Renting in your 40's and staring into the abyss

remorseless

Out,_Vile_Jelly wrote: »

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.

now now now, let's not be harsh on Fiona
Reading (quickly) couple of her posts it seems like she's advocating for better regulations on AST though I still think they are very far fetched as she seems to believe that regulations should allow her to rent [cheaply] a house for life...

Maybe she's a pioneer! It makes me wonder though, if what 36% are renters in England and regulations are so bad (I agree about real estate charges being a joke) surely there is enough people impacted to be able to trigger change?

chucknorris

shaggydoo wrote: »

Born in the late 1960s she's had plenty of chances to make money and buy a house. She was in her early 20s in the late 80s to early 90s.

University lecturers have always been poor. She also must have spent years of her adulthood in academic study doing masters and Phd, etc. If she wanted to own a home she should have picked a different career. Spending years in academia comes at a price.

What a whinger.

I agree she is a whinger, but I disagree about (all) university lecturers being poor (obviously I don't mean those that are independently wealthy), the salaries are reasonably good. At our university the salaries are:

£42,964 lecturer
£53,196 senior lecturer
£60,935 principal lecturer

The above includes London weightings, but in most areas outside of London, they are worth more anyway (cheaper house prices etc.).

I accept that they do not look that good at face value, but when you take into consideration the following, they look much better:

-the basic final salary pension scheme
-the additional pension that you can buy (I have bought the max allowed)
-the holidays
-the number of days that you can commute 'off peak'
-the number of days that you can work from home
-the ability to take on consultancy work or other paid work (due to the additional free time over other jobs), I don't do this but I have been asked many times, although I have been paid to review technical books

EDIT: Lecturing is really underrated for its value, if I knew years ago what I now know, I would have left working in industry much earlier to lecture. When you work it back to an hourly rate, lecturing is far more lucrative and allows you a much better lifestyle. If I was back in the private sector my salary would probably be about £70 to 75k, you would have to hold a gun to my head to make me take that over lecturing.

Cornucopia

remorseless wrote: »

Maybe she's a pioneer! It makes me wonder though, if what 36% are renters in England and regulations are so bad (I agree about real estate charges being a joke) surely there is enough people impacted to be able to trigger change?

There are (at least) a couple of quite troubling things about this topic.

The first is its economic illiteracy. The property market is functioning, albeit that it isn't producing the results that some people would like. That strongly suggests that if you haven't got the funds to get the home you expect, someone else does. Yes, that person could be a LL or an overseas investor, especially if you are looking to buy in London, but the statistics suggest it is more likely to be another private buyer.

The second is this notion of change. Apart from the very obvious omission by even its most vociferous proponents of what form that change should take - what should we change to?, there is also the quite relevant question of what is the mechanism for that change? Could the Government really wave a magic legislation wand and magically make houses cheaper? Even if we dismiss the quite powerful arguments for not doing it, is it actually even possible?

Probably not. So, at best, the HPC arguments reduce down to a set of economically illiterate high-level wishes that have not been (or cannot be) translated in to practical suggestions, that are not in the economic interests of the country and have no possible mechanism for their implementation.

System

I don't know why these people don't simply advocate a marxist solution to the "problem".
If decent housing is a social right, regardless of means, then the obvious solution is to nationalise all land and housing without compensation and allocate it by locally-elected soviets entirely according to need.
Problem solved.

lippy1923

Life is so hard isn't it. Poor thing has only been overseas for years, she had the burden of a wedding to pay for and kids as well. Not to mention being employed and having a partner also employed. No wonder she can't get a deposit together. I think she should be given the money from the tax payers. It's just not fair.

MARTYM8`

Seems this thread is turning into a personal attack on the woman concerned – rather than a discussion of the wider debate about the growth in private renting and a decline in home ownership over time. She – and others – don’t have a time machine to go backwards and buy a house when they were more affordable.

Now I am sure the I am alright Jack attitude on here is all very well – presumably none of you have kids/grandkids/nephews/nieces who may not find it as easy to buy a property given prices have risen by 400% in the last 15 years when wages clearly have not.

Because its an issue that affects wider society – given our taxes are used to fund housing benefit which now takes up a greater share of public spending than policing, fire services, social care for the elderly (which you might need one day – funded by your house perhaps!) and transport combined!

ukcarper

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Seems this thread is turning into a personal attack on the woman concerned – rather than a discussion of the wider debate about the growth in private renting and a decline in home ownership over time. She – and others – don’t have a time machine to go backwards and buy a house when they were more affordable.

Now I am sure the I am alright Jack attitude on here is all very well – presumably none of you have kids/grandkids/nephews/nieces who may not find it as easy to buy a property given prices have risen by 400% in the last 15 years when wages clearly have not.

Because its an issue that affects wider society – given our taxes are used to fund housing benefit which now takes up a greater share of public spending than policing, fire services, social care for the elderly (which you might need one day – funded by your house perhaps!) and transport combined!

That's because of OPs attitude he could put forward the case for reforms in a reasoned way but as usual he tries to sensationalise it.

Cornucopia

MARTYM8` wrote: »

Seems this thread is turning into a personal attack on the woman concerned – rather than a discussion of the wider debate about the growth in private renting and a decline in home ownership over time. She – and others – don’t have a time machine to go backwards and buy a house when they were more affordable.

If you have a look, you'll see that a number of posters have said, essentially, that they do not believe the woman is sincere in her "plight" or the way she expresses it. That view is supported by the fact that even the OP calls her a "prolific campaigner" or words to that effect.

She lives in Colchester (which is not hugely expensive in itself), and has areas like Braintree and Ipswich within commuter distance that would easily afford her a home if she wanted one. We can only speculate about what is holding her back. This could be unreasonable expectations about commuting, or house type and location, or schools have been mentioned, or perhaps it wouldn't sit well with the prolific campaigning. (I'm guessing in the mixed up HPC community you are something of a pariah if you actually have your own property).

Now I am sure the I am alright Jack attitude on here is all very well – presumably none of you have kids/grandkids/nephews/nieces who may not find it as easy to buy a property given prices have risen by 400% in the last 15 years when wages clearly have not.

Prices are just a symptom of a wider shortage of supply. Not that anyone is saying "I'm alright Jack".

lisyloo

I am concerned about the wider issues for younger people.
Not interested in whingers so I agree that distracts from proper debate.

I have no issue with my home being used for long term care provision.

Crashy_Time

mayonnaise wrote: »

But Crashy Time told us time and time again that renting in your 40's is the best thing since sliced bread? :huh:

No I said being debt free and cash rich in your forties is better than being an over leveraged BTL landlord who is about to be taxed to death, get it right !!!!!!! :rotfl:


You just know when threads like this appear that it is getting close to squeaky bum time.....:money: