What is is with old ladies and their houses?

harrup

.[/quote]

You just don't get it, do you?

,....... but you seem to think that they should drop their prices simply because they happen to have bought years ago for what you erroneously perceive as "very little", or "peanuts" as you put it earlier. )[/quote]


Yes, it is I who isn't getting it.

I explained what I meant by "peanuts". Then I explained it again. And I ain't doing it any more. Clearly, you derive some kind of pleasure from wildly extrapolating and distorting of what was actually said and in what context.

Far be it from me to diminish your joy of your selective reading. If it makes you happy - I'm happy.

Geenie

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't think is universal actually, and in my social group I'd say that our parents and grandparents, on average, started pension planning before us, were able to save along side mortgage repayments, less numerically, but more proportionately. e.g. my father put aside the maximum allowance of his income his entire working life whilst servicing a mortgage for a large west london family home on an averagish wage (public sector)...DH puts away the minimum (3%) on a better than average wage in order to save for a house. The equivalent property we would buy in the same area is actually a flat in the house my parents had all of, with a very roughly proportion of income to mortage payment, but we have a far huger deposit in proportion to price than my parents did! (I'm sorry, this gets a bit confusing)

The wage to house price ratio I've worked out -back of the envelope- for my grandparents, parents and parents in law, and possibilties that DH and I might buy, and the ratio of earning to property (for less of a property and higher than previous generations rage in relation to average wage) is always in the previous generations favour. Absolutely we have, as a generation, not me personally, more debt, but then lots of us started adult life with huge student loans too. We have to spend hugely on commuting, especially in SE, and as prices rise in city centres we are forced further and further out, making the commuting costs higher,....not to mention childcare costs etc. ( my mother would point out she was provided with no support for childcare , so thats a bit swings and roundabouts I'll accept.)

I think there is a very valid issue with 'I want it now ism' in my generation, I'll not argue with that at all, and there is lots more tat available at lower proportion of income, and there is no question in my mind that 'easy' lending of 95% plus of houses has contributed to that.

The reason previous generations had more to invest in pensions was because they were not blowing all their money on fancy white goods, clothes, cars, decor etc. They bought fresh stuff and cooked, not ready meals at twice the price. They didn't need electronic stuff to make their lives complete but went out for walks and dug the garden to grow veg. In other words, they didn't spend what they didn't have, and if they did have it, they spent it wisely or put it away for saving or old age.

They can't be blamed for the house prices we have now as that has been younger generations seeing them as cash cows who are to blame for inflating prices. Why shouldn't an OAP get the same as anyone else in the road, just because they bought it for what seems like peanuts to us now! At the time it would have been a lot of money for them, and a big part of the wages coming in.

harrup

Geenie wrote: »

Because even if you are investing in a home, you will not be best pleased if when you come to sell it one day in the far future, it is still only worth what you paid for it.

Not trying to start an argument but I don't follow. Since compared to having rented and in view that rents are often more expensive than a mortgage.... and assuming one got what one paid for the property ....one would have lost nothing.

There are many things we "invest in" that we don't profit from financially. Simply because they make our life either viable, more comfortable or meaningful. Food, heating, electricity, children, holidays, cars, ..the list is endless.

Why should "shelter" be an exception? Should we really expect to make money from having had the pleasure of having owned a roof over our heads? And if so, why? Should we therefore also expect of having to move out of our familiar home, in our twilight years no less, simply in order to finance our retirement?

It's not an attack - they are genuine questions.

harrup

Geenie wrote: »

The reason previous generations had more to invest in pensions was because they were not blowing all their money on fancy white goods, clothes, cars, decor etc. They bought fresh stuff and cooked, not ready meals at twice the price. They didn't need electronic stuff to make their lives complete but went out for walks and dug the garden to grow veg. In other words, they didn't spend what they didn't have, and if they did have it, they spent it wisely or put it away for saving or old age.

They can't be blamed for the house prices we have now as that has been younger generations seeing them as cash cows who are to blame for inflating prices. Why shouldn't an OAP get the same as anyone else in the road, just because they bought it for what seems like peanuts to us now! At the time it would have been a lot of money for them, and a big part of the wages coming in.

Well, this may be romanticising the older generation somewhat! Not ALL older people lived that frugally and sensibly by choice and due to hightened enlightenment.

If I don't smoke and drink because there are neither cigarettes nor alcohol in the house, it doesn't make me particularly virtuous. It simply means that I have no access to them. Just as the older generation had no access to decent ready made meals, easy credit ( the odd loan shark aside) and the reason they didn't buy laptops, mobiles,plasma TV's, and what not...because they didn't yet exist.

No, they aren't responsible for the current house prices. We are. And by "we" I primarily mean women. We wanted to work and suddenly families had twice - or at least a much larger - income as they used to. So, I suppose, our house prices are the result of feminism! And now we HAVE to work even if we'd rather raise a family because houseprices are tailored to two incomes. Some may say our intended plan misfired somewhat.

And WHO said they shouldn't get the same as everyone else in the road? No one. Yes, 3 K for a house WAS a big sum of money then....but it's not even in the same galaxy than what a FTB is asked to shell out now.

mr.broderick

forfun wrote: »

I hope house price falling cause i don't have enough money buy it !
terrible!

We've had Qe, Deflation,Inflation, Low interest rates, crashes, Booms and more. Finally we have some truth !

Geenie

harrup wrote: »

Not trying to start an argument but I don't follow. Since compared to having rented and in view that rents are often more expensive than a mortgage.... and assuming one got what one paid for the property ....one would have lost nothing.

There are many things we "invest in" that we don't profit from financially. Simply because they make our life either viable, more comfortable or meaningful. Food, heating, electricity, children, holidays, cars, ..the list is endless.

Why should "shelter" be an exception? Should we really expect to make money from having had the pleasure of having owned a roof over our heads? And if so, why? Should we therefore also expect of having to move out of our familiar home, in our twilight years no less, simply in order to finance our retirement?

It's not an attack - they are genuine questions.

If rents are more expensive then a mortgage, why are people renting?!! Buy and put the saved money towards upkeeping the place.

The fact is that yes, people often do have to sell up and finance their twilight years by selling their home, or am I the only one to have read stories about this over the years!!:rolleyes:

Holidays are what you make of them. Mine for many years were under canvas on a sodden beach, but cost very little. Cars the same.

I am not saying that anyone should expect to make money from having had the pleasure of having owned a roof over their heads, but the fact is that most people do after a long time? And you will bite off the hand of anyone who buys your property for a good profit if offered, despite what you say on here.

Geenie

harrup wrote: »

Well, this may be romanticising the older generation somewhat! Not ALL older people lived that frugally and sensibly by choice and due to hightened enlightenment.

If I don't smoke and drink because there are neither cigarettes nor alcohol in the house, it doesn't make me particularly virtuous. It simply means that I have no access to them. Just as the older generation had no access to decent ready made meals, easy credit ( the odd loan shark aside) and the reason they didn't buy laptops, mobiles,plasma TV's, and what not...because they didn't yet exist.

No, they aren't responsible for the current house prices. We are. And by "we" I primarily mean women. We wanted to work and suddenly families had twice - or at least a much larger - income as they used to. So, I suppose, our house prices are the result of feminism! And now we HAVE to work even if we'd rather raise a family because houseprices are tailored to two incomes. Some may say our intended plan misfired somewhat.

And WHO said they shouldn't get the same as everyone else in the road? No one. Yes, 3 K for a house WAS a big sum of money then....but it's not even in the same galaxy than what a FTB is asked to shell out now.

Who can we blame for the current mess?!! Everybody except ourselves it would seem.

SingleSue

Just spoken to my parents....their house cost £3,900 in 1969, they laid down a £400 deposit and their annual pay (or my dads anyway) was £1,200.

So the amounts may seem small but to them it was a huge amount and took approx half of their incoming salary each month. They only had the one income and 2 children plus all other bills to pay.

Another bit of trivia....the house was built in 1937 and cost £300 new!

mr.broderick

SingleSue wrote: »

Just spoken to my parents....their house cost £3,900 in 1969, they laid down a £400 deposit and their annual pay (or my dads anyway) was £1,200.

So the amounts may seem small but to them it was a huge amount and took approx half of their incoming salary each month. They only had the one income and 2 children plus all other bills to pay.

Another bit of trivia....the house was built in 1937 and cost £300 new!

You need a 2 night time out from mse.:p

SingleSue

Hehe......it's numbers, I love numbers.

I've spent all day away from here and my brain needs food...helps keep the parents brains alive too.