to think its unsustainable houses earning more a year than average workers

[sPJPPp]

I'm not sure why this is being celebrated as good news? It means more money sucked out box the economy so less to invest in something productive and even if you own a home it doesn't benefit you unless your selling and not buying another or downsizing.

I didn't see that as being celebrated as good news, I saw it reported as a bad thing

Sounds like the housing bubble is growing again. I said it last time, an average house price should not be so high as to outprice the average worker as it creates a false economy. The money in a house isn't real, it doesn;t exist. It shouldn't be more than the bricks and mortar and labour costs it would be to make that house, and the land it's on. House prices inflate because estate agents want a bigger cut and sellers want more, but this only works for those at the top of the ladder.

Same old baby boomer greed that's been messing up our economy for the last two generations at least. My parents have done very well out of it. It took me years to get on the housing ladder and only after I got a loan from the bank of mum and dad, money which they expect back even though they gained it from the property bubble that forced us lot to fork out so much money to join the ladder.

Well that didn't take long, did it?

OP to boomers bashing in three posts.

SO all the other factors in the market like foreign money, mass immigration leading to shortage, destruction of regional industry so that all the jobs are service-based in London rather than manufacturing based in the rest of the country, collapse of many pensions leading to people to invest in property, huge corporations and very rich Russian/Chinese/Middle Eastern investors are allowed to buy expensive properties and leave them empty.

Out of all these - and other economic factors - it is the "greed" of Baby Boomers who did this?

Sorry - ungrammatical post.

I wish it was only a bubble. Bubbles pop eventually.

Herewith the Toad analysis of house prices, with the conclusion that prices are very unlikely to come back down permanently, and may even continue increasing.

100 years ago, most houses in the UK were not owner-occupied. They were privately rented, and a very high proportion were poor quality. The law protected landlords: a tenant who fell through a rotten floor could not sue the landlord, for example. Most people simply could not afford to purchase houses. I believe about 90% of families rented privately.

However, at this time, a change was starting to gather pace, due to concerns about urban squalor: there were various reform movements in the UK. Out in the colonies (Can, Aus, NZ, white SA), there was significant concern when urban squalor began to make an appearance. This is because those colonies attempted to be improvements on the UK. Ultimately, the mst successful solution was PUBLICLY OWNED HOUSING, particularly after the 1920s. From then through to the 70s, the proportion of houses owned publicly increased pretty quickly. All major cities in the UK had compulsory purchasing, slum clearance, and various housing schemes. This was to the extent that we now tend to consider the Victorians to be good builders. Actually, they weren't. It's just that all the bad stuff has been bowled.

Anyway. Because families could get a perfectly decent council house for an affordable rent, landlordism became unprofitable, which meant that houses weren't a particularly great income earning asset. So of course their capital value comparative to incomes decreased over time.

What's happened since the 70s? Privatisation, mass sell-offs, demolition of housing schemes without replacement, right to buy in the UK aka legalised theft from municipal councils, deliberate promotion of private ownership by successive goverments. The result is now that if you can't buy, you rent privately. So, houses are, once again, a prime income-earning asset. And - surprise surprise, their capital values have gone back up again.

Do I see any political parties advocating mass public housing schemes like in the 30s and 50s? No I don't. In fact, they seem to want to restrict any sort of social housing further. So I expect house prices to carry on going back UP, until we are back in the situation that existed 100 years ago.

We live in one of those areas. I think the problem is supply. There's very little to buy here. Even when they do build new estates, they're on the edge of town and have tiny rooms. People prefer to be closer in where the established schools are and they can walk into town. Prices have increased over the past 7 years and there's never been a time where demand is low. Probably because we're in the sort of place people come from London to, because they can't afford London or they want to be a SAHM and live off one salary. You can pretty much sell any house here, no matter what it's state/lack of appeal. It's a bit of a strange pocket but I suspect there are other places like this, particularly in the S/E. I don't see it getting any better here in my lifetime. Because the supply is so low, there will always be people who can afford the properties available. As such is carries on.

YANBU

Foreign investment is one aspect but has a smaller impact than most people imagine

Sadly I think there are a lot of thick baby boomers who have really enjoyed 'making' money on property but don't see that climbing the ladder has meant pulling it up after themselves.

My friend's dad bought a flat for investment a few months ago and commented to me that similar ones nearby were now selling for £20k more. My response was 'god that's awful' - another family has been priced out. He couldn't comprehend it was a bad thing. But why would he? He owns probably half a dozen properties and thinks he's alright jack. He gave one of his children a small deposit for a flat in london 5 years ago. They 'made' nearly £150k on it in three years. Compare that with their £25k salary. They now have a big house someone earning three times their salary couldn't buy on their own. Again, they've priced more people out.

My parents own half a dozen properties. I can't afford a one bed flat. What's the point?

People need to stop being so greedy.

I completely agree super. Foreign investment has a tiny impact, its the I'm alright jack people pulling up the ladder behind them and patting them selves on the back on a job well done. This money made isn't by magic, its by saddling up the younger generations with mountains of debt.

Used too work with a few boomers on very average sallerys, but they would go on about how much their house is worth all the time, often north of half a mill.

I have 5 properties, worked damn hard for them. How am i saddling you with any debt?
younger people want everything now, get themselves in debt then complain they have no money for food! Idiots
Jealousy is a sad thing.
Going to give each of my children a house, does that also offend you

Rolling my eyes hard at kilmuir.
Boring boring. Have a and a

Thing is I know that is a troll posting, but there are many people out there with that view.

Its always the pig shit thick boomers that like to think they've done well out of hard work,when all it was is being born at the right time . My parents are very ashamed to be boomers and the knock on affect it will have for at least the next three generations.

How on earth can you be ashamed for being a boomer? You can't choose when you're born, or the state of the market when you're looking for your first home.

Granted it's not hard work but with pensions and investments going down the drain you can hardly blame people who want to hold on to their first home when it comes to sizing up.

I do wonder if those fiercely against boomers would be so moralistic if roles were reversed.

Maybe yewbitches doesn't mean they're ashamed of when they were born - more ashamed of their generation's legacy. Generation after generation has become better educated, richer, more prosperous. That trajectory can't go on forever, but it would be nice if people could have stable and secure housing.

I really am very bored of this 'young people want something for nothing and aren't willing to work hard' rhetoric. People are working longer hours for stagnating wages. Young people are drinking less, smoking less, doing fewer drugs, committing fewer crimes, doing better at exams and in education. They'll have to work harder for longer with retirement getting further and further away.

We all work hard but those people in their 20s/30s who have done 'well' financially have been lucky. They've been gifted or inherited money. They haven't worked harder or earnt more.

Fair enough.

I don't think anyone likes the way things are going. I certainly don't and if I'm completely honest I'd gladly lose all the equity in my house if the average 3 bed price returned to £50k (or whatever it was 15 odd years ago). I can't feel any shame though. That would be a waste of time IMHO.

Young people are drinking less, smoking less, doing fewer drugs, committing fewer crimes, doing better at exams and in education. They'll have to work harder for longer with retirement getting further and further away.

Exactly! My ex mil was the worst at this calling young people lazy ect when she has never done a days work in her life! The young people now are subbing baby boomers to allow them to have a much better lifestyle.

I do think it's time the government did something about this problem. I'm not sure what the answer is though. I know in other countries you cannot buy property unless you have a permanent visa which prevents overseas investors buying property. Maybe the government needs to make people with multiple properties pay an extra tax of some sort although they already pay tax on rental income. I'm not sure how you would make it fair. I suppose a fair rent scheme may work.

There was an interesting discussion on a thread a few weeks ago about whether inheritance tax should be 100% with all the proceeds used to help young people. It was funny how quiet the boomer haters went - anyone would think they were hoping to inherit

Flo, That would probably have an impact on the market. We have our own home (although the bank owns more of it). At the moment I am happy for us to use a huge chunk of our income to pay the mortgage because I see it as part of our children's future. If inheritance tax was at 100%, then I'm not sure if it would be worth us using our income in this way. It would certainly have an impact on house prices.

I realise that Sleepytea and I'm not sure if I'm totally in favour either (although I think it's a very interesting idea). My point was that anyone on this thread who is hoping to inherit from their boomer parents is part of the problem.

I wonder how many of the boomer haters will turn down their inheritances if they get them?