I worked in the Fire Brigade for 30 years. On my days off I worked a second job for 30 years. I could of course chose to play golf or go fishing or something but I didn’t. I chose to work. Glad I did as I'm now mortgage free and dept free. We all have choices to make and sometimes if you want something bad enough sacrifices have to be made. My sacrifice was doing 2 jobs for 30 years. And I'm glad I did.
Most firemen work second jobs don't they? Because they work two weeks on and two weeks off. My brother-in-law has his own contracting business outside of being a fireman.
Fireman do a basic 42 hours per week. The reason most do a second job is because it doesn't pay enough money to buy a house and raise a family. The second job is a necessity if you want those things.
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Tell that to the people in the 80's/90's who lost everything, including their home.
Whilst it was 70's/early 80's you could generally only get a mortgage from a building society, to do so you would have had to save with them for at least 3 years before they would even consider an application. Mortgages did get easier in the mid 90's though.
If I didn't have a second job I would have struggled to survive let alone save anything.
You could have moved to a cheaper part of the country and commuted into London, or lived with your parents...
For me living with parents was not an option unfortunately, and Bethnal Green was about as cheap as it got within a 50+ mile radius!! Trust me if I could have found somewhere cheaper to live I would have. It wasn't a pleasant place to be.
Let me put things another way;
Why is it that when my Daughter was a manager at McDonalds there were numerous people there, often a married couple (both working at McDonalds) who managed to buy a small place in Woolwich/Charlton, effectively on not much more than minimum hourly wage.
Yet there are people at my work earning individually 200% plus them combined but 'can't'?
Maybe it's because the McDonalds couple didn't holiday in Dubai but if anything a week in camber sands in October for £100, didn't have a car and used busses instead of a new Audi/BMW etc on HP, didn't spend £350 a month on lunch or £200 a month on coffee (yes that still amazes me is common place). Whilst saving rented a room in a shared house in Woolwich rather than a shared flat in Notting hill and 5x the cost.
The problem seems to me to be about a notion that if you don’t work 70-90 hours a week you have no right to bemoan the fact you’re homeless.
Where has anyone said anything about bemoaning homelessness? No one.
Maybe it is only me that detects an underlying negative judgement directed at others if they don’t work 70-90 hours a week in order to have a roof over their head.
It wasn't about having a roof over your head, but purchasing/saving a deposit rather than renting.
Reading this thread makes me aware of how differently I view things to the way many other people do. There was something @kentaddick said above about shelter being a basic fundamental human right. I agree with that.
I like to boil things down to the notion that if a person does an honest day’s work, without having to take a second job, then that ought to be enough to put a decent roof over their head. I also agree with saving up, and not splashing out on fripperies, in my case it was hardly having a holiday beyond a tent in my motorcycle luggage and Youth Hostels. However the assumptions about living at home, getting money from parents, having to be part of a couple and most especially working all hours seem to me to be a distraction from @kentaddick’s fundamental. The cat came out of the bag above when it was suggested you put your place up for sale for £200,000. Find a buyer at that price, but somebody comes in at £250,000 so you let down the original buyer. It is framed as ‘good on yer mate, it is common sense to dump the original person for the more money’. My question would be if somebody was happy, and able to manage their affairs at the £200,000, then salivating at the higher offer seems like greed to me. I simply don’t get the kind of thinking or mind set of a person who would do that. Maybe it is an example of how much I am at odds with others that I don’t see what seems ‘obvious’ to many people.
I don't recall someone saying dump an initial buyer, more so someone offering above asking price. I moved in 2021, house was up for £925k (I think to illicit offers as it was cheap at that price IMHO), I bought it but ended up paying £962,500. Should the seller have let me have it for 925k? Even though all four parties were offering above that? Should they have gone with the lowest bid, rather than my highest bid?
I don't see the issue of achieving the highest possible price on something you are selling, property or something else. As always something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, many houses go for far less than the asking price, should that be allowed?
Where I think I would agree is dumping someone. We sold our house to a lovely couple, about a week before exchange a previous viewer came in with an offer of £8k more, cash, I declined on the basis I'd agreed a sale and my buyer had gone through expense of surveys, mortgage etc. Had they have offered at the same time as my buyer did, then that would have been different.
In answer to your first question, yes indeed the seller should have stayed at the original price. There is something rather fundamental wrapped up in the first come first served notion. Children understand that maybe better than adults. I am heartened that you think dumping someone is wrong, but I suspect had it been £80k rather than £8k that principle would have been tested.
As a slight aside many here think it is disgraceful that an institution like Southend United should die off for the want of a weeks wages for a top footballer. The market is poison in that instance. Yes I know that Southend ought to have managed things better, but ultimately the free market mindset leads to Manchester City playing Manchester City reserves forever. Yet Manchester City needs an opposition to play, even Southend. Anybody who has ever completed a game of Monopoly or Risk knows that it ends when one person has everything, and the rest nothing.
I suspect I do not think like you, or see the world in the same way. I see interdependence as a fundamental for a coherent society, and interdependence means sacrifice on occasion.
With respect I think you are very out of touch with property selling. It's common place now for houses to be marketed at a lower price than expected, with 'offers over' - often like when I bought it was a weekend of viewings then sealed bids by close of play on the Monday.
FWIW I wouldn't have switched for £80k either, generally there's a reason someone waits until the final hour and I'd have had no doubt that particular buyer would have tried to reduce their offer as it approached exchange. Just ask Damo and his Patel buyer experience..........
Why does it always come back to anecdotal evidence? Is there any factual evidence to support the idea that young people can't afford houses because of the reasons you state?
It's not anecdotal, over the past 10+ years at work I can show you numerous people who bemoan that they can't afford to buy, yet many at work on the same salaries have done so, relatively easily, for them (which I appreciate is a small number) it is solely personal choices.
There's a reason someone on £70k salary can't afford to buy.
I have two graduates working for me currently. Their daily routine is at least 5 coffees a day from Starbucks, that's £4 a go or £100 a week. Lunch they'll spend anywhere between £10-20 so somewhere between £50 and £100 a week, they will often eat out in the evening at £40-£50 a go maybe 3-4 times a week so another £120-£200 a week.
So on coffee, lunch and eating out that's broadly somewhere in the £300+ a week or £1200 a month+ add their Notting Hill rent to that and you are in the 30-35k per annum, net so maybe £45k gross. If that's how they wish to live that is 100% their prerogative, but don't then moan (as they do) that they'll never be able to buy........
On the flip side I have had others on the same sort of salary who within 4 years after uni have bought their own place.
I appreciate these have been your personal experiences with people, they are anecdotal examples, and may not represent the broader picture or experiences of the majority. For factual evidence, we'd need to look at larger datasets, statistics and research studies. To my knowledge, these don't support the argument you're making here.
Reading this thread makes me aware of how differently I view things to the way many other people do. There was something @kentaddick said above about shelter being a basic fundamental human right. I agree with that.
I like to boil things down to the notion that if a person does an honest day’s work, without having to take a second job, then that ought to be enough to put a decent roof over their head. I also agree with saving up, and not splashing out on fripperies, in my case it was hardly having a holiday beyond a tent in my motorcycle luggage and Youth Hostels. However the assumptions about living at home, getting money from parents, having to be part of a couple and most especially working all hours seem to me to be a distraction from @kentaddick’s fundamental. The cat came out of the bag above when it was suggested you put your place up for sale for £200,000. Find a buyer at that price, but somebody comes in at £250,000 so you let down the original buyer. It is framed as ‘good on yer mate, it is common sense to dump the original person for the more money’. My question would be if somebody was happy, and able to manage their affairs at the £200,000, then salivating at the higher offer seems like greed to me. I simply don’t get the kind of thinking or mind set of a person who would do that. Maybe it is an example of how much I am at odds with others that I don’t see what seems ‘obvious’ to many people.
I never mentioned dumping any original agreed purchase price.
What hasn't been brought up yet is that young people are increasingly forced - forced - to cohabit with a partner, because only a dual income comes anywhere close to covering not only the deposit and mortgage for a bought flat (even a one-bedroom flat) but the RENT for any reasonable accommodation that isn't a room in shared lodgings in London. Doing it solo is unthinkable.
I am in a dual-income cohabiting situation. Our combined earnings are over 80k per annum (with her as marginal breadwinner). We don't drive. We don't go to the Maldives (we do have a trip to Slovenia in the offing, is that an indulgence too far?) And we certainly don't have any children. We're both in our mid 30s and we've been renting for well over a decade apiece. She has managed more savings than me, probably because she's very sensible with her money, but we both like to enjoy things such as, y'know, food that isn't dry bread and drinks that aren't water.
What more could we do? My second job IS my job - when I need to earn more, I take on more work as I'm paid by the hour. And I'm currently operating, as usual, at close to maximum capacity. The notion that she would take on a second job is an absolute nonsense given her long, pressurised and stressful hours that she struggles to cope with quite enough thank you.
We're doing it fairly close to right, I'd say. And London has slim, slim pickings for us.
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Tell that to the people in the 80's/90's who lost everything, including their home.
Whilst it was 70's/early 80's you could generally only get a mortgage from a building society, to do so you would have had to save with them for at least 3 years before they would even consider an application. Mortgages did get easier in the mid 90's though.
If I didn't have a second job I would have struggled to survive let alone save anything.
You could have moved to a cheaper part of the country and commuted into London, or lived with your parents...
For me living with parents was not an option unfortunately, and Bethnal Green was about as cheap as it got within a 50+ mile radius!! Trust me if I could have found somewhere cheaper to live I would have. It wasn't a pleasant place to be.
Let me put things another way;
Why is it that when my Daughter was a manager at McDonalds there were numerous people there, often a married couple (both working at McDonalds) who managed to buy a small place in Woolwich/Charlton, effectively on not much more than minimum hourly wage.
Yet there are people at my work earning individually 200% plus them combined but 'can't'?
Maybe it's because the McDonalds couple didn't holiday in Dubai but if anything a week in camber sands in October for £100, didn't have a car and used busses instead of a new Audi/BMW etc on HP, didn't spend £350 a month on lunch or £200 a month on coffee (yes that still amazes me is common place). Whilst saving rented a room in a shared house in Woolwich rather than a shared flat in Notting hill and 5x the cost.
The problem seems to me to be about a notion that if you don’t work 70-90 hours a week you have no right to bemoan the fact you’re homeless.
Where has anyone said anything about bemoaning homelessness? No one.
Maybe it is only me that detects an underlying negative judgement directed at others if they don’t work 70-90 hours a week in order to have a roof over their head.
It wasn't about having a roof over your head, but purchasing/saving a deposit rather than renting.
Reading this thread makes me aware of how differently I view things to the way many other people do. There was something @kentaddick said above about shelter being a basic fundamental human right. I agree with that.
I like to boil things down to the notion that if a person does an honest day’s work, without having to take a second job, then that ought to be enough to put a decent roof over their head. I also agree with saving up, and not splashing out on fripperies, in my case it was hardly having a holiday beyond a tent in my motorcycle luggage and Youth Hostels. However the assumptions about living at home, getting money from parents, having to be part of a couple and most especially working all hours seem to me to be a distraction from @kentaddick’s fundamental. The cat came out of the bag above when it was suggested you put your place up for sale for £200,000. Find a buyer at that price, but somebody comes in at £250,000 so you let down the original buyer. It is framed as ‘good on yer mate, it is common sense to dump the original person for the more money’. My question would be if somebody was happy, and able to manage their affairs at the £200,000, then salivating at the higher offer seems like greed to me. I simply don’t get the kind of thinking or mind set of a person who would do that. Maybe it is an example of how much I am at odds with others that I don’t see what seems ‘obvious’ to many people.
I don't recall someone saying dump an initial buyer, more so someone offering above asking price. I moved in 2021, house was up for £925k (I think to illicit offers as it was cheap at that price IMHO), I bought it but ended up paying £962,500. Should the seller have let me have it for 925k? Even though all four parties were offering above that? Should they have gone with the lowest bid, rather than my highest bid?
I don't see the issue of achieving the highest possible price on something you are selling, property or something else. As always something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, many houses go for far less than the asking price, should that be allowed?
Where I think I would agree is dumping someone. We sold our house to a lovely couple, about a week before exchange a previous viewer came in with an offer of £8k more, cash, I declined on the basis I'd agreed a sale and my buyer had gone through expense of surveys, mortgage etc. Had they have offered at the same time as my buyer did, then that would have been different.
In answer to your first question, yes indeed the seller should have stayed at the original price. There is something rather fundamental wrapped up in the first come first served notion. Children understand that maybe better than adults. I am heartened that you think dumping someone is wrong, but I suspect had it been £80k rather than £8k that principle would have been tested.
As a slight aside many here think it is disgraceful that an institution like Southend United should die off for the want of a weeks wages for a top footballer. The market is poison in that instance. Yes I know that Southend ought to have managed things better, but ultimately the free market mindset leads to Manchester City playing Manchester City reserves forever. Yet Manchester City needs an opposition to play, even Southend. Anybody who has ever completed a game of Monopoly or Risk knows that it ends when one person has everything, and the rest nothing.
I suspect I do not think like you, or see the world in the same way. I see interdependence as a fundamental for a coherent society, and interdependence means sacrifice on occasion.
With respect I think you are very out of touch with property selling. It's common place now for houses to be marketed at a lower price than expected, with 'offers over' - often like when I bought it was a weekend of viewings then sealed bids by close of play on the Monday.
FWIW I wouldn't have switched for £80k either, generally there's a reason someone waits until the final hour and I'd have had no doubt that particular buyer would have tried to reduce their offer as it approached exchange. Just ask Damo and his Patel buyer experience..........
Yeah. Out of touch. I get that feeling quite often judging by how I feel and think about what people say and do. I understand (I think) what Stevie Smith meant in her poem when she wrote:
I was much too far out all my life And not waving but drowning
Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.
Instead of being sarcastic Col, tell me the bits I said you disagree with and I’ll happily debate with you
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst loans for mortgages were smaller in size, offsetting that was interest on them was far higher than anything that’s been seen in the 20 years since.
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Tell that to the people in the 80's/90's who lost everything, including their home.
Whilst it was 70's/early 80's you could generally only get a mortgage from a building society, to do so you would have had to save with them for at least 3 years before they would even consider an application. Mortgages did get easier in the mid 90's though.
If I didn't have a second job I would have struggled to survive let alone save anything.
You could have moved to a cheaper part of the country and commuted into London, or lived with your parents...
For me living with parents was not an option unfortunately, and Bethnal Green was about as cheap as it got within a 50+ mile radius!! Trust me if I could have found somewhere cheaper to live I would have. It wasn't a pleasant place to be.
Let me put things another way;
Why is it that when my Daughter was a manager at McDonalds there were numerous people there, often a married couple (both working at McDonalds) who managed to buy a small place in Woolwich/Charlton, effectively on not much more than minimum hourly wage.
Yet there are people at my work earning individually 200% plus them combined but 'can't'?
Maybe it's because the McDonalds couple didn't holiday in Dubai but if anything a week in camber sands in October for £100, didn't have a car and used busses instead of a new Audi/BMW etc on HP, didn't spend £350 a month on lunch or £200 a month on coffee (yes that still amazes me is common place). Whilst saving rented a room in a shared house in Woolwich rather than a shared flat in Notting hill and 5x the cost.
The problem seems to me to be about a notion that if you don’t work 70-90 hours a week you have no right to bemoan the fact you’re homeless.
Where has anyone said anything about bemoaning homelessness? No one.
Maybe it is only me that detects an underlying negative judgement directed at others if they don’t work 70-90 hours a week in order to have a roof over their head.
It wasn't about having a roof over your head, but purchasing/saving a deposit rather than renting.
Reading this thread makes me aware of how differently I view things to the way many other people do. There was something @kentaddick said above about shelter being a basic fundamental human right. I agree with that.
I like to boil things down to the notion that if a person does an honest day’s work, without having to take a second job, then that ought to be enough to put a decent roof over their head. I also agree with saving up, and not splashing out on fripperies, in my case it was hardly having a holiday beyond a tent in my motorcycle luggage and Youth Hostels. However the assumptions about living at home, getting money from parents, having to be part of a couple and most especially working all hours seem to me to be a distraction from @kentaddick’s fundamental. The cat came out of the bag above when it was suggested you put your place up for sale for £200,000. Find a buyer at that price, but somebody comes in at £250,000 so you let down the original buyer. It is framed as ‘good on yer mate, it is common sense to dump the original person for the more money’. My question would be if somebody was happy, and able to manage their affairs at the £200,000, then salivating at the higher offer seems like greed to me. I simply don’t get the kind of thinking or mind set of a person who would do that. Maybe it is an example of how much I am at odds with others that I don’t see what seems ‘obvious’ to many people.
I don't recall someone saying dump an initial buyer, more so someone offering above asking price. I moved in 2021, house was up for £925k (I think to illicit offers as it was cheap at that price IMHO), I bought it but ended up paying £962,500. Should the seller have let me have it for 925k? Even though all four parties were offering above that? Should they have gone with the lowest bid, rather than my highest bid?
I don't see the issue of achieving the highest possible price on something you are selling, property or something else. As always something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, many houses go for far less than the asking price, should that be allowed?
Where I think I would agree is dumping someone. We sold our house to a lovely couple, about a week before exchange a previous viewer came in with an offer of £8k more, cash, I declined on the basis I'd agreed a sale and my buyer had gone through expense of surveys, mortgage etc. Had they have offered at the same time as my buyer did, then that would have been different.
In answer to your first question, yes indeed the seller should have stayed at the original price. There is something rather fundamental wrapped up in the first come first served notion. Children understand that maybe better than adults. I am heartened that you think dumping someone is wrong, but I suspect had it been £80k rather than £8k that principle would have been tested.
As a slight aside many here think it is disgraceful that an institution like Southend United should die off for the want of a weeks wages for a top footballer. The market is poison in that instance. Yes I know that Southend ought to have managed things better, but ultimately the free market mindset leads to Manchester City playing Manchester City reserves forever. Yet Manchester City needs an opposition to play, even Southend. Anybody who has ever completed a game of Monopoly or Risk knows that it ends when one person has everything, and the rest nothing.
I suspect I do not think like you, or see the world in the same way. I see interdependence as a fundamental for a coherent society, and interdependence means sacrifice on occasion.
With respect I think you are very out of touch with property selling. It's common place now for houses to be marketed at a lower price than expected, with 'offers over' - often like when I bought it was a weekend of viewings then sealed bids by close of play on the Monday.
FWIW I wouldn't have switched for £80k either, generally there's a reason someone waits until the final hour and I'd have had no doubt that particular buyer would have tried to reduce their offer as it approached exchange. Just ask Damo and his Patel buyer experience..........
Why does it always come back to anecdotal evidence? Is there any factual evidence to support the idea that young people can't afford houses because of the reasons you state?
It's not anecdotal, over the past 10+ years at work I can show you numerous people who bemoan that they can't afford to buy, yet many at work on the same salaries have done so, relatively easily, for them (which I appreciate is a small number) it is solely personal choices.
There's a reason someone on £70k salary can't afford to buy.
I have two graduates working for me currently. Their daily routine is at least 5 coffees a day from Starbucks, that's £4 a go or £100 a week. Lunch they'll spend anywhere between £10-20 so somewhere between £50 and £100 a week, they will often eat out in the evening at £40-£50 a go maybe 3-4 times a week so another £120-£200 a week.
So on coffee, lunch and eating out that's broadly somewhere in the £300+ a week or £1200 a month+ add their Notting Hill rent to that and you are in the 30-35k per annum, net so maybe £45k gross. If that's how they wish to live that is 100% their prerogative, but don't then moan (as they do) that they'll never be able to buy........
On the flip side I have had others on the same sort of salary who within 4 years after uni have bought their own place.
I appreciate these have been your personal experiences with people, they are anecdotal examples, and may not represent the broader picture or experiences of the majority. For factual evidence, we'd need to look at larger datasets, statistics and research studies. To my knowledge, these don't support the argument you're making here.
I did say a small proportion, and won't necessarily be common place throughout younger people/the country. But they are 100% truthful examples. I totally gave up when my suggestion of saving in a LISA was thrown out as there'd be no way they could buy somewhere in Central London for under £450k.........
These aren't stupid people by any imagination, but seem to think going to Uni and having a job in the city means you can have every luxury known to man.
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst loans for mortgages were smaller in size, offsetting that was interest on them was far higher than anything that’s been seen in the 20 years since.
The numbers don't bear out when compared to the additional cost of the house. The maths I did earlier factored in the higher interest rates of the 90's. Back then there was also the additional help of MIRAS.
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst loans for mortgages were smaller in size, offsetting that was interest on them was far higher than anything that’s been seen in the 20 years since.
The numbers don't bear out when compared to the additional cost of the house. The maths I did earlier factored in the higher interest rates of the 90's. Back then there was also the additional help of MIRAS.
Miras was only worth about £17 a month from memory, whilst every little helped it wasn't a massive benefit. Income tax was higher back then. When I started work the starting rate was 25% and over 1/4 of my then ridiculously low main job salary was taxable as the personal allowance was very low. Was £3k which in todays money is £7k allowing for inflation whereas the allowance is over £12k today.
As always things aren't as black and white on either side.
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst loans for mortgages were smaller in size, offsetting that was interest on them was far higher than anything that’s been seen in the 20 years since.
The numbers don't bear out when compared to the additional cost of the house. The maths I did earlier factored in the higher interest rates of the 90's. Back then there was also the additional help of MIRAS.
Miras was only worth about £17 a month from memory, whilst every little helped it wasn't a massive benefit. Income tax was higher back then. When I started work the starting rate was 25% and over 1/4 of my then ridiculously low main job salary was taxable as the personal allowance was very low. Was £3k which in todays money is £7k allowing for inflation whereas the allowance is over £12k today.
As always things aren't as black and white on either side.
We did the maths on all this on the HoC at length, remember! I included everything you wanted included and that was all being compared to a generous 1.5% interest rate for the 2023 part. From reading back, I believe we both came to the same conclusion in the end.
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst loans for mortgages were smaller in size, offsetting that was interest on them was far higher than anything that’s been seen in the 20 years since.
The numbers don't bear out when compared to the additional cost of the house. The maths I did earlier factored in the higher interest rates of the 90's. Back then there was also the additional help of MIRAS.
Miras was only worth about £17 a month from memory, whilst every little helped it wasn't a massive benefit. Income tax was higher back then. When I started work the starting rate was 25% and over 1/4 of my then ridiculously low main job salary was taxable as the personal allowance was very low. Was £3k which in todays money is £7k allowing for inflation whereas the allowance is over £12k today.
As always things aren't as black and white on either side.
We did the maths on all this on the HoC at length, remember! I included everything you wanted included and that was all being compared to a generous 1.5% interest rate for the 2023 part. From reading back, I believe we both came to the same conclusion in the end.
I worked in the Fire Brigade for 30 years. On my days off I worked a second job for 30 years. I could of course chose to play golf or go fishing or something but I didn’t. I chose to work. Glad I did as I'm now mortgage free and dept free. We all have choices to make and sometimes if you want something bad enough sacrifices have to be made. My sacrifice was doing 2 jobs for 30 years. And I'm glad I did.
Most firemen work second jobs don't they? Because they work two weeks on and two weeks off. My brother-in-law has his own contracting business outside of being a fireman.
Fireman do a basic 42 hours per week. The reason most do a second job is because it doesn't pay enough money to buy a house and raise a family. The second job is a necessity if you want those things.
That seems wrong to me. It's not a good thing that they should have to go out and get a second job. A fireman should absolutely be able to buy a house and raise a family based on their salary, they have one of the most important jobs in society. And yet despite earning higher than the London average, they can't.
I worked in the Fire Brigade for 30 years. On my days off I worked a second job for 30 years. I could of course chose to play golf or go fishing or something but I didn’t. I chose to work. Glad I did as I'm now mortgage free and dept free. We all have choices to make and sometimes if you want something bad enough sacrifices have to be made. My sacrifice was doing 2 jobs for 30 years. And I'm glad I did.
Most firemen work second jobs don't they? Because they work two weeks on and two weeks off. My brother-in-law has his own contracting business outside of being a fireman.
Fireman do a basic 42 hours per week. The reason most do a second job is because it doesn't pay enough money to buy a house and raise a family. The second job is a necessity if you want those things.
That seems wrong to me. It's not a good thing that they should have to go out and get a second job. A fireman should absolutely be able to buy a house and raise a family based on their salary, they have one of the most important jobs in society. And yet despite earning higher than the London average, they can't.
I retired 9 years ago. My wage then was 3k per month. After paying Tax, NI and pension contributions I was clearing just under 2k per month. Many pension schemes within the public sector have low contributions. I was paying 11% pension contributions which is why my take-home pay was so low. I believe the pension contributions are now about 13 %. There was absolutely no way that I could have paid a mortgage and raised a family on 2k per month take-home pay. Hence I had to do a second job.
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst loans for mortgages were smaller in size, offsetting that was interest on them was far higher than anything that’s been seen in the 20 years since.
The numbers don't bear out when compared to the additional cost of the house. The maths I did earlier factored in the higher interest rates of the 90's. Back then there was also the additional help of MIRAS.
Miras was only worth about £17 a month from memory, whilst every little helped it wasn't a massive benefit. Income tax was higher back then. When I started work the starting rate was 25% and over 1/4 of my then ridiculously low main job salary was taxable as the personal allowance was very low. Was £3k which in todays money is £7k allowing for inflation whereas the allowance is over £12k today.
As always things aren't as black and white on either side.
We did the maths on all this on the HoC at length, remember! I included everything you wanted included and that was all being compared to a generous 1.5% interest rate for the 2023 part. From reading back, I believe we both came to the same conclusion in the end.
I'm not disputing that it may be harder now than 30 years ago (definitely with current interest rates), just like it was harder for my parents than me in many respects. I was urging the younger people at work two years ago who'd saved their deposit to get on the ladder then and fix at 2% for 10 years, a couple did.
But you can only play the cards you've been dealt, make use of any benefit that may be available such as LISA's to save a deposit and get on the ladder, by hook or by crook.
Maybe as I work in the city I have a blinkered view, it feels to me that cohort have it considerably easier than us 30 years ago in buying, but they choose not to, again their prerogative, but don't moan about the fact you want to live then buy in Central London and run an expensive car, holidays in Dubai, spunk £30k on food and drink and order the latest iPhone every year but can't quite manage it despite earning more than double the average London salary. For that I have very little sympathy.
Maybe the example to examine is a homeless person sleeping on cardboard on the street with a manky sleeping bag for a bit of warmth. In my lifetime there has been an enormous increase in people in that situation. I reckon it might be speaking to the majority by looking at the situation of those in the middle struggling, but surely the solution to homelessness can be found by starting with street sleepers and working the way onwards from there?
Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.
Instead of being sarcastic Col, tell me the bits I said you disagree with and I’ll happily debate with you
Most of the things you've stated as fact with regards to young people now are what you perceive. Just because you've seen some people who like expensive cars or get tattoos you are applying that to all young people when you have no idea of their personal circumstances. Even the sort of people you've described you have no idea if they own property or not.
We should only be dealing in facts and those are that the affordability of houses for an average person is way beyond their means now. In the last 20 years we've gone from around 4x salary to around 8x now and that's just as an average for England, undoubtedly it's worse in the south east. Once you add in the cost of living now it's pretty much a pipe dream without some sort of financial help.
That's why I referred to being fortunate enough to be able to buy. Yes of course working hard and saving plays a big role but so does the time people bought, what was the market like, what were interest rates like, what were individual circumstances like. To just assume young people are pissing away all their money on things they or maybe you think they don't need is I suspect a bit disingenuous on your part.
I worked in the Fire Brigade for 30 years. On my days off I worked a second job for 30 years. I could of course chose to play golf or go fishing or something but I didn’t. I chose to work. Glad I did as I'm now mortgage free and dept free. We all have choices to make and sometimes if you want something bad enough sacrifices have to be made. My sacrifice was doing 2 jobs for 30 years. And I'm glad I did.
Most firemen work second jobs don't they? Because they work two weeks on and two weeks off. My brother-in-law has his own contracting business outside of being a fireman.
Fireman do a basic 42 hours per week. The reason most do a second job is because it doesn't pay enough money to buy a house and raise a family. The second job is a necessity if you want those things.
That seems wrong to me. It's not a good thing that they should have to go out and get a second job. A fireman should absolutely be able to buy a house and raise a family based on their salary, they have one of the most important jobs in society. And yet despite earning higher than the London average, they can't.
I retired 9 years ago. My wage then was 3k per month. After paying Tax, NI and pension contributions I was clearing just under 2k per month. Many pension schemes within the public sector have low contributions. I was paying 11% pension contributions which is why my take-home pay was so low. I believe the pension contributions are now about 13 %. There was absolutely no way that I could have paid a mortgage and raised a family on 2k per month take-home pay. Hence I had to do a second job.
No I'm not arguing the numbers. I'm saying it's wrong that a fireman should have to work two jobs to buy a home and support a family.
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst loans for mortgages were smaller in size, offsetting that was interest on them was far higher than anything that’s been seen in the 20 years since.
The numbers don't bear out when compared to the additional cost of the house. The maths I did earlier factored in the higher interest rates of the 90's. Back then there was also the additional help of MIRAS.
Miras was only worth about £17 a month from memory, whilst every little helped it wasn't a massive benefit. Income tax was higher back then. When I started work the starting rate was 25% and over 1/4 of my then ridiculously low main job salary was taxable as the personal allowance was very low. Was £3k which in todays money is £7k allowing for inflation whereas the allowance is over £12k today.
As always things aren't as black and white on either side.
We did the maths on all this on the HoC at length, remember! I included everything you wanted included and that was all being compared to a generous 1.5% interest rate for the 2023 part. From reading back, I believe we both came to the same conclusion in the end.
I'm not disputing that it may be harder now than 30 years ago (definitely with current interest rates), just like it was harder for my parents than me in many respects. I was urging the younger people at work two years ago who'd saved their deposit to get on the ladder then and fix at 2% for 10 years, a couple did.
But you can only play the cards you've been dealt, make use of any benefit that may be available such as LISA's to save a deposit and get on the ladder, by hook or by crook.
Maybe as I work in the city I have a blinkered view, it feels to me that cohort have it considerably easier than us 30 years ago in buying, but they choose not to, again their prerogative, but don't moan about the fact you want to live then buy in Central London and run an expensive car, holidays in Dubai, spunk £30k on food and drink and order the latest iPhone every year but can't quite manage it despite earning more than double the average London salary. For that I have very little sympathy.
People like that would have existed in the 70's, 80's and 90's as well, no? Except perhaps back then, if they were working high-paid city jobs, they might even have been able to do all that AND buy a house.
People have been spending money in stupid ways since the time of Nero and before. It's not generational. It's just a spectrum of personalities.
I worked in the Fire Brigade for 30 years. On my days off I worked a second job for 30 years. I could of course chose to play golf or go fishing or something but I didn’t. I chose to work. Glad I did as I'm now mortgage free and dept free. We all have choices to make and sometimes if you want something bad enough sacrifices have to be made. My sacrifice was doing 2 jobs for 30 years. And I'm glad I did.
Most firemen work second jobs don't they? Because they work two weeks on and two weeks off. My brother-in-law has his own contracting business outside of being a fireman.
Fireman do a basic 42 hours per week. The reason most do a second job is because it doesn't pay enough money to buy a house and raise a family. The second job is a necessity if you want those things.
That seems wrong to me. It's not a good thing that they should have to go out and get a second job. A fireman should absolutely be able to buy a house and raise a family based on their salary, they have one of the most important jobs in society. And yet despite earning higher than the London average, they can't.
I retired 9 years ago. My wage then was 3k per month. After paying Tax, NI and pension contributions I was clearing just under 2k per month. Many pension schemes within the public sector have low contributions. I was paying 11% pension contributions which is why my take-home pay was so low. I believe the pension contributions are now about 13 %. There was absolutely no way that I could have paid a mortgage and raised a family on 2k per month take-home pay. Hence I had to do a second job.
No I'm not arguing the numbers. I'm saying it's wrong that a fireman should have to work two jobs to buy a home and support a family.
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Whilst loans for mortgages were smaller in size, offsetting that was interest on them was far higher than anything that’s been seen in the 20 years since.
The numbers don't bear out when compared to the additional cost of the house. The maths I did earlier factored in the higher interest rates of the 90's. Back then there was also the additional help of MIRAS.
Miras was only worth about £17 a month from memory, whilst every little helped it wasn't a massive benefit. Income tax was higher back then. When I started work the starting rate was 25% and over 1/4 of my then ridiculously low main job salary was taxable as the personal allowance was very low. Was £3k which in todays money is £7k allowing for inflation whereas the allowance is over £12k today.
As always things aren't as black and white on either side.
We did the maths on all this on the HoC at length, remember! I included everything you wanted included and that was all being compared to a generous 1.5% interest rate for the 2023 part. From reading back, I believe we both came to the same conclusion in the end.
I'm not disputing that it may be harder now than 30 years ago (definitely with current interest rates), just like it was harder for my parents than me in many respects. I was urging the younger people at work two years ago who'd saved their deposit to get on the ladder then and fix at 2% for 10 years, a couple did.
But you can only play the cards you've been dealt, make use of any benefit that may be available such as LISA's to save a deposit and get on the ladder, by hook or by crook.
Maybe as I work in the city I have a blinkered view, it feels to me that cohort have it considerably easier than us 30 years ago in buying, but they choose not to, again their prerogative, but don't moan about the fact you want to live then buy in Central London and run an expensive car, holidays in Dubai, spunk £30k on food and drink and order the latest iPhone every year but can't quite manage it despite earning more than double the average London salary. For that I have very little sympathy.
People like that would have existed in the 70's, 80's and 90's as well, no? Except perhaps back then, if they were working high-paid city jobs, they might even have been able to do all that AND buy a house.
People have been spending money in stupid ways since the time of Nero and before. It's not generational. It's just a spectrum of personalities.
Possibly, but in my experience I've only seen that in the last 15 years or so, and it worsens year after year. Supposed Reality TV has a lot to answer for.
Maybe the example to examine is a homeless person sleeping on cardboard on the street with a manky sleeping bag for a bit of warmth. In my lifetime there has been an enormous increase in people in that situation. I reckon it might be speaking to the majority by looking at the situation of those in the middle struggling, but surely the solution to homelessness can be found by starting with street sleepers and working the way onwards from there?
Street homeless is a whole other subject, and as I'm sure you are aware often has a set of unique/complex reasons wider than simply money.
I have done work with some homeless charities and the YMCA and seen how hard it is to get people off the streets even with funding, but we should in this day and age be doing much much better.
Was it was hard to buy a house in the 80's and 90's. Houses were only 4x earnings, the mortgage market was less regulated, mortgages were easier to get and sometimes even with 5% deposits. The deposit amounts themselves were much less. Rent was cheaper, entertainment was cheaper, transport was cheaper, groceries were cheaper, energy was cheaper. There was more money left at the end of the month to save towards a deposit that also cost far less. And when you did get a house, you paid it off much quicker.
It will never be that easy again.
Tell that to the people in the 80's/90's who lost everything, including their home.
Whilst it was 70's/early 80's you could generally only get a mortgage from a building society, to do so you would have had to save with them for at least 3 years before they would even consider an application. Mortgages did get easier in the mid 90's though.
If I didn't have a second job I would have struggled to survive let alone save anything.
You could have moved to a cheaper part of the country and commuted into London, or lived with your parents...
For me living with parents was not an option unfortunately, and Bethnal Green was about as cheap as it got within a 50+ mile radius!! Trust me if I could have found somewhere cheaper to live I would have. It wasn't a pleasant place to be.
Let me put things another way;
Why is it that when my Daughter was a manager at McDonalds there were numerous people there, often a married couple (both working at McDonalds) who managed to buy a small place in Woolwich/Charlton, effectively on not much more than minimum hourly wage.
Yet there are people at my work earning individually 200% plus them combined but 'can't'?
Maybe it's because the McDonalds couple didn't holiday in Dubai but if anything a week in camber sands in October for £100, didn't have a car and used busses instead of a new Audi/BMW etc on HP, didn't spend £350 a month on lunch or £200 a month on coffee (yes that still amazes me is common place). Whilst saving rented a room in a shared house in Woolwich rather than a shared flat in Notting hill and 5x the cost.
The problem seems to me to be about a notion that if you don’t work 70-90 hours a week you have no right to bemoan the fact you’re homeless.
Where has anyone said anything about bemoaning homelessness? No one.
Maybe it is only me that detects an underlying negative judgement directed at others if they don’t work 70-90 hours a week in order to have a roof over their head.
It wasn't about having a roof over your head, but purchasing/saving a deposit rather than renting.
Reading this thread makes me aware of how differently I view things to the way many other people do. There was something @kentaddick said above about shelter being a basic fundamental human right. I agree with that.
I like to boil things down to the notion that if a person does an honest day’s work, without having to take a second job, then that ought to be enough to put a decent roof over their head. I also agree with saving up, and not splashing out on fripperies, in my case it was hardly having a holiday beyond a tent in my motorcycle luggage and Youth Hostels. However the assumptions about living at home, getting money from parents, having to be part of a couple and most especially working all hours seem to me to be a distraction from @kentaddick’s fundamental. The cat came out of the bag above when it was suggested you put your place up for sale for £200,000. Find a buyer at that price, but somebody comes in at £250,000 so you let down the original buyer. It is framed as ‘good on yer mate, it is common sense to dump the original person for the more money’. My question would be if somebody was happy, and able to manage their affairs at the £200,000, then salivating at the higher offer seems like greed to me. I simply don’t get the kind of thinking or mind set of a person who would do that. Maybe it is an example of how much I am at odds with others that I don’t see what seems ‘obvious’ to many people.
I don't recall someone saying dump an initial buyer, more so someone offering above asking price. I moved in 2021, house was up for £925k (I think to illicit offers as it was cheap at that price IMHO), I bought it but ended up paying £962,500. Should the seller have let me have it for 925k? Even though all four parties were offering above that? Should they have gone with the lowest bid, rather than my highest bid?
I don't see the issue of achieving the highest possible price on something you are selling, property or something else. As always something is only worth what someone is prepared to pay, many houses go for far less than the asking price, should that be allowed?
Where I think I would agree is dumping someone. We sold our house to a lovely couple, about a week before exchange a previous viewer came in with an offer of £8k more, cash, I declined on the basis I'd agreed a sale and my buyer had gone through expense of surveys, mortgage etc. Had they have offered at the same time as my buyer did, then that would have been different.
In answer to your first question, yes indeed the seller should have stayed at the original price. There is something rather fundamental wrapped up in the first come first served notion. Children understand that maybe better than adults. I am heartened that you think dumping someone is wrong, but I suspect had it been £80k rather than £8k that principle would have been tested.
As a slight aside many here think it is disgraceful that an institution like Southend United should die off for the want of a weeks wages for a top footballer. The market is poison in that instance. Yes I know that Southend ought to have managed things better, but ultimately the free market mindset leads to Manchester City playing Manchester City reserves forever. Yet Manchester City needs an opposition to play, even Southend. Anybody who has ever completed a game of Monopoly or Risk knows that it ends when one person has everything, and the rest nothing.
I suspect I do not think like you, or see the world in the same way. I see interdependence as a fundamental for a coherent society, and interdependence means sacrifice on occasion.
With respect I think you are very out of touch with property selling. It's common place now for houses to be marketed at a lower price than expected, with 'offers over' - often like when I bought it was a weekend of viewings then sealed bids by close of play on the Monday.
FWIW I wouldn't have switched for £80k either, generally there's a reason someone waits until the final hour and I'd have had no doubt that particular buyer would have tried to reduce their offer as it approached exchange. Just ask Damo and his Patel buyer experience..........
Why does it always come back to anecdotal evidence? Is there any factual evidence to support the idea that young people can't afford houses because of the reasons you state?
It's not anecdotal, over the past 10+ years at work I can show you numerous people who bemoan that they can't afford to buy, yet many at work on the same salaries have done so, relatively easily, for them (which I appreciate is a small number) it is solely personal choices.
There's a reason someone on £70k salary can't afford to buy.
I have two graduates working for me currently. Their daily routine is at least 5 coffees a day from Starbucks, that's £4 a go or £100 a week. Lunch they'll spend anywhere between £10-20 so somewhere between £50 and £100 a week, they will often eat out in the evening at £40-£50 a go maybe 3-4 times a week so another £120-£200 a week.
So on coffee, lunch and eating out that's broadly somewhere in the £300+ a week or £1200 a month+ add their Notting Hill rent to that and you are in the 30-35k per annum, net so maybe £45k gross. If that's how they wish to live that is 100% their prerogative, but don't then moan (as they do) that they'll never be able to buy........
On the flip side I have had others on the same sort of salary who within 4 years after uni have bought their own place.
I appreciate these have been your personal experiences with people, they are anecdotal examples, and may not represent the broader picture or experiences of the majority. For factual evidence, we'd need to look at larger datasets, statistics and research studies. To my knowledge, these don't support the argument you're making here.
As the thread has "Rip off landlords" in the title, wonder what research says about that (genuine question, not a challenge)? Like the £100 a week on coffee mob, I think that the worst make the headlines.
Maybe the example to examine is a homeless person sleeping on cardboard on the street with a manky sleeping bag for a bit of warmth. In my lifetime there has been an enormous increase in people in that situation. I reckon it might be speaking to the majority by looking at the situation of those in the middle struggling, but surely the solution to homelessness can be found by starting with street sleepers and working the way onwards from there?
Street homeless is a whole other subject, and as I'm sure you are aware often has a set of unique/complex reasons wider than simply money.
I have done work with some homeless charities and the YMCA and seen how hard it is to get people off the streets even with funding, but we should in this day and age be doing much much better.
I accept there are complexities with regard to street sleeping and other types of homelessness. I wonder why the numbers seem to be increasing rather than decreasing.
Anyone struggling to buy a house I think we've cracked it for you over the past couple of pages. Live with your parents until you save enough money, ignore the fact if you don't get on with them, whether they want you there or even if they are both alive or not. Don't worry about where your job is because you can commute as that is really cheap. Live in Sidcup because the highlight of your week should be going to Toby carvery. Don't go to the gym, have a car basically don't buy anything. Do all that for long enough you just might be able to afford a deposit after 10 years or so.
Instead of being sarcastic Col, tell me the bits I said you disagree with and I’ll happily debate with you
Most of the things you've stated as fact with regards to young people now are what you perceive. Just because you've seen some people who like expensive cars or get tattoos you are applying that to all young people when you have no idea of their personal circumstances. Even the sort of people you've described you have no idea if they own property or not.
We should only be dealing in facts and those are that the affordability of houses for an average person is way beyond their means now. In the last 20 years we've gone from around 4x salary to around 8x now and that's just as an average for England, undoubtedly it's worse in the south east. Once you add in the cost of living now it's pretty much a pipe dream without some sort of financial help.
That's why I referred to being fortunate enough to be able to buy. Yes of course working hard and saving plays a big role but so does the time people bought, what was the market like, what were interest rates like, what were individual circumstances like. To just assume young people are pissing away all their money on things they or maybe you think they don't need is I suspect a bit disingenuous on your part.
I didn’t state them as fact, or applying to all, you’ve chosen to interpret that. Of course they could be intended as generalisations, but it’s just based on my exposure to those in that age bracket (colleagues, family, friends kids) that I’m personally aware of their situations so can speak more confidently on. And I made clear not to criticise their choices..,” If that’s how people want to spend their disposable, then fair enough that’s their choice. I probably wish my mindset was more frivolous in terms of spending than it still remains but I think once you have that mindset, it’s hard to change.
Who knows what is right or wrong. Not saying I am.”
as for being fortunate, I stated myself my own fortune “ feel very fortunate I first got on the housing ladder early when I was 22 and I fear the situation is only going to get worse for the next generations coming through and I really don’t know what the answer is.”
Absolutely no problem whatsoever you disagreeing with my views or finding my disingenuous, just prefer you didn’t exaggerate them for sarcastic effect.
Everyone agrees that something in the system is wrong. I’m in my 40s, a mortgage, a house falling apart and teenage kids. I thought I’d at this point in life be thinking about using any excess income I can generate during this period to make my own life better. Instead it’s already about what I can do to help my kids in 10-15 years time to assist them.
For anyone playing boomer bingo in this thread they'd have multiple houses.
It's not a boomer thing, more a financial awareness/intelligence thing.
My best mate from school started work same time as me and on the same money.
He did not save, but chose to move out & rent for 35 years. He could no longer afford the rent a few years back & had to move back in with his mum when he was 55.
I saved as much as I could & bought a house with my girlfriend at age 25. We put down a 30% deposit, all saved ourselves, both still living with parents in council housing.This was unusual, most people spent all their wages & didn't save, as they still do.
We've moved once since then. I paid the mortgage off before I was 40 & retired before I was 50.
Well no it's not only a boomer thing but given the percentage of younger people who own property is pretty small then it mostly is. Comments like "get a second job", "work harder", "save more" are quite frankly insulting and so out of touch with what is happening. What a lot of people won't want to admit is that being privileged enough to be able to buy a house a lot comes down to being fortunate enough. Lives are complex and you have no idea on an individual's circumstances to say such things.
Taking your example, do you really think that the average 25 year old now could put down 30% on a house without any help? Taking it further how many people fully pay off a mortgage before 40? Sounds like you've done well for yourself and that's to be applauded but don't take your own life experiences and think they can apply to everyone especially when so much has changed over the past few decades.
Why is suggesting a second job insulting and out of touch? 'When I was young' most of my mates had second jobs, as did my now wife.
Interesting how a couple of those I specifically suggested this to as a way to get away from the greedy landlords have dissappeared.
On the 25 year old, unlikely at that age today, I suspect @covered end like me started work at 16 whereas 99% of people now start at 18 or 21/22 so you'd need to add 9 years to those, but broadly it could be possible yes. Covered end mentioned as a couple so on a £250k property now could 2 people working a job at a bank etc save 75k in 9 years (if living with parents) yes quite easily, it's about £275 a month each.
EDIT, put that amount in a LISA and you'll get 25% added to it, something Coveredend wouldn't have benefitted from.
Totally agree with you on the merits of a second job .
I took (very) early retirement and fell into the stewarding world. I work with loads of people (mostly young) who are doing it as a second job to earn a bit of extra money to either put towards a deposit or help pay their.mortgage.
Good luck to them for getting off their arses , working hard and not just complaining about how unfair everything is.
Comments
The reason most do a second job is because it doesn't pay enough money to buy a house and raise a family.
The second job is a necessity if you want those things.
I am in a dual-income cohabiting situation. Our combined earnings are over 80k per annum (with her as marginal breadwinner). We don't drive. We don't go to the Maldives (we do have a trip to Slovenia in the offing, is that an indulgence too far?) And we certainly don't have any children. We're both in our mid 30s and we've been renting for well over a decade apiece. She has managed more savings than me, probably because she's very sensible with her money, but we both like to enjoy things such as, y'know, food that isn't dry bread and drinks that aren't water.
What more could we do? My second job IS my job - when I need to earn more, I take on more work as I'm paid by the hour. And I'm currently operating, as usual, at close to maximum capacity. The notion that she would take on a second job is an absolute nonsense given her long, pressurised and stressful hours that she struggles to cope with quite enough thank you.
We're doing it fairly close to right, I'd say. And London has slim, slim pickings for us.
Out of touch.
I get that feeling quite often judging by how I feel and think about what people say and do.
I understand (I think) what Stevie Smith meant in her poem when she wrote:
I was much too far out all my life
And not waving but drowning
These aren't stupid people by any imagination, but seem to think going to Uni and having a job in the city means you can have every luxury known to man.
As always things aren't as black and white on either side.
My wage then was 3k per month.
After paying Tax, NI and pension contributions I was clearing just under 2k per month.
Many pension schemes within the public sector have low contributions.
I was paying 11% pension contributions which is why my take-home pay was so low.
I believe the pension contributions are now about 13 %.
There was absolutely no way that I could have paid a mortgage and raised a family on 2k per month take-home pay.
Hence I had to do a second job.
But you can only play the cards you've been dealt, make use of any benefit that may be available such as LISA's to save a deposit and get on the ladder, by hook or by crook.
Maybe as I work in the city I have a blinkered view, it feels to me that cohort have it considerably easier than us 30 years ago in buying, but they choose not to, again their prerogative, but don't moan about the fact you want to live then buy in Central London and run an expensive car, holidays in Dubai, spunk £30k on food and drink and order the latest iPhone every year but can't quite manage it despite earning more than double the average London salary. For that I have very little sympathy.
In my lifetime there has been an enormous increase in people in that situation.
I reckon it might be speaking to the majority by looking at the situation of those in the middle struggling, but surely the solution to homelessness can be found by starting with street sleepers and working the way onwards from there?
We should only be dealing in facts and those are that the affordability of houses for an average person is way beyond their means now. In the last 20 years we've gone from around 4x salary to around 8x now and that's just as an average for England, undoubtedly it's worse in the south east. Once you add in the cost of living now it's pretty much a pipe dream without some sort of financial help.
That's why I referred to being fortunate enough to be able to buy. Yes of course working hard and saving plays a big role but so does the time people bought, what was the market like, what were interest rates like, what were individual circumstances like. To just assume young people are pissing away all their money on things they or maybe you think they don't need is I suspect a bit disingenuous on your part.
People have been spending money in stupid ways since the time of Nero and before. It's not generational. It's just a spectrum of personalities.
I have done work with some homeless charities and the YMCA and seen how hard it is to get people off the streets even with funding, but we should in this day and age be doing much much better.
I didn’t state them as fact, or applying to all, you’ve chosen to interpret that. Of course they could be intended as generalisations, but it’s just based on my exposure to those in that age bracket (colleagues, family, friends kids) that I’m personally aware of their situations so can speak more confidently on. And I made clear not to criticise their choices..,” If that’s how people want to spend their disposable, then fair enough that’s their choice. I probably wish my mindset was more frivolous in terms of spending than it still remains but I think once you have that mindset, it’s hard to change.
as for being fortunate, I stated myself my own fortune “ feel very fortunate I first got on the housing ladder early when I was 22 and I fear the situation is only going to get worse for the next generations coming through and I really don’t know what the answer is.”
Absolutely no problem whatsoever you disagreeing with my views or finding my disingenuous, just prefer you didn’t exaggerate them for sarcastic effect.
I took (very) early retirement and fell into the stewarding world. I work with loads of people (mostly young) who are doing it as a second job to earn a bit of extra money to either put towards a deposit or help pay their.mortgage.
Good luck to them for getting off their arses , working hard and not just complaining about how unfair everything is.
Dodgy rent books and bent payslips and bobs your uncle. Not any more so i'm told.