My kids will only ever own a property if their g/parents leave them massive amount

BobProperty

This has just reminded me of a line a friend used to come out with many years ago:
"I, xxxxx xxxxx, being of sound mind, have spent all my money already......"

full-time-mum

I was discussing this thread with OH last night and he said - remember when we brought our first house, our parents said "How can you manage a mortgage of £xx,xxx", but we have, it wasn't easy to start with but we were both working and we didn't have much furniture and we didn't have exotic holidays, but we did it.

I know that mortgages for our children of £xxx,xxx (or maybe even £x,xxx,xxx) seem impossible to us, but it is all relative.

For the record, we didn't have any help from either parents or grandparents.
When I first moved in, I had some rickety garden chairs and a cheap folding formica table in the dining room. Two garden/deckchairs and an old z-bed matress with a few cushions on in my sitting room. A very old, on its last legs cooker which my mum was replacing. The only thing my parents gave me was the bed from my room at home.

We brought a brand new fridge and washing machine. Everything else we gradually brought as we saved a bit each month.
Our double bed and mattress was a wedding present as were the quilt and covers.

As for inheritence, I admit to a small amount which we used to increase the deposit on our second (current) house. My siblings also had the same amount. Younger brother squandered his on expensive speakers and frittered the rest - he is now struggling at the bottom of the ladder. So even if money is inherited, it doesn't mean it will be used sensibly - teach your children the value of money and how to budget/save and they will have a learnt a much better lesson than just handing them wads of cash. It is better to ensure that cash won't burn a hole in their pockets should they be lucky enough to get a helping hand.

margaretclare

littlesaint wrote: »

No, I know what you mean (and I work in Bethnal Green). My grandfathers were a gardener and a bus mechanic and I hope they would be proud of me and my sister. I think that generation sacrificed a lot for their children, and many did not own properties.

Incidently, most of the stuff I inherited from my grandparents (all now dead, sadly) were non material. I still treasure them. Though we found out after my grandad (the mechanic) died, that he had put away a small amount of money away for a rainy day and it was shared between the four of us - no arguments. That's the way it should be.

I agree with this, and I've read the New Statesman article quoted. I disagree with Faisal Islam's analysis. Life was a lot harder for many of us than he makes out. Housing was difficult, for a start - I've written before about how difficult it was to find anywhere to live at the time of my first marriage in 1957. All the people of my age-group that I knew of, lived with in-laws for the first few years, sometimes until they had 2 or 3 children. In fact, looking back it seems to me that there has NEVER been enough housing for everyone, at least not within my living memory (and it beggars belief why any government thinks we can continue to absorb large numbers of incomers who all want housing and services which are in short supply to begin with - but that's another question entirely).

Most of us did NOT think of going to university, even if grants were available. To do any sort of degree you needed to have studied Latin. That meant you needed to have been in the 'A' stream at grammar school. I was in a 'B' stream at grammar school, that was why I went to university as a mature student in my 40s, in 1978. The vast majority of people went to a secondary modern school and then into industry. One of the few advantages we had was that there were plenty of jobs about, of all kinds. I walked into a job as a copy-typist and no one asked me to take a typing test - my typing was still of the two-fingered variety!! I don't deny that there were the kind of people that Faisal Islam talks about, but they weren't the vast majority - most people were expected to leave school, get a job and work, in factories, in mines, treated as 'the labour force' and not given much consideration. Final salary pension schemes weren't for everybody, by any means! I really dislike the kind of sweeping generalisation that he posits. This kind of talk - 'generational robbery' - only engenders hate and resentment between generations.

I am amazed by the 17 people who thanked me for what I wrote yesterday! Thank you, everybody.

Margaret

ianian99

can i just ask whats so great about owning property?

Mrs_pbradley936

Rimo2021 wrote: »

I think you are right, I think part of the problem is that renting is not what it used to be in terms of security of tenure. Personally I think giving tenants more rights would have 2 good results:

1. Many young couples are putting off having children until they can buy because they feel that living with the possibility of being forced to move with a month or two's notice is too insecure with a family/children in schools etc.
If they had security of tenure and controlled rent rises the difference in renting and owning would be greatly reduced. People could get on with their lives and whether you were an owner/renter would be much less significant.

2. If tenants had security of tenure and controlled rent rises, this would have the effect of making the landlord's business much less 'liquid' in that he couldn't just get rid of tenants and sell in the space of a month or two. I'm no expert but I believe this would have the effect of lowering the value of the property and would probably put off 'amateur' landlords and prevent them ramping up the market as it would presumably be harder to get a mortgage on such a property.

We used to have the system you are describing. The downside to it was that places were left empty because a landlord could not give reasonable notice and get vacant possession. A property with what was known as “a sitting tenant” was worth far less than one with vacant possession. Also Council housing was let under similar conditions to those you mention and as we all know they were sold off. We may think it was a bad idea in hindsight but lots of people bought them so it must have been a popular policy.

margaretclare

Klondyke, I have no objection at all to people going on cruises if that is their wish, so long as no one ever tries to persuade me to go on one!!! For me, the thought of a cruise ranks alongside bingo as 'something I absolutely do not want to do!'

Having said that, we're going to meet some of DH's online friends who are arranging the get-together at Niagara in July. And for another year, what I'd love is to start at Rotterdam and drive slowly up the Rhine valley, stopping at all the scenic and historic places on the way, as far as the Bodensee (Lake Constance). We need a better car, though...

And I do send you all my very very best wishes for a good recovery.

Re my granddaughter in her council flat, I have been able to assist her by ordering household goods and getting them delivered direct - she's 250 miles away.

DH and I have had the 'in sickness and in health' bit in spades ever since we first got together nearly 10 years ago now. Last year I was recovering from further hip surgery and he needed his knee re-done. This year, it's eyes - cataract surgery. We're very appreciative and grateful for new technology and modern methods which mean that cataract surgery can take 20 minutes.

Margaret

Bargain_Rzl

ianian99 wrote: »

can i just ask whats so great about owning property?

Assuming all financial criteria are equal - i.e. that one can produce the same financial return by making other investments as by owning one's home - there are still (IMHO) advantages of ownership:

(1) security of tenure - you won't have to move due to a landlord selling your property from under you.
(2) freedom of lifestyle - ability to decorate and remodel the property how you wish, and (where the lease permits it) to keep pets etc.
(3) non reliance on a landlord for maintenance. Although ownership is obviously more expensive from this POV, at least if you own your home you know that you can fix the oven/damp patch on the ceiling/leaky pipe (delete as applicable) rather than waiting for it to be arranged by some f3ckless landlord who doesn't really care.

Obviously rental provides flexibility, and in the case of a flat, leaves the LL responsible for service charges - but if you're looking for security and a long-term home which you can model to your own taste, the rental market really does not provide that option at present.

Rimo2021

pbradley936 wrote: »

Originally Posted by pbradley936
A property with what was known as “a sitting tenant” was worth far less than one with vacant possession.

But I don't think thats necessarily a bad thing. It meant you couldn't make a quick easy buck out of BTL and would put off the daft amateur BTLetters who have been driving up prices and allow serious business landlords to get on with providing a proper regulated service

pbradley936 wrote: »

Originally Posted by pbradley936
Also Council housing was let under similar conditions to those you mention and as we all know they were sold off. We may think it was a bad idea in hindsight but lots of people bought them so it must have been a popular policy. .

Of course it was a popular policy with those who benefit !!! The current easy terms for providing rental accommodation is popular too - with the landlords though not necessarily with their tenants !

ianian99

Bargain_Rzl wrote: »

Assuming all financial criteria are equal - i.e. that one can produce the same financial return by making other investments as by owning one's home - there are still (IMHO) advantages of ownership:

(1) security of tenure - you won't have to move due to a landlord selling your property from under you.
(2) freedom of lifestyle - ability to decorate and remodel the property how you wish, and (where the lease permits it) to keep pets etc.
(3) non reliance on a landlord for maintenance. Although ownership is obviously more expensive from this POV, at least if you own your home you know that you can fix the oven/damp patch on the ceiling/leaky pipe (delete as applicable) rather than waiting for it to be arranged by some f3ckless landlord who doesn't really care.

Obviously rental provides flexibility, and in the case of a flat, leaves the LL responsible for service charges - but if you're looking for security and a long-term home which you can model to your own taste, the rental market really does not provide that option at present.

and of course a rope around your neck for 25 - 30 years.

wherediditallgo

I showed my cousin this thread last night (thanks to the 9 people who thanked me for my post yesterday ). She said that the OP is upset that the BIL may get the same percentage of the inheritance as she & her OH, because the BIL hasn't got children. She thought the OP should be careful what she wished for, because they & the BIL would have equal responsibilities if the parents-in-law outlive the OP's children. A bit more focus on what's really important is probably in order.