£1.2tn given to old from young

FATBALLZ

zygurat789 wrote: »

This thread is symptomatic of the real problem with this country. The post boomers have always had it good thanks to their parents and now they are trying to buy a house they think it should all be just as easy for them.
Perhaps they should try working hard for their money instead of forever runnunig to the bank of Mum & Dad.
To buy a house they have to give up other things on which they spend their money like binge drinking, wasting petrol by driving too fast and not buying disposable items.
There is very little difference between the ratio of house prices to salaries now and when I first bought. Just because your parents lived in a 3 bed detatched doesn't mean that the next generation should start in the same.
We all had to start in starter homes.
Stop moaning, do something positive - like save and you will know what we had to go through to give you ungrateful kids what you have taken from us

Well I never, The Sun has morphed into human form and come to life in the form of this poster.

mbga9pgf

chucky wrote: »

how about the millions and millions that have benefited from owning their own home, not just the ones now but in the past. they can't be to blame for people taking on debt that they couldn't afford or didn't plan for properly.

should they have been stopped from owning their own homes?

Would the credit crunch have happened if Mortgage limits were set globally?

ukcarper

mbga9pgf wrote: »

And funny old thing, there was a real adjusted price crash of around 45%. I wonder why? Couldnt have been that housing was unaffordable due to excess lending surely? :rolleyes:

if you think there was excess lending in 70s your mistaken

chucky

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Would the credit crunch have happened if Mortgage limits were set globally?

are you avoiding the qeustion?

you can't seem to get away from the fact that if it was so easy to buy in the 1970s why there weren't more people owning property.

nearly 50% less people owned their own property in the 1970s than they do today.
it couldn't have been that easy otherwise owner occupancy levels would have been much, much higher.

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Crap, they BOUGHT a 3 bed semi as a starter home. How many FTBs are there who get do do that these days? That was the NORM in their day!
So, I suppose the 100K I have accumulated over 4 years just fell into my bank account then?

Good to see that our armed forces are being fairly rewarded :T

ukcarper

mbga9pgf wrote: »

And funny old thing, there was a real adjusted price crash of around 45%. I wonder why? Couldnt have been that housing was unaffordable due to excess lending surely? :rolleyes:

As it is I agree with you that the high multiple mortgages of the 90s and early noughties contributed to high house prices and lenders should have been more responsible. But what has that got to do with the average babyboomer.

Also you will stick to you could buy a 3 bed semi as your first house no one I know did this, well to be honest one did but that was because his granny was a siting tenant on a low fixed rent which devalued the house.

stueyhants

chucky wrote: »

are you avoiding the qeustion?

you can't seem to get away from the fact that if it was so easy to buy in the 1970s why there weren't more people owning property.

nearly 50% less people owned their own property in the 1970s than they do today.
it couldn't have been that easy otherwise owner occupancy levels would have been much, much higher.

Your assuming there was the same demand for owner occupation in the 70s and now and it was just that they couldn't afford it .. is this true ?

Is it not the case that demand for OO has being growing due to other more recent issues such as Pension provision and property !!!!!! tv (although I'd amit that is probably too late to have had much of an impact on the underlying trend)

StevieJ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I have friends who are teachers and nurses who are emigrating. Countries like Canada and NZ want and need these professionals and are willing to pay the going rate.
.

Helps if you don't have to spend money training people :rolleyes:

abaxas

chucky wrote: »

are you avoiding the qeustion?

you can't seem to get away from the fact that if it was so easy to buy in the 1970s why there weren't more people owning property.

nearly 50% less people owned their own property in the 1970s than they do today.
it couldn't have been that easy otherwise owner occupancy levels would have been much, much higher.

Lol. that's only up to 2005.

this is more up to date.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7242492.stm

Key facts...

Home ownership in England fell for the second year in a row last year, sliding to its lowest level since 1998, according to government statistics. The number of owner-occupiers dropped by 83,000 to 14.54 million, taking the rate of home ownership down to 69.8%.

chucky

abaxas wrote: »

Lol. that's only up to 2005.

this is more up to date.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7242492.stm

Key facts...

lol it's dropped from 70.2% to 69.8%

you're not very good at this but well done for trying Abacus :T