Younger people should be rewarded for lockdown via affordable housing

[Ordree]

As others have noted, young people (not just those in frontline roles) are making enormous sacrifices to protect others, mostly but not exclusively from much older age groups. They will be bequeathed a damaged planet, a ruined economy and they will have done further damage to their mental health by staying indoors for months on end. They are the ones paying older people's pensions when they won't have anything like the same financial security to look forward to themselves. Yes I know older people paid their elders pensions during their working lives, bit never has there been such an imbalance. As the economy is likely to be ruined short to medium term anyway, would it not be reasonable to start the biggest givernment-funded housebuilding programme ever, allow younger people who have just bought to write off negative equity losses against tax, and essentially redress some of the appalling imbalance between generations and classes?

Discussed freely in society.

Why do some people want to make sure there is antagonism between ages?

And why is ageism allowed so freely on MN?

@Ordree someone earning £17500. in 1984 would have been in a highly paid job. The average wage was less than half that.
In an episode of the Good Life in 1978 Tom finds out that Jerry is on £18000.00 a year and is shocked at how high his salary is.
In 1976 when we bought our first home the mortgage was the whole of my salary with interest rates at 12%. My husband's salary paid for everything else.

A quick search of your other posts shows you complaining of experiencing racism. Yet here you are, posting ageist shite. You do realise that ageism is against Mumsnet Talk Guidelines, just like racism is, @Ordree**
If you think anything I have posted is ageist then report it. I don't think anything I wrote is. I think lots of people simply don't like hearing it so try any possible angle including false ones to fill the void where the counterargument should be.

I think lots of people simply don't like hearing it so try any possible angle including false ones to fill the void where the counterargument should be

Or the void where you refuse to supply information....?

It 100% is ageism on this thread. Implying all baby boomers are rich and had everything handed to them on a plate and never ever suffered and because of them the poor lil millenials and gen z are going to suffer forever because they cant buy a house because they are too busy buying a million other things they want more.

^ someone doesn't understand irony.

Ridiculous idea.

It 100% is ageism on this thread. Implying all baby boomers are rich and had everything handed to them on a plate and never ever suffered and because of them the poor lil millenials and gen z are going to suffer forever because they cant buy a house because they are too busy buying a million other things they want more

There is a person I know who is aged mid 20s. They own a second hand smartphone which is probably worth £100, earn ca. £2000 net per month. Due to having a single sick parent they live at home and pay £700 towards the maintenance of the household and as extra money for the I'll parent. They're unable to relocate due to an ill parent and jobs in their industry being overwhelmingly located in the expensive part of the UK in which they live. They neither drink not smoke. Even if, and obviously this is impossible but just to illustrate the point, they had no expenses at all outside the maintenance they pay, they'd save £15,600 per year. Assuming they for an investment return in line with inflation and that house prices remained flat, and assuming they already have £30,000 saved, it would take them 15 years (allowing for some inflationary pay rises and a real terms decline I.e. flat house prices) before they had sufficient funds to buy a modest property in their area. Remember, this is in the impossible scenario of saving 100% of their income less maintenance and bills. It also does not take account of stamp duty or furnishing costs. Is this a good position for a working person to be in?

Thank you! Thank you all you young people for paying my pension! Y’know, the one I worked for, 40 yrs working for the NHS.....so kind of you, so very, very kind! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

Ordree,
I do not understand your math.
You need 5% deposit and stamps duty is 1%, yes?
So if the person you know has already saved £30k and can save £15k per year, then they can buy a “modest property” within a year. How do you calculate it would take 15yrs to buy a home?

15yrs of saving £15k starting with a lump sum of £30k that appreciates by inflation (est 2%) as you said would give this person £303,000

Then they could buy a modest property with cash and no mortgage. But with £30k they could qualify for a mortgage and get a £300k property now, today.

unless, a “modest property” in their area goes for £3million.....?

I agree the younger generation will find it much harder to but y a house than the generation that went before them.
But in general, they have received a better education, have a wider range of career choices, have grown up taking holidays abroad and meals out for granted, and have been used to nicer accommodation and more home comforts than any other generation of children.

Every generation has had to live through good things and bad things, this generation is no exception.

A modest property in the area they live (see above for reasons they cannot relocate easily) costs around £415k. If their income increases via inflation to say £40k they will probably be allowed a mortgage of maximum £160k, even assuming no rise in interest rates. £415 less £160 leaves £255k to be funded from savings. The notional £30k existing savings leaves £225k to be saved which at the rate of £15k per year (again an impossible figure in itself) requires 15 years of saving (15*15 being £225k).

Assuming the cost of your friends property is £300k (this is a guess based on the figure you gave of £30k and a deposit typically being 10%) they wouldn’t pay any stamp duty as a first time buyer.

That makes no sense. The person you just described is not in a bad financial position at all and it wouldnt take 15 years. It did take me 15 years to save 8k enough for a deposit where i live then circumstances dictated i had to spend my deposit to live. Sods law. Unless the person in question wants to live in chelsea they will be able to save for a 10% deposit on a modest home. But again why should they? As long as they have access to safe living quatres they dont need to own. And also your scenario is annoying because it implys that the poor person in their 20s you mention has to pay out £700 from their £2000 monthly wage that is way more than a lot of people get as well as implying they are unlucky because they have to pay for other things during the month. Well so does everyone! Where does this entitlement come from that young people shouldnt work hard and scrimo and save for a few years to buy a modest home. I just dont get it.

“Modest” to you OP is way out of reality. I couldn’t live in an expensive part of the country in a “modest” house by your standards and don’t consider myself downtrodden or disadvantaged.

The average house price in the UK is around £231k.

Your friends circumstances are clearly unique and not representative of the whole of your generation. For that reason it’s not a great example to use to demonstrate the disadvantages of an entire generation.

Maybe they should relocate to a cheaper area. Even in london theres cheaper homes than £400k. Again everything handed to on a plate.

Also, sounds like your friend is pretty lucky to be living in an expensive area near to her work so cheaply. Think of her colleagues? Are they fortunate enough to be able to live with their parents? Or are they having to use private housing to facilitate the career they can’t do elsewhere.

This is such a weird thread. So you think people in their 20s should be given cheap homes in expensive areas, for what reason? Because they want one but dont want to work hard for it? Because i am from an expensive part of the south. I now live in a not very nice place in the north because living is cheaper (and thats where dp is from). Its all about sacrifices for a life you can realistically live.

And also your scenario is annoying because it implys that the poor person in their 20s you mention has to pay out £700 from their £2000 monthly wage that is way more than a lot of people get as well as implying they are unlucky because they have to pay for other things during the month

I at no time implied I thought they were unlucky through having to pay out for non bill costs such as travel to work. Bear in mind again the saving scenario I describe is impossible as it doesn't even allow for grocery costs. It is there in order to illustrate the falseness of the "avocado toast/smartphone" argument. And yes indeed their income is more than some (and way less than others) so if they face financial challenges, what would it be like for someone in an identical position and of an identical age with a.lower income?

the country should build a proper number of houses, like it used to in the [peacetime] 1930s through 80s, no more, no less, thereby giving the young the same opportunity that their parents and grandparents had.

fullfact.org/media/uploads/house_building_since_the_1920s.png

Basically OP thinks people should be given a leg up onto the housing ladder where house prices are double the national average.

Interesting OP also thinks that £1300 disposable income per month is low (when the nation average take home pay is £1937.99 and other people have to live off that, not just chose to spend or save it) and £700 housing expenses per month is steep. 🤔

The Office for National statistics does a wealth survey. It is not ageist to research this or talk about it. Attached are the findings as analysed by the FT. I assume they are not ageist either.

As for a nurse thinking that they have paid enough contributions for their pension is total piffle! The government tops up pension payments for government staff. Recently it was reported at over £13 billion a year. See attached. You have not paid for your pension. Those working are paying for nearly 1/3 of it! Just look at economic facts before presenting untrue posts.

How can they possibly face financial challenges with £1300 disposable income.

Touching on your previous posts they will miss out more if inheritance tax is raised, at the moment they will see some return.

Why should they not pay to live with their parents? Does their consumption of utilities and their parents housing them not carry a cost? Presumably their parents can’t downsize either as your friend needs to live there too...