Resentment of this generation

grizzly1911

Percy1983 wrote: »

I am not so much here to moan but more debate the point this thread is about, I guess it more a case just because I am alright I haven't forgotten all those who aren't.

(serious question)

Don't worry you can help but you can't take on every ones problems. I am sure there are loads of us that just wonder how the younger generation do it and think about them too.

Having kids helps focus the mind.

grizzly1911

Conrad wrote: »

I'd love to be in your position. I've always wanted independant wealth like this just falling into my lap so that I could follow my dream of being a wildlife rearcher etc. It is incredibly tiring to have to keep working in something just to get through life, where others around you have the independant wealth to have that incredibly feeling they are free and able to set thier own course. Behind many a respected historic figure is a story of gifted wealth - Darwin for example.

I don't know, but dandycandy would probably prefer to have, mom around, as she is remembered in the good times.

There a few people that are really that free. There will always be some baggage.

Coveting them will not help.

Oldernotwiser

dandy-candy wrote: »

Sorry got to page 7 and then couldn't face reading it all. Just wanted to mention that with regards to baby boomers taking out more that they put in and sitting in nice overly priced house, don't forget that the tax man takes a lovely big chunk of that in IHT. My mum inherited a house worth £1 million seven years ago and and had to pay 40% IHT. Mum just died this April, the house is now worth £1.8 million and the tax man is about to get yet another 40% of its entire new value....

I do hope you're not expecting sympathy for your family's windfalls.

dtsazza

Kohoutek wrote: »

Fair enough. Saving from the age of 14 to 35 before buying is not something very many people would contemplate today. The expectations that have been set over the last 10 years are obviously much too high to think of that.

But if the expectations are unrealistic (which the broad point of the thread is that they are), there are two options:

1. Demand that reality conform with your expectations
2. Adjust your expectations to match reality

Guess which one I think is most responsible and proactive?

Again it's similar to a concept that's been expressed several times so far - there are always those that point the finger outward, and find excuses why they're in a bad situation; and there are those that acknowledge their own responsibility, roll up their sleeves and create a better situation for themselves.

Percy1983

thorsoak wrote: »

So, if you can get by on your currrent wages, why not try saving as well? To use your spare time doing charity work is laudable indeed - but are you saying that we, who scrimped and saved for our deposits should just turn belly-up and open our bank accounts to you in order for you to get your deposit? I've helped four families with their deposits - charity begins at home, remember

Oh - and btw - yes, I do charity work too!

I am saving a deposit and its coming along nicely I don't expect anybody to give it to me. By get by I mean I can save for a house, then service a mortgage + 2 cars and still have a comfortable life afterwards.

All I am saying is taxes should be so that houses are no longer good investments and therefore more will become homes.

grizzly1911

Percy1983 wrote: »

All I am saying is taxes should be so that houses are no longer good investments and therefore more will become homes.

But if they weren't at least likely to keep pace with inflation why would you buy unless you desperately wanted a particular property?

What options do you think might be viable?

I guess their needs to be tighter regulation of BLT and taxation of capital appreciation in someway. Methinks whatever hurdles are raised someone will employ an accountant and a solicitor to find a legitimate way round them (that is not a dig).

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

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.

I don’t know why you find it odd that people coming to the end of their working life have more wealth than people do at the beginning. What is the point of resting entire generations because a small percentage of them have more than one house?

ukcarper

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.

That's what I though but he has a reasonable amount of equity and the rent easily covers mortgage and letting agent fees. He has let the house out for about 2 years no with no voids.

grizzly1911

ukcarper wrote: »

That's what I though but he has a reasonable amount of equity and the rent easily covers mortgage and letting agent fees. He has let the house out for about 2 years no with no voids.

I have two good friends who ended up with a second property when they moved in together. They rented it out but in the end they gave up
1.)Hassle and management fees.
2.) Void rent periods
3.) Cost of "redecoration" between lets.

In the end they sold this one up, brought into a holiday property, in the recent boom and are now way down on their investment. They have taken on a long term let to at least cover the bills until they can extricate themselves without too much pain.

:shhh:

thorsoak

Graham Devon said :-

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.

From my personal experience, the people who borrowed money from their parents to buy their first property in the late 80s became caught up in the "property can't fail - invest whatever you can". I do know that many children of friends owned three or four properties by the time that they were in their early 20s (they are now in their early-mid 40s). Some of them have done extremely well for themselves - running BTL investment businesses. Others became greedy, tried to over-reach themselves, lost tenants/tenants failed to pay rents/had properties reclaimed. They aren't baby boomers!

The baby boomers (think at 68, I'm just out of that generation) are now coming up to pensionable age, and not facing the retirement that they anticipated. If they do have additional properties, they will be glad of them when their pensions fail to keep abreast of inflation.