An Evening With... Jeremy Corbyn

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

If you had rented a flat when you were young you would have been able to save very nicely because rents were about half what they are now. Or, you could have gone on the council list and then got a house that was given to you for free by Margaret Thatcher. Which is probably exactly what you did.

First thing I would have found it very difficult to find one because almost all rental properties were slums or occupied by sitting tenants and it a complete fallacy that council houses were easy to get. Up until I was sixteen I lived with my parents and sister in a 2 bed house with no hot water, no bathroom and outside toilet, my parents were on council waiting list for all of that time.

cells

Herzlos wrote: »

That's about £1500/month after tax, so assuming £650*/month in rent, another £300 in bills (council tax, insurance, electric, phone) £100/month in working (train fares, sandwiches) and another £200 in food, that leaves them with about £250 left over.

Putting all of that £250/month into savings means it'd take you 40 months to save up the £10k required to buy with 95% mortgage. In those 3.5 years, how much is the house price likely to rise and therefor how much will the deposit be? How much is their rent going to go up?

Obviously, living at home or with a partner will knock a lot of those expenses down and allow you to save up something like £725 (half rent & bills saving you £475. That'd allow you to get to your buying target in only 13 months.

Sounds like a fairly hard target to me.


*Google "Average rent in Manchester", 1 bedroom.

£29,900 income is £1,958 post tax monthly

They can rent a room or share a 2 bed flat with someone which is going to cost closer to £400-£500 per month including bills. If they spend another £458 per month on food and other costs that leaves then £1k a month they can save or 10 months savings. Reduced to about 6 months if its a couple

so stop using nonsense numbers to try and make things lot a lot harder than they are

cells

ruggedtoast wrote: »

That leaves them nothing left over if they have to pay for childcare, run a car, meet an unexpected expense, or pay for the funeral of a relative who inconveniently hasn't left them £3 million.

His assumptions about salaries are incorrect anyway. Half the workforce earns less than the median salary he cites, which isn't especially high anyway.

Herein lies the problem

While in the same situation I can save £1,000 a month Mr Toast is left with nothing.

Either he is silly or spends more than he should or is most likely trying to paint a much darker picture than exists

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

If I had rented a flat when I was young I would not have been able to save. I know someone who is under 45 who rented a room in a shared house so that he could save he now has a very nice house. People in their early 40s have no excuse, my children and their friends are in that age group and the vast majority of them own thier own homes. I agree it's a different story for people in thier 20s but if you earn enough and want to save you can if you are prepared to make some sacrifices.

you dont even need to sacrifice much just use a bit of common sense. When I rented during my first full time job after university It was always shared. I think my first flat was the equivalent of £600 per month in todays money but shared between two people. Bills would have been closer to £200. Or all in about £400pm and the property was a decent new build.


I think that is about typical even today.
I know most of my group tenants costs are in the ~£650pm region including bills but that is in London so will be a good deal less outside London. I have a landlord friend in the midlands and he charges including bills typically £350-450pm depending on size and if it has an en-suit

And far from the conception that its all poor people in such properties, the one I visited that he showed me around was 4 people working in insurance and 2 in accounting

cells

ukcarper wrote: »

First thing I would have found it very difficult to find one because almost all rental properties were slums or occupied by sitting tenants and it a complete fallacy that council houses were easy to get. Up until I was sixteen I lived with my parents and sister in a 2 bed house with no hot water, no bathroom and outside toilet, my parents were on council waiting list for all of that time.

There are some fantastic documentaries about social housing in London in the 1970s and 1990s and it was often not pretty (available on youtube). One particular one that sticks in my mind is an old man who was shouting at the local Councillor that if they were renting the same types of property from private landlords the private landlords would be in jail but they had to endure as it was the council. In one case an old lady had died in her council property something like 18 months before and no one knew about it. Only after that time did the council investigate to find the remains of the dead woman

ukcarper

cells wrote: »

There are some fantastic documentaries about social housing in London in the 1970s and 1990s and it was often not pretty (available on youtube). One particular one that sticks in my mind is an old man who was shouting at the local Councillor that if they were renting the same types of property from private landlords the private landlords would be in jail but they had to endure as it was the council. In one case an old lady had died in her council property something like 18 months before and no one knew about it. Only after that time did the council investigate to find the remains of the dead woman

My experience of council/ social housing in that period was nothing like that, my parents house was well maintained as were those of other people I know in social housing, conversely the private rented sector in the 60s and 70s was terrible.

ruggedtoast

westernpromise wrote: »

Which is not the fault of the child in Surrey, or its parents.

Nor is it the fault of the child in Peckham, or his or her family.

Do you see?

BobQ

ruggedtoast wrote: »

The average person in your circle may own a home but this is not the case for the 45 and unders, who are seeing their dreams of home ownership fall markedly.

http://visual.ons.gov.uk/uk-perspectives-2016-housing-and-home-ownership-in-the-uk/

Again, you are saying Corbyn is unelectable, but what you mean is that you won't vote for a Corbyn government. This is not quite the same thing, though is indicative to the level at which boomers are used to the government automatically reflecting their own perspectives.

It is not a question of the average person in my neighbourhood/ circle compared to yours. It is a fact that of all the UK residential dwellings a majority of them are owner occupied.

I agree that the current trend is that less people can afford to own than was once the case. But has there ever not been a time when the older you were the more likely it was that you were an owner occupier and the younger you were the more likely you were to rent?

The number of people renting compared to being owner occupiers has varied. It is not that different now to the 1980s. There is no right to be an owner occupier. People can dream of all sorts of things. When I was a teenager I dreamed of being a professional footballer. It never happened and I got over it.

My friend's son dreams of owning their home, he moans about it not happening in the local most nights after he has spent £20 on beer. Last night he was talking about upgrading his three year old car and how much he enjoyed his holiday in Grand Canaria. Meanwhile his mate is an owner occupier of a 2 bed house, cycles to work and got a second job for three years to raise the deposit for his house. Whether he had a dream of being a home owner I do not know but if he did his dream is already a reality.

I agree that I will not vote for Corbyn but I am only one person.There are loads of people who will not vote for Corbyn whether or not they have been conditioned.

BobQ

Wild_Rover wrote: »

:rotfl:

How much more of this more gentle form of politics can we take? :T

WR

I am beginning to feel sorry for westernpromise........

[Deleted User]

BobQ wrote: »

It is not a question of the average person in my neighbourhood/ circle compared to yours. It is a fact that of all the UK residential dwellings a majority of them are owner occupied.

I agree that the current trend is that less people can afford to own than was once the case. But has there ever been a time when the older you were the more likely it was that you were an owner occupier and the younger you were the more likely you were to rent?

The number of people renting compared to being owner occupiers has varied. It is not that different now to the 1980s. There is no right to be an owner occupier. People can dream of all sorts of things. When I was a teenager I dreamed of being a professional footballer. It never happened and I got over it.

My friend's son dreams of owning their home, he moans about it not happening in the local most nights after he has spent £20 on beer. Last night he was talking about upgrading his three year old car and how much he enjoyed his holiday in Grand Canaria. Meanwhile his mate is an owner occupier of a 2 bed house, cycles to work and got a second job for three years to raise the deposit for his house. Whether he had a dream of being a home owner I do not know but if he did his dream is already a reality.

I agree that I will not vote for Corbyn but I am only one person.There are loads of people who will not vote for Corbyn whether or not they have been conditioned.

The bit in bold is a pretty important consideration, usually ignored by RuggedT.

I quite agree that people are perfectly entitled to make thier own decisions, but RT seems to think that having made bad decisions, a waster is "entitled" to a higher standard of living than he/she can actually afford, because other folk who made different (better?) decisions have a better lifestyle. If you remove the consequences from bad decisions, there's no reason for folk to make good decisions.

Rugged and his comrades would happily take cash off the sensible and give it to the fool. Sorry, Rugged, but the population won't fall for that stuff again.

You can rage as much as you like, but your student union-level Dear Leader will be able to do absolutely nothing to change the 'system', because even if (or probably "when") he wins the Leadership again, he will have doomed a once great party to 10-20 years of electoral oblivion...... and its your kind "thinking" that will have helped him achieve that brilliant outcome. Well done. You will have driven the moderates from what will then be "your" party and without support from the middle ground, NO party can win an election. You are making your own bed and you will just have to lie in it. You'll find it firmly attached to the opposition benches in the House of Commons.

WR