Renting in your 40's and staring into the abyss

MARTYM8`

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

I bought a house in London on a university secretary's salary, after ~10 years of saving. Please explain why I'm supposed to feel sorry for those on 2 x university lecturers salaries who claim they couldn't do the same.

If I'd spent the five years I lived alone in a one bed flat splitting the rent with a partner I could have saved ~£30k. Can't be bothered with couples who moan about money when they're automatically at an advantage.

My parents bought their house in London for less than my current monthly take home pay. Times change – not sure how many university secretaries starting out without assistance from BOMAD could afford to buy a house in London these days no matter how long they saved for. A one bed flat in a not so nice area perhaps – but a house? History lessons don’t really help – because prices have moved massively relative to wages and the rises in the since 2012 in the capital have been exceptional.

No one expects you to feel sorry for this woman – but it might be nice if we could accept there is a real issue for society here given we are all contributing towards the £27bn a year housing benefit bill. Cos when these people retire still renting – you, me and other taxpayers may well be picking up the bill. This is a financial timebomb waiting to explode - amongst many we will face due to demographic changes and population growth.

Sapphire

lisyloo wrote: »

Certain things are harder than they used to be,

Things were much harder than they are now up to about the 1970s, when it comes to material 'wealth' (vast majority of people did not go to university, benefits given for up to a couple of children only, people commonly living in incredibly cramped conditions, slums certainly existed, overcrowding with no laws as to how many children could share bedrooms as there are now, outside loos were common, etc.)

However, I'd say things were better when it came to social cohesion before the '70s, even though many people still lived in real poverty (you only need to look at some photographs from the 2–3 post-war decades, as well as the pre-war period, to see this). Close-knit communities still existed (some based around specific industries, now long gone), and family life was much closer, with grandparents generally ending their days with their children and grandchildren. Home ownership didn't even enter the heads of much of British society, and it certainly expected less as its 'due' than it does now.

In many ways we in northern Europe are living in a golden age right now, though we don't appreciate it…:cool:

remorseless

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Cos when these people retire still renting – you, me and other taxpayers may well be picking up the bill. This is a financial timebomb waiting to explode - amongst many we will face due to demographic changes and population growth.

She is like 20-25 years from retirement and she'd have plenty of time to plan for something for that age!
Let me guess, she'd need a huge house now cause of the children but then she won't be willing to downsize later in life once they go cause of the memories attached to the walls?

This is nanny state mentality, even in the continent isn't like that!

ukcarper

remorseless wrote: »

She is like 20-25 years from retirement and she'd have plenty of time to plan for something for that age!
Let me guess, she'd need a huge house now cause of the children but then she won't be willing to downsize later in life once they go cause of the memories attached to the walls?

This is nanny state mentality, even in the continent isn't like that!

If she is claiming housing benefit it will only pay for a one bed.

catshark88

Sapphire wrote: »

No – I don't live in the 'wrong' place. Travel within London is unbearably crowded and hot – much worse now than it used to be due to overcrowding. There are simply too many people stuffed into London (same applies to hospital services and schools). In my last full-time job I had to travel to Edgware Road. I nearly always had to stand on the rail journey, which was absolutely stifling in hot weather (no AC), and the Tube to Edgware Road (no AC) was possibly the worst travel experience I've had in my life. Mostly due to the travel factor, I now work chiefly from home on a freelance basis, but still have to travel to central London sometimes in the rush hour. This serves as a good reminder of just how awful travelling within London really is.

You are lucky in having a pleasant journey that you seem to enjoy.:cool:

It's not just within London. My husband commutes into the City from 2 hours away and it's still standing room only if he gets a train after 7a.m....

ukcarper

catshark88 wrote: »

It's not just within London. My husband commutes into the City from 2 hours away and it's still standing room only if he gets a train after 7a.m....

Depends where you are you would get a seat where I am 1hr out.

What's the Waterloo and City line like now back in early 70s I can remember queuing nicely then being pushed into train so doors could close.

Cornucopia

lisyloo wrote: »

Social media has brought whinging to a new level.

Indeed. The whinging bores used to be lucky to have a fairly willing audience of 3 or 4 in the local pub. Now the whingers have access to the entire Internet.

Certain things are harder than they used to be....

There's really not much that is harder than it used to be. I first commuted from SE London to the City in the mid-80s. It was faster then, but just as crowded as it is now. The disappointing thing is that in all that time, and with advances in technology they have managed to maintain a fairly consistently poor, fairly consistently expensive service.

Without knowing the detail of the original "Elsted case", it's difficult to know what her issue really is. (I'm inclined to think it isn't what she says it is, because that is not consistent with 2 University lecturers' salaries). Even if she was in financial difficulty, Braintree is less than 20 miles from Colchester, and it is one of the cheapest places to live in the entire SE of England. If she cannot afford a flat or house there (starts well below £200k) then there is something seriously wrong.

Fiona Elsted ... has a middle class, educated job

There are no "middle class jobs".

... prolific housing activist...

Ah yes, the small grain of truth that gives the whole game away.


I'm assuming the discussion about SE France is because someone mistakenly believed that it would be comparable to SE England. It doesn't work like that, and indeed, France is a fair bit larger than the UK, with large swathes of very rural territory that has limited capability for the high rents associated with a vibrant local economy.

dktreesea

lisyloo wrote: »

I'm in my mid-40's with an unspectacular career
For the last 25 years, I've bought a house and built a pension pot.
What has Fiona been doing for the past 25 years?

Possibly turning her nose up at what you bought, or its equivalent in her area, while she holds out, together with her privately let own personal patch of damp and mould for something better.


If you are prepared to buy via shared ownership you can get onto the property ladder, even in London, from as little as £115,000.
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/new-homes-for-sale/property-52607645.html

dktreesea

HappyMJ wrote: »

I'm a mendacious landlord. Never heard that one before.

I know I'm money grabbing. Each month the tenant sends me money I grab that pay the interest only mortgage payment and some other expenses and pocket the change...all £50 of it....oh but I'm mendacious so you can't believe a word of that. I must pocket the lot and buy cars (I don't own one) and go on expensive foreign holidays (I go on day trips as it's all I can afford).

If you're a landlord, it's heads you lose, tails you lose these days. The tenant will argue that they are paying your mortgage. In my neck of the woods, the market rent wouldn't even always cover the interest on the mortgage needed to buy the property now, let alone the capital. To me the tenant gets to live in your property, possibly better located than the tenant could afford to buy at the moment, without investing a penny in the capital.


I wouldn't dream of buying a house or apartment in the area where I live. Upwards of £250k for an apartment, and that's unrenovated, when I can live in such an apartment for the equivalent mortgage on less than half that value? Not to mention having to devote the next 20 years of my life to paying it off. For what? So my children can inherit it? No thanks. The capital portion may only work out at £250 a week or thereabouts, but to me that's a lot of my life being spent on bricks and mortar.


But no, perish the thought that we view landlords as a bit crazy, making investments that could end up costing them thousands rather than earning them anything (the stair next door to us have just had a quote for doing the roof and chimneys. Each flat's share is £8k). No, they are firmly in the camp of greedy people, taking advantage of impoverished tenants.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

MARTYM8` wrote: »

My parents bought their house in London for less than my current monthly take home pay. Times change – not sure how many university secretaries starting out without assistance from BOMAD could afford to buy a house in London these days no matter how long they saved for. A one bed flat in a not so nice area perhaps – but a house? History lessons don’t really help

I'm in my mid 30s and bought my house in 2013- that's not really long enough ago to be a history lesson. There was a kind offer from BOMAD, but I refused.

This couple have had two fairly decent salaries and couldn't save as much as the secretary in their office. I bet they're the useless, troublesome academics that their administrators despise.