http://saynotogeorge.co.uk

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I see. It must have been awful buying a house for £5000 and then finding at the last minute you had to raise your offer by 3 and 6 to stay in the game.

Showing your ignorance again I offered full asking price of £6000 for a flat outbid by £250 equivelent of £6k now.

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

Showing your ignorance again I offered full asking price of £6000 for a flat outbid by £250 equivelent of £6k now.

Your figures are screwy as usual. The real price of your £6000 flat is £60,000 in today's money. About 1/4 of what it would cost in the SE today.

You were then gazumped by all of a couple of grand.

If you had decided to dig into next month's salary and pay up, you would have been rewarded with stonking salary increases, final salary pensions, free education, council mortgages, and an unrationed NHS. All the riches the boomers enjoyed.

You would then have settled down to watch your investment multiply by 42 times up til now.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Your figures are screwy as usual. The real price of your £6000 flat is £60,000 in today's money. About 1/4 of what it would cost in the SE today.

You were then gazumped by all of a couple of grand.

If you had decided to dig into next month's salary and pay up, you would have been rewarded with stonking salary increases, final salary pensions, free education, council mortgages, and an unrationed NHS. All the riches the boomers enjoyed.

You would then have settled down to watch your investment multiply by 42 times up til now.

I was taking home about £110 a month then compared £2400 in comparable job now. Free education till I was 16 , if all that was available on NHS then was all that was available now we wouldn't need rationing, I'm fortunate enough to have final salary pension but I'm the only one of my friends who has, I could have left company I worked for a increased my salary but I stayed for final salary pension.

House I eventually bought has increased about 30x if I hadn't jumped in when I did I wouldn't have been able to buy it as the price increased by 25% over the next couple of months.

When did you buy your house? When I bought mine it was 4.5x average earnings it's now 5.5x compared to 3x in the mid 90s.

brit1234

caronoel wrote: »

I find it morally reprehensible that someone could sit smugly in their government subsidised police accommodation in central London,

Sorry but I think you will find that the police accommodation was sold off or closed years ago. It was also not subsidised, just bypassed letting agents ramping up rents all the time. That why I am supportive of corporate bodies building rental property to rent out themselves.

From your ivory tower you can throw misinformed insults down but key workers are being priced out of London. Pretty much all the police officers not from London who joined the Met in the last say 12 years have left London. We have had pay cuts the last 4 years and the 1% pay rises for the next 4 years is more than lost through higher pension contributions and other taxes which we now pay. Ambulance crews are leaving in droves and extremely short staffed.

Key workers have to live some where. A max pay police officer can afford say £160,000 mortgage (4 x salary) plus their deposit and that is amongst the highest wages of the key workers with the majority on far less. Thus pretty much all are priced out of the London market where before the bubble they could afford to buy.

You can stand there and gloat about whole generations being priced out of ownership whilst you suck them dry with your high rents for your buy to lets. However I welcome the new tax changes on buy to let it will allow 1st time buyers to have a chance.

I will keep saving and hopefully prices will fall enough so I can buy and start a family.

CLAPTON

brit1234 wrote: »

Sorry but I think you will find that the police accommodation was sold off or closed years ago. It was also not subsidised, just bypassed letting agents ramping up rents all the time. That why I am supportive of corporate bodies building rental property to rent out themselves.

From your ivory tower you can throw misinformed insults down but key workers are being priced out of London. Pretty much all the police officers not from London who joined the Met in the last say 12 years have left London. We have had pay cuts the last 4 years and the 1% pay rises for the next 4 years is more than lost through higher pension contributions and other taxes which we now pay. Ambulance crews are leaving in droves and extremely short staffed.

Key workers have to live some where. A max pay police officer can afford say £160,000 mortgage (4 x salary) plus their deposit and that is amongst the highest wages of the key workers with the majority on far less. Thus pretty much all are priced out of the London market where before the bubble they could afford to buy.

You can stand there and gloat about whole generations being priced out of ownership whilst you suck them dry with your high rents for your buy to lets. However I welcome the new tax changes on buy to let it will allow 1st time buyers to have a chance.

I will keep saving and hopefully prices will fall enough so I can buy and start a family.

it would seem to be a tautological impossibility to be 'key workers' to be priced out of London.
If they are 'key' then they will be paid enough to work there otherwise they aren't key.

what does the average 35 year old police officer (all ranks) earn in London?

Are police officers forbidden to have working partners like other key workers?

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

I was taking home about £110 a month then compared £2400 in comparable job now. Free education till I was 16 , if all that was available on NHS then was all that was available now we wouldn't need rationing, I'm fortunate enough to have final salary pension but I'm the only one of my friends who has, I could have left company I worked for a increased my salary but I stayed for final salary pension.

House I eventually bought has increased about 30x if I hadn't jumped in when I did I wouldn't have been able to buy it as the price increased by 25% over the next couple of months.

When did you buy your house? When I bought mine it was 4.5x average earnings it's now 5.5x compared to 3x in the mid 90s.

According to the Land Registry the UK avereage house price is £181,619 (this seems very low, good luck finding a flat for that much in the SE whrere most of us live). The avaerage salary is £26,000 so you will need seven times earnings to buy a house.

I supect you are conflating average salary with average household income, which is about £35k .

Unlike in the time of the boomers when the husband worked and the woman did not, work and wages are now so devalued that both partners in employment is a necessity, so some of that £35k is spent on childcare anyway and isnt available for mortgages.

I could offer more figures but I supect your mind is already formulating some response about iPhones and "wanting it all" so it would be pointless.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

According to the Land Registry the UK avereage house price is £181,619 (this seems very low, good luck finding a flat for that much in the SE whrere most of us live). The avaerage salary is £26,000 so you will need seven times earnings to buy a house.

I supect you are conflating average salary with average household income, which is about £35k .

Unlike in the time of the boomers when the husband worked and the woman did not, work and wages are now so devalued that both partners in employment is a necessity, so some of that £35k is spent on childcare anyway and isnt available for mortgages.

I could offer more figures but I supect your mind is already formulating some response about iPhones and "wanting it all" so it would be pointless.

I've used nationwide house price to earnings figures which I believe use median full time male this has been consistent. I'm not disputing prices are to high and I would be quite happy if they had just kept up with earnings. But if you think it was easy to buy in the early 70s you are mistaken I was earning the equivelent of £35k and my wife was earning the equivelent of £15k and we still had to move 35miles from London to buy and commute. When we had our child my wife had to work part time in evenings and weekends but still you have this biased view of the 70s and will keep telling me how easy I had it even though you weren't there and have no idea what it was like.

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

I've used nationwide house price to earnings figures which I believe use median full time male this has been consistent. I'm not disputing prices are to high and I would be quite happy if they had just kept up with earnings. But if you think it was easy to buy in the early 70s you are mistaken I was earning the equivelent of £35k and my wife was earning the equivelent of £15k and we still had to move 35miles from London to buy and commute. When we had our child my wife had to work part time in evenings and weekends but still you have this biased view of the 70s and will keep telling me how easy I had it even though you weren't there and have no idea what it was like.

I'm not saying you had it easy. Life isn't easy for most people, but one thing that is glaringly unfair and easily avoidable is the cost of housing younger people face now.

One group of people is being massively disadvantaged in their quest for one of life's most very basic needs (shelter and security) exclusively to benefit another group that has those things in spades.

Whether you agree with it or not, whenever any government policy is mooted that would lower house prices it is assessed through the matrix of whether home owning older (you) will approve or not.

As its always decided you won't approve, and will in fact vote anyone out of office who lets house prices fall, nothing is done to change the situation.

We are always told how politically active the boomers are, and this isnt an issue they seem to care about changing.

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I'm not saying you had it easy. Life isn't easy for most people, but one thing that is glaringly unfair and easily avoidable is the cost of housing younger people face now.

One group of people is being massively disadvantaged in their quest for one of life's most very basic needs (shelter and security) exclusively to benefit another group that has those things in spades.

Whether you agree with it or not, whenever any government policy is mooted that would lower house prices it is assessed through the matrix of whether home owning older (you) will approve or not.

As its always decided you won't approve, and will in fact vote anyone out of office who lets house prices fall, nothing is done to change the situation.

We are always told how politically active the boomers are, and this isnt an issue they seem to care about changing.

I think you will find a lot of boomers are concerned about the effect high prices are having on young people what we are supposed to do about it I'm not sure. Any political party assesses the effect their policies will have on their voters. Boomers are not a majority of people of voting age and not all of them are homeowners or a particularly concerned about house prices so I don't think political parties are solely concerned about them.

ruggedtoast

ukcarper wrote: »

I think you will find a lot of boomers are concerned about the effect high prices are having on young people what we are supposed to do about it I'm not sure. Any political party assesses the effect their policies will have on their voters. Boomers are not a majority of people of voting age and not all of them are homeowners or a particularly concerned about house prices so I don't think political parties are solely concerned about them.

Boomers do vote en masse though, usually for the Conservatives.

You could say that its the fault of younger people for being under engaged politically, you could also ask what they have to engage with.

The Labour party, already a party for older middle class homeowners, is only interested in attempting to woo other older middle class homeowners from the Tories by being more Tory-like.

For a moment Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems looked like they were an actual alternative, so a lot of people voted for them, they actually got into a coalition government; and then Clegg turned round and said "Oh, sorry I have actually decided we need to be a party for older middle class homeowners. Here's a trebling of tuition fees and another 10% on house prices. Cheers."

Now younger people are excited about Corbyn (a boomer), an MP who terrifyingly for the status quo, might actually win the leadership election and promote some policies that dont just benefit older middle class homeowners.

Labour of course, are responding to this frisson of excitement from young voters by gerrymandering their candidate out of existence, and cancelling their ballots.