To think we shouldnt be giving millennials 10k?!

[savingin2018welltryingto]

Sorry if there is another thread about this, I couldn't find one.

But seriously, just no?!

What 18 year old is seriously in a position to buy a house? Who even moves out at 18 unless they have a troubled background.

I stayed at home until 28 when I bought my first house with a decent deposit. My partner bought at 24. He made money on his first house but lost money on his second. Neither of us had gone to Uni we both went into work straight from school.

I think the last thing we need to do is teach young people they will get something for nothing. There has been enough time of that.

Virtual no one buys at 18, the average ftb is close to 40 and it used to be mid 20s a generation ago. But the desire is there.

Phew Xenia I thought 17% was a bit steep. Mind you 1.7 of a million is still £17,000 which is a very hefty tax on expensive house-owning pensioners so I can’t see them voting this in.

I can’t think of a single 18 year old I know desperate to own a house. Just not on their radar yet.

I’ve never met an 18 year old with a genuine interest in buying a home in the short term. The only people I know who left home at that age were going to uni or had issues at home so were either forced or desperate to leave.

I think the media are putting it into under 25s heads that they should be expecting to buy a home at that age and are fuelling resentment. I was 26 and that was seen as unusual back in the 00s.

I would like 10k

The youngest any of my friends were when they bought their first property was 30-ish. We all bought at some time in our 30s. No wonder young people are pissed off if they seriously expect to own houses 15 - 20 years younger than we did. Boomers or not, that's never been normal or possible.

I bought my first house at 18. At 25 I owned 2 homes and would have spent a £10k handout on a holiday.

Nobody can generalise, only comment on their own circumstances or those of their nearest and dearest.

Not the best way to reduce the housing crisis. It will not build one more house, just push up prices as help to buy has done.

Yep, increase supply and reduce demand. Build more houses and make renting more attractive. It's not rocket science is it?

It isn’t the supply of houses per se which is the problem.

It’s the problem of not enough affordable home. There is just about enough housing to go around, people just cannot afford it.

Building more does nothing especially when built by private builders who are not interested in reducing profit. That’s why councils need to be able to build homes which are within reach of normal families.
However we’ve got a stigma of social housing for “the poor”, when the reality is that most average waged families cannot afford to buy!

That's true. So it must be the cost of building land then rather than pay given to the men who build the houses themselves, in areas where people have jobs. Eg in our bit of outer London zone 5 the first house we bought costs £400k (1930s terraced, 3 bed, bit of garden, freehold), and one bed conversions - flats about £200k. My son's 2 up 2 down little house with garden is further out at end of a tube line and that cost about £330k last year.

So a lot of couples working in London on say £30k each (not unusual for Central London wages) could borrow about £200k or so which means it is very hard - you just need to move much further out to buy which is not impossbile and I slummed it on a hour's commute either way then and now and indeed int he80s I worked with law firm partners coming in from Brighton, Kent, Herts, all over the place presumably not just because they like the country but they could not afford a mansion in Mayfair or even a 3 bed in Chiswick.

Whereas go to Sunderland, Newcastle, Halifax, other bits of Yorks where family live and it is a totally different world and there is nothing like the same problems over rent costs or mortgage costs if two of you with full time wages are buying before babies, particularly if you are graduates.

But in our little northern town there are loads and loads of houses being built (some on green belt and amenity land but that's another story). And the fact there is suddenly this glut on the market seems to be keeping prices competitive.

Buying further out just means higher commuting costs.

We’ve bought outside London but commute into London because we cannot afford to buy a house in a sensible area with the right travel links. However the travel costs added wiped out most of the reduced mortgage.

Not necessarily, as there is an entire world beyond London.

There is but there are plenty of people like me who were born in London and have family in London. Plus jobs tied to London.

How dare we want to stay near to where our support network is.

I hate the ' just move away' argument, might work for some but if youhappen to be born and bred in one area why would you want to move away miles from anyone? It might work for some but most people just wouldnt want to do this - why should they?

I am seriously against any and all of these proposals that involve handing money out to individuals instead of fixing the bloody systems! Instead of handing out 10k which will just go, cancel tuition fees or at least halve them. And stop the sodding buy to let!

Where has this thought of one age group being particularly at need of hand outs come from? Life has never been easy for youngsters with no family support she says knowingly. Just because it's finally hitting the southern middle classes rather than northern working groups doesn't mean they are more desperately in need than everyone else who has been watching inequality grow for years!

Seems to me it’s just a bribe for the youth vote. Similar to labour saying they’ll scrap tuition fees

Did we as a nation benefit greatly from people paying either nothing or very little for their uni education???

I don't think we ought to do anything with fees, they're absolutely fine as they are.

Free uni probably opened it up to more people.

But back in the day fewer jobs required a degree. College qualifications HNC/HND actually counted for something, now those aren't worth the paper they are written on because of the numbers of people with degrees. Are nurses with degrees really worth more than those who trained via the NHS?