I'm beginning to feel paranoid .......

System

My Step Father was the most youthful of people i knew. He must have been in his late 50s early 60s when Mom met him. He was a lovely man and a wonderful Grandad to my children as they had never met my Father.

I could tell him anything and he had a great sense of humour. He had one of those huge 'handle bar' moustaches and he got people pointing and staring at him just for that. He was Welsh and would amaze the kids when he used to speak in Welsh to them.

He wore pink panther socks and daffy duck ties and he wore the Tom and Jerry braces i bought him with pride.

His life before he met Mom was colourful, he was a bit of a ladies man. He was one of the shortest men i had known (about 5ft 6) and before he got ill he drove the biggest cars he could.

He was in his late 70s when he died but he was the youngest 70 year old i have ever known. He was old in age maybe but not in spirit.

JodyBPM

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Sounds like you were able to buy in the mid 90s-2000 period then, which was probably the best time in living memory to buy a house. It certainly isn't possible for anyone on an average or slightly above average income to do what you're suggesting at today's prices, and especially not in the south east. When I came out of education and into full time work house prices were a full £100k higher on average than they were in the mid 90s.


We bought November 2003. We paid more for our house than you paid for yours based on your previous post. We have salaries that are higher than the national average, but are considerably lower than the local average. We also have expensive commutes to pay for. Combined income 1 full time and one part time is too high for tax credits, but low enough to get full child benefit, even after the changes.

We had saved a reasonable deposit, and we waited until we'd got the house and were in a stable financial situation before having the children. But nothing special about our circumstances tbh. Just a bit of frugality and hard work.

Why can't you possibly do it? It took us 9 years, but was very possible with a bit of effort.

You get out of life what you put in:)

Dunroamin

Spendless wrote: »

At one point that was true but there's been recent changes, which started last year and further changes last month.

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/taxcreditsbudget/index.htm

Thanks for the correction, those were the most recent figures I could find.

However, even after the cuts, it isn't the case that "The vast majority of families today get nothing but Child Benefit" which was what I was replying to.:)

Person_one

January20 wrote: »

Now women are thankfully equal.

My friend told me when she started her married life she had not pillows on her bed. She and her husband had to get those from their old bedroom at their respective parents.

People saved for things they needed/ wanted. Now, young couples want everything and they put in on the never never, until it all collapses...

T0 the first point...really? Brilliant, when did that happen?

Also, I brought my pillows from my parents home to my own first home, is that some sign of unbearable hardship?

Finally, people were borrowing recklessly long before wonga.com, my grandparents are in their eighties but were loyal customers of local loansharks for decades.

People have generally been fundamentally the same forever, it seems to me. The 'youth of today' are not particularly different from the youth of any era.

Person_one

HeatherintheHills wrote: »

Gawd yes! A complete absence of social conscience was the order of the day. Now THAT is the the generation to be frightened of.

That'd be me then.

Yep, I'm a truly terrifying, world-ending, yoga practicing, dog loving horsewoman of the apocalypse in a nurse's uniform.

Be afraid, be very afraid.

Dunroamin

**Patty** wrote: »

Firstly, those stats are from 2008......its now, to state the obvious, 2012.

Secondly, as someone with A level maths (from when you did Pure/Mechanics AND Stats)....statistics can be manipulated to show whatever you want them to show.

You can manipulate stats all you like but it still won't be true that the vast majority of families receive nothing other than child benefit. As Spendless's link shows, if you have 2 children you'll get child tax credit on an income of £32,000 and you can't possibly believe that the vast majority of families live on more than this.

anguk

FATBALLZ wrote: »

The acid test is of course could many of the people living in their homes today afford them at todays prices, doing the jobs they were when they bought them at equivalent salary. For a large number of people (and probably a majority in the south east), that would be a no.

My brother bought his house about 15 years ago just before property prices shot up, he always says he's pleased he bought then because there's no way he could get a mortgage for his house now, despite earning quite a bit more than he did back then.

When we first looked a buying 25 years ago we could get a mortgage for 3 times my OH's salary (average wage for up here and I was a sahm), that would buy you a nice 3 bed terrace, you'd be lucky to get a one bedroom flat for 3 times an average salary now. I think the main difference for most people is back then you could buy a house with one wage, now you need two wage earners to be able to afford a house.

I've got 2 young adult kids, one lives in London and would really struggle to get on the property ladder despite earning a good wage. My daughter is about to start university in September and is going to be about £30-35k in student debt by the time she's finished her degree. I do worry for the younger generation, I think it's much harder for them, my generation was much luckier with cheaper house prices and free university education (I'm in my 40s).

koalamummy

Is population density and housing availability not a factor in determining house prices and affordability? If so it then makes perfect sense that it was more within my parents means to buy a house back when UK population was much lower than it is today. 10 million extra people coupled with diminishing availability of social housing surely dictates that anybody trying to purchase a house today will find it more expensive due to the basic rule of supply and demand?

For anybody worried about the cost of housing in the current market please spare a thought for todays pre schoolers. Through no fault of their own they have been born in the midst of a population explosion. What chance will any of them have at finding any form of affordable accomodation?

sassyblue

FATBALLZ wrote: »

It's not a 'war', there are just serious imbalances and they should be addressed, society has almost been split right down the middle of 'haves' and 'have nots', whereas in the olden days at least the 'haves' were a small minority, not just some people in the street who happened to be born in the right year.

Haves and have nots have got nothing to do with baby boomers. It's down to the amount of work you're willing to put into life.....

You sound like a socialist but there will always be those who put more work in and deserve more, and those who want more than their fair share without working for it.

Person_one

sassyblue wrote: »

Haves and have nots have got nothing to do with baby boomers. It's down to the amount of work you're willing to put into life.....

You sound like a socialist but there will always be those who put more work in and deserve more, and those who want more than their fair share without working for it.

Blimey, you sound like the Daily Mail personified!

So, nobody ever got rich through a stroke of luck, an accident of birth or by doing the bare minimum in a lucrative job?

Nobody ever works hard their whole lives at the completely necessary but less financially rewarding jobs that prop up our society?