2nd home somewhere on the South coast

trulysaintly

northernsal wrote: »

Nothing like contradicting yourself eh? :rotfl:

No there isn't is there????






You can't have done that badly then??


To be honest SquatNow, that has been going on down here for the last 15 years. I can't afford to live in the village I grew up in due to house prices being raised during the 90's by 2nd homeowners.

The trouble now, is that the prices are over and above what anyone on a normal wage can afford. I count myself lucky as I earn more than the average national wage but haven't got a hope.

Unfortunately for local people not earning 50k plus, the only hope is Social Housing....and if you have any half a decent wage and don't qualify for a council housing list you have got no hope.....yep stuck in the middle me!!

Don't earn enough to buy there and earn too much to stand a chance on a council list....

As you can tell, I'm not bitter......


But you've got a £230,000 county pad that you want to flog...where's your village that you can't afford to buy in...Knightsbridge?????

No. Actually its the only home I have and I've worked by rear-end off to achieve it - never had help from anyone either. No silver spoon, my dad's a plumber and my mum works in a supermarket.

They built their own house in 1966 for 6k. Now worth 500k and when they retire shortly they are going to downsize. Like your parents they deserve all the good fortune that brings.

Take a look at Rightmove for the New Forest and you won't find a 3 bed family home in a village for under 400k...

The bit about not being bitter was tongue in cheek :rotfl:

SquatNow

northernsal wrote: »

But you've got a £230,000 county pad that you want to flog...where's your village that you can't afford to buy in...Knightsbridge?????

Anywhere South-West of Winchester.

dolce_vita

northernsal wrote: »

northernsal wrote: »

I can appreciate your point, but I do really feel that if for e.g that binman really wanted to buy in their town but obviously couldn't because of the difference in their salary and the house prices that binman would have to

a) get another job and re-train and change career

b) try and get promoted within his present role

c) rent an empty property in their town and do another job and save, till they can afford to buy.

Yes..of course there's going to be the point who will replace the binman then, someone who doesn't want to own their own home/isn't bothered to have a property we could go on all day.

Oh and if you're going to quote me..do it fairly..see you forgot to put in my third point in your past post to make your argument stand up more...interesting

You are obviously an idiot and not worth arguing with.

I will not be replying to this thread again.

ciao for now

northernsal

trulysaintly wrote: »

Most 2nd homeowners are attacked because the majority do not contribute anything to the areas they move to - to many, its a nice bolthole at weekends and left empty the rest of the week.

And because they're not there during the week, when they are down they don't communicate with the people around them. Which in turn creates the 'them and us' scenario which this thread is now based around.

I honestly wish your parents well, and to achieve that amount of savings is commendable to say the least.:T My point earlier was that for a large slice of society being able to live in the environment of your ancestors is now a distant dream...I'm sure that you would feel the same.

Too many in this area of the country fly down in their Porsche Cayennes on a Friday evening and whizz back on Sundays...to their high powered jobs in the City which have funded their 2nd homes.

To them, it may be ideal to chat with friends over some Bolli about their pad in the country, but its turning beautiful areas of the country into the playgrounds of the rich.

Yes i understand and appreciate it's fustrating. I'm aware that I may have come across as squat now so eloquently put it 'an idiot', but I feel strongly they've worked so hard they deserve a quality of life in their retirement that they are aiming for.

btw dad drives a white, transit van...... and i must tell him about harry's pad although it may be a tad too 'modest':rotfl: :rotfl:

Night.

northernsal

dolce_vita wrote: »

You are obviously an idiot and not worth arguing with.

I will not be replying to this thread again.

ciao for now

Oh just seen this before I log off.....

Take it you're a lady dolce vita..but an offensive one at that.

Shame you won't be replying with your pearls of wisdom.., however I was 'worth arguing' with because you felt the need to add your views didn't you??

I'm off to wash my hair...because I'm 'worth it'!

Ciao!!!!!!!!!

trulysaintly

northernsal wrote: »

Yes i understand and appreciate it's fustrating. I'm aware that I may have come across as squat now so eloquently put it 'an idiot', but I feel strongly they've worked so hard they deserve a quality of life in their retirement that they are aiming for.

btw dad drives a white, transit van...... and i must tell him about harry's pad although it may be a tad too 'modest':rotfl: :rotfl:

Night.

Ah, that won't be a problem then - general rule of thumb for many rural areas is talk to the locals from day 1 and they won't have a problem.

If they have a tour round, tell them to head for Lymington, lovely place and you can get a ferry to the Isle of Wight for a tenner.

SquatNow

Can I paste in my "why our parent had it easy and basiclly lived a comfy life and left us with the bill" speach?

inmypocketnottheirs

Jealousy is such a negative emotion.

SquatNow

Those now in their 50-80s didn't actually pay very much tax. In fact they paid far FAR less than they should have done the services they received. This was acheived in 4 ways:

• Deferred Payment - since the late 50's all the civil service have agreed to work for MUCH lower wages than they would earn in private sector jobs in exchange for a great pensions. The government put NO MONEY ASIDE to cover those pension costs, choosing instead to pass them onto the generation which is now in it's 20s.
• Peoples NI money - was not put aside either, it was just returned to them in the form of other Tax Cuts. In reality people currently in or approaching retirement have saved NO MONEY towards a pension, having had it all back. Genuinely... the group that represents old folks, can't remember what it's called, went on TV and said that there should be plenty of money saved up in the vaults from everyone NI payments. They actually think the government was PUTTING IT ASIDE somewhere!
• Selling of national assets - At the start of the 80s the government started to run into trouble with the policy above, as members of the civil service starting to retire and demand the pensions they were promised. To cover the shortfall everything was privatised, Gas, Water, BT, BR, Council Houses, School Fields, a "firesale" in fact, and the money used instead of a tax increase.
• Energy - North sea oil is now dwindling but those in their 50-80s benefited from cheap petrol and gas for almost their entire lives. They closed the mines and switched to cheaper gas-fired powerstations with no thought to what would happen when the gas ran out. They benefited from "clean" nuclear energy which has left a £100bn+ cleanup bill for future generations, who face spiraling energy prices and probable shortages and blackouts.

The country was asset stripped and huge pension debts were run up, while 1 or 2 generations lived in a british "golden age". The nations infrastructure is crumbling, it's youth are crippled by debt and high taxes, while almost all of the houses and wealth in the country are owned by those in or near retirement.

Those in their 50-80s had the highest standard of living in the history of the human race, and it's probable that no generation in the future will ever enjoy such a high standard of living again.

I mean no offence to the OPs dad, I'm sure he's a nice bloke, but how far will we go to give those in their 50-80s a comfortable life? They asset stripped the nation and lived the life of Riley... how far will we go to allow them to keep living that life?

inmypocketnottheirs

SquatNow wrote: »

Those now in their 50-80s didn't actually pay very much tax. In fact they paid far FAR less than they should have done the services they received. This was acheived in 4 ways:

• Deferred Payment - since the late 50's all the civil service have agreed to work for MUCH lower wages than they would earn in private sector jobs in exchange for a great pensions. The government put NO MONEY ASIDE to cover those pension costs, choosing instead to pass them onto the generation which is now in it's 20s.
• Peoples NI money - was not put aside either, it was just returned to them in the form of other Tax Cuts. In reality people currently in or approaching retirement have saved NO MONEY towards a pension, having had it all back. Genuinely... the group that represents old folks, can't remember what it's called, went on TV and said that there should be plenty of money saved up in the vaults from everyone NI payments. They actually think the government was PUTTING IT ASIDE somewhere!
• Selling of national assets - At the start of the 80s the government started to run into trouble with the policy above, as members of the civil service starting to retire and demand the pensions they were promised. To cover the shortfall everything was privatised, Gas, Water, BT, BR, Council Houses, School Fields, a "firesale" in fact, and the money used instead of a tax increase.
• Energy - North sea oil is now dwindling but those in their 50-80s benefited from cheap petrol and gas for almost their entire lives. They closed the mines and switched to cheaper gas-fired powerstations with no thought to what would happen when the gas ran out. They benefited from "clean" nuclear energy which has left a £100bn+ cleanup bill for future generations, who face spiraling energy prices and probable shortages and blackouts.

The country was asset stripped and huge pension debts were run up, while 1 or 2 generations lived in a british "golden age". The nations infrastructure is crumbling, it's youth are crippled by debt and high taxes, while almost all of the houses and wealth in the country are owned by those in or near retirement.

Those in their 50-80s had the highest standard of living in the history of the human race, and it's probable that no generation in the future will ever enjoy such a high standard of living again.

I mean no offence to the OPs dad, I'm sure he's a nice bloke, but how far will we go to give those in their 50-80s a comfortable life? They asset stripped the nation and lived the life of Riley... how far will we go to allow them to keep living that life?

SquatNow, I had expected to always disagree with your posts, but I unreservedly apologise for being so presumptuous. This is a well written and economically balanced view.