Over 40's being frozen out of home loans

guitarmad

enthusiasticsaver wrote: »

The biggest timebomb is going to come when people who cannot afford to buy houses have to stay in private rented accommodation and go into retirement still having to pay monthly rent on a measly pension. We were lucky in taking out our mortgage in our twenties and it is now paid off and we are in our mid fifties with four to five years until our planned retirement. If we were still renting that would be £500-£600 per month extra income we would have to find.

Thank goodness someone has mentioned this - thought I was the only one! Nobody has thought about what will happen to people once they retire. The answer is very simple - they won't be able to find the money to rent, so the government will need to step in with housing benefit. The news keeps going on about the cost of the ageing population, but they ain't seen nothing yet!

guitarmad

lisyloo wrote: »

If they genuinely cannot for whatever reason then that's one thing, but if they chose not to that's another.
I'm 46 - I'm really nothing special in terms of talent or career, but we bought a house at 22 and have paid it off (and put into pensions).
Not sure what the other 40- somethings have been doing, but prices were not at todays level 25 yars ago when they should have buying and putting into a pension.
You snooze ...........you lose.
Yes prices are too high now and that's damaging for pensions etc. but those who are 40 now have have 20 odd years.
Obviously some of them have had circumstances that prevented them from saving, but those who chose not to save for their retirement only have themselves to blame - not some other generation.

In theory what you say is true. Unfortunately we live in a country where making your way in life is extremely difficult and has been for as long as I remember. It's worse now of course because...to quote Game of Thrones...there is no middle ground - you win or you lose. This is one of the reasons people on the X Factor are so desperate to win - because it's that or the minimum wage. Not for everyone - but for many.

ukcarper

Someone who is 40 now would have need 25 in 1999 when property prices in relation to earnings were lower than they have ever been apart for a few years preceding 1999 in fact they didn't rise above the long term average until 2002. So I see no reason why they could not have bought for someone under 30 the situation is completely different.

CLAPTON

guitarmad wrote: »

In theory what you say is true. Unfortunately we live in a country where making your way in life is extremely difficult and has been for as long as I remember. It's worse now of course because...to quote Game of Thrones...there is no middle ground - you win or you lose. This is one of the reasons people on the X Factor are so desperate to win - because it's that or the minimum wage. Not for everyone - but for many.

rubbish

we are one of the richest countries in the and most people can have a decent standard of living

there are significant problems in many areas to day due to the housing shortage : too many people, not enough houses