I should have the right to buy from my my to let landlord after 6 years here

[chocolatekatie]

No government will ever do it as loads of them are into buy to let hence why they do all they can to prop up the bubble.

My landlord thinks he's some businessman doing me a favour by letting me live here. Actually he's the problem, he just had money so can afford to buy up property - push up the price and force people like me to rent.

Indeed. Depends on the fuckup and what is one person's fuck up is someone else's good thing (a baby for example) or redundancy which leads you to owning your own company. All we can all do is make the best of a bad job at times.

On Honey's interesting point about right to buy sometimes being leasehold I have never liked leaseholds which is the standard initial tenure for most people as you start with your squalid flat in the area no one wants to live in and move up. However again I would not ban them and in my daughter's block (conversion of a house into 3 flats) two of the flat owners also own the freehold which is good as it keeps costs low.

There was a huge property rights issue over whether freeholders should be forced to sell the freeholds out to leaseholders and long leaseholders won that. That was arguably a breach of the property rights of the freeholders who under enfranchisement can have their property forced from their ownership just like state nationalisation of businesses in its day.

I don't think any of us really disagree on this thread very much. We all think some changes to make it easier to buy would be a good idea. My suggestion is right for citizens to buy state land which is unused and suitable for housing even if the state disagrees and also abolishing the "protective" measures which stop banks lending according to their own policies so they can take sensible risks with 95% mortgages again.

There do seem to be some 95% mortgages out there which are not part of help to buy or right to buy but I might be wrong:

www.money.co.uk/mortgages/95-mortgages.htm

We can probably also agree that in life it pays to look on the bright side, not always easy of course. If you can make ever disaster something good it tends to make you happier.

Kipling put it rather well although most of us would prefer more gender neutral language:

If you can keep your head when all about you

Are losing theirs and blaming it on you,

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too;

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,
Or being lied about, don’t deal in lies,
Or being hated, don’t give way to hating,
And yet don’t look too good, nor talk too wise:

If you can dream—and not make dreams your master;

If you can think—and not make thoughts your aim;

If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same;

If you can bear to hear the truth you’ve spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,
Or watch the things you gave your life to, broken,
And stoop and build ’em up with worn-out tools:

If you can make one heap of all your winnings
And risk it on one turn of pitch-and-toss,
And lose, and start again at your beginnings
And never breathe a word about your loss;
If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew
To serve your turn long after they are gone,

And so hold on when there is nothing in you
Except the Will which says to them: ‘Hold on!’

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,

Or walk with Kings—nor lose the common touch,
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
If all men count with you, but none too much;
If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run,

Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,

And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!"

Regarding leasehold property. If you make long leases compulsorily kick in after a certain time, you are creating a type of long leasehold tenure, or something similar to that. That then creates all sorts of problems about who is responsible for overall maintenance of the building, etc..

Another problem is that people may not wish to lose such long leases, even if they have to move away for a certain period of time for work. So that gives these leases a quantifiable value. In Belgium, there is a bit of a problem with sub-letting, and sub-sub letting, and sub-tenants end up getting evicted by the local authority because the tenure is illegal. The standard of some of the rental properties is unbelievable here - I recently saw what was basically a roof space for rent, with barely standing room in the middle, and bare roof timbers, no plaster or plasterboard. And someone will rent it, because its so difficult to find accommodation here.

Much as I agree with the stance you are taking (and on some level I really do agree): it is flawed because it's based on the empirical evidence of only a few people and their experiences several years (if not decades) ago.

I feel the square peg to your round hole argument is this, every single news article suggests that it is harder now to buy that it ever has been, and you keep on with the mantra that if we just follow the example of working hard just like you did that riches will come.

The specific example that I think really trashes the whole argument would be my granddad, who as I said bought a 6 bedroom house in 1960, when he was 27, he already had 5 (of the ten kids they had) at that point, I've no doubt he worked hard and put in the hours, but he worked hard in a low skilled manual labour job. (It was the same job that some of my friends did, leaving school with a couple of GCSE results and no other education. -minimum wage jobs)

Do you think that anybody could have 5 kids, work a minimum wage job, (where only 1 of the couple works) and realistically ever live in a 6 bedroom house?

Do you believe that example is possible today? - that's a simple question.

Because I don't.

Another thing that honestly interests me (in the context of this discussion) is, whether you helped your kids buy their houses. that you didn't answer (understandable as it is a personal question) makes me think that the answer is possibly yes, you either helped directly providing some deposit (as a lot of people do now), or allowed them to live rent free whilst they were working hard and saving all that they could. - which is a really understandable and commendable way to rewarding their hard work.

The advice those of us who have done well is not out of date and works today and always will - get good results at school and work hard there (I got the best exam results in the school and obviously I accept not everyone can of course), pick a highly paid career. My daughters are doing that and they have bought recently so the advice does work today.

So what you're saying is try hard in school and everything will be fine? (actually that has an incredible amount of luck involved, suffice to say, again if you actually did some research you'd understand that's not always enough, there is a vast difference in the levels of education that people may expect depending on the school that they go to.)

Also getting the best results in the school does not necessarily make you a genius, it could mean that you've only average, and everyone else is below average - remember that statistically speaking half of a random crowd are below average.

You say pick a highly paid career -as if it's that easy.
Firstly, not everyone can just wander into the jobs that they wish they had - maybe that was true when you were first starting, and certainly when I first started working jobs were easier to come by. but that whole global recession thing that negatively affected the economy that actually caused huge amounts of job losses mean that it's no longer possible to just say that you want that job and have the relevant positions available, or to have done anything whilst waiting for that job that provides meaningful experiences.

They have a show on radio 4 called 2 rooms, a few weeks ago they had two history graduates, who went to the same level of university, (both not Russell group) got the same kind of results, the first woman had graduated 20 years earlier and said that she had found it easy to get a job, the second said that he couldn't find a job for love nor money. (that's with the same results.) - on the same show they talked about the disproportionate university applications. a bright student from an average back ground is much more likely to attend an oxbridge university place, "poor" (as defined by qualification for a free school meal) students are 1000 less likely to be accepted.
www.express.co.uk/news/uk/550040/Poor-pupils-free-school-meals-fail-top-university-Oxford-or-Cambridge

And secondly wages have stagnated over the past 8 years in comparison to inflation, it's only really in the last few months that wages appear to be outstripping inflation, and it's not clear how long that will last. (So saving has been more difficult)

Of course, the whole global recession thing, you remember caused by having a very low bar to entry on getting finance for a house, self assessors over assessing on their mortgages and all the other problems caused by "sub prime" mortgages. the fix for which being it's now incredibly hard to get finance for a house. you know, like I keep saying it's harder now than it was when you were young.

As a lawyer (that you claim to be) you must have seen that a reduction in state finance for legal aid has affected your industry too? that lawyers are not as well paid, and are expected to work longer and harder.

So what I'm saying is, even in the same education work ethic and job that you are doing, new recruits have to work longer and harder than you had to!

Whilst you feel that you went without jam as you keep saying, to be in the same position people today need to go without either bread or jam, and they have to do that for longer than ever before.

However those of us who have managed to buy somewhere are not saying it will always work for everyone.

but constantly repeating it kind of sounds like you are saying that.

The thing is, I've no doubt that your advice is good advice, to be fair it is common sense, if you try hard, if you work hard (by some arbitrary metric) then you are more likely to have more money, and therefore buy more stuff, (whatever that stuff is that you want to buy.)

and that's it, only more likely, it's no guarantee that it will lead to riches - no matter how many quotes from the bible you find that say it will.

and it requires HUGE amounts of luck or privilege to be successful.

What you are ignoring is that,

• you need to be lucky enough to have been born in the right time and place.
• you need to be lucky enough to have parents well off enough that they can feed you well and give you a comfortable place to live with enough heat and light to function properly.
• you need to be lucky enough to attend a good school
• you need to be lucky enough to have parents who instil a work ethic that you should do your homework,
• you need to be lucky enough to have parents who will read to you and with you.
• you need to be lucky enough to have a good teacher.
• you need to be lucky enough to have a class size that is manageable for that teacher to teach effectively.
• you need to be lucky enough to go to a school that has resources for buying classroom supplies, (hint the governments policy that free schools and academies have greater control of their finances actually means that bills that were once paid by the state are now paid out of the general school budget. - i.e money that was once spent on books and gym equipment is now spent on heating and lighting in some schools.)
• you need to be lucky enough to live close enough to the school that you're not not spending hours travelling, and then are really too tired to do homework etc. (that's a hell of a lot of luck a person needs before they are ten)

carrying on.

• You need a lot of luck to have a school that will actually teach the subject that you are interested in at exam level,
• you need a lot of luck to not be stuck with that kid who uses up all the teachers time by never sitting down and never shutting up, which you know, affects the ability of the whole class to learn.
• you need to be lucky to have the right friends.
• you need to be lucky to not be ill when it comes to time to take your exams.
• Any illness or injury suffered will of course affect a persons ability to learn, so you have to be pretty lucky not to have that.
• you need luck to have gotten into a good university, (you know as there is competition for places)
• you need all the same luck that you'd needed about teachers again with your lecturers, - there are good ones and bad ones, (having worked at a university I know this first hand!)
• you need some luck to find a decent house whilst you're at university, with a good landlord, because whilst we've established that every landlord in this thread is the best kind of landlord (who actually maintain their properties) not every landlord is, and not every renting experience is a good one, so you need to be working not worrying about the state or your house, or security of your tenancy.
• you need all that same luck to go into exams in a fit and healthy condition.
• there is some argument that some have more luck that others with regard privilege, - those people who's parents can afford to "keep" then at university vs. those that need to work during term to afford to eat or pay rent etc. any debt that you may build up just eating or buying course books will of course need to be repaid before you can save for a deposit.

You say that maybe I didn't go to the right university. but as pointed out above (with a link to a news article) it takes yet more luck (and privilege) as well as good grades to get into a top university!

That's quite a list to be lucky about before the age of 21...
you then need to be lucky enough to find a job in the market that you want to work in, or a job in a field that would give you relevant experience to change into your "chosen market" at another time.

I don't really know how old you are, but those that talked about interest rates in the 90's alongside university education are old enough to have been lucky enough to have had a free university education and possibly grants for living allowances. - unlike students today who have to take loans (admittedly with a good rate of interest) and need to pay their tuition fees with that (and possibly their rent), and then have repayments for that loan taken directly from their pay until it is paid off.

• so if you had free education, and earn exactly the same as someone who did not, they will get less take home pay.

• you need to be lucky enough not to be inside a relationship that is abusive (unless you feel that people should stay in abusive relationships (or homes) for financial reasons?)

So you can keep on about jam tomorrow, and keep claiming that you got everything that you have you got through hard graft alone.
calling everyone else lazy "lotus eaters".

the truth is that your experiences of everything are out dated, and based on experiences that are not necessarily possible or relevant any more!

education isn't free any more.
jobs aren't easy to come by any more.
saving isn't easy any more.
if you're unlucky enough to fall into some debt (even if it's just to buy food) then low rates of interest just aren't there any more.
houses are cheap any more.
mortgages are harder to get now.
deposits needed are higher now.

the point is that, whilst you say that anyone can do like you did, that really (really) ignores the realities of today's world.

I really wonder if you were just leaving college now whether your life would be the same, with higher price for rental accommodation whilst living at university, higher cost on supplies needed (e.g. a computer is apparently essential at university today), more competition for university places, huge tuition fees, and high prices of food. graduating into a much more competitive job market, with proportionately lower wages compared to the cost of living and renting, with money being taken out of your pay to service what could be a £30k load (assuming you only spent three years at university) how quickly do you think that you could save?

don't you agree that would be harder than your experiences? that as I keep saying that you were lucky to be born at the time you were?

Nobody is saying that hard work doesn't pay off, just that it is not guaranteed. and that as well as hard work you need luck.

you are saying hard work alone will lead to success. I don't think that is true.

Share of the freehold is a bit of a curse at times. The problem with flat tenants having share of the freehold is when some git does not want to pay for maintaince. In my experience the costs of having a council owning the head lease is less hassle than having a share of the freehold. With having a share of the freehold you still need to have a lease and pay service charges.

Not just getting divorced, but if you have gaps between jobs, it can push you down the career scale quite significantly. But I think most people know this, it was certainly drummed into me from quite an early age.

I often think this is a real issue - because I'm not sure that most people do know this, I think it's the parents who know this stuff who are able to pass it on to their kids. People with a better knowledge of how the system works and experience of working within that system are able to impress that knowledge on to their children.

Within the narrow confines of housing, this may have been less of an issue in the past when affordability was greater - however as affordability decreases, the rewards to those who have been better equipped to take advantage of the way the system works from the outset (rather than working it out for themselves) are also greater.

Obviously the effects are much wider, and it's a question of broader social mobility. It does make me wonder what we can do to counteract this - and how young the interventions need to happen.

I've just seen the OP and I'm genuinely confused. Why should anyone have the right to buy one particular property just because they rented it? It's almost like saying you rented a car from a rental company for a while, therefore you should have the right to buy it? So confused.

I think there are huge problems in housing and social housing right now. But this particular question makes me wonder if I've missed something completely!

Great post thechandler

People who talk about interest rates being 17% etc in the 80s forget that wage inflation was in line in those days. Yes it was tough, particularly for those who over extended themselves but it was generally possible.

Ie my parents bought in 1978. My mother worked for a bank, and in those days you got a staff discount on your mortgage. It was I think, about 4% interest. After my sister was born my mother gave up work, lost the discount and the rate jumped to 16%. My father, a skilled manual worker (plumber) was able to support the family through overtime or more highly paid jobs (shift work etc). if interest rates jumped to 16% now we would see mass repossession/ bankruptcy. Very few people could tolerate it, especially those in the first 10 years of their mortgage, for example.

I've just checked and my reasonably average mortgage payment (£1k) would jump to £3k under those circumstances. I am a well paid professional but that is slightly more
Than I take home.

every single news article suggests that it is harder now to buy that it ever has been.

National statistics confirm this.

It's a valid question - if the 'jam tomorrow' has to be deferred significantly longer than in the past, and that time frame is continually extended due to the exacerbation of affordability changes, is 'jam today' ever achievable for the majority (ie those not in the top quintile for earnings, those without inherited or given money for deposits such as LotusLight's daughter, and similar)?

The idea that if more people do better at school and university, and graduate with better degrees, and get into traditionally high-paid jobs, that those jobs will remain high-paid in relative terms is very questionable, because you are altering the scarcity value that makes those jobs well-paid. And of course relative, rather than absolute, earnings are critical to affordability.

And finally, can we now call a moratorium on Carrollian references?

I've just seen the OP and I'm genuinely confused. Why should anyone have the right to buy one particular property just because they rented it? It's almost like saying you rented a car from a rental company for a while, therefore you should have the right to buy it?

Well with a car you do have the right to purchase at the end of rental. All the time you rent the car you depreciate it's value. If you move on to a new car the cars owner has something worth less at the end of the lease. The car can never increase in value a house can.

Jassy I often think this is a real issue - because I'm not sure that most people do know this, I think it's the parents who know this stuff who are able to pass it on to their kids.

It was drummed into me at school, by the careers adviser, and by various friends and university careers advisers. My school was pretty awful really, but I must have had some exposure to people with common sense. But a lot of people do seem to lack common sense. I have a number of friends, for some reason mostly male, who have simply given up their jobs because they can't be bothered working any more. They seem to live off their parents. I am sure they know it will make it hard to find a job in the future, if they have an inexplicable gap of 2 years on their CV. My DH interviews people like this now and then - one man, when asked to explain the gap on his cv claimed he had been a "professional gambler". This was a degree qualified engineer, in his forties. If you haven't worked out by that age how to shine at an interview, is there much hope!

I do think if we levelled the playing field for buyers, that would go a long way towards addressing inequality of buying power. So many people are bunged a hundred thousand or so by their parents, or have parents to act as guarantors. But the overall effect is to put up house prices.

So make IHT much higher, but reward people for using their own earned income by reducing inequality. Also, track parental gifts to avoid IHT for much longer than 7 years. IMHO this has a far more significant effect on buying power and ultimately house prices than btl. But people don't like it, even those who claim to be socialist, because they want to have the chance of inheriting and getting one over on someone else who doesn't have that advantage of luck of birth.

HoneyDragon - you rent a car and you have the right to buy it?! Since when? Are you sure you're not thinking of schemes like hire purchase? I just meant, if you rent a car every so often from the same company - as I do because it's not worth keeping one in London. I certainly don't have the right to buy at the end of it?!

Oh, your referring to short term rent?

Yes I thought your were referring to car leading as obviously you've 'owned' the car long enough that if feels like yours, in comparison to the op feeling a longer term in the rentsl house makes it a home.

HoneyDragon - are you saying that if you leased a car on a long lease agreement - not specifically a hire purchase - you would have the right to buy it at the end of a long lease? I'm guessing that can only be because it has depreciated.

Getting back on topic, I just think that renting is paying for the use of a home. I was in my rental for years - it was bigger than where I bought, perhaps unsurprisingly - and yes, it felt like home, I was heartbroken to leave but the idea of having the "right" to buy it seems insanity. It belongs to someone else! (though I did ask him, but understandably, he wanted to keep it). And I made him a market rate offer. I just don't understand where the "entitlement" comes from.

To reiterate - I am massively aware of the problems in housing but having the right to buy from your landlord isn't going to help.

The car comparison isn't a realistic one because people already have the right to buy houses they have rented long term, and they have for a good 40 years. The government at likely to extend this right to force private corporate landlords (housing associations) to sell to tenants at a discount. This thread takes the idea one step further to suggest any tenant should have RTB at discount. It's not that crazy an idea.

That's really interesting because I got absolutely nothing at school - and talking to my British husband, neither did he. I was lucky enough to have parents who understood the system and how it worked and raised us accordingly - my husband wasn't. So it could be luck of the draw?

I agree that some people do themselves no favours - and I wonder how much of that is peer to peer socialisation, ie one person has taken some 'time out' and been ok coming back to work 10 years ago, circumstances have changed (or were always different), but their friends look upon the time out as 'the norm' and consequence-free.

I'm too terrified to take any time out of my career, which is probably part of my upbringing and socialisation, and partly because of being caught in the 2001 downturn (in another country) and taking nearly a year to get back into my career (while picking up any temporary/casual work I could in the meantime). Luckily I was still very early 20s so it didn't have the impact on my career it would have had some time later.

I do think if we levelled the playing field for buyers, that would go a long way towards addressing inequality of buying power. So many people are bunged a hundred thousand or so by their parents, or have parents to act as guarantors. But the overall effect is to put up house prices.

I think this is very true and one of the factors that needs to be looked at.

It's not that crazy an idea.

No crazier than its predecessors, at any rate.

It's been interesting to see how the response to this proposal is that it's insane, but the response to RTB for HA properties is muted at best.

That's what I don't understand about this thread jassy. Private landlords (housing associations) are incredibly close to being forced to sell their assets at a discounts

There are lots of interesting issues on the thread and I am pleased everyone has continued posting despite some of us having very different political views from each other. As I just got my twins back from their maths GCSE (it was awful apparently and one or both was likely to have got an A* and the other an A so who knows now....) and have been working other than that since about 6.30am....... addressing some issues:-

1. Gaps in career history. interestingly one of my daughters yesterday was chatting about her work's recruitment of another person. One candidate has gaps and it is negative (these are not gaps to have babies) or seen as so as they are after a hard worker apparently os the gap years, the not doing much years, the pointless MA time filler because you could not get a job might for some roles be held against you. On the other hand the man on the road just now on the phone and smoking who is standing there all day changing the sign from stop to go as I said to the twins he won't need a maths GCSE.

1. Help with buying. I had no help but I was married when I bought at 22 and took no maternity leave and worked full time and we had two professional wages and bought in a bit of London many people then and now don't want to live in. I'm sure I've posted it elsewhere - my children's father paid one daughter's stamp duty (awful that the state takes so much from you just because you buy in London) and that was £10k!!! I would abolish stamp duty entirely. I helped her with the deposit on her buy to let as I knew that as a very hard working lawyer she'd increase her pay quite a bit (whereas her brother as a post man presumably will be on £20k for the next 40 years).

The other bought without help but with her husband and she had the sense to be a City lawyer and he works in finance and they bought before they had babies. She also saved a huge amount of her wages even as a trainee lawyer - it was absolutely amazing to me and I was very proud. She almost beats me on frugality. She has my parents WWII gene I suspect.

However yes my daughters have benefited from my jam tomorrow philosophy. I read to them at bed time rather than going out drinking. That helped them. I fed them good foods. I chose a career which enabled me to pay school fees. I expressed breastmilk at work (that improves IQ) and I ensured they graduated without student debt on the basis I would pay for education and then leave them to make their own way on the whole. I was particular keen daughter buying on her own got on and bought 2 years ago.

So I am not suggesting they have had no help. They could have bought without that help given the salaries they earn in their 20s and ability to save.

Will look at other posts in a minute. have to make a business call.

Ah. No break from Carroll. Never mind.

What happens if everyone (or even twice the number) have the 'good sense' to train to be City lawyers? The scarcity of the skills will drop and pay will fall - and it may turn out to be not to be so sensible after all...

Careers then and now was another issue. Actually when I graduated we had an absolutely crippling recession. I was just about the top of my ear in law with university prizes and I applied to 115 law firms! A whole generation of graduates (and in those days only 15% of people went to university all) hardly got graduate level jobs at all. It certainly got easier after that. I see it as cycles - we have hard times and good.

Legal aid - even 40 years ago you only went into if you had a screw loose, had poor A levels and were not interested in money.

There was also loads of leaflets, guidance booklets, etc on interview preparation, at school and university. I can't remember how many times I read about how to prepare a cv and if you had gaps in it, how to make them more attractive to potential employers. So if you were out of work for a year, ideally you should have done some voluntary work or something like charity work or sports group involvement (I worked in CAB for some time which definitely helped me find my first job). But I do remember being told about the concept of "deferred gratification" in sociology at school, although it was such a disruptive class, it is possible that I was the only one listening!

This was 20 years ago and even then it was really hard to find a job on graduation. I had to spend a year doing odd jobs and volunteering with CAB. This wasn't unusual - some classmates were working in MacDonalds. Some people just didn't get jobs in their degree subject at all and ended up doing something else. I wrote hundreds of letters of application, which is one of the things that is easier now, as you can use a computer. It was also really hard to find out about public transport to interviews - no computer searching but having to go down to the bus station and collect paper timetables. And you had to be mobile - many of us moved quite far away from home for our first job.

Its also been well known for years that doing less vocational subjects could mean difficulty in finding jobs on graduation, especially if teaching didn't appeal. I remember having a flatmate studying Film and Media Studies (probably quite useful) who admitted that most of her class thought it wouldn't provide them with a job on graduation and that it was a waste of time!

This was 20 years ago and even then it was really hard to find a job on graduation. I had to spend a year doing odd jobs and volunteering with CAB. This wasn't unusual - some classmates were working in MacDonalds. Some people just didn't get jobs in their degree subject at all and ended up doing something else. I wrote hundreds of letters of application, which is one of the things that is easier now, as you can use a computer. It was also really hard to find out about public transport to interviews - no computer searching but having to go down to the bus station and collect paper timetables. And you had to be mobile - many of us moved quite far away from home for our first job

I'm of a not dissimilar vintage - and a lot of what you've described is absolutely the norm in other countries I've experienced, particularly the idea that there isn't an automatic 'graduate job' on graduation.

But there's a dissonance here between those advocating 'live at home for longer to save money' and as you've rightly pointed out, the need for many of us to move far from home to enter careers.

Yes, the legal aid comment by notauniquename is an odd one. Its very specialised, niche work and most firms don't do it. It certainly doesn't affect all lawyers, and certainly criminal law in particular wasn't a field most of us who had choices were rushing into.

I also think there are more interesting opportunities available now which can provide access to decent careers. When I graduated, it was a traineeship and nothing else, whereas now you can do internships, often paid better than a traineeship, with international institutions, stints of working for pressure and interest groups and QUANGOs, which simply didn't exist 20 years ago. You used to regularly get traineeships offered without a salary, as the minimum was only "recommended". I went to one interview where I was told I wouldn't get any holidays except two days at Christmas and New Year, I was asked in interviews if I planned children and all new female trainees were told to wear skirts! This really wasn't all that long ago. I was also paid less than the male trainee in my first job who only had a 2:2. Its much more flexible now.

my children's father paid one daughter's stamp duty (awful that the state takes so much from you just because you buy in London) and that was £10k!!! I would abolish stamp duty entirely. I helped her with the deposit on her buy to let as I knew that as a very hard working lawyer she'd increase her pay quite a bit (whereas her brother as a post man presumably will be on £20k for the next 40 years).

The other bought without help but with her husband and she had the sense to be a City lawyer and he works in finance

oh I see.

However yes my daughters have benefited from my jam tomorrow philosophy.

no your daughters have benefits from marrying well and four figure cash gifts.

that's luck, not hard work.

so,
back to what I already said, you have had a whole heap of luck, you bought many years ago when the market was different, your (not hugely unreasonable) idea of going without and saving has different connotations and different lengths of time that you'd need to do that for. (hence why I say it's not really relevant.)

your current day example of your kids has less to do with hard work, and more to do with all the luck I previously mentioned about having good parents, luck with relationships.
But with an added privilege of parents who can cash gift four figure sums of money, at their first purchase, and then throw in even more money when they want to become a landlord!

I don't doubt that your daughters worked hard. but I'm pretty sure that even they would admit that a lot of what they have they have through luck and privilege!

Although the rise of internships are a double edged sword. A third are totally unpaid, according to the Sutton Trust (an older IPPR report had the figure much higher). And the recruitment processes for internships are often opaque and reward those with connections/networks, but then are treated as a main source of recruitment for those organisations. 37% of graduates being recruited into companies by the Times Top 100 Graduate Recruiters had previously done internships at those companies.

Alan Milburn's report on internships found that most are based in London, meaning that even those paying NMW may only be taken up by interns who have some financial backing to enable them to participate - particularly as the nature of an internship may preclude being able to take up a second job.

The way many internships currently run helps to entrench opportunity for those whose parents can afford it, unfortunately.