£1.2tn given to old from young

StevieJ

Emy1501 wrote: »

I doubt anyone is suggesting they were cheap. My experience is though that they were affordable. ie someone doing a reasonable job could get a 2/3 bed terrace for 3-4X wages. Now at the bottom of a crash we are talking about expereinced teachers etc being able to afford at best a 1-2 bed flat.

The simple facts are wage inflation has not carried on in line with house inflation. It not really possible for it to continue like that whether we like it or not.

Maybe in London (was always thus) but not where I live, anyway many of the 2 bedroom flats are more expensive than houses.
Anyway as someone mentioned earlier, owner occupation is a far higher proportion of the population than back then, the facts don't support the whinging.

stueyhants

ukcarper wrote: »

Prove it's just babyboomers plenty of developemet around me

It's not just boomers, I also said their children as well. Who holds the power in the government and local authorities ? Its not the kids and the 20 somethings is it.

I agree there has been development but it hasn't been enough to compensate for the demand. Who controls the demand (birth rate and imigration policy).

I'm not trying to say boomers and their children have been nasty or anything, all decisions on housing policy have to be a balance. But those generations made the decisions and so carry the responsibility for the consequences. Just like the current 30 somethings will carry the can for decisions affecting the next generation.

mbga9pgf

StevieJ wrote: »

Add a 90% mortgage and I couldn't agree more.

Nope, 80% maximum. If house prices werent extortionate, people wouldnt have a problem saving a 20% deposit.

mbga9pgf

Actually you will find most houses over 40 years ago would now be classed as overcrowded.

It is the most recent generation think they all deserve a 3 bed house for two people to live in.
when I was young we had 5 of us in a 3 bed house some had 6 people+ and that was only 20 years ago.

Oh, and what options do hardworking large families have these days? 5 of you in a 2 bed tiny terrace crappily built by barratts?

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Check Rates in the 50s and 60s

i did BOE rate started going up in 1951 from a low of 2.5% to over 5%.
i can't see mortgage rates being lower than 7% or 8% in those times.

ukcarper

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Interest rates were 5% when my baby boomer grandparents bought their first home, a 3 bed, semi detatched house on 1/4 of an acre. They were 22 and 23.

That was our ages when we bought our 1st house in the 70s not a semi in an acre. Also we had both lived with our parents until then and had been saving for a couple of years and our only entertainment was a quite drink at the local on a Saturday night. I admit if I was buying now I would not be able to buy same house a 3-bed terrace but I would be able to buy a 2 bed flat.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A lot of people HAVE argued about the quality of new homes, and I believe that is a fair argument, but I have never seen "we deserve", at all.

so the house built for boomers (1960s/70s semis) are good quality! (personally I think most class Victorian as good quality but hardly boomer)

I have owned one Graham, they are poorly built, poorly planned and no bigger than a 3 bed semi built today)

The housing built for boomers is virtually identical to new build estates built today and i can say that from personal experience of living in a boomer town and currently living on a new estate. TBH the newbuild is a lot better built the wood in 60/70s housing is terrible, usually unseasoned pine.

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

i did BOE rate started going up in 1951 from a low of 2.5% to over 5%.
i can't see mortgage rates being lower than 7% or 8% in those times.

Yep, they bought when their mortgae was at 6%. Errm, so lets get this right, work hard, get a house at 2 times SINGLE income, at 6% rates, and a 3 bed semi on 1/4 of an acre as their first home in a leafy suburb, salary only slightly over average income.

I am sick to the back teeth of hearing the fallacy "you need to work harder"

The old F*ckers had it on a plate. The sooner they get sent to swizerland and turned into glue the better for all of us.

Since then, they have established HUGE pensions, a behamoth NHS, huge welfare rights. All put onto state debt, much unfunded, with a future liability I will be expected to pay in the future.

Emy1501

StevieJ wrote: »

Maybe in London (was always thus) but not where I live, anyway many of the 2 bedroom flats are more expensive than houses.
Anyway as someone mentioned earlier, owner occupation is a far higher proportion of the population than back then, the facts don't support the whinging.

My dad had limited qualifications and I had no degree. There was no problem for either of us buyng 2-3 bed houses in our areas at 3-4 times wage.

Now you are talking about 6 times for an educated teacher. Of course people will say that FTB should be greatful for a 1 bed flat but in 15 years I suspect some will be saying they should be greatful they can buy a room in a house at 4X joint wages.

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

The old F*ckers had it on a plate. The sooner they get sent to swizerland and turned into glue the better for all of us.

That is not a very nice way to speak about your grandparents :eek: