Harder now for 1st time buyers?

ukcarper

littlegreenfrog wrote: »

What tax? You don't pay capital gains tax when you sell your primary residence.

I was replying to someone who said it should be considered.

littlegreenfrog_2

ScorpiondeRooftrouser wrote: »

He is replying to someone suggesting that you should.

Ah, sorry, missed that. I thought he was saying he would have to pay it if he downsized.

Bluebirdman_of_Alcathays

littlegreenfrog wrote: »

Ah, sorry, missed that. I thought he was saying he would have to pay it if he downsized.

Likewise! Oops.

always_sunny

littlegreenfrog wrote: »

First of all, that still requires both people to be earning almost twice the average wage. Sure, it's do-able if you're both professionals, but unless you are exceptionally lucky and talented and go into a very well-paid career, you're likely to be a good few years out of uni before you start earning that kind of money. And if you're earning quite a lot less than that

As a non Londoner living in London, I am always baffled by this 'average wage' and property when people mention it.
In the UK the average salary is £27k? That will not make you entitled to a property in London.

littlegreenfrog wrote: »

So perhaps if you're in a couple and both of you have high salaries, you might be able to buy a one bed flat for £400k by the time you're 30. And then what? Have a child? But you live in a one bed flat. Whoops.

That is why folks moan about not being able to buy in London. FTB expects to be able to buy a funky place in central London on an average wage. I doubt even back in the days that was possible!

greensalad

always_sunny wrote: »

That is why folks moan about not being able to buy in London. FTB expects to be able to buy a funky place in central London on an average wage. I doubt even back in the days that was possible!

You can't afford a two-bed in the suburbs either.

seven-day-weekend

littlegreenfrog wrote: »

Yes, of course it is harder. I'm 30 and earn way more than my dad did at my age. But if I wanted to buy the (pretty modest) house he bought when he was 23, I'd need a deposit of £235,000.

My word, how expensive is the house????

always_sunny

greensalad wrote: »

You can't afford a two-bed in the suburbs either.

here 2bed £180k, 0.4m from Dartford station
If you cannot save £18k deposit over few years you are living a lifestyle you cannot afford.

Dartford>>London: 45 min. Ahhhhh but who is going to pay the £226.20 monthly season ticket?
Would you like another one on the other side of town?

I doubt many FTB back in the days all bought in prime location! But of course it's easier to complain...

littlegreenfrog_2

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

My word, how expensive is the house????

£450k. The maximum I can borrow on my salary is £215k.

littlegreenfrog_2

always_sunny wrote: »

As a non Londoner living in London, I am always baffled by this 'average wage' and property when people mention it.
In the UK the average salary is £27k? That will not make you entitled to a property in London.

That is why folks moan about not being able to buy in London. FTB expects to be able to buy a funky place in central London on an average wage. I doubt even back in the days that was possible!

No, you're missing the point. In previous generations people were buying starter homes in their early 20s. If the first place they bought was a tiny one bed with no room for a child, no biggie, they could just wait a few years and move up to a bigger property before starting a family.

But now, if two professionals on good salaries can only afford to buy a one bed starter home at the age of 30, that's a problem. Or at least, it is a problem if you want to have a family.

My dad bought a 2 bed Victorian terrace in Guildford in 1979. We moved out of it when I was a baby because my parents wanted a 3 bed place so they could have another child. The house that was considered too small and pokey for my parents when they were my age is now worth £450k and beyond my wildest dreams. Even though I am better educated and supposedly better paid than they were.

always_sunny

littlegreenfrog wrote: »

No, you're missing the point. In previous generations people were buying starter homes in their early 20s. If the first place they bought was a tiny one bed with no room for a child, no biggie, they could just wait a few years and move up to a bigger property before starting a family.

But now, if two professionals on good salaries can only afford to buy a one bed starter home at the age of 30, that's a problem. Or at least, it is a problem if you want to have a family.

My dad bought a 2 bed Victorian terrace in Guildford in 1979. We moved out of it when I was a baby because my parents wanted a 3 bed place so they could have another child. The house that was considered too small and pokey for my parents when they were my age is now worth £450k and beyond my wildest dreams. Even though I am better educated and supposedly better paid than they were.

You're missing the point, generations change over time, folks now in their early 20's would be at uni. Demographics have changed. What was a starter home then, is a starter flat now because of density, In '79 London population was 6 mil, there are now 2 mil more, which means the way we live is different.

We can debate to no end whether it's better or worse but it is reality. These 2 mil will more likely increase than decrease.

People also live longer, don't marry till much later, have different jobs. 2 professionals on good salaries (50k ea = 100k) can afford more depending on their priorities, it can be a new build studio in zone 2, a 1 bed in zone 4 or a 2/3 bed further out and commuting to London.

Was Guilford a prime location in 1979?