This 'Bad Actor ' Trying To Harm Reform.
News1 min ago
Latest Peice Of "genius" From Some "think" Tank!
158 Answers
So us older folk who have worked and saved all our lives must bale out the kids because the little darlings are finding it too difficult? Life is difficult life is unfair, get on with it.
Answers
Already mugged of savings income due to unfairly low interest rates, they now want the generation who have had it better than previous ones, due to accumulating wealth in the country over time, to be able to grab even further finance from the older prudent generation to gift to themselves. The property ladder may be a little more difficult to get onto now, but...
10:06 Tue 08th May 2018
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
“The OAPs of today got houses for the price of chips, so why not donate to help the new young get homes?”
For two reasons:
Firstly, nobody “donated” anything to me to get my house so I don’t see why I should reciprocate..
Secondly, my house was not as cheap as chips. I had to pay some spiv a month and a half’s salary for him to secure me an “endowment” mortgage. For younger readers, these were interest-only mortgages with the capital being (supposedly) paid off by the maturity of an endowment policy. I was lucky, my endowment covered the sum. Many were not and after 25 years found themselves needing to find the funds to pay off their loan. As well as that, for the first few years of the mortgage that Mrs NJ and I had secured, one of our two salaries was insufficient to make the mortgage repayments and the endowment premiums. Basically, one of us was working for less than nothing. That eased for a while, but then recurred when mortgage rates hit double figures. I have not seen too many of today’s poor, impoverished souls having to put up with that.
“The issue is, a young person can work hard, and save even harder, but it will still take them over 6 years to save for a mortgage.”
What? Six whole years? What a disgrace! However, there was a couple in the press a few weeks back who, by doing what we and our contemporaries did as a matter of course (lived with parents, ran an old banger only if necessary, stayed in and didn’t take a holiday) saved for their deposit within twelve months.
“I'm just saying instead of having 2 houses both of which cost you about 9K,...”
How many people do you know who have two houses which cost them £9k each? When houses were £9k it was as much as you could do to buy one (see above).
“I know someone who bought a terraced house 20 years ago for 7K.... They sold it only TEN years later for 150K.”
Tell me where you could buy a terraced house (in useable condition) for £7k in 1998, spathi, especially one which sold for £150k in 2008.
“There are more people in this world which is why there is more of a demand for housing...”
Finally you’ve hit the nail on the head. Just a slight adjustment. You might have said “There are far too many more people in the UK which is why there is more of a demand for housing...”
“It is a fact that buying a house is harder now than it was 20 years ago.”
No it’s not. The problems are different. And they were different 20 years ago to 40 years ago, and so on. People have to cope with the prevailing conditions and not expect everybody else to dig the out of their perceived mire.
“Doubt it.. But if an OAP paid my house deposit i'd do their gardening for a couple years no questions ask'd.”
Very generous of you (assuming it was likely). Lets say four hours a week for the four months that intensive gardening is necessary. So around 60 hours or so for each of the two years. At a (very) generous rate of £20 per hour (more than twice the “living wage”) a little under £2.5k. Not a bad deal.
You do talk a load of botox at times, spathi. But it’s always amusing to see you become ever more frustrated as your arguments are shot down in flames. But one thing you (and most politicians) should remember: you will never make the poor richer by trying to make the rich poorer.
For two reasons:
Firstly, nobody “donated” anything to me to get my house so I don’t see why I should reciprocate..
Secondly, my house was not as cheap as chips. I had to pay some spiv a month and a half’s salary for him to secure me an “endowment” mortgage. For younger readers, these were interest-only mortgages with the capital being (supposedly) paid off by the maturity of an endowment policy. I was lucky, my endowment covered the sum. Many were not and after 25 years found themselves needing to find the funds to pay off their loan. As well as that, for the first few years of the mortgage that Mrs NJ and I had secured, one of our two salaries was insufficient to make the mortgage repayments and the endowment premiums. Basically, one of us was working for less than nothing. That eased for a while, but then recurred when mortgage rates hit double figures. I have not seen too many of today’s poor, impoverished souls having to put up with that.
“The issue is, a young person can work hard, and save even harder, but it will still take them over 6 years to save for a mortgage.”
What? Six whole years? What a disgrace! However, there was a couple in the press a few weeks back who, by doing what we and our contemporaries did as a matter of course (lived with parents, ran an old banger only if necessary, stayed in and didn’t take a holiday) saved for their deposit within twelve months.
“I'm just saying instead of having 2 houses both of which cost you about 9K,...”
How many people do you know who have two houses which cost them £9k each? When houses were £9k it was as much as you could do to buy one (see above).
“I know someone who bought a terraced house 20 years ago for 7K.... They sold it only TEN years later for 150K.”
Tell me where you could buy a terraced house (in useable condition) for £7k in 1998, spathi, especially one which sold for £150k in 2008.
“There are more people in this world which is why there is more of a demand for housing...”
Finally you’ve hit the nail on the head. Just a slight adjustment. You might have said “There are far too many more people in the UK which is why there is more of a demand for housing...”
“It is a fact that buying a house is harder now than it was 20 years ago.”
No it’s not. The problems are different. And they were different 20 years ago to 40 years ago, and so on. People have to cope with the prevailing conditions and not expect everybody else to dig the out of their perceived mire.
“Doubt it.. But if an OAP paid my house deposit i'd do their gardening for a couple years no questions ask'd.”
Very generous of you (assuming it was likely). Lets say four hours a week for the four months that intensive gardening is necessary. So around 60 hours or so for each of the two years. At a (very) generous rate of £20 per hour (more than twice the “living wage”) a little under £2.5k. Not a bad deal.
You do talk a load of botox at times, spathi. But it’s always amusing to see you become ever more frustrated as your arguments are shot down in flames. But one thing you (and most politicians) should remember: you will never make the poor richer by trying to make the rich poorer.
I have never owned a house. As a single man I lived in a council house with my parents until they died. I then rented a furnished flat. I now live in rented sheltered accommodation. I don't feel that I was in anyway deprived. In France the vast majority of people live in rented accommodation, not bought, irrespective of wealth or lack of it. The young there don't seem to complain. Home ownership seems to have become a kind of Holy Grail here.
-- answer removed --
Maybe many young people can do more to help themselves, less 'socialising' to save money, a simpler phone plan, less time spent trying to keep up with the bar of shame in the Mail-on-line etc etc.
Most of us 'lucky' oldies started on considerably less than the young expect today, it was an excuse for the parents to get new stuff and pass the old stuff onto their grateful off-spring. Going to the cinema needed thinking about, can we afford it, we had a curry out about twice a year , a night out with friends usually meant an evening playing canasta til dawn. We had a mortgage that touched 16% interest at one time, on two teaching salaries we struggled, not in an expensive area but Keighley in west Yorkshire.
I do feel sorry for the young and the cost of housing is horrendous but the solution isn't to rob people who have worked hard all their lives, many of whom were the first-time home owners in their families, no bank of Mum and Dad for them.
Most of us 'lucky' oldies started on considerably less than the young expect today, it was an excuse for the parents to get new stuff and pass the old stuff onto their grateful off-spring. Going to the cinema needed thinking about, can we afford it, we had a curry out about twice a year , a night out with friends usually meant an evening playing canasta til dawn. We had a mortgage that touched 16% interest at one time, on two teaching salaries we struggled, not in an expensive area but Keighley in west Yorkshire.
I do feel sorry for the young and the cost of housing is horrendous but the solution isn't to rob people who have worked hard all their lives, many of whom were the first-time home owners in their families, no bank of Mum and Dad for them.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
Got a bit lively since I went to lunch, I note the snowflakes, as usual are quoting opinions as facts. A few interesting points, my first mortgage reached 15% at it's height, if I had today's rates I'd have owned a lot more property. Spathy and co are quite happy to pay silly prices for drinks in some p0sh looking bar, bag of sand for an Iphone10, gawd knows what for a jam jar, £3k for a 60 inch plasma and then wonder why they can't by a drum of their own. I bet none of them had 3 jobs when they were 13, none of them had to buy their first bike. House prices are no worse that when I first bought, I was on 5k and my first place was £26,500. Do the maths. Sadly the kids get given everything and want more.
Spath, from NJs Post
///I had to pay some spiv a month and a half’s salary for him to secure me an “endowment” mortgage. For younger readers, these were interest-only mortgages with the capital being (supposedly) paid off by the maturity of an endowment policy. I was lucky, my endowment covered the sum. Many were not and after 25 years found themselves needing to find the funds to pay off their loan.///
///I had to pay some spiv a month and a half’s salary for him to secure me an “endowment” mortgage. For younger readers, these were interest-only mortgages with the capital being (supposedly) paid off by the maturity of an endowment policy. I was lucky, my endowment covered the sum. Many were not and after 25 years found themselves needing to find the funds to pay off their loan.///
Not only that TTT. Judge actually went to the trouble of explaining what an endowment mortgage was. Not only can't be bothered saving up for a home, but can't be bothered to read a post properly.
//For younger readers, these were interest-only mortgages with the capital being (supposedly) paid off by the maturity of an endowment policy.//Judge.
//For younger readers, these were interest-only mortgages with the capital being (supposedly) paid off by the maturity of an endowment policy.//Judge.
-- answer removed --
"No it won't, but impoverishing the "rich" will make them feel better, which, I think, is the main point."
Quite.
It's on a par with the genius idea from Labour to tax the "rich", which in Labourland means anybody earning over £80k (even though they are (a) already contributing more becasue they earn more and (b) for the "rich" earning upto £150k, they are aready paying a higher rate of income tax).
All it is designed to do is to appeal to those who are worse off so they can feel all warm and snug that those that have had the bare faced temerity to do reasonably well in life, are getting punished for doing so.
It is gesture politics which will achieve the squre root of naff all.
Quite.
It's on a par with the genius idea from Labour to tax the "rich", which in Labourland means anybody earning over £80k (even though they are (a) already contributing more becasue they earn more and (b) for the "rich" earning upto £150k, they are aready paying a higher rate of income tax).
All it is designed to do is to appeal to those who are worse off so they can feel all warm and snug that those that have had the bare faced temerity to do reasonably well in life, are getting punished for doing so.
It is gesture politics which will achieve the squre root of naff all.
Latest Posts
ChatterBank2 mins ago
Business & Finance3 mins ago
Body & Soul5 mins ago
News6 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.