"Confirmation Bias" among generation who did well from house prices

ukcarper

If you look at the house prices adjusted for inflation graph on HPC you will see that in 1975 the price was £79k in 1995 the price was about the same now it's about £179k. In 2000 it was about £99k which lower than most of the 80s so who did benefit the most.

lisyloo

these generational gains will eventually be passed onto those in their 20s and 30s today

I have 92 year old relatives and still going.
I don't expect to inherit until I retire and that's if anything is left after the nursing home fees.
Still I'm not bitter at all.
I feel incredibly lucky that I may well live until 90.
Some people's glasses are just half-empty.

chucknorris

lisyloo wrote: »

Some people's glasses are just half-empty.

We used to dream of a half empty glass, but the lucky boomers seem to have all of those.

wotsthat

ukcarper wrote: »

If you look at the house prices adjusted for inflation graph on HPC you will see that in 1975 the price was £79k in 1995 the price was about the same now it's about £179k. In 2000 it was about £99k which lower than most of the 80s so who did benefit the most.

You could buy in 1975, 1995 or 2015 - the only difference will be that one was a great time to buy, one a good time to buy and the other history suggests will turn out to be pretty good too.

It's one of those terrible first world problems we're afflicted with - things are great but we tend to stick our bottom lips out when the icing is only 1" thick instead of two.

mayonnaise

stator wrote: »

Inheritence also comes at the wrong time now. With the increase in life expectancy, those who do inherit money probably won't get it until they are past 60. Which is too late to help with the cost of raising a family or buying a family home, as the family are gone.

Disgraceful post.
They just can't pop their clogs soon enough eh? :mad:

CLAPTON

stator wrote: »

I'm surprised that you think it's a good thing that a small proportion of people will inherit significant amounts of wealth which they did nothing to earn. With increases in care home costs I think a lot less will be passed down than some people assume. Inheritence also comes at the wrong time now. With the increase in life expectancy, those who do inherit money probably won't get it until they are past 60. Which is too late to help with the cost of raising a family or buying a family home, as the family are gone. It's too late to help pay off the student debts, as they are gone too. All they will do with it is sit on it and hoard wealth like the baby boomers did. (Anyone else think it's a funny coincidence that student loans are written off at the average age of a Conservative voter?)

odd post

first you seem to disapprove of anyone receiving an inheritance at all

and then disapprove of it coming 'too late'.

lisyloo

Disgraceful post.
They just can't pop their clogs soon enough eh?

I disagree.
No-one said they wanted their relatives to die earlier.

I think it's a relevant point that inheritances are not coming until retirement when most people have had their families and bought their home.
Personally I want our parents to spend it all enjoying themselves and will continue to encourage them to do so, however that doesn't change the fact that by and large it won't help FTBs.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

It's one of those terrible first world problems we're afflicted with - things are great but we tend to stick our bottom lips out when the icing is only 1" thick instead of two.

Well if that's what you appear to believe this is all about, let's look at the generation this article is about.

Presumably that generation was always content with their lot? Never moaned about the way things were? Just got on with things? Worked harder? Took it in their stride and didn't ask for more?

It's strange therefore, that this is also the generation that held the biggest strikes in the last century. They held some of the biggest protests....poll tax riots anyone?

Unless it's a figment of historys imagination, it would appear babyboomers were one of the most vocal and active generations in venting their aggivations and organising riots and protests in order to have a good old moan at what was presented to them on their plate.

Herzlos

stator wrote: »

I'm surprised that you think it's a good thing that a small proportion of people will inherit significant amounts of wealth which they did nothing to earn. With increases in care home costs I think a lot less will be passed down than some people assume. Inheritence also comes at the wrong time now. With the increase in life expectancy, those who do inherit money probably won't get it until they are past 60. Which is too late to help with the cost of raising a family or buying a family home, as the family are gone. It's too late to help pay off the student debts, as they are gone too. All they will do with it is sit on it and hoard wealth like the baby boomers did. (Anyone else think it's a funny coincidence that student loans are written off at the average age of a Conservative voter?)

I always assumed that inheritance tended to skip a generation. My Great-uncles passing got me a house deposit, as my parents already had a house. An inheritance from my parents will likely be more useful to my children than me, as I've already got a house and they'll hopefully still be here when it's nearly paid off.

Maybe things will stretch further and inheritance will skip 2 generations, going to great-grandchildren.

nearlyrich

Meanwhile some of us managed to buy a house and pay for it help our children through uni and to get a deposit together and we still have a decent standard of living on average wages and no inheritance ( I did get £45 from an intestate second cousin which went to a charity)
You have to cut your cloth if you can't afford to buy in the south east (and I couldn't) then move somewhere cheaper and increase your standard of living and possibly your "poor me "attitude.