Helping your child onto the property ladder- Good idea or not.

bouicca21

As another baby boomer who did uni with no tuition fees and a grant, I appreciate that I must be financially privileged. I must have imagined the difficulty in getting a job in my field when the economy collapsed, the years of hard slog and living with in laws that went into saving to buy our first house, the mortgage lenders who insisted that repayments that were lower than a private rental were nevertheless unaffordable and would only lend 2.5 times one salary, the 15% mortgage when we finally got a place of our own, a lifetime of income just about meets essential expenditure, so having to use a camping stove till we could save enough for a proper cooker and never being able to have new furniture.

I'm glad my children have good jobs, I'm amazed at their expectations of comfort, I'm sad about house prices in London that mean a good job isn't enough. i can't believe anyone can seriously moan about a couple of hundred grand for a nice house elsewhere when a one bed flat in a relatively cheap part of London costs far more. I will give my children as much as I can - but the same to each and as a gift that is theirs to spend as they wish.

anotheruser

Davesnave wrote: »

I don't think I could have made things 'fairer' for my children, or anyone else's, by selling my last house for less than the market said it was worth.

Nobody is asking you to sell it for less than the market is worth. The problem is:
1) Houses being bought as "buy to let" by people who have large numbers of other properties (see below).
2) Houses being "given" to those involved with housing association.

Davesnave wrote: »

I accept it's harder for young people today to buy their own place and nowhere did I say it isn't. However, somehow, my first child did it at the same age as I did.

Yep - but don't take what I said to heart, or personally. Perhaps they had a better opportunity in life. Many don't.

Davesnave wrote: »

...I think she has unnecessarily high expectations, but it's none of my business, is it?

Perhaps none of your business, but I'd want my children to have realistic expectations.

Davesnave wrote: »

It strikes me that you are attacking the wrong person here. Don't all those people who hand their children gifts to assist with their deposit, simply push the prices up even further?

*sigh*

Your generation doesn't mean you, but othersw of a similar age.

Yes, it's the minority - I understand that, but it doesn't mean things are different.

I note many of those who control our countries finances are of the baby boomer generation.

I note many of those who control how our country works don't really care about the whole country... just making sure their time in control is good for them.

I also suspect the median age of those here is of that same generation, so will automatically be offended at what I said.

Unfortunately, as you are also of that generation, your view is not impartial. Neither is mine. Only the kids under 10 will be able to have the most un-biased view.

I note many Landlords are also of a baby boomer generation. I know of ONE single landlord who owns streets of houses. We're talking well over 200 houses. High rents means they can buy yet more houses. Is that fair? No. Why there isn't some sort of limit I don't know.
I understand the importance of Landlords but it's those people of the baby boomer generation who are usually in charge of (for example) letting agents... and their stupid fees. Luckily, this practice is now being looked at by the government. However, those people in the last 7/8 years who have paid silly amounts for fees here, there and everywhere... well, they've been shat on already.

Just like those kids at school now.
Hardly any school trips.
Hardly any cooking.
No science experiments.
Hardly any actual learning these days.
Who stopped all this? Oh, that's right, the parents of the baby boomers (perhaps the generation below them). Certainly... again those in power who make the decisions that you can't touch the vandergraph anymore.

Out,_Vile_Jelly

My parents kindly offered to top up my deposit, but I refused as I'd rather buy a slightly cheaper place that was all mine. Financial independence is important to me. It also means my parents have to grit their teeth and button it if my chosen decor/furniture is not to their taste; if they'd contributed to the property I reckon they'd feel they had some sort of say in these matters!

Note that quite a few of my (well paid) friends had all or part of their deposits paid for by rich parents; they've also tapped them for cash to pay stamp duty when moving or for major renovations. I think it does encourage a certain mentality towards finances.

[Deleted User]

I always think that anything beyond helping with a deposit seems unusual.

Few single 21 year olds can afford a house, or could have ever. Sure, it' probably makes sense to help him out if you can financially.. but make sure that this isn't a financial prop that will come back to haunt you.

Just like those kids at school now.
Hardly any school trips.
Hardly any cooking.
No science experiments.
Hardly any actual learning these days.
Who stopped all this? Oh, that's right, the parents of the baby boomers (perhaps the generation below them). Certainly... again those in power who make the decisions that you can't touch the vandergraph anymore.

Gen X are the current parents of primary-aged kids at the moment. Are any of your statements from experience?

System

Newlook wrote: »

Our oldest son is 21 years old, still lives with us. has a Help to Buy account and saves £200 a month , but has missed a month due to starting a new job today as a self-employed Electrician (subcontractor).

Newlook wrote: »

Is he better off saving and stopping at home until he meets a partner, which I don’t think will be any time soon and we are a little overcrowded?

Sorry to selectively quote, but the original post was quite long and I wanted to just keep the bits my reply is focusing on

Why is the choice stay at home or buy a place? If he wants to move out (or you need the space) then I would think the best solution is for him to find somewhere to rent. If he can't afford to pay rent and still save towards a deposit, then he's unlikely to be able to afford mortgage repayments and the accompanying upkeep costs. Renting will give him his freedom and also give him experience managing a household budget on his own, without adding to that the risk of defaulting on his mortgage and losing his home.

Davesnave

anotheruser wrote: »

Nobody is asking you to sell it for less than the market is worth. The problem is:
1) Houses being bought as "buy to let" by people who have large numbers of other properties (see below).
2) Houses being "given" to those involved with housing association.


Yep - but don't take what I said to heart, or personally. Perhaps they had a better opportunity in life. Many don't.


Perhaps none of your business, but I'd want my children to have realistic expectations.



*sigh*

Your generation doesn't mean you, but othersw of a similar age.

Yes, it's the minority - I understand that, but it doesn't mean things are different.

I note many of those who control our countries finances are of the baby boomer generation.

I note many of those who control how our country works don't really care about the whole country... just making sure their time in control is good for them.

I also suspect the median age of those here is of that same generation, so will automatically be offended at what I said.

Unfortunately, as you are also of that generation, your view is not impartial. Neither is mine. Only the kids under 10 will be able to have the most un-biased view.

I note many Landlords are also of a baby boomer generation. I know of ONE single landlord who owns streets of houses. We're talking well over 200 houses. High rents means they can buy yet more houses. Is that fair? No. Why there isn't some sort of limit I don't know.
I understand the importance of Landlords but it's those people of the baby boomer generation who are usually in charge of (for example) letting agents... and their stupid fees. Luckily, this practice is now being looked at by the government. However, those people in the last 7/8 years who have paid silly amounts for fees here, there and everywhere... well, they've been shat on already.

Just like those kids at school now.
Hardly any school trips.
Hardly any cooking.
No science experiments.
Hardly any actual learning these days.
Who stopped all this? Oh, that's right, the parents of the baby boomers (perhaps the generation below them). Certainly... again those in power who make the decisions that you can't touch the vandergraph anymore.

You make some good points, many of which I wouldn't disagree with, but you said that 'on the whole' people of my generation are greedy and that seems to be somewhat different from the above.

Certainly the great majority of those I know don't fit a 'greedy' image at all, even if they're more comfortable financially than older people in the past.

For the record, my children went to state schools, and one of them had quite severe learning difficulties, which she eventually overcame with a mix of home tuition and school support for her areas of high ability. The actual SEN provision at school for her disability was dire.

Children do have different opportunities in life, but I've little doubt that the most important ones have nothing specifically to do with wealth.

I'm in in broad agreement with your remarks on education, if not on the timing of when the rot set in.