To wonder where the money is coming from to buy houses?

[00100001]

So, if houses used to be (say) 4-5x average annual salary back in the olden days of the boomers.

And now house prices are 10 X average salary... Bit they're still being bought, and people want to buy...

Where is this money coming from?

Are boomer parents artificially inflating house prices by giving huge sums of money by releasing equity etc?

Who is buying the expensive houses??

@WindyState

"£70,000 isn't that much to save for 2 people living rent free at home, on a good to average salary. £35,000 each at £1,000pm would take 3 years. "

Which of course assumes that they are actually able to live rent free at home, find 2 jobs that pay 35k (which is way above average salary for a graduate) and they have no other big expenses for that entire time.

Jobs dont need to be £35k per annum to save £35k in one year? £1500 pm salary each (circa £20k per annum) which is just over minimum wage at £9.590ph x39x52) which leaves £500pm spends and £1000pm saved each month. But agree, only if parents don't charge them rent.

[quote weansu]@Blossomtoes I meant including the home, it's obviously not popular but I still see it coming [/quote]
It lost May her majority in 2017. It would be a very brave party that mooted the idea again.

[quote 00100001]@Whammyyammy agreed. But the poster implied it was not having his nails done that was the reason they saved £70k[/quote]
Misses that part. But I presume getting nails done was a flippant comment made to emphasise thar it can be done if determined and going without luxuries.

I.meant save 35k in three years. Not a year

"Jobs dont need to be £35k per annum to save £35k in one year? £1500 pm salary each (circa £20k per annum) which is just over minimum wage at £9.590ph x39x52) which leaves £500pm spends and £1000pm saved each month. But agree, only if parents don't charge them rent."

Ah true, I misread it. But on an average grad salary of 20k saving 1k out of a take home of 1.4k is massively unrealistic. Even without rent people still need to eat/travel etc.

Ah true, I misread it. But on an average grad salary of 20k saving 1k out of a take home of 1.4k is massively unrealistic. Even without rent people still need to eat/travel etc.

I agree it's more like 1400 not 1500 & does that mean paying no bills either.

@Blossomtoes

Most pensioners these days are also tax payers.

Yes, but pay much less direct tax as they're not paying NIC on their pension nor investment incomes for a start, compared to younger "workers" who pay NIC on their wages.

As for indirect taxes, yes, they pay, but probably spend on different things, so probably pay less indirect tax as more likely to be paying for VAT free foreign travel, VAT free healthcare, etc

It lost May her majority in 2017. It would be a very brave party that mooted the idea again.

No my point it's inevitable like the new NI levy & the freezes to tax bands, the triple lock. Of course it will be unpopular

We didn’t have any deposit help as such, but we were able to save the deposit as we had both lived at home and paid minimal rent (£250pm), and neither of us were into going a lot etc.

I think free prescriptions age will increase, that will also be unpopular but it's inevitable

@weansu

I think free prescriptions age will increase, that will also be unpopular but it's inevitable

I think it's fair enough for people still working to pay, I think they should kick in when over x age and when retired personally

@weansu

It lost May her majority in 2017. It would be a very brave party that mooted the idea again.

No my point it's inevitable like the new NI levy & the freezes to tax bands, the triple lock. Of course it will be unpopular

You’re missing the point. No party that put it in its manifesto would get elected. However much you might want something doesn’t make it inevitable. Would you have voted this government in if they’d said they were increasing NI?

It won't be popular though

[quote weansu]@Blossomtoes I meant including the home, it's obviously not popular but I still see it coming [/quote]
If you are in residential care and noone else lives in the house you own then it IS taken in to consideration. You don't have to sell it - the local authority will give you a loan which is taken from the estate on your death.

If someone else lives in it, it gets more complicated and depends who it is and why.

@weansu

It won't be popular though

You do know how voting works? Unpopular policies mean losing elections - as May discovered.

It seems the thread requires a reminder on every page that not everyone can live at home to save up deposits.

Reasons include lack of room, as time goes on parents not having their own home, up to and including being homeless themselves, abusive homes of one description or another - and last but by no means least having a home to offer, but nowhere near where jobs are.

@Blossomtoes what makes you think it would have to be in the manifesto? the triple lock was promised wasn't it? I would vote for a party that taxed wealth more.

But, can't you see that it wasn't the lack of false nails that got them to the £70k, it's the fact they were living at your house for free/subsidised.

Lets assume your son and gf bring home around £3000 pcm, and and pay £2000+ in rent and bills, and general living costs.
And let's say if your son got false nails and his hair cut once every month. That's, what? £100? And let's even multiply that by 5 to show that he had no luxuries, because they were saving, and the rest of their salaries went on rent, bills, one off costs (MoT etc) etc.
So they're saving £500pcm, that would have taken 140 months to save £70k. That's over 10 years!

Two thoughts about this.

a) Saving £70k over ten years would work, or at least massively help would it not? Don't spend your twenties flaunting your false nails and wolfing avocados and you'll have a deposit in your thirties.

b) The nails and avocados (or craft beer or moustache wax) are just symbolic. It means live cheap. For quite a while. It's not much fun. It includes things like staying at home and not renting your own place. It still won't save up a deposit for many people. But for many others it will.

You do know how voting works? Unpopular policies mean losing elections - as May discovered.

Well Brexit wasn't popular with me & I'd argue Mays deal was better then Boris's one. I don't think the Tories are particularly popular at the moment but you can disagree.

[quote weansu]@Blossomtoes what makes you think it would have to be in the manifesto? the triple lock was promised wasn't it? I would vote for a party that taxed wealth more. [/quote]
The triple lock has been suspended for one year, not axed. The Tory government knows whence its votes come hence it will return just in time for the next election.

However much you might want something doesn’t make it inevitable

And just to clarify I don't want my pension age to increase further, to pay more NI & more tax. It's happening though....

@OpheliaThrupps

But, can't you see that it wasn't the lack of false nails that got them to the £70k, it's the fact they were living at your house for free/subsidised.

Lets assume your son and gf bring home around £3000 pcm, and and pay £2000+ in rent and bills, and general living costs.
And let's say if your son got false nails and his hair cut once every month. That's, what? £100? And let's even multiply that by 5 to show that he had no luxuries, because they were saving, and the rest of their salaries went on rent, bills, one off costs (MoT etc) etc.
So they're saving £500pcm, that would have taken 140 months to save £70k. That's over 10 years!

Two thoughts about this.

a) Saving £70k over ten years would work, or at least massively help would it not? Don't spend your twenties flaunting your false nails and wolfing avocados and you'll have a deposit in your thirties.

b) The nails and avocados (or craft beer or moustache wax) are just symbolic. It means live cheap. For quite a while. It's not much fun. It includes things like staying at home and not renting your own place. It still won't save up a deposit for many people. But for many others it will.

Fair point.

But should it take 10 years to save up a deposit for a house, to then take 20-30year loan to pay the rest?

And also, you say "stay at home" as if everyone has that choice?

a) Saving £70k over ten years would work, or at least massively help would it not? Don't spend your twenties flaunting your false nails and wolfing avocados and you'll have a deposit in your thirties

Meanwhile house prices have outstripped your savings.

b) The nails and avocados (or craft beer or moustache wax) are just symbolic. It means live cheap. For quite a while. It's not much fun. It includes things like staying at home and not renting your own place. It still won't save up a deposit for many people. But for many others it will

..again, who is lucky enough or indeed wants to live at home for an extra 10years scrounging off their parents?

Just another entitled view that doesn't reflect the reality for the vast majority of people.

Should interest rates rise significantly that is going to cause a huge problem with repayments, as will the increases in energy costs etc.

The triple lock has been suspended for one year, not axed.

I never said it was axed did I? It just wasn't suspended in the manifesto was it? And it's not popular?