For babyboomers housing "has been free"

wotsthat

Perelandra wrote: »

If I take an average house of a property bought in 1985, I'd like to look at the total (adjusted for compounding) interest payments over that time, and compare that with the total (compound adjusted) gain in their property value over that period of time.

I'm Gen X (just) and bought in 1992 & 1999 - the HPI equity in my house exceeds mortgage payments made during the last 22 years by some margin.

As UKCarper says it's people who bought in the '90's who are seeing the gains. However, the chap from L&G can't realistically sell equity release to us yet so he's focusing on the boomers.

CLAPTON

kwmlondon wrote: »

THE young, I think it will be SOME young. It will do a great job of making sure those with a foot on the rung of society get a leg up, while those who are trying to better themselves have it much more difficult. Private tuition for the 11+, savings for university, driving lessons, all things that striving people trying to raise themselves out of poverty will not be able to access, but those lucky enough to have parents with assets will ensure they do better.

it is generally true, that poorer people have less money than richer people: this has been true since before the boomers invented sex.

by all means make a case for a socialist soviet republic but it is not directly related to the boomers

Perelandra

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm Gen X (just) and bought in 1992 & 1999 - the HPI equity in my house exceeds mortgage payments made during the last 22 years by some margin.

As UKCarper says it's people who bought in the '90's who are seeing the gains. However, the chap from L&G can't realistically sell equity release to us yet so he's focusing on the boomers.

The 90s themselves look pretty rough; flat-ish house prices, and interest rates in the 7-8% mark. Of course the noughties were where the real gains were seen (so yes, those who bought in the 90s laughing- although it can't have looked great at first).

I don't like the direct comparison between mortgage and HPI- the HPI is based on the value of the entire asset; the mortgage payment based on the value of the loan so it can be a bit misleading. The lower your LTV, the better that picture looks. Ideally you'd also include the opportunity cost of the gains that you could have made by, say, investing the equity side of your property in shares (or some other investment).

kwmlondon

CLAPTON wrote: »

it is generally true, that poorer people have less money than richer people: this has been true since before the boomers invented sex.

by all means make a case for a socialist soviet republic but it is not directly related to the boomers

I didn't suggest a solution. I'm just point out a problem. I think it is a problem.

Human beings have traits, one of which is to form groups who protect their own interest. It works by nation, by religion or any other way of finding a way of identifying "us" and "them." In the UK we are a bit more into class than other ways of separating people out.

"We" will look after our own interests at the expense of "them." You're right. It's always been the case, and will always be the case, but it's like saying "well, people will always die in car accidents so let's not change things."

We can improve things.

I'd rather invest £10,000 in education and training than put £100,000 into the prison system. Maybe that's not the answer, but I'd love to know what you'd suggest instead - I don't have much research or evidence to hand on this issue and would love to hear from someone better informed than me.

It seems like the baby-boomers did very well out of social changes after WWII. They were born into a country that had just implemented the NHS, a decent welfare system and invested in social housing. They got a free university education and have accrued huge value in the houses they bought cheap.

The generation that won the war wanted a better country for ALL the children in this country. It just seems like the generation they handed this legacy to is intent on ensuring that all the benefits and advantages they enjoyed should go to THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

Social mobility is shrinking, surely that's a bad thing?

CLAPTON

kwmlondon wrote: »

I didn't suggest a solution. I'm just point out a problem. I think it is a problem.

Human beings have traits, one of which is to form groups who protect their own interest. It works by nation, by religion or any other way of finding a way of identifying "us" and "them." In the UK we are a bit more into class than other ways of separating people out.

"We" will look after our own interests at the expense of "them." You're right. It's always been the case, and will always be the case, but it's like saying "well, people will always die in car accidents so let's not change things."

We can improve things.

I'd rather invest £10,000 in education and training than put £100,000 into the prison system. Maybe that's not the answer, but I'd love to know what you'd suggest instead - I don't have much research or evidence to hand on this issue and would love to hear from someone better informed than me.

It seems like the baby-boomers did very well out of social changes after WWII. They were born into a country that had just implemented the NHS, a decent welfare system and invested in social housing. They got a free university education and have accrued huge value in the houses they bought cheap.

The generation that won the war wanted a better country for ALL the children in this country. It just seems like the generation they handed this legacy to is intent on ensuring that all the benefits and advantages they enjoyed should go to THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

Social mobility is shrinking, surely that's a bad thing?

'all' the people living in UK are well off by any objective standard.

the tax system is a re-distributive system : maybe you want one more so?

the answer to a housing problem is to build more houses.

your silly caricatures add nothing to the debate

and capitals count as shouting

kwmlondon

CLAPTON wrote: »

'all' the people living in UK are well off by any objective standard.

the tax system is a re-distributive system : maybe you want one more so?

the answer to a housing problem is to build more houses.

your silly caricatures add nothing to the debate

and capitals count as shouting

Er, no, capitals go at the start of a sentence and if I want to emphasise a point I am at will to do so, I'm not insulting you and unless you talk in a monotone then you'll speak with dynamics, I'm reproducing this here. You can imagine the commas as breaks for breath if you wish. If you're on a caps-free diet maybe you should give up pointless full stops as well - they don't count towards your five good grammars a day, you know.

Do I want a more redistributive tax system you ask.

Not especially, but I think we're just accepting that the current slide without ever debating it as the discussion is being framed and managed by a media that is comprised mainly of former public school pupils. Our politicians are the same, if not worse, and I believe they have an agenda to concentrate further power and privilege in their own unrepresentative strata of society, one into which fewer and fewer people can gain access.

Do you disagree?

ukcarper

kwmlondon wrote: »

I didn't suggest a solution. I'm just point out a problem. I think it is a problem.

Human beings have traits, one of which is to form groups who protect their own interest. It works by nation, by religion or any other way of finding a way of identifying "us" and "them." In the UK we are a bit more into class than other ways of separating people out.

"We" will look after our own interests at the expense of "them." You're right. It's always been the case, and will always be the case, but it's like saying "well, people will always die in car accidents so let's not change things."

We can improve things.

I'd rather invest £10,000 in education and training than put £100,000 into the prison system. Maybe that's not the answer, but I'd love to know what you'd suggest instead - I don't have much research or evidence to hand on this issue and would love to hear from someone better informed than me.

It seems like the baby-boomers did very well out of social changes after WWII. They were born into a country that had just implemented the NHS, a decent welfare system and invested in social housing. They got a free university education and have accrued huge value in the houses they bought cheap.

The generation that won the war wanted a better country for ALL the children in this country. It just seems like the generation they handed this legacy to is intent on ensuring that all the benefits and advantages they enjoyed should go to THEIR OWN CHILDREN.

Social mobility is shrinking, surely that's a bad thing?

Most boomers education was worse than later generations and very few got that free university education.

Running_Horse

While I understand the point being made, buying a house was a major risk that nearly went wrong when interest rates skyrocketed and prices plummeted in the early 90s.

Some of my friends chose not to take that risk and missed out on the recovery and record low interest rates. That was their choice and they enjoyed the freedom and financial advantages at the time.

That's life I'm afraid. You do the best you can and take your chances. Ten or twenty years from now things may look very different for those complaining now.

TickersPlaysPop

A question to those that are older and wiser than me.... you know who you are... ;-)

If you bought a house back in the 70's and paid it off by 2000, how much would the house cost you? I worked out back when interest rates were round 5% that I'd pay the lender around 3 times to loan by the end of the term.... this fact doesn't get spoken about very often?!

Also... people never think about mortgages becoming even longer term entities than they are now.... In Japan mortgages exist that are so long that they cross generations. This is what might happen to us if the housing market keeps going up, and it never comes down.... again a thought that doesn't get considered by many.... all that goes up doesn't necessarily come down if the economic conditions follow a certain path.

ukcarper

if I had stayed in the same house I first bought in 1972 I suppose it would have cost me about £24k but it not as simple as that because you have to take into account inflation and wage inflation.