there's never been a worse time to be young and British, your screwed if your under 30

[lhldn]

OK the title is taken from a torygraph article, but I do find myself agreeing with it and being sad for the next generation.
www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11231796/If-youre-under-30-bad-luck.-Youre-screwed.html
We’re all becoming depressingly familiar with the results of these policies. The single worst (and most easily grasped) problem is housing. Our housing market has become an in-and-out club. If you’re over 50, in addition to your primary residence, you may well own a couple of buy-to-lets which will augment your already well-upholstered pension. If you’re under 30, you’re screwed.

If you’re under 30 in London, you’re super-screwed. You’ll be in your 40s before you’ve saved enough to buy a dump in Catford. And even then it’s likely that you’ll be outbid by a buy-to-let investor or, increasingly and tragically, refused a mortgage because you’re too old.

A long list of policies across three very different governments has got us here. The “one off” sale of council houses to make us all Tories in the 1980s - over two million homes that went cheap, often criminally cheap. The bottom three rungs cut off the ladder, the proceeds pocketed and the houses never replaced. Even so, property was still cheap back then – and if the housing market was anything like a free market, we might still be alright.

However, for all their devotion to the free market, our leaders have shown no interest in allowing the housing market to function this way. Rather, each year, we build a tiny fraction of what is needed ensuring prices march endlessly upwards. We have no coherent national housing plan. Our planning system is a mess. We have artificially low interest rates. We sell homes off-plan to foreign investors and don’t build enough to house the immigrants who are vital to our economy. The result is an cruelly dysfunctional market – and one which works brilliantly for your parents.

In tandem with this, over the last few years we’ve done a great job of increasing the wage gap between age groups. Guess who low wages hurt? Not people in their 50s and 60s. In fact, they actually help older people as they as more likely to be investors and employers. So, there’s no house for you, but the people who vote can afford a cleaner for their holiday home.

Housing is the most pressing problem

Jesus Christ. You don't buy the average priced house as your first time buy. I bought a one bedroom flat with my DH and we're both devil worshippers sorry lawyers. And we don't live in the south east. We're 33 and 35.

there is nothing in what you quoted about first time buyers. the fact is that the multiple of wage needed to buy a house is much higher now than before.

Sorry that was in response to Suzanne's question

Is the problem not also that certain people basically want to live the life that only aristocrats could have done in times past? Swanning about not working, or working only in a field that interests them but doesn't pay their bills. Have countries ever been able to support large numbers of people wishing to do that in luxury conditions?

no the problem is that a few people are getting richer and richer while the majority are getting poorer.
we are not getting an equal share in the fruits of human progress, inequality is increasing, thats a bad thing for everyone, even the rich

Try being a witness (civil case) . The lawyer openly and repeatedly lied in court, thankfully judge (and everyone present spotted it)-even had a good laugh at the lawyer. I was basically horrified that it seemed that court was little more than a farce-yes it was found entirely on the side I was on. "Circus of the absurd" summed it up. Lawyers destroyed and added to the emotional distress of my parents and friends divorces by getting involved and winding both sides up adding costs unnecessarily. They also caused a lot of problems by failing to do things properly when dealing with inheritance issues and pension issues.

I am highly qualified thank you. There are lots of jobs/careers/professions available and needed (doctor,vet, dentist, nurse, midewife, teaching, sales assistants, cleaners, engineer, architect, radiologists, physicists, scientists, adminstration work, street sweeper, builders, plumbers, electricians....).

Had the lawyer openly and repeatedly lied in court the judge would not have been having a good laugh about it. The lawyer, who is an officer of the court and whose primary duty is to the court would have been in serious trouble. Your account therefore is likely to be somewhat biased.

writtenguarantee the point I'm making (not too well) is that as a former residential conveyancing solicitor, I see where the deposits are coming from and the demographics of who is buying. There are actually a LOT of FTBs, in their early twenties, who are given hundreds of thousands of pounds by their parents. Not every FTB obviously, but its not that unusual. And they tend to buy those over-priced city centre new build apartments. Obviously that has an effect on the market. Lower down the money scale, FTBs who are given say even £80,000 by their parents (again, not unusual) will obviously be able to compete against FTBs with equally good jobs but without the parental bung.

And that effect permuates its way upwards through the whole housing market as they get older.

Its not, as Iggy likes to think, a case of professionals being able to buy while saintly non-professionals can't, lots of us have relatively shit salaries too. But I do think that if you've studied hard, planned your life sensibly, work hard in a well paid job, its a problem if all you can buy in your mid thirties is a one bedroom flat (we're actually hoping to buy a 3 bed semi soon), and life is still more dependent on who you were lucky enough to have as parents, not how hard you work.

Actually the judge did have a go at the lawyer, he chastised him in court (even implied what else was the lawyer going to change) . He clearly lied 3 times - this guy runs his own firm and took on what I'm sure most people (legally trained and none legally trained) would consider a dubious case (no expert witnesses in a case that really required them). This is in addition to other times that were not obvious and easy to prove. I appreciate that a lawyers duty is to represent their clients case.

Whether or not that's true, the facts of any particular case and the conduct of any particular representative does not mean that all lawyers sell their soul to the devil.

By way of disclaimer I am a lawyer. I don't have horns and a pointy fork, I haven't sold my soul to the devil and I don't spend my time beating my slaves whilst wandering around my mansion.

I mostly spend my time on MN.

Lots of professionals cannot buy . I used an anecdote about two potential people in the same profession but born decades apart. Teachers may have been a better one as I know teachers who were friends of my parents and teachers who are friends with myself and DH. The difference in what they can afford despite being in the same profession is striking.

Please, I did not know that I thought non-professionals are saintly . Everyone has potential for good and bad.

"But I do think that if you've studied hard, planned your life sensibly, work hard in a well paid job, its a problem if all you can buy in your mid thirties is a one bedroom flat (we're actually hoping to buy a 3 bed semi soon), and life is still more dependent on who you were lucky enough to have as parents, not how hard you work."

Thechandler A lot of what you have just said agrees with my worries about scarce housing for the young.

One of the things that has changed, which has just occurred to me, is the closing of factories and workplaces in smaller cities.

Aren't many rural towns and cities run down now, eg main street full of charity shops.

That is def the case here in rural Scotland, the factories which employed skilled people in the 70s, and their managerial staff, have gone, been swallowed up by bigger concerns. The upshot is that anyone looking for a well paid job has no option but to look in the cities where the high priced housing is.

So that disadvantages the upcoming generation compared to the past.

I could tell atticus. You managed to convert people thinking that hardworking minimum wage people affording a secure home equated to thinking streetsweepers should have flats in Knightsbridge . Lawyers generally accept most people walking through their door (naturally they can refuse to take on a case where a client has been shown to be dishonest).In many cases there maybe someone mainly in the right, the other in the wrong (there are also lots of grey areas as well). So can they be sure that every word said by every client is the absolute truth? Probability of that being the case I believe would be pretty slender. So the lawyer in presenting a case to court may well lie (even unintentionally) as they are their to some extent to be a mouthpiece for their clients in court.

Yes I know it should be "there" and not "their"

moniker - i agree. the real problem is in london and the south. anything that could be done to ease demand here and shift it to other areas would be good. perhaps the minimum wage could be increased in the south and stay the same in the north - encouraging employers to move location - sure there are other things too that could be done.

I bought a place in london 25 years ago and that was roughly the same price as property now where my IL's live. there's no way people can say its hard everywhere now compared to then

iggly this is completely off point and I will stop the thread hijack in a minute but that's not actually true. A lawyer is an officer of the court with primary obligation to the court. If a lawyer knows that his or her client is lying they cannot tell the court that the client is telling the truth.

On the other hand being a lawyer is not about right or wrong. Its about making sure that every person has the right to present their case or defend themselves. Therefore whether or not we personally think a particular client is a nice person they do have a right to equal treatment under the law. That's the basis of our legal system.

And I turn down plenty of clients.

Anyway back to house prices...

Atticus I never said that they had no obligation to the court . "If a lawyer knows that his or her client is lying they cannot tell the court that the client is telling the truth. " I also did not say that.

Surely disappearance of final salary pension schemes to many of the young and the rising problem of an aging population with lack of healthcare facilities and a hugh national debt are of concern to?

A relatively simple way to cool the housing market whilst raising billions for the treasury would be to apply CGT to own residences.

The unearned (and never taxed) wealth from increased house prices would then be taxed. This could reduce the disparity between generations massively

final salary pension schemes ought never to have existed anyway.

Underfunded ones, yes.

handsoff - isn't that what inheritance tax does?

No DofS.
CGT is applied to second properties if they are sold and have not been your main residence for 3 years (soon in April to become 18mths). It is on the profit made when it is not counted as your main residence. There are also allowances for wear and tear.

There is a mistake in the Telegraph article which I've pointed out to the journo but he still hasn't corrected. National Insurance contributions did go up in 2002, by 1p in the pound.

National Insurance is not "for your pension" nor is it "for the NHS". It's basically another form of tax.

In general life is hard for 20 somethings, I do think we will have to do more as the population ages. Housing, education and health all have major reform due and we may need to pay for some of this to ensure people who can't pay still get care at the point of need. Difficult conversations, and this is what politics is supposed to be for.

But instead everyone seems to want to talk about immigration, which is beside the point.

The three year rule was how a number of politicians managed to "flip" properties whilst making a tidy sum and not paying CGT. They claimed that the property they sold was their primary residence and therefore not liable for CGT.

This is a complex problem by the way, it's more complicated than saying "the real problem is.....X". Complex, interlocking issues.

Younger people may have bleak futures financially but the only thing anyone needs in life is income. If you work hard, generally you will always be able to live ok. It's not compulsory to live in London. You can buy a three bed terraced house that would cost £1.4m in Fulham for £80k where I live, a 15 min commute by train to the second biggest business city in England.

People don't need to leave the planet with any assets at all. We seem to have become obsessed as a nation with passing wealth on. Why is that? Never used to happen!

Anyway the younger people still have one thing that older people don't......time left on the planet! An average pensioner aged 65 probably only has around 7000 days left if they are lucky! A 30 year old has more than likely 25000 days with the ever increasing life expectancy! Only downside is they will probably have to work for 24000 of them!