I bought my first house at 22 – young people just don’t want to make sacrifices like I did

[winkie]

2 minutes ago, msi said:

How long before millennials clap back 'I saved into my pension to grow into something to support me when i retire...Old people didn't make the right sacrifices so why should I pay for their social care?'

Why shouldn't old people pay for their own long-term social care, some have family that can support them, others never get the chance to live long enough to need it......we save for a pension, we should take into account what we might need at the last knockings of the pension period.

Nothing in life is guaranteed, that is the whole excitement of it.....do it whilst you can, else later might regret not doing it.

[Speed1987]

17 hours ago, Insane said:

So thank you , you have confirmed what I said to much compromise will not solve the problem it will just move it from one place to another.

There is not plenty of affordable housing throughout the UK if there was we would not have so many unaffordable areas. 

I wouldn't say it's moving a problem.... but our perspectives differ. We are not currently in a place where people cannot afford to buy at all. I disagree, there is plenty of housing.

19 hours ago, Bob8 said:

If you are two teachers and choose to live in London, that is a touch insane. If you you work as an oil engineer, you might be stuck with Aberdeen though.

I can work from home or on the road and live in a cheap area, but that is because my wife also WFH. I would not generally have had that option.

You do have that option, unless you are only willing to work in a extremely niche sector... There are plenty of jobs throughout the UK, which will pay you enough, to pay down a mortgage. 

[Riedquat]

5 minutes ago, Speed1987 said:

You do have that option, unless you are only willing to work in a extremely niche sector... There are plenty of jobs throughout the UK, which will pay you enough, to pay down a mortgage. 

If that actually played out you'd have an awful lot of jobs chasing a small number of areas, and other places lacking anyone around to do the jobs that they need, there, like those teachers.

Any given area (large-ish, not single street) needs to be viable for a wide range of wealth to live and work there, and a mix of incomes in the same area is better for society anyway. "Just move somewhere cheaper" is no real answer for the country as a whole even if it's the only choice for plenty of individuals. "Piss off, pauper, to the poor area" is such a wonderful vision for the country, isn't it?

[Bob8]

32 minutes ago, Speed1987 said:

I wouldn't say it's moving a problem.... but our perspectives differ. We are not currently in a place where people cannot afford to buy at all. I disagree, there is plenty of housing.

You do have that option, unless you are only willing to work in a extremely niche sector... There are plenty of jobs throughout the UK, which will pay you enough, to pay down a mortgage. 

I mean, niche, as in specialised. And, if you want to good salary, you need a good background or a special skill.

Generic worker drone in not going to be able to afford a house in most areas of the country.

[Insane]

1 hour ago, Speed1987 said:

I wouldn't say it's moving a problem...

What would you say then ?

As more and more people move north houses will automatically appear as there is an abundance of housing in the UK ?

The problem is the priced out masses won't compromise and won't constantly chase around the UK following the places where property is cheapest ? Therefore it is their own fault ? 

[Speed1987]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

What would you say then ?

As more and more people move north houses will automatically appear as there is an abundance of housing in the UK ?

The problem is the priced out masses won't compromise and won't constantly chase around the UK following the places where property is cheapest ? Therefore it is their own fault ? 

My argument is, that CURRENTLY, the majority of people could afford a house outside of London. In the UKs 2nd and 3rd city.

Yea that's their fault, what do you suggest otherwise that we give certain people free or cheap housing in the area of their choice? The whole idea, is that people of lower status or ability cannot access that area.

Why should somebody who cannot be arsed or creates little value, have access to excellent Infrastructure, education/jobs.

If there not willing to move and happy to pay rent that's their choice. Eventually gentrification will get them, whlist they mess around they are priced out of even more areas.

This is the system, so either join or lose out.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Speed1987

[Dorkins]

All depends what you want to sacrifice for what, housing is not the only variable in this equation.

We rent cheaply in a catchment area for some of the best primary and secondary schools in Scotland. It's close to where I work so I have an easy and low stress car-free commute. Our low cost of living means my partner has not had to work while our kids are small so they get lots of family time instead of being in childcare, plus I am putting plenty of capital into my SIPP to look after us in our old age.

If other people choose to put buying a house at the centre of their life decisions that is up to them, they are adults and it's their choice, same goes for other adults who make different choices based on other priorities.

It is not about who is willing to sacrifice and who isn't, we are all working with finite resources so making sacrifices is inevitable but not necessarily with the same goal in mind.

Edited February 21, 2022 by Dorkins

[Insane]

1 hour ago, Speed1987 said:

My argument is, that CURRENTLY, the majority of people could afford a house outside of London. In the UKs 2nd and 3rd city.

While earing their London salary ,  if they buy a house in the second or third city they will need to move there , the salary in most cases will be less therefore like many already living in those two cities the local wages compared to the house prices there will price them out of the city they have moved to. So your argument demanding that these people compromise and move North does not solve the problem. The only way it would be solved is if they can keep their London salary. 

1 hour ago, Speed1987 said:

Yea that's their fault, what do you suggest otherwise that we give certain people free or cheap housing in the area of their choice? The whole idea, is that people of lower status or ability cannot access that area.

 It is the fault of the Doctor who won't take a position in a London Hospital due to the cost of housing in London ? I don't think you grasp the problems of the Rigged Housing Market in the UK. 

1 hour ago, Speed1987 said:

Why should somebody who cannot be arsed or creates little value, have access to excellent Infrastructure, education/jobs.

What has this got to do with the high cost of housing in and around London ? 

1 hour ago, Speed1987 said:

If there not willing to move and happy to pay rent that's their choice. Eventually gentrification will get them, whlist they mess around they are priced out of even more areas.

There are many down trodden  areas of London where housing is very expensive , it has nothing to do with Gentrification , is is due to demand out stripping supply by a huge gap and cheap money. 

1 hour ago, Speed1987 said:

This is the system, so either join or lose out.

I think a lot of this site talks about the rigged system. Educated working people earning a decent wage paying their taxes cannot afford a house that is 10x their salary. When you say join in or lose out how do you suggest they do this ? 

[spyguy]

2 hours ago, Speed1987 said:

My argument is, that CURRENTLY, the majority of people could afford a house outside of London. In the UKs 2nd and 3rd city.

Yea that's their fault, what do you suggest otherwise that we give certain people free or cheap housing in the area of their choice? The whole idea, is that people of lower status or ability cannot access that area.

Why should somebody who cannot be arsed or creates little value, have access to excellent Infrastructure, education/jobs.

If there not willing to move and happy to pay rent that's their choice. Eventually gentrification will get them, whlist they mess around they are priced out of even more areas.

This is the system, so either join or lose out.

Majority?

Typically 30% have never bought, living in social housing of one sort or another.

Of the remaining 70% only a a very small minority could afford to buy the house they live in, never mind a bigger one.

Buying a house is very much a minority sport now. This is causing bug problems for the home owners, skewed very much in the over 55s.

I think you'll find the system a but less systematic than you think.

 

[iamnumerate]

3 hours ago, Speed1987 said:

My argument is, that CURRENTLY, the majority of people could afford a house outside of London. In the UKs 2nd and 3rd city.

Yea that's their fault, what do you suggest otherwise that we give certain people free or cheap housing in the area of their choice? The whole idea, is that people of lower status or ability cannot access that area.

Why should somebody who cannot be arsed or creates little value, have access to excellent Infrastructure, education/jobs.

If there not willing to move and happy to pay rent that's their choice. Eventually gentrification will get them, whlist they mess around they are priced out of even more areas.

This is the system, so either join or lose out.

My suggestion would be that if people don't work in London they don't get housing there and then there will be enough houses for people who work there.

In our system people who create no value get free housing, teachers who do create value get expensive housing

[msi]

7 hours ago, winkie said:

Why shouldn't old people pay for their own long-term social care, some have family that can support them, others never get the chance to live long enough to need it......we save for a pension, we should take into account what we might need at the last knockings of the pension period.

Nothing in life is guaranteed, that is the whole excitement of it.....do it whilst you can, else later might regret not doing it.

They often have very expensive houses, but it's been Tory policy to protect that at all costs...

[winkie]

8 hours ago, msi said:

They often have very expensive houses, but it's been Tory policy to protect that at all costs...

Not a political thing, common sense if anyone has money and needs something use the money you have, not to expect the state to pay for it......those that are fortunate enough to own a home was given the equity from sheer free growth in value, most of that value was not worked for so spending it at a time when need it most is a bonus, others less fortunate may not have.

[cbathpc]

16 hours ago, msi said:

How long before millennials clap back 'I saved into my pension to grow into something to support me when i retire...Old people didn't make the right sacrifices so why should I pay for their social care?'

We're saying that now!

 

 

[Bob8]

13 hours ago, Speed1987 said:

My argument is, that CURRENTLY, the majority of people could afford a house outside of London. In the UKs 2nd and 3rd city.

Yea that's their fault, what do you suggest otherwise that we give certain people free or cheap housing in the area of their choice? The whole idea, is that people of lower status or ability cannot access that area.

Why should somebody who cannot be arsed or creates little value, have access to excellent Infrastructure, education/jobs.

If there not willing to move and happy to pay rent that's their choice. Eventually gentrification will get them, whlist they mess around they are priced out of even more areas.

This is the system, so either join or lose out.

I mean, yes.

You could work in the centre of London and live in Runcorn with the fast train link.

Those years back when I was earning 24K in a wealthy part of the south, I could easily have afforded a house in St Helens. The commute of several hours each way would be an issue though at some point. I guess that is not willing, or a medical requirement for sleep at some point.

[winkie]

14 hours ago, Speed1987 said:

My argument is, that CURRENTLY, the majority of people could afford a house outside of London. In the UKs 2nd and 3rd city.

Yea that's their fault, what do you suggest otherwise that we give certain people free or cheap housing in the area of their choice? The whole idea, is that people of lower status or ability cannot access that area.

Why should somebody who cannot be arsed or creates little value, have access to excellent Infrastructure, education/jobs.

If there not willing to move and happy to pay rent that's their choice. Eventually gentrification will get them, whlist they mess around they are priced out of even more areas.

This is the system, so either join or lose out.

Gentrification is one of the reasons many leave.......a time and a place for everything.

[Lucky Larry]

22 hours ago, scottbeard said:

Utter rubbish. Among the many many reasons this is rubbish are:

- The bank can’t ask you to move out with 3/6 months notice

- If you sell the house any profit or loss is yours not the banks

- The bank can’t ask to come round and do demeaning inspections

- You can change bank if you don’t like them without moving house

Having a mortgage is NOTHING like being a tenant

Until the mortgage is paid all you own is the outstanding debt that's why the bank holds the title deeds until final payment. If you default the property will be repo'd sold at auction and the bank can chase you for the debt that may be outstanding for 12 years so in a way you are right it is nothing like being a tenant in some instances it can be much worse. The bank can come round and demand inspection if they believe the property no longer qualifies as mortgageable due to shoddy workmanship you have carried out, and try missing a few payments and see how long they give you before starting eviction procedures. 

[Riedquat]

17 hours ago, Speed1987 said:

My argument is, that CURRENTLY, the majority of people could afford a house outside of London. In the UKs 2nd and 3rd city.

Yea that's their fault, what do you suggest otherwise that we give certain people free or cheap housing in the area of their choice? The whole idea, is that people of lower status or ability cannot access that area.

Why should somebody who cannot be arsed or creates little value, have access to excellent Infrastructure, education/jobs.

If there not willing to move and happy to pay rent that's their choice. Eventually gentrification will get them, whlist they mess around they are priced out of even more areas.

This is the system, so either join or lose out.

As well as the London salary issue mentioned what do you think would happen to house prices elsewhere if everyone who can't afford to buy in London upped sticks and moved north? Just what the place needs I'm sure, massive pressure on housing somewhere else, big population influxes etc., yeah, that's going to be really good, just because London can't sort its problems out.

Who's going to do all the lower paid jobs in London. What's the basis of the really obnoxious suggestion that if you can't afford a house there you can't be arsed or create little value? And if there are people like that, why should they be dumped on somewhere else just because you don't want them dirtying your locale?

As I said earlier for a location to be a healthy, functioning one it needs jobs and people all across the wealth spectrum (well other than destitute, and destitute needs fixing, not moving out of sight).

[dpg50000]

1 hour ago, Riedquat said:

As well as the London salary issue mentioned what do you think would happen to house prices elsewhere if everyone who can't afford to buy in London upped sticks and moved north? Just what the place needs I'm sure, massive pressure on housing somewhere else, big population influxes etc., yeah, that's going to be really good, just because London can't sort its problems out.

Who's going to do all the lower paid jobs in London. What's the basis of the really obnoxious suggestion that if you can't afford a house there you can't be arsed or create little value? And if there are people like that, why should they be dumped on somewhere else just because you don't want them dirtying your locale?

As I said earlier for a location to be a healthy, functioning one it needs jobs and people all across the wealth spectrum (well other than destitute, and destitute needs fixing, not moving out of sight).

+1

[Insane]

5 hours ago, winkie said:

Not a political thing, common sense if anyone has money and needs something use the money you have, not to expect the state to pay for it......those that are fortunate enough to own a home was given the equity from sheer free growth in value, most of that value was not worked for so spending it at a time when need it most is a bonus, others less fortunate may not have

This happens , this is the case. 

People sell their houses to pay for their long term care. We are currently looking to sell my Dads house to pay for his just under £1,500 a week care home fees. He has to pay until his total worth goes under is it £27,000 ? I am not sure of the figure but I do know the Tory's are not letting the equity rich older people keep their houses while the tax payer picks up the bill for their care. 

We have absolutely no problem or issue with this , we totally understand and accept the situation.  

I don't know why people think it is any different to this. 

 

[scottbeard]

3 hours ago, Lucky Larry said:

Until the mortgage is paid all you own is the outstanding debt that's why the bank holds the title deeds until final payment. If you default the property will be repo'd sold at auction and the bank can chase you for the debt that may be outstanding for 12 years so in a way you are right it is nothing like being a tenant in some instances it can be much worse. The bank can come round and demand inspection if they believe the property no longer qualifies as mortgageable due to shoddy workmanship you have carried out, and try missing a few payments and see how long they give you before starting eviction procedures. 

Sorry that's incorrect.  When I look at the Land Registry entry for my house it's my name that appears as the owner.

You own the house.  The bank has a right to sell it and reclaim their money if you don't pay the mortgage.

Whether you're a tenant or a mortgagee you will be thrown out if you miss monthly payments but only a tenant can be asked to move by ending of the tenancy even if their rent payments are up to date.

Plus only home owners - whether with a mortgage or not - have benefitted from the monster HPI of the last few decades.   Not tenants.

It just isn't the same.

[winkie]

1 hour ago, Insane said:

This happens , this is the case. 

People sell their houses to pay for their long term care. We are currently looking to sell my Dads house to pay for his just under £1,500 a week care home fees. He has to pay until his total worth goes under is it £27,000 ? I am not sure of the figure but I do know the Tory's are not letting the equity rich older people keep their houses while the tax payer picks up the bill for their care. 

We have absolutely no problem or issue with this , we totally understand and accept the situation.  

I don't know why people think it is any different to this. 

 

It shouldn't be any different from that.

[Sour Mash]

On 20/02/2022 at 16:28, Insane said:

Some older people get it others don't. 

I know an 80 year old recently widowed lady who was mortgage free in her mid 30's. They did have a few hard times when her husband a Docker was on strike and she had to go out to work with two young children. 

Granted they never had credit on anything they saved up and then purchased. They did not waste money. She also inherited half a decent house in her mid 50's.  

However I have spoken to her on so many occasions and tried to explain that her generation had the opportunity to buy a house at 2x her husbands income that was then paid off by the Fairy God Mother of Inflation , hence they were mortgage free so young. But she will not see it.

Her current place is worth about £700,000 and she receives just under £2,000 a month in pension income. The last straw was when she said all old peoples care bills should be paid by the Tax Payer as in 1948 we were promised cradle to grave health care. She would not accept that things have changed since 1948. Yet at the same time the workers should accept the rise in NI due to covid. When I explained the current government had promised no income or NI rises she retorted that that was before covid. So people should expect promises to be broken when she is not affected but they should be kept if she is affected. 

She even said " leave little old poor ladies like her alone ". 

 

To be fair, most people could have bought a house around 2009/2010 and have had it half paid off by now with a really low rate of interest on the mortgage all that time (so plenty of opportunity to overpay) and a sizeable capital appreciation.  It's not just people who bought back before the mid 90s.

 

[dugsbody]

45 minutes ago, Sour Mash said:

To be fair, most people could have bought a house around 2009/2010 and have had it half paid off by now with a really low rate of interest on the mortgage all that time (so plenty of opportunity to overpay) and a sizeable capital appreciation.  It's not just people who bought back before the mid 90s.

You can't do maths.

Overpaying at high interest rates and low house prices makes a much bigger impact than overpaying at low interest rates and high house prices.

[iamnumerate]

20 minutes ago, dugsbody said:

You can't do maths.

Overpaying at high interest rates and low house prices makes a much bigger impact than overpaying at low interest rates and high house prices.

+1

 

5 hours ago, Riedquat said:

As well as the London salary issue mentioned what do you think would happen to house prices elsewhere if everyone who can't afford to buy in London upped sticks and moved north? Just what the place needs I'm sure, massive pressure on housing somewhere else, big population influxes etc., yeah, that's going to be really good, just because London can't sort its problems out.

Who's going to do all the lower paid jobs in London. What's the basis of the really obnoxious suggestion that if you can't afford a house there you can't be arsed or create little value? And if there are people like that, why should they be dumped on somewhere else just because you don't want them dirtying your locale?

As I said earlier for a location to be a healthy, functioning one it needs jobs and people all across the wealth spectrum (well other than destitute, and destitute needs fixing, not moving out of sight).

+1

 

[Speed1987]

@Insane

If they move to another city, the price of the house will be less... wages may decrease, but not by the significance you describe.

London house 1m

Birmingham/Manchester 200k

Demand is out stripping supply, that's one factor in all if this. However, it has everything to do with it, those who are more productive/intelligent will eventually end up with those properties.

@Riedquat

That is exactly the intended purpose of government policy and has been for some time. Pump London, then allow the money to flow outwards. What do I think will happen? The obvious, push up house prices outside of London.

It's not an obnoxious suggestion, it's the truth. Those who are not creating value will be moved out, either keep up or bye bye. Its the same way schools and universities grade you, if you don't cut it your not getting it.