Your last paragraph pretty well describes post war 60's & 70's living for much of us. Although my early life wasn't quite as austere as what you are describing.
When I started work in August 1980. As an apprentice, was on £32/week rising to £101/week in 1984, it was the best I could of hoped for with my limited academic skills. As a skilled man I didn't earn top rate for another 4 years when I finally bought my first flat. Before that I rented a 1 bed flat with my girlfriend, (future wife), which was very affordable cost me less than one weeks wages. There was no way we could afford to save anything like enough for our own home. The one bedroom flat, 1988, that we bought near Westcombe Park station had a value of about £50K, I didn't need a deposit. I walked into the Woolwich one Friday afternoon and got a 100% mortgage there and then. 3 years later I bought a house in Petts Wood by working obscene amount of overtime in a fairly well paid manual job and again no real savings just what the flat had managed to make its self. I pretty well paid off that house by the age of 40 but I was very fortunate, I had a large redundancy, I was mis-sold an endowment by the Woolwich and Barclays coughed up and I had continued to work a hell of a lot of overtime 7 days a week. The house I live in now was the easiest. 2011 when lending was tighter I was able to get a mortgage with HSBC 1% above base rate Tracker for life. I had that house paid off in 9 years because of historic low interest rates and skills few have nowadays so I get paid more than someone would compared to 1980.
While all this was going on we've both paid into final salary company pensions and private ones.
There is no way a 16 year old me could repeat that nowadays. The apprenticeship that I did no longer exists, the manufacturing jobs that unskilled and skilled are gone, wages versus rents do not compare, mortgages are not 2.5 times earnings as they were but some huge multiple and virtually for life. A second job wouldn't have even crossed my mind as there was firms that paid good overtime rates, I doubt many do now, I haven't had a job paying overtime for the last 20 years. A school leaver in the early 80's with limited abilities like myself and a good number of my friends could leave school and realistically own a descent home. Also as life went on it got easier not harder with a future to retire to with something. If my son, who is a deal brainer than me, ever wants to own a house like mine he has two choices, either he lives to the age of 300 or more realistically me and the wife pop our clogs PDQ. Then he will have to deal with the death taxes which I do actually agree with so long as the Duke of Westminster and his like play their part in society.
And to bring it back to the original topic, if all didn't go as planned in life there were still council and private places to rent at affordable rates back in my youth.
6 -
There’s no Toby Carvery in Sidcupcolthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.9 -
I already did. 🤷🏻♂️I paid off my mortgage in my 30s so my advise is probably a load of shit anyway.Big_Bad_World said:
You're only a reference to death away from completing the set. Most debates like this will eventually boil down to someone using death or another drastic reason for not wanting or having to do something. As I say, usually down to good advice being taken as an affront by others.Friend Or Defoe said:
Even sacrifice your mental and physical health.Big_Bad_World said:
Nah, mate, nobody should have to make any sacrifices whatsoever these days.Rob7Lee said:
At last, common sense. Well spotted what people used to have to do. No gym, no car, no toby carvery, no going outcolthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.
As for commute have you ever tried cycling from Bethnal Green to Sidcup, onto Chislehurst then at midnight back to Bethnal Green? Although I admit some nights I slept in the office or conference centre where I worked the bar.
Entitlement is where it's at for a lot of folk in 2023. That and equating good honest advice to something that nobody has said or alluded to because the advice, to them, is an affront to that entitlement.
Here's some good advise, get a decent work life balance and exercise regularly.
That's another issue for young people that we haven't even mentioned! If you're in your 20s now you've probably got another half century to go.shine166 said:
Don't forget to save for your pension too, so you can enjoy life if you ever retire.Friend Or Defoe said:
Don't go out in the weekend, don't drink coffee, don't see the world, don't have kids and don't eat smash avocado on toast. Then when you're in your 40s you can start enjoying life.colthe3rd said:Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.1 -
For me living with parents was not an option unfortunately, and Bethnal Green was about as cheap as it got within a 50+ mile radius!! Trust me if I could have found somewhere cheaper to live I would have. It wasn't a pleasant place to be.Chunes said:
You could have moved to a cheaper part of the country and commuted into London, or lived with your parents...Rob7Lee said:
Tell that to the people in the 80's/90's who lost everything, including their home.Chunes said:Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst it was 70's/early 80's you could generally only get a mortgage from a building society, to do so you would have had to save with them for at least 3 years before they would even consider an application. Mortgages did get easier in the mid 90's though.
If I didn't have a second job I would have struggled to survive let alone save anything.
Let me put things another way;
Why is it that when my Daughter was a manager at McDonalds there were numerous people there, often a married couple (both working at McDonalds) who managed to buy a small place in Woolwich/Charlton, effectively on not much more than minimum hourly wage.
Yet there are people at my work earning individually 200% plus them combined but 'can't'?
Maybe it's because the McDonalds couple didn't holiday in Dubai but if anything a week in camber sands in October for £100, didn't have a car and used busses instead of a new Audi/BMW etc on HP, didn't spend £350 a month on lunch or £200 a month on coffee (yes that still amazes me is common place). Whilst saving rented a room in a shared house in Woolwich rather than a shared flat in Notting hill and 5x the cost.
It wasn't about having a roof over your head, but purchasing/saving a deposit rather than renting.seth plum said:
Maybe it is only me that detects an underlying negative judgement directed at others if they don’t work 70-90 hours a week in order to have a roof over their head.Rob7Lee said:
Where has anyone said anything about bemoaning homelessness? No one.seth plum said:The problem seems to me to be about a notion that if you don’t work 70-90 hours a week you have no right to bemoan the fact you’re homeless.
With respect I think you are very out of touch with property selling. It's common place now for houses to be marketed at a lower price than expected, with 'offers over' - often like when I bought it was a weekend of viewings then sealed bids by close of play on the Monday.seth plum said:
In answer to your first question, yes indeed the seller should have stayed at the original price. There is something rather fundamental wrapped up in the first come first served notion. Children understand that maybe better than adults.Rob7Lee said:
I don't recall someone saying dump an initial buyer, more so someone offering above asking price. I moved in 2021, house was up for £925k (I think to illicit offers as it was cheap at that price IMHO), I bought it but ended up paying £962,500. Should the seller have let me have it for 925k? Even though all four parties were offering above that? Should they have gone with the lowest bid, rather than my highest bid?seth plum said:Reading this thread makes me aware of how differently I view things to the way many other people do.
There was something @kentaddick said above about shelter being a basic fundamental human right. I agree with that.I like to boil things down to the notion that if a person does an honest day’s work, without having to take a second job, then that ought to be enough to put a decent roof over their head.
I also agree with saving up, and not splashing out on fripperies, in my case it was hardly having a holiday beyond a tent in my motorcycle luggage and Youth Hostels.
However the assumptions about living at home, getting money from parents, having to be part of a couple and most especially working all hours seem to me to be a distraction from @kentaddick’s fundamental.
The cat came out of the bag above when it was suggested you put your place up for sale for £200,000. Find a buyer at that price, but somebody comes in at £250,000 so you let down the original buyer. It is framed as ‘good on yer mate, it is common sense to dump the original person for the more money’.
My question would be if somebody was happy, and able to manage their affairs at the £200,000, then salivating at the higher offer seems like greed to me. I simply don’t get the kind of thinking or mind set of a person who would do that.
Maybe it is an example of how much I am at odds with others that I don’t see what seems ‘obvious’ to many people.
I don't see the issue of achieving the highest possible price on something you are selling, property or something else. As always something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, many houses go for far less than the asking price, should that be allowed?
Where I think I would agree is dumping someone. We sold our house to a lovely couple, about a week before exchange a previous viewer came in with an offer of £8k more, cash, I declined on the basis I'd agreed a sale and my buyer had gone through expense of surveys, mortgage etc. Had they have offered at the same time as my buyer did, then that would have been different.
I am heartened that you think dumping someone is wrong, but I suspect had it been £80k rather than £8k that principle would have been tested.
As a slight aside many here think it is disgraceful that an institution like Southend United should die off for the want of a weeks wages for a top footballer. The market is poison in that instance. Yes I know that Southend ought to have managed things better, but ultimately the free market mindset leads to Manchester City playing Manchester City reserves forever. Yet Manchester City needs an opposition to play, even Southend.
Anybody who has ever completed a game of Monopoly or Risk knows that it ends when one person has everything, and the rest nothing.
I suspect I do not think like you, or see the world in the same way. I see interdependence as a fundamental for a coherent society, and interdependence means sacrifice on occasion.
FWIW I wouldn't have switched for £80k either, generally there's a reason someone waits until the final hour and I'd have had no doubt that particular buyer would have tried to reduce their offer as it approached exchange. Just ask Damo and his Patel buyer experience..........0 -
Seems like it always come back to anecdotal evidence on your side of the argument? Nobody should be convinced by one or two stories in the face of overwhelming numbers and proof points.Rob7Lee said:
For me living with parents was not an option unfortunately, and Bethnal Green was about as cheap as it got within a 50+ mile radius!! Trust me if I could have found somewhere cheaper to live I would have. It wasn't a pleasant place to be.Chunes said:
You could have moved to a cheaper part of the country and commuted into London, or lived with your parents...Rob7Lee said:
Tell that to the people in the 80's/90's who lost everything, including their home.Chunes said:Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst it was 70's/early 80's you could generally only get a mortgage from a building society, to do so you would have had to save with them for at least 3 years before they would even consider an application. Mortgages did get easier in the mid 90's though.
If I didn't have a second job I would have struggled to survive let alone save anything.
Let me put things another way;
Why is it that when my Daughter was a manager at McDonalds there were numerous people there, often a married couple (both working at McDonalds) who managed to buy a small place in Woolwich/Charlton, effectively on not much more than minimum hourly wage.
Yet there are people at my work earning individually 200% plus them combined but 'can't'?
Maybe it's because the McDonalds couple didn't holiday in Dubai but if anything a week in camber sands in October for £100, didn't have a car and used busses instead of a new Audi/BMW etc on HP, didn't spend £350 a month on lunch or £200 a month on coffee (yes that still amazes me is common place). Whilst saving rented a room in a shared house in Woolwich rather than a shared flat in Notting hill and 5x the cost.
It wasn't about having a roof over your head, but purchasing/saving a deposit rather than renting.seth plum said:
Maybe it is only me that detects an underlying negative judgement directed at others if they don’t work 70-90 hours a week in order to have a roof over their head.Rob7Lee said:
Where has anyone said anything about bemoaning homelessness? No one.seth plum said:The problem seems to me to be about a notion that if you don’t work 70-90 hours a week you have no right to bemoan the fact you’re homeless.
With respect I think you are very out of touch with property selling. It's common place now for houses to be marketed at a lower price than expected, with 'offers over' - often like when I bought it was a weekend of viewings then sealed bids by close of play on the Monday.seth plum said:
In answer to your first question, yes indeed the seller should have stayed at the original price. There is something rather fundamental wrapped up in the first come first served notion. Children understand that maybe better than adults.Rob7Lee said:
I don't recall someone saying dump an initial buyer, more so someone offering above asking price. I moved in 2021, house was up for £925k (I think to illicit offers as it was cheap at that price IMHO), I bought it but ended up paying £962,500. Should the seller have let me have it for 925k? Even though all four parties were offering above that? Should they have gone with the lowest bid, rather than my highest bid?seth plum said:Reading this thread makes me aware of how differently I view things to the way many other people do.
There was something @kentaddick said above about shelter being a basic fundamental human right. I agree with that.I like to boil things down to the notion that if a person does an honest day’s work, without having to take a second job, then that ought to be enough to put a decent roof over their head.
I also agree with saving up, and not splashing out on fripperies, in my case it was hardly having a holiday beyond a tent in my motorcycle luggage and Youth Hostels.
However the assumptions about living at home, getting money from parents, having to be part of a couple and most especially working all hours seem to me to be a distraction from @kentaddick’s fundamental.
The cat came out of the bag above when it was suggested you put your place up for sale for £200,000. Find a buyer at that price, but somebody comes in at £250,000 so you let down the original buyer. It is framed as ‘good on yer mate, it is common sense to dump the original person for the more money’.
My question would be if somebody was happy, and able to manage their affairs at the £200,000, then salivating at the higher offer seems like greed to me. I simply don’t get the kind of thinking or mind set of a person who would do that.
Maybe it is an example of how much I am at odds with others that I don’t see what seems ‘obvious’ to many people.
I don't see the issue of achieving the highest possible price on something you are selling, property or something else. As always something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, many houses go for far less than the asking price, should that be allowed?
Where I think I would agree is dumping someone. We sold our house to a lovely couple, about a week before exchange a previous viewer came in with an offer of £8k more, cash, I declined on the basis I'd agreed a sale and my buyer had gone through expense of surveys, mortgage etc. Had they have offered at the same time as my buyer did, then that would have been different.
I am heartened that you think dumping someone is wrong, but I suspect had it been £80k rather than £8k that principle would have been tested.
As a slight aside many here think it is disgraceful that an institution like Southend United should die off for the want of a weeks wages for a top footballer. The market is poison in that instance. Yes I know that Southend ought to have managed things better, but ultimately the free market mindset leads to Manchester City playing Manchester City reserves forever. Yet Manchester City needs an opposition to play, even Southend.
Anybody who has ever completed a game of Monopoly or Risk knows that it ends when one person has everything, and the rest nothing.
I suspect I do not think like you, or see the world in the same way. I see interdependence as a fundamental for a coherent society, and interdependence means sacrifice on occasion.
FWIW I wouldn't have switched for £80k either, generally there's a reason someone waits until the final hour and I'd have had no doubt that particular buyer would have tried to reduce their offer as it approached exchange. Just ask Damo and his Patel buyer experience..........
Is there any factual evidence to support the idea that young people can't afford houses because of the reasons you state?
5 -
I worked in the Fire Brigade for 30 years.
On my days off I worked a second job for 30 years.
I could of course chose to play golf or go fishing or something but I didn’t.
I chose to work.
Glad I did as I'm now mortgage free and dept free.
We all have choices to make and sometimes if you want something bad enough sacrifices have to be made.
My sacrifice was doing 2 jobs for 30 years.
And I'm glad I did.6 -
Most firemen work second jobs don't they? Because they work two weeks on and two weeks off. My brother-in-law has his own contracting business outside of being a fireman.blackpool72 said:I worked in the Fire Brigade for 30 years.
On my days off I worked a second job for 30 years.
I could of course chose to play golf or go fishing or something but I didn’t.
I chose to work.
Glad I did as I'm now mortgage free and dept free.
We all have choices to make and sometimes if you want something bad enough sacrifices have to be made.
My sacrifice was doing 2 jobs for 30 years.
And I'm glad I did.1 -
It's not anecdotal, over the past 10+ years at work I can show you numerous people who bemoan that they can't afford to buy, yet many at work on the same salaries have done so, relatively easily, for them (which I appreciate is a small number) it is solely personal choices.Chunes said:
Why does it always come back to anecdotal evidence? Is there any factual evidence to support the idea that young people can't afford houses because of the reasons you state?Rob7Lee said:
For me living with parents was not an option unfortunately, and Bethnal Green was about as cheap as it got within a 50+ mile radius!! Trust me if I could have found somewhere cheaper to live I would have. It wasn't a pleasant place to be.Chunes said:
You could have moved to a cheaper part of the country and commuted into London, or lived with your parents...Rob7Lee said:
Tell that to the people in the 80's/90's who lost everything, including their home.Chunes said:Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst it was 70's/early 80's you could generally only get a mortgage from a building society, to do so you would have had to save with them for at least 3 years before they would even consider an application. Mortgages did get easier in the mid 90's though.
If I didn't have a second job I would have struggled to survive let alone save anything.
Let me put things another way;
Why is it that when my Daughter was a manager at McDonalds there were numerous people there, often a married couple (both working at McDonalds) who managed to buy a small place in Woolwich/Charlton, effectively on not much more than minimum hourly wage.
Yet there are people at my work earning individually 200% plus them combined but 'can't'?
Maybe it's because the McDonalds couple didn't holiday in Dubai but if anything a week in camber sands in October for £100, didn't have a car and used busses instead of a new Audi/BMW etc on HP, didn't spend £350 a month on lunch or £200 a month on coffee (yes that still amazes me is common place). Whilst saving rented a room in a shared house in Woolwich rather than a shared flat in Notting hill and 5x the cost.
It wasn't about having a roof over your head, but purchasing/saving a deposit rather than renting.seth plum said:
Maybe it is only me that detects an underlying negative judgement directed at others if they don’t work 70-90 hours a week in order to have a roof over their head.Rob7Lee said:
Where has anyone said anything about bemoaning homelessness? No one.seth plum said:The problem seems to me to be about a notion that if you don’t work 70-90 hours a week you have no right to bemoan the fact you’re homeless.
With respect I think you are very out of touch with property selling. It's common place now for houses to be marketed at a lower price than expected, with 'offers over' - often like when I bought it was a weekend of viewings then sealed bids by close of play on the Monday.seth plum said:
In answer to your first question, yes indeed the seller should have stayed at the original price. There is something rather fundamental wrapped up in the first come first served notion. Children understand that maybe better than adults.Rob7Lee said:
I don't recall someone saying dump an initial buyer, more so someone offering above asking price. I moved in 2021, house was up for £925k (I think to illicit offers as it was cheap at that price IMHO), I bought it but ended up paying £962,500. Should the seller have let me have it for 925k? Even though all four parties were offering above that? Should they have gone with the lowest bid, rather than my highest bid?seth plum said:Reading this thread makes me aware of how differently I view things to the way many other people do.
There was something @kentaddick said above about shelter being a basic fundamental human right. I agree with that.I like to boil things down to the notion that if a person does an honest day’s work, without having to take a second job, then that ought to be enough to put a decent roof over their head.
I also agree with saving up, and not splashing out on fripperies, in my case it was hardly having a holiday beyond a tent in my motorcycle luggage and Youth Hostels.
However the assumptions about living at home, getting money from parents, having to be part of a couple and most especially working all hours seem to me to be a distraction from @kentaddick’s fundamental.
The cat came out of the bag above when it was suggested you put your place up for sale for £200,000. Find a buyer at that price, but somebody comes in at £250,000 so you let down the original buyer. It is framed as ‘good on yer mate, it is common sense to dump the original person for the more money’.
My question would be if somebody was happy, and able to manage their affairs at the £200,000, then salivating at the higher offer seems like greed to me. I simply don’t get the kind of thinking or mind set of a person who would do that.
Maybe it is an example of how much I am at odds with others that I don’t see what seems ‘obvious’ to many people.
I don't see the issue of achieving the highest possible price on something you are selling, property or something else. As always something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, many houses go for far less than the asking price, should that be allowed?
Where I think I would agree is dumping someone. We sold our house to a lovely couple, about a week before exchange a previous viewer came in with an offer of £8k more, cash, I declined on the basis I'd agreed a sale and my buyer had gone through expense of surveys, mortgage etc. Had they have offered at the same time as my buyer did, then that would have been different.
I am heartened that you think dumping someone is wrong, but I suspect had it been £80k rather than £8k that principle would have been tested.
As a slight aside many here think it is disgraceful that an institution like Southend United should die off for the want of a weeks wages for a top footballer. The market is poison in that instance. Yes I know that Southend ought to have managed things better, but ultimately the free market mindset leads to Manchester City playing Manchester City reserves forever. Yet Manchester City needs an opposition to play, even Southend.
Anybody who has ever completed a game of Monopoly or Risk knows that it ends when one person has everything, and the rest nothing.
I suspect I do not think like you, or see the world in the same way. I see interdependence as a fundamental for a coherent society, and interdependence means sacrifice on occasion.
FWIW I wouldn't have switched for £80k either, generally there's a reason someone waits until the final hour and I'd have had no doubt that particular buyer would have tried to reduce their offer as it approached exchange. Just ask Damo and his Patel buyer experience..........
There's a reason someone on £70k salary can't afford to buy.
I have two graduates working for me currently. Their daily routine is at least 5 coffees a day from Starbucks, that's £4 a go or £100 a week. Lunch they'll spend anywhere between £10-20 so somewhere between £50 and £100 a week, they will often eat out in the evening at £40-£50 a go maybe 3-4 times a week so another £120-£200 a week.
So on coffee, lunch and eating out that's broadly somewhere in the £300+ a week or £1200 a month+ add their Notting Hill rent to that and you are in the 30-35k per annum, net so maybe £45k gross. If that's how they wish to live that is 100% their prerogative, but don't then moan (as they do) that they'll never be able to buy........
On the flip side I have had others on the same sort of salary who within 4 years after uni have bought their own place.5
