Ownership amongst the young

ukcarper

GreatApe wrote: »

The young ones get gifts the middle age ones get inheritances

Also the housing market is primarily two transactions. A FTB at around age 30 and a second time buy at around age 55

That is roughly what happened to a friend this year, bought a much bigger house age 55 and give his old one to his boy age 28 mortgage and debt free. I think part of the ability for him to buy a larger house was that he himself got an inheritence from his parents around that time.

Yes My daughter bought bigger house when she received an inheritance but she already owned so was not a first time buyer. I don't deny that there are people who are helped to buy a property through inheritance either directly or indirectly I just don't accept its the majority of people who would like to buy.

Crashy_Time

chucknorris wrote: »

Crashy will still think that is a bad position to be in, he doesn't know the difference between good and bad debt, to him it's all bad.

Debt someone else has to get into (and might decide not to) to give your asset "value" is the bad kind, put that in your investment note book :rotfl: The technical term is "Ponzi Debt" :money: Of course as you have (supposedly) sold some property at peak prices I`m not sure why you continue to bash away at this nonsense everyday on the internet?

Crashy_Time

GreatApe wrote: »

The young ones get gifts the middle age ones get inheritances

Also the housing market is primarily two transactions. A FTB at around age 30 and a second time buy at around age 55

That is roughly what happened to a friend this year, bought a much bigger house age 55 and give his old one to his boy age 28 mortgage and debt free. I think part of the ability for him to buy a larger house was that he himself got an inheritence from his parents around that time.

Of course none of this has any relevance to a market that is kept alive on the lowest rates of all times plus QE Forever. If things were as "healthy" as you say there would have been no need for the intervention to save the debt Ponzi that we have seen?

ukcarper

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Of course none of this has any relevance to a market that is kept alive on the lowest rates of all times plus QE Forever. If things were as "healthy" as you say there would have been no need for the intervention to save the debt Ponzi that we have seen?

Although I don't agree with it, it has relevance to our discussion and this thread.

It might not have any relevance to your misguided insistence that a crash is imminent and getting a mortgage to buy a property makes no sense.

chucknorris

Crashy_Time wrote: »

Debt someone else has to get into (and might decide not to) to give your asset "value" is the bad kind, put that in your investment note book :rotfl: The technical term is "Ponzi Debt" :money: Of course as you have (supposedly) sold some property at peak prices I`m not sure why you continue to bash away at this nonsense everyday on the internet?

I think we all know who talks the nonsense Crashy :rotfl: . I never claimed that we sold them at peak prices, I think they were probably very slightly higher last Summer. If I was younger, I would rather have remained involved with what you call the Ponzi debt, but this afternoon I just placed £300k in a Sainsburys savings account earning a mere 1.05%, it makes me feel like a mug. Even worse that that my wife has much more than that in cash paying about the same rate. I know that you think it is smart to hold lots of cash, but it isn't.

Why wouldn't I be on here, I'm busy marking at the moment and I can't stand marking for much more than an hour at a time, so this provides light entertainment during short breaks from marking.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

there is a lot in stocks and shares but it mostly dies with them (eg final salary pensions and annuities)

I was reading an article today which says that some companies are offering crazy multiples to transfer out of final salary pensions. Sometimes 35 x annual pension if it was me I would take that up.

Had I stayed in my first job, which had a final salary pension by age 61 I would have collected enough years to have a pension of 4/6th of my final salary. If that was the median male wage of £35k that would be an annual pension of £23.3k

To trade it in I would be offered something in the region of £700,000 - £800,000 which seems crazy! Almost makes me wish I hadn't given up the job!

Anyway my point is if I took the £700-£800k transfer and died that would likely show £700-£800k in securities in my estate.


There really needs to be an MSE post about pension transfers they look such fantastic value to me. Especially if someone has poor heath and they know about it but the pension providers dont.

EDIT: MY bad, pensions are not included in ones estate that probably explains why securities are not a bigger part. It also shows that estates actually leave more than that report indicates so my often quoted £100 billion left annually is probably a low ball estimate!

yeh pensions are not included in IHT calcs and get passed on according to the normal rules and will. yep inheritances are even more then is being reported!!!

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

yeh pensions are not included in IHT calcs and get passed on according to the normal rules and will. yep inheritances are even more then is being reported!!!

Most final salary pensions and annuities die with pensioner or spouse.

economic

ukcarper wrote: »

Most final salary pensions and annuities die with pensioner or spouse.

i dont dispute that, but there are other pensions that dont die with the pensioner.

i think you are trying to find ways to prove us wrong. but GreatApe has shown real hard evidence that we are right.

ukcarper

economic wrote: »

i dont dispute that, but there are other pensions that dont die with the pensioner.

i think you are trying to find ways to prove us wrong. but GreatApe has shown real hard evidence that we are right.

Of course I am, greatApe has not shown any hard evidence that supports his claim and ignores all other evidence, it amazing how out of touch you two are.

It wasn't long ago when you had to buy an annuity.

Windofchange

I don't even know where to begin. I post an article that shows that home ownership is falling off a cliff and Great Ape and his pal Economic see that as another cue to rant about immigrants and make up numbers. Look at the original article. Critique that.

Let's see if you can answer just the one question. Take the below link to the IFS.

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8239

Take the statement:

"The wealthiest 1% of households hold about 20% of household wealth, the top 5% of hold approximately 40%, and the top 10% hold over 50% of wealth (see Table 1 of Alvaredo et al.). These authors also find that household wealth in the UK has become more concentrated since the turn of the century."

How have you got to the conclusion that all but 5% of the population are going to inherit a house!? Given that the top 10% of the population hold half the nations wealth, where do you get the idea that everyone is inheriting large sums of money?

You two just can't or won't grasp it will you? It's just the usual made up numbers and statements such as I know 100 families and only 5 of them won't inherit a house. It's just mind numbingly stupid.