So how much did it cost...

A._Badger

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I'm sorry what? Your fingers keep banging away at the keyboard but somehow nothing coherent ever really comes out for you does it.

Maybe you can pull it all back by offering us your treatise on how the relative economic decline of the UK is going to be reversed over the next three decades.

Or maybe you won't, because you neither know what you're talking about or care enough to find out.

Based on your previous efforts I think we can expect the latter.

Toastie, all we hear from you is a febrile hatred of people who had the fortune (or misfortune) to have been born before you and upon whose heads you heap your misfortunes.

Your 'facts' are nothing but a tissue of vague generalisations and you are apparently quite incapable of understanding the often detailed point by point rebuttals that various commenters have made.

Possibly there is a forum for people with deep-seated age-related 'issues' somewhere out there in the great big Internet.

Why don't you be a good lad and find it?

Because, and I'll tell you this for nothing: the 'relative decline of the UK' isn't going to be solved by people who hate because it saves the need to think.

ruggedtoast

A._Badger wrote: »

Toastie, all we hear from you is a febrile hatred of people who had the fortune (or misfortune) to have been born before you and upon whose heads you heap your misfortunes.

Your 'facts' are nothing but a tissue of vague generalisations and you are apparently quite incapable of understanding the often detailed point by point rebuttals that various commenters have made.

Possibly there is a forum for people with deep-seated age-related 'issues' somewhere out there in the great big Internet.

Why don't you be a good lad and find it?

Because, and I'll tell you this for nothing: the 'relative decline of the UK' isn't going to be solved by people who hate because it saves the need to think.

And there is another diversionary ad hominem attack. You can't debate the issue so you attack the poster.

I think we'll let the mods decide who can post here and who can't shall we.

In the meantime, how about you exercise some of that terrifying intellect and summarise some of these detailed point by point rebuttals you have discovered.

I'll make it easier for you, just choose one and say why you agree with it.

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

I’ll give you the example you can get a room all in for about £100 a week in the south east if you are on £30k that would leave you £340 a week don’t go on the booze have a basic mobile and you would be able to save at least £240 a week over £12k a year after 18 month you have the deposit on a terraced house in commuting distance of London.

Now if you are talking about teens and people in thier early 20s then they do have it hard.

What if you dont earn £30k or anything like it, and what if you can't rent a room for £100 a week because you have a family to support, and you have to pay the £800 - £1100 average rental price of a small home in the SE?


Oh yes I remember, no one should have children until they can pay the 3500% house price inflation that people lucky enough to buy in the 70s require.

A._Badger

Toastie, you've had all the arguments and you ignore them, preferring to vent instead.

Debate with you is pointless. It's like arguing with a troll.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

What if you dont earn £30k or anything like it, and what if you can't rent a room for £100 a week because you have a family to support, and you have to pay the £800 - £1100 average rental price of a small home in the SE?


Oh yes I remember, no one should have children until they can pay the 3500% house price inflation that people lucky enough to buy in the 70s require.

Thats why I said teens and early 20s have it hard but if you are in your 30s and can't earn less than the national full time male median earnings in the south east you have done something wrong.
House prices in relation to earning same now as mid 70s

What don’t you understand about saving before you have kids.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I’ll give you the example you can get a room all in for about £100 a week in the south east if you are on £30k that would leave you £340 a week don’t go on the booze have a basic mobile and you would be able to save at least £240 a week over £12k a year after 18 month you have the deposit on a terraced house in commuting distance of London.

Now if you are talking about teens and people in thier early 20s then they do have it hard.

LOL.

Again, were back to the person who has no life, no car, no kids, no transport costs, nothing....and we conclude that person could save 12k in 18 months.

Apparently enough for a place within commuting disance. Which is great, but you've left them absolutely nothing to commute with, or even taken it into consideration!

ukcarper

I know people who have done it you rent room close to job.

I stayed at home and did it in 70s

If you are a couple you can save more

but as we know you are not prepared to make any sacrificies.

once you have saved deposit you have the money to commute i had to move 20 miles and commute in the 70s.

A._Badger

What is it with 'kids'? Did someone uninvent contraception?

ash28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Binge drinking is a problem. But it's not something you can chastise all the young over.

You were quick to avoid the swinging sixties point. Doesn't matter when you grew up, the point is, IMO, a good one. Howcome we are quick to slam a generation today for having a "good time" but ignore the "good times" of the past?

The 60's is absolutely reknowned for drug and alcohol abuse. They still got on and bought houses.

Where did I chastise all the young over binge drinking? I said I knew not all young people were binge drinkers and that some were. Did you miss that bit?

If I was quick to avoid the swinging sixties point it because I was at school during the sixties in fairly rural Northumberland - and I can assure you that nothing swung there.

And for all the binge drinking young people still go on to buy houses - just as those in the sixties did.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2040260/Maciej-Dakowicz-Cardiff-After-Dark-binge-drinking-images-turned-Britain-laughing-stock.html

One city of many.

ash28

Graham_Devon wrote: »

LOL.

Again, were back to the person who has no life, no car, no kids, no transport costs, nothing....and we conclude that person could save 12k in 18 months.

Apparently enough for a place within commuting disance. Which is great, but you've left them absolutely nothing to commute with, or even taken it into consideration!

I have to ask you this - how do young people afford to buy houses today? And don't say they can't because they can and do.

Like UKcarper I know quite a number of people in their late 20s and early thirties who have bought houses - some have bought their first home since the crisis and have coped with higher deposit requirements.

This is in the south east. Houses are not cheap. There must be a reason why some can buy and some can't.

Of the one's I know 2 couples have had parental help - the rest haven't. And I know 2 couple who rent.

And they have lives, have cars usually two and some have young families now.