So basically nothing has changed. People still make do. We forge our lives out of whatever material is around and make the best of it. Old people are a huge expense that young people pay for - whether they like that fact or not. This generation will not get those services and backstops to their lives.
We totally agree house prices and rental are mad atm! We disagree on how lucky the boomers were. Houses don't cost what the sale price is. They cost what the total mortgage pays back and there's a vast difference in historically low interest rates we have seen for the past 15-25 years compared to the 70s/80s when 9% was low and peak was 17%. What should really be compared is what the percentage of total paid back is compared to wages over that time. Someone taking a mortgage in the 70s (boomers) will have paid a much higher percentage back than someone taking a mortgage out now! That is the reality, not a straight line easy to target number like the sale price of a house. Rent is obviously a different matter because you have nothing to show for your money. I'm pretty sure if times were reversed in terms of interest rates, all of these narratives would constantly be banging on about the interest rate and total cost of a mortgage and not just the board price of a house, but they aren't and no-one ever mentions that if there was no inflation, we earnt the same then and now that a 150k mortgage in 1975 total cost paid back would cost way way more than a mortgage now. A 150k mortgage taken now and assuming a 5% interest rate throughout will cost £236k overall. Applying historic interest rates for 1975 say at an average of 10% through the term to the year 2000 would be £362k! These are the numbers that matter not the sale price of a house! The mortgage's cost was 1.5x more over the term!
This is for Lincoln. Using the above example of how much a mortgage would pay back as a percentage! I have taken the average (not first home) price of a house in Lincoln for 1975 and 2025. I have taken the average (not minimum) annual wage in Lincoln for both years! When you factor these things in the price vs wages has gone up slightly: from 6x to 6.55x. However the average salary to how much the mortgage actually cost over the 25 years it has gone down significantly...........unless you can find an error there. I didn't take care to get it right:
That’s a stretch. What matters is your relative wealth before and after. Property made the boomers rich and is making the young suffer.
Look at my calc above This is why I can afford a 15 year mortgage and not a 25 year one (in Lincoln) And bear in mind that is 1 person's annual wages. My wife's and mine combined is circa £45k before tax.......which is almost non existent in this age of high free tax bands for low earners
My Mum and Dad are both boomers (1948 & 1952) Property didn't make them rich because they still live in it! They made nothing from it. They don't expect to either as if they pass without the government robbing it from them to pay for care (if needed) it will pass to me and my sister...............which is kinda the point of why they bought it in the first place. There was a culture back then of not just putting a roof over your head but also of being able to pass something on to your children when you're gone........even at the lower level which they were. Nothing for them to be ashamed of at all. If you want to go the route of "they should pay for their care" they have lived their whole lives pre retirement with no break from work, high income taxes, paid all the way through. They already paid their bit into the pool for their care. If you want someone to blame for the profit on property then take one look at the BBC demographic where they constantly put shows on lauding those that buy up the cheap properties in order to achieve rental yields or max profit! Those guys take first time buyer homes and then jazz them up so so they are a level above basic so they are then out of reach for first time buyers and aimed at the level of income above!
At least this weekend, we are welcoming a decent American. Thank you Noah Lyles for participating in the Diamond League London meeting!!
I don't think loading actually believes what he is saying anyway. Knowing that there are a number of boomers/pensioners posting on here, the temptation to point the finger of blame at them is too big an opportunity to miss. An obvious wind-up but it would be uncharitable not to allow him to think I give a **** about whether he can afford a house or not. When I was working, my taxes went towards the pensions of the elderly at that time, the same as it is now. You didn't get to choose whose pension your taxes went to then either and I certainly didn't get worked up about whether the recipients deserved it, what their relative wealth was or if they should get out of their 3 bed and give it to me. To be honest I never gave it much thought, I had my own (modest) life to lead and have never been too concerned about those better off than me. Rather than getting on with their own lives, all I see from these young v old feuds is an unhealthy resentment. Despite this obvious contempt, apparently I should concede that I've had the best of everything, ****ed up the planet and then give the whinging ****ers my semi detached. Nobody has ever explained why I should do this just that I should. However, what does give me a great deal of satisfaction is knowing that when my next pension payment pops up into my account it will have been contributed to by loading. Cheers, much appreciated.
I understand it's difficult to get on the housing ladder these days, but it's a far more complex issue than most will admit or accept. Using the 1975 example it's worth noting the basic rate of income tax was 35% then. My wife and I took out our first mortgage in the 80s, our first car not bought until the 90s as we just could not afford both. Attitudes and expectations are the biggest changes in the last 50 yrs.
Generally agree with this and lets not forget estate agents, we live in Devon and estate agents still advertise property as "ideal second home" and "ideal investment property" to the disadvantage of first time buyers.
Not looking good for Don this week ! I looks like he is going to be brought down by the Epstein business or have his reputation seriously dented. I have said thus before but I cannot see him lasting his full term. This week there have also been further revelations about his health plus other stories about cognitive decline. I am convinced he will be gone within 12 months.
I think Rupert Murdoch is already preparing for his departure with his New York Post being less supportive and his Wall Street Journal reporting on the letter he sent Epstein, with the naked drawing of a woman. Murdoch has probably already made a deal with Vance, who appears to have remained fairly quiet in recent weeks, although he has stepped up with a defence of Trump recently. Health wise, what I consider to be credible podcasts are saying that he’s not in a good place. They are showing the use of makeup on his right hand to cover, what they claim to be, bruising caused by an IV, and they also show closeups of his ankles that are very swollen, suggesting that his body is retaining fluid with a variety of reasons for both being put forward, none of them good for him.
Fair enough! I don’t begrudge anyone anything. I just wish the older generation would vote progressively and with less fear. Everyone needs to say: houses are not nest eggs; houses are homes! And we need concerted pressure from all ages to build at least a million new homes. The UK has more than enough green space to accommodate.
I hope this government does something to address land and property banking whereby they become a commodity left undeveloped and untenanted. Tax, fine, compulsory purchase or confiscate. The housing crisis comes up from time to time and the contribution Thatcher's right to buy policy made whilst forbidding the use of revenues raising to build more social housing deserves a mention when it does.
Housing is such a key issue. I think it’s time for rent control to be introduced as a way of helping renters to save for their own homes and as a deterrent for those that buy 2nd or 3rd homes in order to exploit the housing shortage to their own ends. I would also extend the right to buy scheme to privately owned rental properties allowing tenants to buy them at the same discount as they can council or social housing properties. Seriously, why should this rule only apply to social housing? And I say this fully in the knowledge that my eldest son and his partner are about to close the deal on buying their second buy to let property.
This is already in effect technically. A lot of councils when they get applications for right to buy will offer the discount money to the applicant to "buy out" the tenants from their council house instead of selling the house to them. So the tenant in effect is given the deposit to buy private instead. There is a lot of misinformation about right to buy discounts. Yes you can still say "it is still free money" but while it is true that discounts can be up to 70% etc when you look at the reality no-one outside London and certain postcodes ever gets the 70% they qualify for. For example here in Lincoln I have been in council houses for 18 years. I can get maximum discount but the rules for most of the UK is "to maximum of" and the maximum here which is pretty much the standard across the UK is £24k. So yes I get maximum discount but I can only claim £24k of it. On a house valued at £130-£150k that means I will need a mortgage of £105 - £125k. The discount count as a deposit for RtB mortgages. So even after discount that is more than I could get a 3 up 2 down with a galley kitchen leading off the back, with smallish backyard terraced house in the central parts of Lincoln for and they have Living room and dining room downstairs, old style houses whereas ours is Lounge and Kitchen downstairs, no dining room. But it has a reasonable garden and we like it here. Those 3 up 2 down terraces are what my Mum and Dad bought for £4000 in 1972/3 when they moved to Lincoln in order to afford a house. £110 - £125k is not out of reach for first time buyers. The average annual salary here is £33k and a couple earning full time NMW is gonna have a gross of £56k The house price is not the problem. It is the required deposit that is because it is impossible to save when paying modern rents. 3 bed rents in Lincoln are in the £850/month minimum not including any bills. so try and save 10 or 20 grand in any short space of time while paying that! But why are rents so high? Well since Mr Blair we have had a massive university built and also a huge influx of migrant workers from the EU. Every first time buyer house was snapped up to be HMO for either students or migrant workers. You can see those prices that you can afford of £120kish for a terrace but you won't get it. It will be gone within days of listing because there's gold to be found in them hills and investors buy them with vash (either their own or borrowed) with no need to wait for mortgages to be approved or not. The people to blame are not grandma boomer still living in a house she got cheap. She's not made any money out of it. The people to blame are "the haves" that buy property to make money from property and then supported by the legacy machine are currently pushing this narrative of them being need to supply a rental market that is necessary when it was they that made it necessary in the first place! My council rent is about £500 a month. I am not overly interested in buying the house as the rent is low but the wife wants to. The mortgage will be about £850-£950 over 15 years meaning if interest rates stayed at 5% and minusing the discount I will pay about £168k for a house currently valued in the £140-£150k region (my estimate) so yes I will be in the positive there because even if the housing market does crash once no-one can afford to pay rents anymore I can't see the house being worth less than £168k in 15 years time. You also have to factor in the double edged sword that people with money and those in power paint a picture of "helping the people" where raising the NMW for example and putting more money in more people's pockets ends up pushing prices up as well. When there is more money out there to be spent then demand rises and if landlords have more people wanting the same house they put their rents up. Even councils do. My rent in 2007 was $280 a month. Now it is £500. It has almost doubled in the 18 years.
I bought my house for 156k back in 2007. It is tiny - two bedroom and a small patch of garden. My ex wife has it now!
And as soon as I typed that up and posted up comes "Home under the hammer" on the Beeb to celebrate people putting more first time homes out of reach for first time buyers. Wahey rental yields, house is worth 2x what you bought it for Congrats.
