C4 Dispatches - The British Property Boom

ruggedtoast

CLAPTON wrote: »

Look my old friend,


Assuming your mummy will allow you to go out on your own, why not try living in a place without boomers where you can enjoy all the benefits that are rightfully yours.
Let's see, All of Africa (maybe except SA which has a few retired boomers) but that leaves all of South East Asia and South America
You have done nothing to justify the vast good fortune you have inherited from the boomers and those that came before them.


Just see what life would be like without boomers.


Peoples of the UK are the envy of most people in the world: many risk their lives for what you consider is a 'right'.

This is frankly preposterous.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no boomers in Africa?

There are boomers everywhere there are people. Some boomers have provided lands of sustainability and fairness for their subjects. E.g. Scandinavian Boomers.

Some boomers have provided inequality, debt and housing shortage, for their own benefit. I.e. British Boomers.

CLAPTON

ruggedtoast wrote: »

This is frankly preposterous.

Are you seriously suggesting that there are no boomers in Africa?

There are boomers everywhere there are people. Some boomers have provided lands of sustainability and fairness for their subjects. E.g. Scandinavian Boomers.

Some boomers have provided inequality, debt and housing shortage, for their own benefit. I.e. British Boomers.

Now do remember that mummy and daddy probably do still love you, even though you are a late developer and haven't grown out of the terrible twos. Or maybe mummy and daddy favoured the other siblings over the runt and you have cause to be angry.


Anyway, when you stop stamping your little feet and allowed the rage to subside, do read a little abut what a boomers is and read a little about the differing history and experiences of the Scandinavian peoples.

ruggedtoast

I honestly found this programme profoundly depressing.

Almost a decade on since 2007, housing is even more entrenched in the national psyche as some kind of get rich quick scheme based on debt, frantic and ill thought through investment decisions, and unearned windfalls.

Houses need to be homes primarily and investment vehicles secondarily. Of course foreign investors are lining up to buy London property. What other country would be so whole-heartedly committed to shafting its young people with an artificial housing shortage so that prices continue to rise?

The Swiss may decide to buy more or less gold in the future. The Chinese may hold or dump the dollar. Canadian teacher's pension funds may opt for London financial stocks, but one thing that can be relied upon in perpetuity is the British will keep adding more and more people to their country without a providing a place for them to live.

Its practically a national policy now, and one that fills me with disgust.

tom612

watching it as I type, I don't live in London and i'm quite glad for the sake of my children I don't, how can anyone afford to buy let alone live

CLAPTON

tom612 wrote: »

watching it as I type, I don't live in London and i'm quite glad for the sake of my children I don't, how can anyone afford to buy let alone live

London is in fact cheap to live in except for house prices/rents.


In any event, house prices and rents are high because people do in fact, afford to live there.

Cornucopia

tom612 wrote: »

watching it as I type, I don't live in London and i'm quite glad for the sake of my children I don't, how can anyone afford to buy let alone live

Because salaries are, on average, a fair bit higher than in other parts of the country?

Cornucopia

MABLE wrote: »

I thought it was very selfish of the girl who was buying the £185,000 flat but in order to do this poor old mum has to sell her flat and move out of London and away from her friends.

This was another of the shortcomings of the programme - lack of understanding of geography.

The Mother lived in Norbury (which is an area slightly north of Croydon). By moving south of Croydon, the mother could have downsized as she wanted to, whilst still being a few minutes away by bus or train from seeing her friends. Also, she could have downsized within Norbury itself (from a house to a flat) depending on local prices.

How selfish is that. In the end her mother had to remortage because she had problems selling her flat.

I got the impression the Mother had been unrealistic in her expectations on price and the selling process.

Poor mum has the worry of increased debt. Never mind the daughter got what she wanted.

I got the impression the Daughter only needed £25k - that's a good chunk of deposit on a £185k purchase. I think there was something else going on here that we weren't told about.

ruggedtoast

Cornucopia wrote: »

Because salaries are, on average, a fair bit higher than in other parts of the country?

The average London salary is nothing like high enough to buy an average London flat.

http://www.mindthemoney.co.uk/average-uk-wage-is-27000-so-how-does-your-salary-compare/

Nor is it high enough to buy in a dormitory town and pay the £70 - £150 a week the rail companies want to use their service.

Most people joining the labour market in London now have no possibility of ever buying anywhere there. They can rent and claim in work benefits because they still cant afford to rent, while looking for a job elsewhere.

Cornucopia

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Some boomers have provided inequality, debt and housing shortage, for their own benefit. I.e. British Boomers.

I'm sure that you will have been asked this before, but can you explain what you mean by "provided"?

Most "boomers" are not involved in BTL. Indeed, many of them will be financially disadvantaged themselves.

What exactly have they, themselves done to promote this situation, as distinct from the policies of Government(s) they may or may not have voted for?

And am I part of this problem being a BTL-owner, but not a "boomer"?

Cornucopia

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The average London salary is nothing like high enough to buy an average London flat.

Does it need to be? You understand the meaning of the term "average"?

http://www.mindthemoney.co.uk/average-uk-wage-is-27000-so-how-does-your-salary-compare/

No info there about London salaries, AFAICT.

Nor is it high enough to buy in a dormitory town and pay the £70 - £150 a week the rail companies want to use their service.

And yet it is - because hundreds of thousands of people do exactly this.

Most people joining the labour market in London now have no possibility of ever buying anywhere there.

I'm pretty sure that this isn't true.

They can rent and claim in work benefits because they still cant afford to rent, while looking for a job elsewhere.

Most working people do not claim in-work benefits. Full stop.

It would really help your case if you concentrated on actual facts.