- to be fed-up of people thinking that my generation had it easy regarding housing?

[PUER125]

I often read comments on Mumsnet, saying that housing was affordable in a way that it isn't now.
If we take todays mortgage of £200,000 at 3% interest, a repayment mortgage would cost £11,376 per year. This equates to 42% of the average UK wage of £27,000.
In 1990, having left my husband whilst pregnant with my second child, and buying him out of the marital home, my mortgage was £40,000 and the interest rate 15%. Repayments were £6144 per year and the average wage was £13,760. This equated to 44.65% in mortgage costs.
And whilst I am having a rant, I am also fed-up of young people complaining that they will have to work until they are 67 before they can claim their pension.
With the majority of young people going to university, they don't enter the work force until they're 21, giving them a working life of 46 years.
My generation left school at 16/18, and we too shall work until we are 67. A work life of 49 years.
Earlier generations started work at 14/15 and retired at 65, a working life of 50 years, many of them worked in manual labour.
Each generation has their own difficulties and hardships. I shouldn't like to be starting out now; nor should I have liked to belong to an older generation.
Whilst being a single-parent, working full-time, was not easy, I coped; just as countless women before and after me have.
Can we please have a little more understanding of generations other than our own, instead of the resentment so often found on these pages?

"Baby boomers are the demographic cohort following the Silent Generation. There are no precise dates for when this cohort starts or ends; demographers and researchers typically use starting birth years ranging from the early-to-mid 1940s and ending birth years ranging from 1960 to 1964."
I think I am a bit too young to be one and my parents who endured WWII were a bit too old.

I agree there is no point in generational fighting. I would like to see tax and NI merged and those rich few pensioners who pay tax paying tax at say 32% on their pensions like workers do on their income and I would increase to age 85 things like the free bus pass and fuel allowances etc.

We could give everyone a universal income including pensioners in place of state pension and in place of benefits and have a much lower benefits cap. That might help a bit.

Fuel allowance is already payable only at state pension age as are bus passes (outside London). You have to claim a bus pass and I don't know anyone who's bothered.

You have the same effect on me. Not sure why! I'm the one trying to look past the convenience of media driven, intergenerational strife to try and work out what, if anything, I can do to make a difference!

Not falling for the easy answer, is on of the things I can do!

You have to claim a bus pass and I don't know anyone who's bothered. I live out in a small rural village, many people do use the free bus pass, it's either that or get stuck in the house/village for weeks on end.

Mind you, where I used to live it was a 3 mile walk to the nearest bus stop and there were 2 buses a day, 1 out, 1 back again! Not sure many were used out there!

I don't know anyone who hasn't claimed the bus pass including two people I know who are millionaires a few times over actually and I don't blame them - we pay in so cver much tax, those of us on the highest rates for 40 years + and the last we can get back is that. If you are allowed to claim something claim it in my book. That is why extending these things so you only get a university benefit at say 85 rather than 60 works very well as you don't have to do expensive means testing.

What can we do to make a difference? I fund the children at university and help their first house purchases. I gave them all my poensions at 55 for housing. I will work full time until I die. I pay loads of tax. I think I'm doing my bit. I don't actually think I'm a boomer because i'm slightly too young but it depends how late in the 60s your birth needs to be so as not to be one,.

The problem with individuals supporting their families is that you entrench inequality, it's a nice thing to do but contributes to societal issues rather addressing them.

I am certainly not giving my life savings to pay off the national debt or pay NHS managers' wages or fund the contributions to the Oxfam brothel use and by working full time until I die that will be a massive massive contribution to the very poorest in society through paying lots of tax so I think on all counts I am doing my bit.

I don't really see that giving money to your child is toodifferent frmo reading to them as children so theyget interested in books and do well at school or cuddle them and make them feel loved so that they are more likely to be stable and happy adults or feed them healthy whole foods rather than junk. All those things are about love really

The problem with individuals supporting their families is that you entrench inequality, it's a nice thing to do but contributes to societal issues rather addressing them
yes. exactly.

No-one is saying that earlier generations had it "easy".

But it is simple empirical fact that the cost of housing has risen faster than the cost of wages since the 70s.

No-one is saying that earlier generations had it "easy". Unfortunately a lot of people are saying exactly that.

So what are we supposed to do? Help our families and we "entrench inequality". Don't help our families and we're selfish and uncaring. Spend our money and we're greedy spendthrifts. Save our money and "shrouds don't have pockets". It looks as if we just can't win here.

Perhaps the answer bluelady is for all of us who are homeowners to accept structural changes that will lead to a downwards adjustment of house values, improving access for everybody?

whisky that sounds good, but the last 2 times there was a 'downwards adjustment of house values' the financial fallout was wide ranging, fairly enormous, and the ripples are still being felt... interest rates etc.

Having narrowly escaped the dire consequences of the late 80s/early 90s crash I wouldn't wish that on anyone. If anyone tells you that all that has to happen is some people lose some money off their house value, don't think "Ha! Boomers can afford a loss" consider people whose mortgage is 4 or 5 years old - they will probably come close to losing everything.

And cheaper housing stock won't initially improve access, it will increase 2nd home owners, BTL landlords - 1st time buyers may not be in a position to take speedy advantage of a price drop!

Brilliant idea, Whisky. Ruin the lives of all the people who have bought at today's inflated prices and put thousands into negative equity. That will go really well, won't it? Boomers still have least to lose.

milennials will be the first modern generation to have a lower quality of life than their parents. Really? They may not be able to get on the property ladder but that is the only thing worse. I am only mid 40s and remember very well growing up going without things.

I think all you can do is understand the situation, make your voice heard against those who do not understand the situation (that's a tough one), and vote accordingly. And help your family of course, that's only natural in my view even if it does entrench inequality.

That is the elephant in the room isn't it? Standard of living / relative wealth is being measured by that 1 criteria. That is the divisive measure that newspapers are sold on, political points are scored with and yet... where are the houses?

No developer will take on brown field sites, and oh, those pesky boomers, they want to protect green field sites so where will they build - won't anyone think of the children???!!!!

In almost every other material way people have so many more 'things' now than any previous generation did at the same age. Though, I do have cause to doubt my logic there as I was soundly rebuked for saying that on another thread cos Boomers can access those same things nowadays!

I stepped away!

So what are we supposed to do? Help our families and we "entrench inequality". Don't help our families and we're selfish and uncaring.

Work towards a society which is more equal, so that the gap is less between the likely attainment of those born to the well-off and well-connected and those born to the less well-off and not well connected.

I used to feel equal opportunity was the important thing, but I've come to realise that some parents will always have more to invest in their children than others. The trouble is that certain careers are becoming unceasingly the preserve of the advantaged, and children of the less advantaged will struggle to be above minimum wage.

In these discussion the "average" is important, rather than the opportunities for outstanding individuals - it's good that a particularly talented person from a modest household may be able to reach the top, but if the average person from a privileged background is found a reasonable entry post through one of his/her parents' contacts, and the average person from a less privileged background ends up an MacDonalds, then the society isn't fair.

There is a huge difference between a house price crash and a gradualist policy, designed to take effect over many years, which will adjust housing values downwards very slowly. The downwards adjustment problem has many arms: increasingly supply, stopping land banking, introducing a land tax, building more social housing etc. etc. etc.

a gradualist policy, designed to take effect over many years A what?

Now... let's see. How would that work? Successive governments being voted in all agreeing to that, and getting the votes... I can't see it working, mainly as we don't in a totalitarian state or dictatorship, well, that and, how much would parts of that cost to monitor and police?

I used to feel equal opportunity was the important thing, but I've come to realise that some parents will always have more to invest in their children than others Be careful of what you wish for... your post slides very close to communism!

Entrenching equality never works either and a race to 'average' usually equals a stagnated mediocrity... that still has a monied elite!

We need to start with something else, and that is going to hurt! More taxation basically, preferable with a big chunk ring fenced for social housing; maybe incentives for use of brownfield sites (again); more incentives like the Liverpool £1 house combined with compulsory council purchase of 'abandoned houses'; less social security, tax credits etc, with employers picking up the deficit (they've had that cushion for long enough now)... and a whole heap of other variations.

Austeriy simply isn't working, we need to do something else! There are plenty of other models out there!

The recent changes are working. We sold our previous house at a loss in London in the 90s (property crash) so it is not as if those of us my age are unused to difficult times. Plenty of people my age (divorced, female) often rent and have very little actually so it is not the case that all women in my age and life stage have some easy ride and own a house. The change in interest relief for 40% tax paying landlords with mortgages is leading to fewer landlords out there. The change in stamp duty land tax so that buy to letters pay an extra 3% is stopping more landlords coming on stream and some are selling due to being taxed on profits they do not make due to the interest rate changes.

The abolition of stamp duty for property up to £300k is helping a lot of people even inthe SE (for first time owner occupiers only).

The annual tax on properties over £500k held in a company called ATED is stopping some people buying a property within a company and the 15% stamp duty that then applies to those "enveloped dwellings".

Houses worth over £1m and particularly over £2m due to up to 12% stamp duty at the upper end are losing money hand over fist at prseent in the SE.
People saying we older ones should support structural changes - I do. I would be more than happy if my house were worth £100k not £1m as I will never move and will die in it (probably still crammed with loads of children/grandchildren/great grandchildren and perhaps lodgers by then....) and my children will probably never downsize either so even those who have bought will move up the market - thus price falls are absolutely fine. Accordingly to zoopla my house has gone down by 6.2% in the last 6 months (I am outer London) which again is fine although we really need the £420k small terraced house we started in locally to be more like £250k to make it affordable to two full time gaduate workers in a couple. Prices may yet drop - let us see. My son's house cost £330k about a year ago (very outer reaches of a London tube line)

Can't compare these days now to then, the house prices have gone up MUCH MORE than wage rises and average wage in comparisons with each other from back in the day.

It's disgusting how expensive houses have now become and wages SHOULD BE HIGHER across the board.

It’s going to depend to some extent on area, but I certainly think it’s harder now. House prices have risen so much when compared to average salaries - it’s that much harder to save a big enough deposit, especially given how expensive rent in has become in many areas.

It’d be quite normal around here for the mortgage on a small property to be around the same, or less than the equivalent rent - if you can scrape together a 10% deposit.
Often extremely difficult or impossible, unless parents are willing and able to help.
If dh and I had been born 30 years later, we’d never have been able to afford the house we bought while still in our 20s.
I still find it hard to believe how an ordinary 2 bed flat in an OK-ish but non fashionable part of SW London can cost half a million pounds, but they do.

A somewhat older friend told us recently how her mother had urged and urged her to buy a house in what was then an unfashionable area of London - it still isn’t exactly fashionable but has certainly gentrified a lot.

The Georgian type of house she eventually bought - obviously needing an awful lot of modernising - could have been bought at her mother’s first urging, for £1000. She didn’t feel at all like buying then, but changed her mind after a year or so - during which time prices had already doubled.

This was in the 60s, though.

That house would now be priced at around £1m.