Man babies

JencParker

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Maybe the have reached an agreement within the family that if the son is going to pay extortionate rent to someone else, and doesn't earn enough to save a decent deposit, that they might as well pay less rent to mum and dad?(then they can save more deposit and mum and dad get extra income).

We'd have done this with our son if circumstances had been different.

I bet such a derogatory term is never used of single women living with their parents.

Exactly. In London, mine would be paying a minimum of £500 per month in rent so living with me has enabled them to save that money for a few years. They contribute to bills, housework, cooking etc. They live their own lives and do their own thing. Having both won scholarships to a boarding school, followed by university and travels, they haven't lived full time at home since they were 11 - and could hardly be described as 'still attached to the umbilical cord'. However, it makes economic sense to live here while they save rather than paying a LL's mortgage and contributing to their pension.

JencParker

CLAPTON wrote: »

Well you know best

so although houses were cheap and plentiful, people in those days preferred to live in council houses or private rentals.

Where did I say they were cheap and plentiful?

JencParker

Tancred wrote: »

Yes, or the parents can just give them the money anyway.

IF they're in the position to give them money - not all are (this parent included). But, generally, I agree, I don't see there's any difference to this and the 'gifted' deposits that so many youngsters need to get their foot on the housing ladder.

seven-day-weekend

JencParker wrote: »

IF they're in the position to give them money - not all are (this parent included). But, generally, I agree, I don't see there's any difference to this and the 'gifted' deposits that so many youngsters need to get their foot on the housing ladder.

We gave our son the deposit for his flat from the proceeds of a house sale.

Had we not have been able to do this, he and his girlfriend would have lived with us whilst they saved up for themselves.

None of us saw the point of them lining some landlord's pockets when they could be paying less rent to us (and lining OUR pockets a little bit ).

ukcarper

JencParker wrote: »

Well, judging by your childish responses to my posts, I'm guessing you weren't around in 1973!

If you had been around, you would know that 1973 were very far from being golden years, financially or politically!

However, there were viable and affordable alternatives to buying. Generally, people wanted a 'home'. In addition to Council Housing, private rentals were far more affordable and secure, and rents were far more controlled, unlike today with BTL where a tenant is not only paying the LL's mortgage but also contributing to his pension pot! Greed, money and profit at any cost did not have the importance it seems to have for many today.

I don't know where you were living in the 70s but where I was the availability of private rentals was very low and a lot of what was available was substandard. Although council housing was easier to get it was were still difficult to get.

JencParker

ukcarper wrote: »

I don't know where you were living in the 70s but where I was the availability of private rentals was very low and a lot of what was available was substandard. Although council housing was easier to get it was were still difficult to get.

I never said it was easy, either to buy or to rent, but it was possible. People were not obsessed with buying houses, they wanted a home and renting,where you had security of tenure as long as you liked and rent that was controlled was a viable alternative to buying a property (in both private and council housing. Buying a property was a much more expensive alternative. Yes, the standards were generally far lower than today (although not much worse than the properties my kids rented during their university days), but you could decorate and make it a home. Council houses were sold off, but I doubt, if the tenants who bought did not receive the large discounts they received they would have bought and been quite happy to carry on renting their homes. While there will always be a market for short term rentals, to have no long term security in the rental market is a disgrace in a so called civilised society. I would certainly not like to have raised a family while not knowing where you will be living in 6 months / 1 year. Starting at a local school and wondering if I would be living there in a years time or have to uproot them because the rental prices have exceeded what I can afford. To live with the fear of an s21 landing on the door mat weeks after moving in and living there with the knowledge that the landlord can get rid of you in 6 months or a year. Or wondering whether the landlord would allow you to extend the lease after your current 6 month/1 year period, or paying as much for rent than you would for a mortgage (if you could get one).

OK, I've digressed a little, however, as buying is the only way of getting secure housing (unless you are a young single mother or one of the other high priorities for what little council / housing association property that is available), and high rents prevent youngsters from saving the large deposits that are required it makes economic sense that they stay with parents with far less expenses enabling them to save more rather than pay a large percentage of their salary to landlords.

ukcarper

The security of tenure available then was the reason there was not many places available to rent. Most places where I was had sitting tenants and when they moved out most properties were put on market.

I bought because I didn't have an alternative.

I do agree that if possible it makes sense for young people to stay at home and save.

Percy1983

I wouldn't worry about it, I am still a man baby now as I moved out at the age of 28 when I bought a house, since then I got married and started a busness.

The problem it seems with said poster is I don't think they can see house and adult/child relationship and turn into an adult/adult relationship.

In my case it was stay home or pay extortionate rents and potentially get trapped in renting.

I didn't sit back and get everything done for me, I cooked for myself and did my share of cleaning etc.

I paid them more it cost to keep me so they had more money and I had cheaper rent everybody benefits.

More interestingly my now wife is only 1 month younger than me and she moved out on the ame date as me so surely she is also a women-baby?

I really fail to see the moral hazard if everybody is happy with the situation.

vacheron

I lived at home for longer than many too. Heard a lot of opinions from friends during that time about how difficult it is living on your own and how much more responsible it makes you.

These same friends were paying hundreds of pounds per month to a landlord to pay his mortgage for him, more strangers to cook and deliver food to them and many were taking their clothes back home to mum for washing and ironing (and helping themselves to a free home cooked meal and whatever they needed from the fridge / larder while they were there) as well as requesting the odd bailout loan when they were short.

Meanwhile I was voluntarily paying more than my share in board and simultaneously was able to save a large amount of money to buy my own place. My parents had some extra help around the house plus some extra income and could go away on holidays etc without worrying about their house.

When I moved out it took me no more than a few days to arrange all the services and council tax to be paid by direct debit. On top of that I have to pop my clothes in a washing machine every now and again and push a trolley round a shop once a week. I don't really see why so many people think this is such a significant life changing or formative experience. :undecided

Sampong

Percy1983 wrote: »

I wouldn't worry about it, I am still a man baby now as I moved out at the age of 28 when I bought a house, since then I got married and started a busness.

The problem it seems with said poster is I don't think they can see house and adult/child relationship and turn into an adult/adult relationship.

In my case it was stay home or pay extortionate rents and potentially get trapped in renting.

I didn't sit back and get everything done for me, I cooked for myself and did my share of cleaning etc.

I paid them more it cost to keep me so they had more money and I had cheaper rent everybody benefits.

More interestingly my now wife is only 1 month younger than me and she moved out on the ame date as me so surely she is also a women-baby?

I really fail to see the moral hazard if everybody is happy with the situation.

So just to clarify then;

a) you chose to ignore and not pander to the ignorance of those who would make sweeping judgments against you.

b) you didn't put a single penny into the pocket of a landlord and into a system that is weighted against people trying to get onto the housing ladder.

c) You instead used the money to buy your own house and provide capital to start your own business, thus adding to the UK economy by providing goods/services, purchasing supplies, etc.

Applaud this man.

And shun the mentally challenged who come up with these derogatory terms.