Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

What's The Attitude Of The Baby Boomers You Work With Or For?


Recommended Posts

Exactly what my uncle (who is a knob) told me in 2005 ... roughly speaking I would have bought an overpriced one bed flat, and currently still be living in it with wife and 2 kids!!!

:lol:

The boomers are the biggest HPI pushers of the lot. People sat on trillions of pounds of equity, BTLs and second homes, want more HPI, and Collective Responsibility at all stages. How could anyone know £500K not very good value for a flat/small house?

I think I posted this before but it's good and sums it up for me. Starts on page 28 "Capital Sink Investing Betting the house"

https://www.tullettprebon.com/Documents/strategyinsights/TPSI_ArmaggaddonUSA_A4_spw_008.pdf

.....and this is only talking about the USA, where houses are cheap compared to UK. In the mean time the middle class in China just keeps growing and growing.

http://www.ey.com/GL/en/Issues/Driving-growth/Middle-class-growth-in-emerging-markets---China-and-India-tomorrow-s-middle-classes

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 10 months later...
  • Replies 177
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I can't stand it when you have some baby boomer secondary school teacher living in a plush inner London pad (worth well over a mil) earning £40k a year, making out that the only reason they have what they have is because they worked hard for it.

To be fair, nobody thinks they don't work hard. Well, except me, I admit to it.

But it's a natural human instinct to believe that you're the architect of your own successes and that everybody / anybody else is the architect of your failures. By the time you reach boomer age though, it would be nice to think you'd spent a little bit of time reflecting on the reality of the situation rather than continually patting yourself on the back whilst bitching that kids today don't know they're born.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"Renting is dead money, get somewhere, ANYWHERE, as soon as you can"

"How can I save up enough when my rent is £1k a month?"

"Move out of London"

"But flats in Slough are now 900+ a month and she'd have to buy a rail season ticket"

"oh" they reply.

Then I show them that a 2 bed terrace is at least 300k in an average area which you wouldn't want to spend more than 5 years in and they go "oh" again, then proceeding to get on the train back to their 600k 3 bed house bought with single earner tradesman wages back in the 90's.

Edited by Barnsey
Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, nobody thinks they don't work hard. Well, except me, I admit to it.

But it's a natural human instinct to believe that you're the architect of your own successes and that everybody / anybody else is the architect of your failures. By the time you reach boomer age though, it would be nice to think you'd spent a little bit of time reflecting on the reality of the situation rather than continually patting yourself on the back whilst bitching that kids today don't know they're born.

One would think so. with learning resources so easy to find. I guess everyone is watching Justin Bebop!

Link to post
Share on other sites

To be fair, nobody thinks they don't work hard. Well, except me, I admit to it.

But it's a natural human instinct to believe that you're the architect of your own successes and that everybody / anybody else is the architect of your failures. By the time you reach boomer age though, it would be nice to think you'd spent a little bit of time reflecting on the reality of the situation rather than continually patting yourself on the back whilst bitching that kids today don't know they're born.

I don't think I work hard for the life I have. Yes, I bring a special skill set and happened to have built a good network which means I've been able to take up great opportunities over the past few years, but I don't work HARD compared to some of the poor feckers on minimum wage or police saturday night patrols.

I just think I'm a bit cleverer in organising my life so I have choices.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

In the early 70s, you could buy a house for 3 times the average wage. Now it is 12 times (more in some areas) meaning that it is just as painful saving up for a 25% deposit as it would have been for boomers back then to save up to buy their whole house without a mortgage. I doubt any of them would have even thought about doing that, but still they won't accept that it is more difficult now.

I realise the is over-simplified with respect to interest rates etc, but it is a pretty frightening fact.

Exactly (one of) the points I can't get my head around. So I might as well wade in... The other halfs Boomer parents are a classic source of tales of hardship and trips to the well to collect water. So the story goes, way back in in 1967 (wavey dream sequence) it cost TWO times one earners salary to buy their first house at around 21 years old. The emphasis is on TWO whole times one salary to illustrate to me the mountainous obstacle they had to overcome. If I'm currently able to save/generate (while paying rent) about 40- 50% of my gross salary every year on my own, surely they (a couple) could have just bought the bloody house cash in 4 years tops of saving, with decent savings rates, while living at their parents rent free? Then I'm told "Ah yes but mortgage interest rates were extremely high". No they weren't, they were 7%, my first mortgage was at 8% and 3 x one salary and 1 x the other, and it was stupidly easy to buy.

Anyway, in 1967, it was TWO times a whole salary to buy a 3 bedroomed house in the South East. Then they had to buy second hand furniture. A bit like people in the 2000's do on Ebay etc. Then the Mum, having worked for a whole 3 years, gave up work to raise the kids. They both inherited houses from their parents in their 40's, and yet the amazing thing is they didn't retire until 70 because "They couldn't afford it". Which doesn't surprise me, because I've never witnessed so much pointless consumerism in my life. TV;s, replacement windows, cars, holidays, it's like "The Generation Game" conveyor belt. His job/business was as a Financial Advisor which is shocking. More so , whenever I say I'm good to give up work in my 50's, by the power of saving/investing, I'm told "Phfttt.. you'll be lucky!" Current moan is how they don't qualify for the higher rate state pension and it isn't fair. Christ.

Edited by Starla
Link to post
Share on other sites

My parents are in their early 70s, and will likely live for another 20 years given the ages of their respective parents. This is wonderful, but any inheritance would come when I am aged at 60. Great for retirement, but no help towards the family home and nice garden for my kids to play in fund. Then you talk to a mate who's aunt dies and he gets a quarter share of some mansion. WTF? Who are these people.

Saw a nice place on the market today, would be ideal. It's £500k. It makes me want to cry! At best my max budget is £400k. You'd think you could get some where pretty special for that?

I've been working for over 15 years, opened my first ISA in 2008. For all the time I have been able to save decent money, interest rates have been shit.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The baby boomers I speak to, most are quite sensible and say property is for the long term and provides safety etc which I agree with, but then I know a few who do BTL have made/making so much money and advising me to do the same even in this market/era! doh! One guy dropped out of uni with me 10 years ago but instead bought 7/8 properties (one every 6 months) while working in a call centre in Birmingham and now has a portfolio of £1m+ which he has started liquidating and sitting on almost 600k with 3 properties left.

But most of all what I find frustrating is people who bought years ago and don't understand the current market, e.g. current house prices (as they are not looking), difficulty in having an offer accepted on a good/commutable flat etc. I have been looking for 1 year+ and people who bought 20 years ago make comments like "why don't you buy in Shoreditch or islington" or "you must be fussy", not realising these areas have already boomed and were up and coming 10+ years ago. Plus I have made offers at asking/above on 10+ flats so im not being fussy. And the shortage of supply in key areas.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The barriers to entry are rising (rising prices, rising lending restrictions, rising taxes). These rises are like a kick in the bum after being kicked in the balls.

Boomers are shits - this says it all.

http://www.cih.org/news-article/display/vpathDCR/templatedata/cih/news-article/data/Young_people_and_people_on_lower_incomes_paying_the_price_for_our_broken_housing_market

Link to post
Share on other sites

One guy dropped out of uni with me 10 years ago but instead bought 7/8 properties (one every 6 months) while working in a call centre in Birmingham...and sitting on almost 600k

After which, the taxpayer bailed out the banks.

It would have been easier, and better for the economy, if the taxpayer just handed him 600k for free.

This way it wouldn't have been debt, or been part of banks failing, plus it would not have been part of the property bubble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with a huge mix of people of various ages/ethnicity.

I have somewhat befriended a few of these baby boomers. Somewhat. I'm from a different culture/background (immigrant) and in my culture, people say what they think without wondering whether someone will be offended, hurt etc. I guess that's how we got to be on somewhat friendly terms - they're not the most politically correct bunch either. We meet outside the company every now and then for a smoke and we had this "housing" conversation once.

This is what they have told me.

"You have no houses because you spend your money on stupid sh*t".

They've pointed to one of my colleagues (she's in her early 20s and bought a new car (it's worth about 12k, as far as I could tell). "That's why she doesn't have a deposit". I've pointed out the fact that she needed a car because she lives ~40 miles away from work. They've pointed out that she could just get on the train, as they used to do. Unfortunately, there's no railway connection between her town and this place, so she'd have to switch trains. She also lives 20 minutes away from the station in her town - she'd likely be looking at 2 hours on the road (one way), whereas the car gets her here in ~one hour. I don't think they know the price of a seasonal ticket either, because they seem to think that her car payments cost her more than the train ticket (not true).

They've pointed out that we "all" have "expensive phones", whereas they didn't. This is somewhat true. Most of us DO have a smartphone. In some cases it's an iphone, in other cases some Android terminal. I've mentioned that I bought mine for 350 and that I've had it for 2 years, meaning it costs about 14.5 / month - roughly 3 beers in a pub. To that, they replied that they barely ever went to the pubs. I found that difficult to believe. What, they didn't get 3 beers/month? I don't know, it might be true. I've pointed out that 14.5/month for a deposit won't make a real difference. "Well, no, but when you add it ALL up...". I didn't know what ALL was. To that...

...they pointed out that we go on "expensive" holidays abroad. That's true. I couldn't really argue with that. I do go over to Spain/Greece/Italy etc in the summer. Everyone needs a bit of sun every now and then. They say that they didn't do that. Personally, I don't see much of a difference. Obviously it DOES make a difference (a few thousands every year), but in the grand scheme of things, it actually doesn't. Say you didn't go on a holiday every year. OK. So now you've got 2-4k extra every year. That's good if you live somewhere far away from here where that might even mean 5% of a house. But around here (Greater London), 4k is less than 1% of a family home. Good to have, but not a major thing. I have conceded that canceling the yearly holiday would help people get a deposit, but at the same time, I did mention that I don't believe that EVERYONE goes for a 4k holiday every year.

Their smug faces told me they weren't really going to be reasonable about the whole thing, so I kind of knew I was wasting my time. They had finally found out, they had caught me red-handed: I was going on holidays.

They've pointed out that we also have it better. "We sit in front a computer all day long". At our age, they were getting on the bike to get to the train to get to work and they were working on something while standing, not sitting down. I admit that's harder, but I'd also like to point out that several important technological advances have been made since. For example, one of them is married to a woman that used to deliver letters. Email has been invented since. We can't do that kind of job - well, it's still being done by some, but not many and I wouldn't count it as a stable job. While their jobs were (physically) more challenging, they were stable and relatively well paid, whereas ours are anything but stable. A "meh" attitude greeted that attitude.

I'll spare you the rest of the details. It's enough to say that, in the end, when I got "the upper hand" in that conversation based on objective arguments, it ended up with them saying that we'd have it better if we were more calculated and we stopped importing "******ing immigrants" (such as myself) and gay people (not the actual terms they used, I'm sure you understand why I don't mention their words; pointing to one of my gay colleagues; he's actually British).

The impression I got was that they have solved their problems, mostly due to luck of the draw - by that I mean that they were born in a different time, with a different "ecosystem". Because of that and because of the natural inter-generational "conflict" (where they don't really see much use for a smartphone; and why would they, it's not like they're too active on linked-in looking to network with recruiters..), they CAN'T really understand our problems. Nor are they REALLY willing to try. I'd say that the conversation was largely pointless, a waste of time, but at least I know how they see things now.

As far as they're concerned, we're not doing enough, we're not saving enough, we don't struggle enough and, amusing enough, we're just not...men (part of the conversation revolved around what "a real man" should and should not do). The little savings we do have are little because we spend our money on stupid sh*t (phones, cars and holidays come up all the time). I've explained that you can't really get a job without a mobile phone anymore. "But we could". I've explained that we need cars because we're being pushed away by house prices we can't afford. "So start saving and buy one". I've explained that it's hard for some people to save when 2/3 of their salary is blown away on rent, bills and student loan. It was almost shocking to hear one of them claiming that students shouldn't borrow money to go out drinking. He actually thought a student loan is, well, a student borrowing money from the bank to go out drinking (he didn't go to uni, but back in his day, university was almost free).

As far as they're concerned, we're not doing a good enough job. We're not real men (not even the women, I guess). That's pretty much it. Because I'm a foreigner, I wasn't offended by any of that. I appreciate honesty and, well, if that's their opinion...I do have to wonder, though, what would some of my younger British colleagues think. I didn't ask anyone, but I suspect they'd be less....understanding.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with a huge mix of people of various ages/ethnicity.

I have somewhat befriended a few of these baby boomers. Somewhat. I'm from a different culture/background (immigrant) and in my culture, people say what they think without wondering whether someone will be offended, hurt etc. I guess that's how we got to be on somewhat friendly terms - they're not the most politically correct bunch either. We meet outside the company every now and then for a smoke and we had this "housing" conversation once.

This is what they have told me.

"You have no houses because you spend your money on stupid sh*t".

They've pointed to one of my colleagues (she's in her early 20s and bought a new car (it's worth about 12k, as far as I could tell). "That's why she doesn't have a deposit". I've pointed out the fact that she needed a car because she lives ~40 miles away from work. They've pointed out that she could just get on the train, as they used to do. Unfortunately, there's no railway connection between her town and this place, so she'd have to switch trains. She also lives 20 minutes away from the station in her town - she'd likely be looking at 2 hours on the road (one way), whereas the car gets her here in ~one hour. I don't think they know the price of a seasonal ticket either, because they seem to think that her car payments cost her more than the train ticket (not true).

They've pointed out that we "all" have "expensive phones", whereas they didn't. This is somewhat true. Most of us DO have a smartphone. In some cases it's an iphone, in other cases some Android terminal. I've mentioned that I bought mine for 350 and that I've had it for 2 years, meaning it costs about 14.5 / month - roughly 3 beers in a pub. To that, they replied that they barely ever went to the pubs. I found that difficult to believe. What, they didn't get 3 beers/month? I don't know, it might be true. I've pointed out that 14.5/month for a deposit won't make a real difference. "Well, no, but when you add it ALL up...". I didn't know what ALL was. To that...

...they pointed out that we go on "expensive" holidays abroad. That's true. I couldn't really argue with that. I do go over to Spain/Greece/Italy etc in the summer. Everyone needs a bit of sun every now and then. They say that they didn't do that. Personally, I don't see much of a difference. Obviously it DOES make a difference (a few thousands every year), but in the grand scheme of things, it actually doesn't. Say you didn't go on a holiday every year. OK. So now you've got 2-4k extra every year. That's good if you live somewhere far away from here where that might even mean 5% of a house. But around here (Greater London), 4k is less than 1% of a family home. Good to have, but not a major thing. I have conceded that canceling the yearly holiday would help people get a deposit, but at the same time, I did mention that I don't believe that EVERYONE goes for a 4k holiday every year.

Their smug faces told me they weren't really going to be reasonable about the whole thing, so I kind of knew I was wasting my time. They had finally found out, they had caught me red-handed: I was going on holidays.

They've pointed out that we also have it better. "We sit in front a computer all day long". At our age, they were getting on the bike to get to the train to get to work and they were working on something while standing, not sitting down. I admit that's harder, but I'd also like to point out that several important technological advances have been made since. For example, one of them is married to a woman that used to deliver letters. Email has been invented since. We can't do that kind of job - well, it's still being done by some, but not many and I wouldn't count it as a stable job. While their jobs were (physically) more challenging, they were stable and relatively well paid, whereas ours are anything but stable. A "meh" attitude greeted that attitude.

I'll spare you the rest of the details. It's enough to say that, in the end, when I got "the upper hand" in that conversation based on objective arguments, it ended up with them saying that we'd have it better if we were more calculated and we stopped importing "******ing immigrants" (such as myself) and gay people (not the actual terms they used, I'm sure you understand why I don't mention their words; pointing to one of my gay colleagues; he's actually British).

The impression I got was that they have solved their problems, mostly due to luck of the draw - by that I mean that they were born in a different time, with a different "ecosystem". Because of that and because of the natural inter-generational "conflict" (where they don't really see much use for a smartphone; and why would they, it's not like they're too active on linked-in looking to network with recruiters..), they CAN'T really understand our problems. Nor are they REALLY willing to try. I'd say that the conversation was largely pointless, a waste of time, but at least I know how they see things now.

As far as they're concerned, we're not doing enough, we're not saving enough, we don't struggle enough and, amusing enough, we're just not...men (part of the conversation revolved around what "a real man" should and should not do). The little savings we do have are little because we spend our money on stupid sh*t (phones, cars and holidays come up all the time). I've explained that you can't really get a job without a mobile phone anymore. "But we could". I've explained that we need cars because we're being pushed away by house prices we can't afford. "So start saving and buy one". I've explained that it's hard for some people to save when 2/3 of their salary is blown away on rent, bills and student loan. It was almost shocking to hear one of them claiming that students shouldn't borrow money to go out drinking. He actually thought a student loan is, well, a student borrowing money from the bank to go out drinking (he didn't go to uni, but back in his day, university was almost free).

As far as they're concerned, we're not doing a good enough job. We're not real men (not even the women, I guess). That's pretty much it. Because I'm a foreigner, I wasn't offended by any of that. I appreciate honesty and, well, if that's their opinion...I do have to wonder, though, what would some of my younger British colleagues think. I didn't ask anyone, but I suspect they'd be less....understanding.

I would say this attitude is widespread in the baby boomer community.

You can't rationalise with them, they are a bunch of greedy shits who have raped this country.

Just hope they are holding a mountain of debt when this baby pops.

Link to post
Share on other sites

this:

DownandoutWT, on 09 Jun 2015 - 12:45 PM, said:snapback.png

Boomers;

They have had it SOoooo good. Back in the day you could buy a detached 4 bed on a single busman's wage, and let inflation erode the debt away.

Your office job (core hours only) was protected by a strong union. You didn't spend all day, all night, or all weekend responding to emails, heck a secretary sorted the flim flam before you had to worry yourself about it.

Money in savings accounts rocketed, as did your gold pension; you retired early and spend your days in self agreement that 'kids today don't know the meaning of hard work'.

What does the busman's wage today buy? F all. Even when you add the wife's care worker salary in (when she gets paid from the zero's hours contracts). At best you can afford a flat or a cardboard box on a sh:ty estate. Build for maximum profits by the building company who's managing director doubles up with you for a boat share.

Here's the deal. All the stuff you have had; the pension, the pay rises, the welfare. All of that you did not pay for. If you did - why is there a national debt? No you didn't pay for it, you stole your children's credit card and maxed it out before handing it back 'sorry there is no money left'. [email protected]

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would say this attitude is widespread in the baby boomer community.

You can't rationalise with them, they are a bunch of greedy shits who have raped this country.

Just hope they are holding a mountain of debt when this baby pops.

They're not holding a mountain of debt.

One of them is working in "maintenance" (i.e calls someone to fix a water pipe when it breaks; hard work, you know...). He owns 2 houses. Used to own 3, but gave one of them to his daughter. His wife has just inherited another one (far away though) from a childless aunt that recently passed away.

The man I'm talking about makes roughly one third of what I'm making, but he's doing much better when it comes to money. He has no rent to pay - he collects rent instead. Add that to his salary, he doesn't have to save to buy a house, he can spend all of it on whatever he desires. I drive a 2004 car. He drives a 2016 car. I don't know what his pension is going to look like, but I don't think he cares about it too much. He's getting ~1200 from renting one of the houses, plans to sell the house inherited by his wife, his pension is likely to be "ok" too...

They're doing OK and have no reason to worry. If interest rates go up, he'll be fine - he's got savings and paid off his mortgage years ago. If they stay as they are, house prices will keep increasing (and so will the amount of rent he gets). Whichever way things go, I think he'll be alright. Besides, I don't hate him or anything, he's OK (other than not being too politically correct, let's just say that). I have no reason to wish him nasty things.

I'm afraid that the my generation has been screwed. Their generation is OK though. No stress...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I work with a huge mix of people of various ages/ethnicity.

I have somewhat befriended a few of these baby boomers. Somewhat. I'm from a different culture/background (immigrant) and in my culture, people say what they think without wondering whether someone will be offended, hurt etc. I guess that's how we got to be on somewhat friendly terms - they're not the most politically correct bunch either. We meet outside the company every now and then for a smoke and we had this "housing" conversation once.

This is what they have told me.

"You have no houses because you spend your money on stupid sh*t".

They've pointed to one of my colleagues (she's in her early 20s and bought a new car (it's worth about 12k, as far as I could tell). "That's why she doesn't have a deposit". I've pointed out the fact that she needed a car because she lives ~40 miles away from work. They've pointed out that she could just get on the train, as they used to do. Unfortunately, there's no railway connection between her town and this place, so she'd have to switch trains. She also lives 20 minutes away from the station in her town - she'd likely be looking at 2 hours on the road (one way), whereas the car gets her here in ~one hour. I don't think they know the price of a seasonal ticket either, because they seem to think that her car payments cost her more than the train ticket (not true).

They've pointed out that we "all" have "expensive phones", whereas they didn't. This is somewhat true. Most of us DO have a smartphone. In some cases it's an iphone, in other cases some Android terminal. I've mentioned that I bought mine for 350 and that I've had it for 2 years, meaning it costs about 14.5 / month - roughly 3 beers in a pub. To that, they replied that they barely ever went to the pubs. I found that difficult to believe. What, they didn't get 3 beers/month? I don't know, it might be true. I've pointed out that 14.5/month for a deposit won't make a real difference. "Well, no, but when you add it ALL up...". I didn't know what ALL was. To that...

...they pointed out that we go on "expensive" holidays abroad. That's true. I couldn't really argue with that. I do go over to Spain/Greece/Italy etc in the summer. Everyone needs a bit of sun every now and then. They say that they didn't do that. Personally, I don't see much of a difference. Obviously it DOES make a difference (a few thousands every year), but in the grand scheme of things, it actually doesn't. Say you didn't go on a holiday every year. OK. So now you've got 2-4k extra every year. That's good if you live somewhere far away from here where that might even mean 5% of a house. But around here (Greater London), 4k is less than 1% of a family home. Good to have, but not a major thing. I have conceded that canceling the yearly holiday would help people get a deposit, but at the same time, I did mention that I don't believe that EVERYONE goes for a 4k holiday every year.

Their smug faces told me they weren't really going to be reasonable about the whole thing, so I kind of knew I was wasting my time. They had finally found out, they had caught me red-handed: I was going on holidays.

They've pointed out that we also have it better. "We sit in front a computer all day long". At our age, they were getting on the bike to get to the train to get to work and they were working on something while standing, not sitting down. I admit that's harder, but I'd also like to point out that several important technological advances have been made since. For example, one of them is married to a woman that used to deliver letters. Email has been invented since. We can't do that kind of job - well, it's still being done by some, but not many and I wouldn't count it as a stable job. While their jobs were (physically) more challenging, they were stable and relatively well paid, whereas ours are anything but stable. A "meh" attitude greeted that attitude.

I'll spare you the rest of the details. It's enough to say that, in the end, when I got "the upper hand" in that conversation based on objective arguments, it ended up with them saying that we'd have it better if we were more calculated and we stopped importing "******ing immigrants" (such as myself) and gay people (not the actual terms they used, I'm sure you understand why I don't mention their words; pointing to one of my gay colleagues; he's actually British).

The impression I got was that they have solved their problems, mostly due to luck of the draw - by that I mean that they were born in a different time, with a different "ecosystem". Because of that and because of the natural inter-generational "conflict" (where they don't really see much use for a smartphone; and why would they, it's not like they're too active on linked-in looking to network with recruiters..), they CAN'T really understand our problems. Nor are they REALLY willing to try. I'd say that the conversation was largely pointless, a waste of time, but at least I know how they see things now.

As far as they're concerned, we're not doing enough, we're not saving enough, we don't struggle enough and, amusing enough, we're just not...men (part of the conversation revolved around what "a real man" should and should not do). The little savings we do have are little because we spend our money on stupid sh*t (phones, cars and holidays come up all the time). I've explained that you can't really get a job without a mobile phone anymore. "But we could". I've explained that we need cars because we're being pushed away by house prices we can't afford. "So start saving and buy one". I've explained that it's hard for some people to save when 2/3 of their salary is blown away on rent, bills and student loan. It was almost shocking to hear one of them claiming that students shouldn't borrow money to go out drinking. He actually thought a student loan is, well, a student borrowing money from the bank to go out drinking (he didn't go to uni, but back in his day, university was almost free).

As far as they're concerned, we're not doing a good enough job. We're not real men (not even the women, I guess). That's pretty much it. Because I'm a foreigner, I wasn't offended by any of that. I appreciate honesty and, well, if that's their opinion...I do have to wonder, though, what would some of my younger British colleagues think. I didn't ask anyone, but I suspect they'd be less....understanding.

I wonder if they say these things because they think as a foreigner, you will believe that until a few years ago British people didn't buy consumer goods such as TVs or cars etc. Or they really believe such rubbish themselves? In my road you could buy a house for £64 20 years ago. Now it is £360+ k.

A 10% deposit plus stamp duty has gone from £6K to to £40K - that is a lot more than wages have risen and so for them to blame the victim is either stupid or evil.

I think they are wrong to blame legal immigrants for the problem (obviously those who lie to claim asylum or are illegals are different) because the British Government let yourselves come here. The problem is the scum who let you come here without letting us build the homes needed.

They could have a) controlled immigration more or B) let people build more homes but they chose © let lots of people come here - in some cases give them money - and control house building.

FWIW

a) I do know people who have lied to successfully asylum

B) I am sure you do not get benefits but I know people who have come from Spain and been on benefits for almost 20 years now.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If these boomers are so smart, why are they still working?

And out of interest what nationality are you? Smoking + not caring about what others think, surely French? :)

In that case he'd be on strike and constantly talking about s3x

Link to post
Share on other sites

If these boomers are so smart, why are they still working?

And out of interest what nationality are you? Smoking + not caring about what others think, surely French? :)

If they are anything like my parents, they don't need to work but do as they are greedy and want to accumulate more and more. Plus I guess some have fears about the cost of care in older age, but they are simply working away their best years and will probably regret it in the future

tlb your posts are way to long winded to read :huh:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if they say these things because they think as a foreigner, you will believe that until a few years ago British people didn't buy consumer goods such as TVs or cars etc. Or they really believe such rubbish themselves? In my road you could buy a house for £64 20 years ago. Now it is £360+ k.

A 10% deposit plus stamp duty has gone from £6K to to £40K - that is a lot more than wages have risen and so for them to blame the victim is either stupid or evil.

I think they are wrong to blame legal immigrants for the problem (obviously those who lie to claim asylum or are illegals are different) because the British Government let yourselves come here. The problem is the scum who let you come here without letting us build the homes needed.

They could have a) controlled immigration more or B) let people build more homes but they chose © let lots of people come here - in some cases give them money - and control house building.

FWIW

a) I do know people who have lied to successfully asylum

B) I am sure you do not get benefits but I know people who have come from Spain and been on benefits for almost 20 years now.

From my point of view, immigration isn't THE problem (it is ONE problem, but not THE problem; when you look at the numbers, i.e what immigrants contribute vs what they take, immigration is 100% positive). The problem is your government. Let me provide just a few examples (out of hundreds of such examples) that should explain the problem in a way that I believe EVERYONE here will easily understand, a way that's related to houses (should be the right forum for that)

Example 1

========

I was considering buying a house (or flat or whatever) until recently. Here's how the banks work.

- you show up with a 5-24% deposit. 4.x% interest.

- you show up with more than 25% for a deposit. 1% interest.

To make things simple, that simply means that you're punishing people that are less well-off for being...well, less well-off. How does that make sense?

Joe has 45k in his bank account. That means Joe has a 10% deposit around these parts. Joe has to pay 4.09% interest on his mortgage.

Jane has 150k in her bank account. That means Jane has over 25% deposit - therefore Jane pays 1.20% interest on her mortgage.

Even a blind person can see that you're helping/punishing the wrong person. Shouldn't you be helping Joe, since Joe clearly needs help more? If you HAVE TO (why?) "tax" people differently, why do the "poor" (relative term) have to pay more than the rich? In what kind of world does that make any sense?

Example 2

========

Planning permission/consent.

Jane can't afford to buy a house. Jane, however, can afford to buy some land (for now). Jane could normally buy some land and build a house on her land. It wouldn't be a "mansion", it would be a random house, so-and-so in terms in quality, but it would be her house.

Now if Jane wants to build a house, she's not allowed to, because the land she can afford to buy is what people call "Green belt". I'm not saying we should cut down trees and let developers build factories instead. I'm saying that Jane could buy a 3000 sqf parcel. But Jane isn't getting planning permission. Someone that has never helped Jane with anything decides what Jane can do with HER land, the land that she has BOUGHT. People that don't own that land decide whether Jane should or should not have a home there, on "their" (???) "green belt". If it's still THEIR green belt, why does Jane has to pay for it?

What is Jane supposed to do? Buy a 100sqf parcel, park and camp on it in the winter, just to make sure she's not disturbing people that DON'T own the land she had to PAY for?

Example 3:

=========

Right to buy, help to buy, f.u to buy.

So Joe, a "social" tenant, has lived in a council estate for some time. He's paying symbolic rent (compared to the rest of us). Suddenly, Joe is given "The right" to buy that house - at a huge discount. Why is it that Joe gets that right, but Jane - living next door, renting privately - is not? Why is the house 100k cheaper for Joe, especially when Jane happens to pay more taxes? Why does Joe have "rights", but Jane doesn't?

To make things even funnier, who's funding Joe's "rights"? That's right - Jane's taxes. Lovely, isn't it?

Example 4:

=========

"Affordable" homes are built by some developers. They're only available to people earning below 60k. Why? I earn 90k - shouldn't I have a roof above my head? Am I considered rich? Then why am I renting? Is that what rich people do? Homes are also available for "local" people. Don't live/work there? Piss off. Oh, you want to move here? Well, too bad - locals only.

Example 5:

========

This Joe makes 90k. OK. If Joe takes a secondary job/source of income (whatever, doesn't really matter), Joe is taxed through the nose. Joe is working and already paying a lot of taxes. If he wants to make more money, Joe is taxed through the nose (30-40%)

Jane, on the other hand, does not work. Jane is a BTL landlord. Jane has a bunch of mortgages she hasn't paid off yet (and isn't going to do that anytime soon, because Jane's tenants pay off her mortgages slowly, so why bother). Jane doesn't get a 30-40% tax on her rent income. In fact, Jane even got some mortgage interest relief and whatnot (including getting back some money because Jane claims she has renovated one of her properties - even though she hasn't)

Why is Joe - a contributing member of the society - taxed through the nose, but Jane (what some people might call a bloody leech) isn't? Why is Jane encouraged to exploit contributing members of the society?

====

I can tell from your message that you have met some migrants that you didn't really...like. I can understand that. So have I. A lot of them, for a lot of reasons. Most of the ones I've met that are abusing the system aren't European. They're, shall we say, from ex-Commonwealth countries. However, regardless of which migrants we like or dislike, if you go through the 5 examples provided above, you'll find that they have NO connection whatsoever to the housing problem. This "problem" has been created (and is carefully maintained) by your government. The so-called housing "shortage" doesn't actually exist. There are PLENTY of empty properties to begin with.

The reason for which your government (regardless of political color) isn't solving the problem is that it would be close to suicide. So much of your "money" is actually debt created by banks backed by mortgages that crashing the system and/or attempting to fix it would crash the economy - no buts or ifs. That's why Labour hasn't fixed it, that's why Tories aren't fixing it, that's why UKIP and BNP wouldn't fix it either if they had the power (not counting LibDems, nobody takes them seriously anyway). If they stop printing money (by creating debt), you're dead in the water. So much for the "we're the 5th blahblah in the world" legend then. They will import people from anywhere if necessary just to make sure the system can continue. If you were out of the EU tomorrow (and completely free of any obligation, like EEA related freedom of movement, for example), they'd just import people from ex-Commonwealth countries. It wouldn't make much of a difference to you, although someone with my mindset clearly prefers Europeans. I mean, I'm sure they've got their shortcomings, my nation has probably been at war with their nation, but at least most of them don't think that homosexuals should be hanged or cows are gods or that women should be stoned to death for going out without a man guarding them or whatever. That Spanish person you've mentioned is unlikely to think beheading a soldier in the street or blowing up the subway is a good idea. Most Europeans tend to have the same imaginary friend, if that makes any sense.

But anyway, migrants, political parties, NHS etc etc - that's all BS. While migrants are A problem, they're not THE problem (and they're only a problem because the government is using them to prop up an economy based on lies and debt). To me, mentioning them is like complaining that it's a bit windy during a 9 degrees (Richter) earthquake.

If they are anything like my parents, they don't need to work but do as they are greedy and want to accumulate more and more. Plus I guess some have fears about the cost of care in older age, but they are simply working away their best years and will probably regret it in the future

tlb your posts are way to long winded to read :huh:

Sorry to hear that. All I can say is "then don't".

English is my fourth language and as it makes little sense to me (it's not a Latin language), I find it difficult to express my thoughts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So much for the "we're the 5th blahblah in the world" legend then. They will import people from anywhere if necessary just to make sure the system can continue. If you were out of the EU tomorrow (and completely free of any obligation, like EEA related freedom of movement, for example), they'd just import people from ex-Commonwealth countries.

Successive governments have told us that, in a round about way, they cannot do anything about EU immigration. They don't explicitly state it, as they are normally Europhiles and want the gravy train to continue, but we know that they know we know the reason. If we were to Brexit then it would be considerably harder for politicians to simply import immigrants without it being a hot topic. If we Brexit and then in a year's time the news comes out that Jellyfish Dave (or whoever succeeds him) has still imported 400,000 migrants then they'd find it much tougher to blame someone else.

From my point of view, immigration isn't THE problem (it is ONE problem, but not THE problem; when you look at the numbers, i.e what immigrants contribute vs what they take, immigration is 100% positive).

You are correct that this is your viewpoint, but it's not based on any sort of reality. I assume by "contribute" you mean to the economy? I.e. they give more to the economy than they take. According to what survey? According to Migration Watch, the inverse is true. To the tune of several £billion a year.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.