Are home owners happy that prices rise and price out young

ABetterLife

chucky wrote: »

You can't really blame high house prices or "being priced out" if you defaulted on your Lloyds overdraft or you haven't built yourself a good credit rating and can't get a mortgage at 20 years of age.

:huh: what are you talking about? I'm talking about the general situation as a whole, most 20 year olds are not able to afford or even looking to buy a home at this age. My credit rating has got nothing to do with it because, by the time I will be able to afford a deposit, the default would have dropped off and I would have built it back up.

And considering you're only allowed to get a contract out in your name at 18, I've only had 2 and a half years to build it up from a blank slate, so your point is irrelevant.

chucky

ABetterLife wrote: »

:huh: what are you talking about? I'm talking about the general situation as a whole, most 20 year olds are not able to afford or even looking to buy a home at this age. My credit rating has got nothing to do with it because, by the time I will be able to afford a deposit, the default would have dropped off and I would have built it back up.

And considering you're only allowed to get a contract out in your name at 18, I've only had 2 and a half years to build it up from a blank slate, so your point is irrelevant.

Tell me at what point in history could a single 20 year old with a bad credit record buy a house?

I'm not sure what your complaint is. I really don't.

ABetterLife

chucky wrote: »

Tell me at what point in history could a single 20 year old with a bad credit record buy a house?

I'm not sure what your complaint is. I really don't.

But that wasn't my point, considering I am not an expert on housing prices or the history of them...

My complaint is the general situation as a whole, how hard it was for everyone, and my point was that I am young and feeling hopeless about the situation, considering I don't see it getting much better. When you realise you have to save a deposit of something like over £10, 000, not to mention having to be accepted for a mortgage, that renting is impossible on a student's income and a child in London and the council expect my daughter and I to share a room until she's 10 years old and don't care that the block is full of crazy, unstable, anti-social people so won't move me, of course you're going to feel a bit like you're sinking into a black hole!

So I don't know why you're trying to make into a debate. I never said that 20 year olds in the past were more likely to be able to buy a house, hence why I started my post with 'I don't know'. I just gave some background information and gave my personal perspective as a young person.

Edit: and like I said, my credit report is not 'bad', it's poor. I've only been legally allowed to get credit for 2 and a half years and I have one default. It's nowhere near as bad as some people's, it's just that, as far as I know, you have to have a really good credit report to get a mortgage.

Generali

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I have two kids and my will is to share equally among them (assuming my wife has also passed away)

I do have it written in that if any of my children have children then my kids share is then split further amongst the grandchildren.

For example

Child 1, no kids = 50%

Child 2, 1 kid = 40% to child and 10% to grandchild
Child 2, 2 kids = 30% to child and 10% to each grandchild
Child 2, 3 kids = 20% to child and 10% to each grandchild
Any more kids then the child remains 20% with the grandchildren splitting equally the remaining 30%

I've also included that the estate funds goes into a trust to care for them until they are 25 to ensure they are able to go through education fully and to ensure they have a bit of life experience before they have free access to the funds.

Now I know some may cite that it's unfair with Child 1 having a larger bulk, but it is intended in that way so that if they decide to have family later in life, they can provide fir their future family.

Bill Gates's trust fund (Warren Buffet?) states that for each dollar his kids earn it will be matched by $2 from the trust. I like that.

MobileSaver

floridaman wrote: »

Shouldn't owning a houses be a basic right

And therein lies the problem - the misguided sense of entitlement from the younger generation is astonishing. Why stop at houses, what about a car? Should owning a car be a basic right too? Why even stop there, a private jet a basic right too?

Once the 'yoof' stop playing with their iPhones (a luxury and technological advance that their parents wouldn't even have dreamt about 20 years ago) and wake up to the reality that you have to put some effort in to acquire the nicer things in life, the sooner they may actually start to better themselves.

Conrad

PROPOSED REGULATION OF LANDLORDS:


The council where I like to invest is in advanced discussions about regulating LL's.


It emerged this week the proposed annual cost to LL's will be significant.


I thought it would interest you guys to know how LL's have responded to this. Due to the high costs outlined the LL's involved in the consultation have now stated they will not let any property to the council as a result of this.


I suspect in reality some LL's would still let to the council though.


My own thoughts are that the costs would be passed onto tenants and so in the end I'm not sure if regulation is a positive step.

Jason74

MobileSaver wrote: »

And therein lies the problem - the misguided sense of entitlement from the younger generation is astonishing. Why stop at houses, what about a car? Should owning a car be a basic right too? Why even stop there, a private jet a basic right too?

Once the 'yoof' stop playing with their iPhones (a luxury and technological advance that their parents wouldn't even have dreamt about 20 years ago) and wake up to the reality that you have to put some effort in to acquire the nicer things in life, the sooner they may actually start to better themselves.

I agree with you that we should not consider owning a house as a basic right, and that there is a problem when people think like that. However, I think your post goes completely the other way. The Iphone reference is imho a red herring, as technological advances mean that every generation for the last 100 years or more has had routine access to “gadgets” that would have been unthinkable to previous generations. For this generation it’ I phones, but computers, walkmans (remember them!), TV and even Radio were at one point new technology that had not been available to previous generations when they were young. It’s just part of progress, and the principle is nothing new to this generation.

And while I don’t think it’s “a basic right” to own a house, I do think that it’s part of the basic social contract that we all sign up to that everyone who goes out to work and plays by the rules should have access to housing that meets their needs (rather than perhaps their desire), is affordable (ie, housing costs leave people enough to have some kind of enjoyment in life after paying costs) and comes with full security of tenure. Whether that housing is owned or rented is imho neither here nor there from a social contract perspective, albeit it is probably fair to say most people would prefer to own, and maximising home ownership is probably a good thing.

I’m firmly of the view that the current situation around housing in the UK (or at least in London and the South East, which is what I’m familiar with) breaks that social contract. The fact is that many people go out, work hard, and play by the rules, and do not have that most basic need of a secure and stable home met as a result of their efforts (private renting under the current AST based set up clearly doesn’t count). That is a major problem imho, and major change is needed as a matter of urgency.

CLAPTON

Jason74 wrote: »

I agree with you that we should not consider owning a house as a basic right, and that there is a problem when people think like that. However, I think your post goes completely the other way. The Iphone reference is imho a red herring, as technological advances mean that every generation for the last 100 years or more has had routine access to “gadgets” that would have been unthinkable to previous generations. For this generation it’ I phones, but computers, walkmans (remember them!), TV and even Radio were at one point new technology that had not been available to previous generations when they were young. It’s just part of progress, and the principle is nothing new to this generation.

And while I don’t think it’s “a basic right” to own a house, I do think that it’s part of the basic social contract that we all sign up to that everyone who goes out to work and plays by the rules should have access to housing that meets their needs (rather than perhaps their desire), is affordable (ie, housing costs leave people enough to have some kind of enjoyment in life after paying costs) and comes with full security of tenure. Whether that housing is owned or rented is imho neither here nor there from a social contract perspective, albeit it is probably fair to say most people would prefer to own, and maximising home ownership is probably a good thing.

I’m firmly of the view that the current situation around housing in the UK (or at least in London and the South East, which is what I’m familiar with) breaks that social contract. The fact is that many people go out, work hard, and play by the rules, and do not have that most basic need of a secure and stable home met as a result of their efforts (private renting under the current AST based set up clearly doesn’t count). That is a major problem imho, and major change is needed as a matter of urgency.

I'm not sure exactly what a 'social contract ' is unless it means the government should confiscate property and redistribute in a different but equally unfair way.

However an easier solution is to build more properties

AndyGuil

The number of first time buyers is increasing. 38% YoY at the moment.

Jason74

CLAPTON wrote: »

I'm not sure exactly what a 'social contract ' is unless it means the government should confiscate property and redistribute in a different but equally unfair way.

However an easier solution is to build more properties

The social contract is basically the set of rights and obligations between society / the state and individuals within it. Some of it is codified in law, IE "you pay the Government taxes, and the Government provides police, schools hospitals etc". Some of it though is more subtle than that (think explicit and implied terms in a standard legal contract).

The idea that people who 'work hard and play by the rules' will be able to afford decent housing with security of tenure is imho one of those 'implied terms', and at the moment, that part of the bargain is being broken in much of the country. It doesn't mean anybody 'confiscating' anything, and yes, building more properties is probably the biggest (albeit not the only) part of the solution to this particular problem