"Generation rent" - did ppl really marry in their 20s and buy a house?

Conrad

wotsthat wrote: »

So the main difference between you guys on the top of moral mountain and those of us on the lower slopes comes down to what we say rather than what we do?

And we can level this at all those self styled lefty Saints that fail to volunteer extra income tax despite the passionate rhetoric.


It's easier being a lefty - you get to fool people into thinking your a bit of a big hearted Saint without having to indulge in any actual meaningful actions.


Like Toynbee berating our carbon footprint (hoorah say the lemmings) whilst flying back n fourth to her Tuscan villa.

Percy1983

wotsthat wrote: »

So the main difference between you guys on the top of moral mountain and those of us on the lower slopes comes down to what we say rather than what we do?

I will turn this into an extreme example.

I believe its morally wrong to kill somebody, now lock me in a room with somebody who has no problem with the idea of killing somebody and tell us only one is coming out. You are infact correct both people in that room would act the same.

To which back to the point, as you say we would both end up doing the same, but one of us would take great please in robbing the young while the other wouldn't be happy about it. One of us will cheer on HPI while one of us wouldn't want it.

Both playing the same game, just wanting different rules for the game.

wotsthat

Percy1983 wrote: »

To which back to the point, as you say we would both end up doing the same, but one of us would take great please in robbing the young while the other wouldn't be happy about it. One of us will cheer on HPI while one of us wouldn't want it.

Both playing the same game, just wanting different rules for the game.

..and both are going to demand unearned HPI from our poor young buyer.

If the price is the same then it makes no difference to a buyer whether they're buying from a nice person crying their eyes out about receiving unearned income or a nasty person getting exactly the same sum but groin thrusting their way down the garden path.

In the absence of any action to change the status quo your position on the moral high ground is based purely on a certificate of niceness issued by yourself.

the_flying_pig

Conrad wrote: »

...Mate of mine bought a 4 bed detached in c2008 in Epsom for £500k, a wreck. He's poured heart n soul into doing it up and it was a nightmare for his family at first, but now he's sitting on a £1.3m asset with a £300k mortgage - that's a million quid and he's mid 40's.
His life opportunities are totally different compared to 2008 just prior to the move...

but... I mean, this scarcely needs pointing out, but doesn't the [say] £500k worth of inflation that's been added to it mean, well, someone somewhere will be paying for that, right?


hasn't a younger person's retirement been put back by [say] 10 years or so in order to cough up this money??

Torry_Quine

Generali wrote: »

In the 70s it was pretty unusual for someone on a low wage to own their own home: in 1971 only half of households were owner occupied:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/census/2011-census-analysis/a-century-of-home-ownership-and-renting-in-england-and-wales/short-story-on-housing.html

My parents bought their first home in 1970 but they were an IT bloke and a teacher. Both very solid, middle class jobs. It was only Right to Buy and the 100% mortgages that went with it that allowed working class people to buy their homes in large numbers.

I agree that it was very unusual for working class people to own their own home until relatively recently.

Percy1983 wrote: »

I don't want my property to gain in value I have done nothing to earn it and the young have done nothing to deserve to pay it.

Before anybody starts I am more than happy for my house to keep up with inflation (ie stay the same value in real terms).

I'm with you, this is my home and we intend to stay here. We complain when the cost of other things goes up so why is it different for houses?

jjlandlord

Torry_Quine wrote: »

We complain when the cost of other things goes up so why is it different for houses?

Hum, we don't complain when the cost of other 'things' goes up. We complain when we have to spend more to buy the stuff we need because it is obviously in our interest to get them as cheaply as possible.
Now, obviously we have to opposite interest when it comes to selling the stuff we own...

lisyloo

hasn't a younger person's retirement been put back by [say] 10 years or so in order to cough up this money??

Unless the extra money comes from other things going down in price or say lower inrest rates then - yes.

Torry_Quine

jjlandlord wrote: »

Hum, we don't complain when the cost of other 'things' goes up. We complain when we have to spend more to buy the stuff we need because it is obviously. in our interest to get them as cheaply as possible.
Now, obviously we have to opposite interest when it comes to selling the stuff we own...

Complaining about the cost of things going up though is the same as complaining that we have to spend more to buy things surely.

So you would say we want to get as much as possible for our house while paying as little as possible when buying a house. That's not the way I live.

jjlandlord

Torry_Quine wrote: »

So you would say we want to get as much as possible for our house while paying as little as possible when buying a house.

Of course!

Torry_Quine wrote: »

That's not the way I live.

Really?

supermassive

thequant wrote: »

Nice post, but have to say to buy a house you do need a good job and always have done.


If you can't afford a house, then by definition you don't have a good job.


Think about it, prices are what they are because people can pay these prices. Who are these people ? people with good jobs

Prices are what they are because people can pay them? Yes, then they rent them out to people who can't pay them :rotfl:

A "good job" is subjective. It depends on many things these days, not least - location. I could be doing the same job I'm doing now, but based in London, and easily get a mortgage for twice the amount I can here, and instead of the MASSIVE house I could buy here, I'd be buying an airing cupboard. It's not quite logical.

If you can't afford a house, then "by definition" as you put it, the prices are too high thanks to people who are absolutely stinking rich paying over the odds for brick boxes full of woodworm and mould so they can charge an extortionate rate for 'a room' to people who work incredibly hard. People, without whom society would grind to a halt.

The answer is to raise the minimum wage and cap house prices based on school catchment & bedroom number. There's no reason that anyone who wants to buy a house and has the ability to afford it shouldn't have one(I can afford way more than the mortgage I've been offered). Equally there's no fathomable reason that mortgages are offered in a way that if you work in a job that's very secure but not highly paid - you will very likely have to look to buy on 'the wrong side of the tracks'.

It's all a bit backwards.

They shouldn't be offering 5% deposits and making these huge profits from interest rates on 40 year mortgages. They should be governing the housing market better to stop magnolia paint & plastic coving from having such a blinking gigantic impact on the country's finances.