UK Affordability still very good

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

OK let's say £750 a month, 30 months to save 10% depost.

If the first house I bought had increased in line with earnings it would now be about £200k but they are selling for £300k so I would now need to save 50%, so if it took someone 2 years to save a deposit in 70s it would take them 3 now not insurmountable.

If they are on 45k per annum, yes, with no children etc.

Which is some way above the average household income.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

If all the people aged over 75 died this year there will still be significant people alive bow who will inherit from groups below age 75 now who will die later.

Do you agree that over the next 81 years some 20+ million estates will be left?

So I see things have moved on and you are now demonstrating how affordable housing is now by looking at imaginary data for the next 81 years?

You still aren't getting this inherited wealth thing are you? There are very limited numbers of the population who will pass on big sums of money. They will pass it on to their children. They will not give it to their neighbour.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

OK sure so what does that do or mean?

Most estate will initially be 2 people they will have to children. When the first parter dies the estate will go to surviving partner, when that person dies the estate goes to the 2 children.

So the fact that each couple have 2 children means that 2 peoples estate is shared between them.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

If they are on 45k per annum, yes, with no children etc.

Which is some way above the average household income.

That's the figures I used in my original post if they didn't earn that much they would get a bit enough mortgage, which is the point I was trying to make if you earn enough to get mortgage you can save deposit.

The problem is earning enough to get mortgage not saving deposit.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

'the IFS said younger generations looked much more likely to inherit than their predecessors. Someone born in the 1930s had a 40% chance of an inheritance, rising to 61% of those born in the 1950s and 75% of those born in the 1970s.'


Even the IFS says similar to what I've been trying to say. More inheritences now than ever as generational wealth compounds when women have 2 or fewer kids.

The majority clearly do inherit wealth much of it property wealth.

From your IFS report

IFS wrote:

"As a result of these trends, the IFS said younger generations looked much more likely to inherit than their predecessors. Someone born in the 1930s had a 40% chance of an inheritance, rising to 61% of those born in the 1950s and 75% of those born in the 1970s.

But the thinktank warned that future inheritances were set to be highly unequal given that the richest half of elderly households held 90% of the wealth and the richest 10% held 40% of the wealth. “Hence a ‘lucky half’ of younger generations look likely to get the vast majority of inherited wealth.”

The largest inheritances would in the main go to those who were already well off. More than half of those likely to secure an inheritance of at least £250,000 had incomes in the top 20% of the population."

So, pretty much what I have been saying all along.

50% of elderly households own 90% of the wealth.

The top 10% hold 40% of the wealth

The top 20% of the population will receive a large sum.

So, basically, if grandad is in the top 10% of the country, and you are therefore likely in the top 20% of earners, you will receive a large sum.

You are using this to prove the affordability of housing to the masses how? You've now posted an article agreeing with me and going against pretty much all you have been saying.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

'the IFS said younger generations looked much more likely to inherit than their predecessors. Someone born in the 1930s had a 40% chance of an inheritance, rising to 61% of those born in the 1950s and 75% of those born in the 1970s.'


Even the IFS says similar to what I've been trying to say. More inheritences now than ever as generational wealth compounds when women have 2 or fewer kids.

The majority clearly do inherit wealth much of it property wealth.

How old are the parents of those born on 70s are my kids ranging from 36 to 44 and hopefully I've got a few years left.

economic

https://www.ft.com/content/a0182e62-25e4-11e7-a34a-538b4cb30025


29% of FTB got financial help in London. says it all.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

From your IFS report

So, pretty much what I have been saying all along.

50% of elderly households own 90% of the wealth.

The top 10% hold 40% of the wealth

The top 20% of the population will receive a large sum.

So, basically, if grandad is in the top 10% of the country, and you are therefore likely in the top 20% of earners, you will receive a large sum.

You are using this to prove the affordability of housing to the masses how? You've now posted an article agreeing with me and going against pretty much all you have been saying.

1930s children
10 kids, 6 receive nothing, 3 receive a 2 bedroom house each and one gets a 4 bedroom house

Bag of wind = this looks fantastic its a nice even distribution of wealth

1970s children
10 kids, 3 recieve nothing, 4 recieve a 3 bedroom house, 2 recieve a 4 bedroom house and 1 recieves a 10 bedroom mansion and £10 million in shares

Bag of wind = this looks terrible its all spread unevenly the top 10% get almost all of it its shows exactly what Ive been saying that the top 10% get most and the other 90% get almost nothing


GreatApe .... W....T.....F

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

https://www.ft.com/content/a0182e62-25e4-11e7-a34a-538b4cb30025


29% of FTB got financial help in London. says it all.

So 71% didn't plus all of those priced out.

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

1930s children
10 kids, 6 receive nothing, 3 receive a 2 bedroom house each and one gets a 4 bedroom house

Bag of wind = this looks fantastic its a nice even distribution of wealth

1970s children
10 kids, 3 recieve nothing, 4 recieve a 3 bedroom house, 2 recieve a 4 bedroom house and 1 recieves a 10 bedroom mansion and £10 million in shares

Bag of wind = this looks terrible its all spread unevenly the top 10% get almost all of it its shows exactly what Ive been saying that the top 10% get most and the other 90% get almost nothing


GreatApe .... W....T.....F

Lot of assumptions there and of course very few of them have received anything yet.