We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Defeated and trapped. Young look on in despair at The Kingdom of the Boomers
Comments
-
amasing
so in the 1990s there was 100% owner occupation from the 25 year olds?
I never realised that. Since it was 70% overall that means the over 25s owned less houses than the under 25s at that time.:)Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
fordcapri2000 wrote: »What a thread :-)
I purchased my first house at the age of 21 in the early 90's, and do you know what, it was easy. .
But you were 24 in 1986 so you were around 30 in the early 1990s
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/comment/65043116#Comment_65043116
So maybe you were 31 when you bought your first house? Having spent 10 years saving your deposit. Or did you buy in the early 80s when you were in the Army?Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
-
Which perhaps explains why I never knew or cared that the Good Samaritan had money, but Thatcher clearly thought it was more important than the help he rendered.
The point is that he was able to offer substantial help because he had money, and the fact that he had money did not stop him wanting to.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »The point is that he was able to offer substantial help because he had money, and the fact that he had money did not stop him wanting to.
yep could not agree more0 -
This super rich boomer has pointed out that the boomers were all handed effectively free housing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/houseprices/10804031/Baby-boomers-were-handed-free-housing-says-top-insurance-boss.html
This guy has billions in the bank, I believe he looks down on his boomer colleagues who have only managed to plunder the young for a 3 bed semi.0 -
ruggedtoast wrote: »This super rich boomer has pointed out that the boomers were all handed effectively free housing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/houseprices/10804031/Baby-boomers-were-handed-free-housing-says-top-insurance-boss.html
This guy has billions in the bank, I believe he looks down on his boomer colleagues who have only managed to plunder the young for a 3 bed semi.
Where do they dig these people up from.0 -
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards