Resentment of this generation

ukcarper

Percy1983 wrote: »

How do you become an accidental landlord? If inherit a house I will see 2 clear choices keep or sell, its not accident if I decide to keep it to fleece the young.

Moved in with girlfriend easier to rent house than sell also insurance if they spilt up.

StevieJ

Percy1983 wrote: »

How do you become an accidental landlord? If inherit a house I will see 2 clear choices keep or sell, its not accident if I decide to keep it to fleece the young.

I suppose it is someone who doesn't wish to partake in a 'fire sale'. it is not neccessarily inheritance it could be someone needing to move (for a job) in a stagnant market.

Kohoutek

Well that property is on for £215,000. If a family earning £35,000 (your 1963 household income in today's money) wanted to buy it with a mortgage 3.3 times their income (like you did in 1963), they would need a deposit of £99,500.

thorsoak wrote: »

http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-34149419.html

This house is actually three doors away from the one that we bought (new) in 1963. We sold in 1976 for £11,500, when we bought a wreck of 2 delapidated farm labourers' cottages for £8,000 which we converted into a family home for our family - increasing the mortgage as we virtually rebuilt it.

FTBFun

zagfles wrote: »

You don't get it, do you? I'm talking about changing the incentives so as to reduce the demand. Not dictating what people can or can't do. In a similar way to, eg, hiking the tax on gas guzzlling 4x4's or reducing company car taxation on low C02 cars. Or giving tax breaks on pension saving, or gift aid etc.

Err, "changing incentives" as you put is dictating what people can or can't do, as its making a judgment that a particular way of how people choose to live in homes is not beneficial to society, and the tax system is used to enact this.

If someone wants a 4x4 they are free to get one, and that's "none of my business", but by changing the incentives to make it financially beneficial to pollute less, we get less pollution. In the same way as reducing the incentive to waste property will result in less property being wasted.

How is this the same? Property isn't being wasted - under utilised perhaps - but what you're suggesting is dangerously close to allocating all property to need rather than the market - personally I would not feel comfortable with that.

Saying that, I think more should be done to bring empty homes into use.

One thing that could be done now is get rid of the council tax discount for single people. Council tax is basically a property tax, why should you pay less tax on your property just because you don't share it? If I have a bottle of wine to myself I don't pay less excise duty on in than if I share it with my wife. I pay the same road tax on my car whether I use it myself only, or share it. Why should a property be taxed less because it's only used by one person? That just encourages waste.

I believe the reason why there's a single person discount is that one person would use less council services than 2 or more persons, hence the discount. It is just 25% though rather than 50%. It isn't actually a tax on the property, but rather the occupants, hence why tenants pay it.

Percy1983

thorsoak wrote: »

We did help our children with their deposits - which is why I now have no money in the bank! Maybe your parents won't/don't help you because they worry about YOUR greed!

They can't help me because they have spent every last penny on themselves, thats not a complaint its there money to do with what they please.

But yes I am a greedy person you have caught me out, I have earnt everything I have and do much charity work to which they have tried to pay me and I have refused the money, I show all the signs of greed... oh wait...

As I say all I want is a place to call home, I don't want it to shoot up in value to lock out the young, I don't want more properties to then force the less fortunate to pay my mortgages for me. I want others to also have the stability of there own home as I believe society as a whole would benefit.

FTBFun

Percy1983 wrote: »

How do you become an accidental landlord? If inherit a house I will see 2 clear choices keep or sell, its not accident if I decide to keep it to fleece the young.

I'd sell it too (too much of a hassle IMO being a landlord).

However I wouldn't see it as "fleecing the young" - not everyone can afford to buy for various reasons so renting it out as a home to someone could be better than leaving it unoccupied for instance.

IMO there seem to be a lot of contributors to this thread who feel the need to dictate to people how they invest their money. This is a mixed economy, chaps.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

The foreign holiday boom started in the 70s.

I accept that houses are more expensive and it is more difficult to buy one now but what I want to know is what we were suppose to have done about it.

I have just lived in my house worked and paid the mortgage most of my friends have done the same. I know 2 people who rent out property one is a successful businessman in his 50s and the other is in his mid 30s and is an accidental landlord. So I say again what are we suppose to have done.

No one is asking YOU or any individual poster on here, or any individual baby boomer, or whatever you want to call them to do anything on a personal level.

What's happened, however, is, statistically, over 50's hold most of the countries wealth, and are using it to suck out more wealth. This cannot be denied. BTL is just one example. Who hold most BTL's? It's certainly not those who have saved up, it's those who have used their homes as collaterel to enable them to borrow the sums needed to invest in BTL.

I know, I know, someone is going to tell me in a minute that they personally did not do that. But figures suggest (and it's one reason why the housing market is to big and too indebetd to fail and banks simply cannot face another crash in property prices) that many many people used the excess in their homes to jump in ahead of others and buy up swathes of investment homes, and rent them out to the younger generation, under the guise that they are offering a service.

Who holds most second homes? It's not the OAP. It's not the younger families. Again, it's the babyboomers.

Again, no one is asking YOU, or anyone on a very personal level to do anything about anything. All this "i haven't got another house", "I know someone who did or didnt do something" is just pumping smoke into the discussion. It's very difficult to talk about an entire generation when it's broken down to singular people.

Over an entire generation, the babyboomers have the most wealth (statistics show this, think I already linked to that). They have the most second homes. They have the most BTL investments, and continue to surge ahead and buy even more up, with the advice not to sell your home, just rent it and buy another...cus you can, you have all the equity and are worth it. They MEW'd the most, and again, on average, they are taking the most from the taxpayer pot though SMI interest payments, which is bizzare in itself, but suggests some have overextended themselves.

This is aimed at no one on a singular level. But it cannot be denied on a generational level.

hcb42

quantic wrote: »

So my message to the previous 2 generations is, you want to try buying a house when average prices are 6-7 times the average salary. How the hell did some of you guys manage to screw it up?

What is so different now compared to 50 years ago then?

I am renovating my loft so found some interesting papers and postcards this week. My house last changed hands in 1954 or so. I also have a Nottingham Evening Post from that year.

My house exchanged hands back then for about £3.2K. The average wage for a secretary in the paper was £240pa. Canners in the factory were earning about £400pa.

Percy1983

FTBFun wrote: »

I'd sell it too (too much of a hassle IMO being a landlord).

However I wouldn't see it as "fleecing the young" - not everyone can afford to buy for various reasons so renting it out as a home to someone could be better than leaving it unoccupied for instance.

IMO there seem to be a lot of contributors to this thread who feel the need to dictate to people how they invest their money. This is a mixed economy, chaps.

Not so much dictate, more make it a lot less attractive so more houses become homes and not investments.

As for the arguement of they supply a service to those who can't afford a home... half of the reason many can't afford is because the BTL landlords have bought/are buying many typical FTB homes.

The end of the day if someone expects me to pay the mortgage I want a percentage of the house.

thorsoak

Percy1983 wrote: »

They can't help me because they have spent every last penny on themselves, thats not a complaint its there money to do with what they please.

But yes I am a greedy person you have caught me out, I have earnt everything I have and do much charity work to which they have tried to pay me and I have refused the money, I show all the signs of greed... oh wait...

As I say all I want is a place to call home, I don't want it to shoot up in value to lock out the young, I don't want more properties to then force the less fortunate to pay my mortgages for me. I want others to also have the stability of there own home as I believe society as a whole would benefit.

So why blame my generation? I know of only three families who started at the same time as we did who now own more than the property that they live in - and they bought in the 1990s to fund their children's uni fees. We moved just three times in 45 years. One couple who moved in beside us back in 1963 still live in that house - so how are they contributing to the rise in house prices? We moved into HOMES - which is just what you want to do.

Maggie's children bought "investments", moving every 18 months or so. Look carefully at who you are blaming!