And boomers wonder why millennials are bitter towards them..

[RandomMonkeH]

You keep talking about a choice. Most of us never made a choice to rent, we had no choice. Renting isn't a choice for millennials, it's the only way to have a roof over our heads. This is why millennials are upset by attitudes like yours.

On the other hand as a Millennial you have grown up with a lot of advantages and modern comforts that weren't there for GenX or Boomers, so it is swings and roundabouts.
You can't cherry pick. Plenty of millennials have mortgages and own a house. It isn't as easy as it once was, granted - but still possible.

 

[Woden]

If I'd worked my whole life to be able to comfortably retire I wouldn't want anyone taking it either!

This his exactly what millennials want.

Though I don't see the concept of retiring existing for low-mid earners existing for much longer

 

[bakes0310]

Bought our first house (4 bedroom doerupper) in November both of us on minimum wage while renting. Took us about 3 years to save but we did it. Going to take us a year or two to finish the house (plastering etc) but it can be done. London would probably be a lot harder though.

 

[Terminal_Boy]

Imagine life without Channel 5 or the internet

I don’t have to. I remember having just the four TV channels : BBC1, BBC2, Anglia and Thames.

 

[BongoHunter]

This his exactly what millennials want.

Is it though? I'm a millennial and so are a lot of my friends - we don't want to see an entire generation screwed - they're our family (well somebodies - but you know what I mean)

 

[Woden]

Is it though? I'm a millennial and so are a lot of my friends - we don't want to see an entire generation screwed - they're our family (well somebodies - but you know what I mean)

Sorry o didn't come across right.

That's exactly what I mean. I just want people to be able to retire and not have to worry about having a roof over our heads or food in our bellies.

 

[Semple]

Buying a house has been ingrained into us as a 'property always goes up'. And it's basically a no brainer.

I know that's a prime reason people have bought properties, but the same concept applies even if property prices miraculously stay fixed for the next 100 years.

Those who rent build no equity, which means they need to continue with a relative income in order to secure the rent.

Those who purchase will eventually have an asset with a lot of equity, plus the joys of no longer having to pay for what accounts for most peoples largest monthly expenditure - the mortgage.

That undoubtedly makes retirement a lot easier, if all you've gotta do is pay for utility bills, insurance and food versus someone who has to pay all that along with £££ in rent.

 

[Mr Badger]

Imagine life without Channel 5 or the internet

What is a Channel 5?
Is it on the CB?

 

[HACO]

On the other hand as a Millennial you have grown up with a lot of advantages and modern comforts that weren't there for GenX or Boomers, so it is swings and roundabouts.
You can't cherry pick. Plenty of millennials have mortgages and own a house. It isn't as easy as it once was, granted - but still possible.

Nobody said it's literally impossible. If prices grow to 10x, still some millennials will be homeowners. But when you look at statistics, you'll see that homeownership is significantly down compared to other generations at similar ages. That's not due to lack of trying or laziness or different choices (as boomers often say it is). It's because it's freaking unaffordable.

Scientific advancements happen all the time, irrespective of other things. We don't owe modern technology to inflated housing prices that benefited boomers or stagnation of wages that harms millennials. These are unrelated. You can have modern technology AND wage increases inline with living costs and a sane housing market.

 

[Mr Badger]

Boomer or millennial, you don't have a god given right for your property to go up in value. Like any other investment, it can do up or down. It's not a risk-free investment and nobody should expect it to be. The fact that the homeowner class believes they're entitled to risk-free growth shows how ****ed up this whole thing has become.

Prices going down doesn't affect the person's ability to live there either, mortgage payments remain the same and they can continue living there. It only hurts the investment angle of home ownership, which again, is not supposed to be risk-free.

Buying a house has been ingrained into us as a 'property always goes up'. And it's basically a no brainer.

It's a shame that there is so much focus on housing as an investment opportunity rather than being homes for people to live in. There is nothing wrong with wanting the security of owning your own home and if you work a legit full time job then it should be feasible to buy at least a flat somewhere that doesn't require commuting across the country. Negative equity is always presented as some unspeakable evil, but if you are looking to move to a more expensive property then prices falling overall actually helps you. If you want to buy houses as an investment then you should absolutely be prepared to take the losses in the same way you are prepared to take the growth and pay your mortgage with the rent you charge. Personally I would ban right to buy, rebuild the stock of council housing, fine/confiscate when it comes to developers and foreign investors sitting on land or empty properties, tax additional properties hard and regulate the rental market to improve standards and security for good tenants.

 

[Chrisc]

It must be by far the best time to have lived.

No world wars.
Great opportunities with housing while having an easy life.
Great pensions

So lucky. I wish I had lived through that age.
Would I swap with a boomer?
Would most boomers swap with millenials? Probably not!

The only thing they had going for them was cheap and readily available property. Whats killed the housing market is lack of council houses, forcing people into private rented houses. The girl that lives next door to me, pays £200 a month more to rent than what my mortgage costs!

Other than that, they had it pretty crappy imo.

Starting with schools where teachers were mostly always ex military and loved to abuse their power physically, they werent particularly well suited teachers.

• TV was crap,
• holidays were crap
• cars were crap
• Shops were crap
• food was crap

a lot of people look back with rose tinted glasses complaining about how good town markets used to be, they werent! they were crap!

people need to realise, the best time to be alive is now! (2020 aside)

 

[HACO]

Personally I would ban right to buy, rebuild the stock of council housing, fine/confiscate when it comes to developers and foreign investors sitting on land or empty properties, tax additional properties hard and regulate the rental market to improve standards and security for good tenants.

We need all of those and much more. Many countries have land value taxes (sometimes as high as 2% of the land valuation) and it has helped tremendously to create good housing prospects for all people. Regulating the rental market, setting caps to rents and rent increases, banning no fault evictions and taxing all rental income at income tax rates will also help a lot.

These are not radical policies, what is radical is that we don't do them.

 

[builder22]

What is a Channel 5?
Is it on the CB?

Oscar bravo horseshoe!

 

[RxR]

@HACO - they (the housing market reform proposals you mention) could be considered radical from the perspective that they may, or if they, set a lot of people more down, backward or broke.

 

[HACO]

@HACO - they (the housing market reform proposals you mention) could be considered radical from the perspective that they may, or if they, set a lot of people more down, backward or broke.

No doubt. Any reform will have effects, some people who benefited from the status quo will be worse off. If the US decided to run a single payer healthcare system, all those health insurance companies will go bust and their employees will lose their jobs, but it's not a radical policy, leaving tens of millions of people uninsured and hundreds of thousands of medical bankruptcies every year is radical.

Same thing here. Sure, a land value tax might mean the boomer who lives at their £2m property will have to downsize. The guy who relied in rental income from 10 properties for retirement might need to sell some of them. If that landlord is highly leveraged then they might go broke, like anyone else who makes bets using leveraged money. These are not radical, what is radical is that millions of young people are paying 50% or of their income in rent and have no prospects of ever becoming home owners, given wage stagnations.

 

[Jez]

setting caps to rents and rent increases, banning no fault evictions

This sort of comment is just madness and is quite annoying as someone who has sunk a very large proportion of my families money into property.

The house which a tenant rents is not their house, it is the owners house. If i want one of my properties back, then i will have it back, it is mine, it is not my tenants and i would expect that tenant to leave should i ever want it, within the bounds of the AST. There is this constant narrative that a tenant should somehow have some rights over a property beyond privacy within their tenancy period. Why should they?, again, it is not their property, it is the owners! I will also reserve the right to charge whatever i like for the use of my property - it is mine, bought with my money, it is no more the tenants than my own residential house, cars, or anything else is. The tenant can refuse to pay, that on the flip side is absolutely their prerogative.

Not sure what you mean about tax rates either, income derived from property is already taxed at your marginal rate if taken personally.

 

[fobose]

This sort of comment is just madness and is quite annoying as someone who has sunk a very large proportion of my families money into property.

I agree. I was going to say that those that are renting have the advantage that they can just give notice whenever they want and re locate, but for a lot of hard working low earning families that is not an option and the upheaval would not be a very nice. Maybe if there were more cheap to rent council houses for family's in need the situation would be a bit easier.

I think this thread has changed my mind significantly and made me realise that I am in quite a unique situation myself. Don't get me wrong, I still feel it took me a lot of hard work to get on the property ladder when I was earning way below average wage but my circumstances have changed since those days.

 

[FoxEye]

I don't expect any sympathy, as I agree completely - just pointing out that it isn't all rosy for homeowners. It is also for the same reasons that I have no sympathy for those who have made the choice to rent instead of buying. They have the flexibility and none of the risk - worst case scenario, you just stick all your stuff in the back of a van, drop the keys through the letter box and walk away, you lose a couple of £k from your deposit at most.

You make your decision and make the best of it. Don't **** and moan at those who made a different decision and it happened to be the right one.

Why do you think lower earners can afford to just throw away their deposit? "It's only a couple £k".

Truly this thread is showing up those who have NO idea how the other half lives.

 

[FoxEye]

It's a shame that there is so much focus on housing as an investment opportunity rather than being homes for people to live in. There is nothing wrong with wanting the security of owning your own home and if you work a legit full time job then it should be feasible to buy at least a flat somewhere that doesn't require commuting across the country. Negative equity is always presented as some unspeakable evil, but if you are looking to move to a more expensive property then prices falling overall actually helps you. If you want to buy houses as an investment then you should absolutely be prepared to take the losses in the same way you are prepared to take the growth and pay your mortgage with the rent you charge. Personally I would ban right to buy, rebuild the stock of council housing, fine/confiscate when it comes to developers and foreign investors sitting on land or empty properties, tax additional properties hard and regulate the rental market to improve standards and security for good tenants.

Agree with all of this.

We need all of those and much more. Many countries have land value taxes (sometimes as high as 2% of the land valuation) and it has helped tremendously to create good housing prospects for all people. Regulating the rental market, setting caps to rents and rent increases, banning no fault evictions and taxing all rental income at income tax rates will also help a lot.

These are not radical policies, what is radical is that we don't do them.

The British psyche is somewhat different to our nearest neighbours. We ("we") look across the pond a the German (etc) housing market, and we see the evils of socialism.

Instead of seeing a social safety net and secure housing for all, we see excessive regulation that stops investors and entrepreneurs from making money.

I actually think this is so ingrained in our way of thinking it will be close to impossible to adopt housing regulation as found on the continent.

This sort of comment is just madness and is quite annoying as someone who has sunk a very large proportion of my families money into property.

The house which a tenant rents is not their house, it is the owners house. If i want one of my properties back, then i will have it back, it is mine, it is not my tenants and i would expect that tenant to leave should i ever want it,

Right on cue, here is a prime example.

The idea is that housing should never be (any kind of) a risk to the owner, and tenants are expendable.

It's like saying you want the highest interest rate on the market but you demand the bank has to give you your money back instantly when you want it. Ie the profits of a long-terms investment with the instant access of a short term investment. And no risk, thanks.

Tenants rights? Just lol if you think that's important.

 

[Woden]

This sort of comment is just madness and is quite annoying as someone who has sunk a very large proportion of my families money into property.

The house which a tenant rents is not their house, it is the owners house. If i want one of my properties back, then i will have it back, it is mine, it is not my tenants and i would expect that tenant to leave should i ever want it, within the bounds of the AST. There is this constant narrative that a tenant should somehow have some rights over a property beyond privacy within their tenancy period. Why should they?, again, it is not their property, it is the owners! I will also reserve the right to charge whatever i like for the use of my property - it is mine, bought with my money, it is no more the tenants than my own residential house, cars, or anything else is. The tenant can refuse to pay, that on the flip side is absolutely their prerogative.

Not sure what you mean about tax rates either, income derived from property is already taxed at your marginal rate if taken personally.

This is exactly the problem, written better than I ever could.

Those tenants are not an expendable commodity, they are people, families. And you absolutely have a duty of care towards them.

The only landlords worried about German-style regulations (where it works very well) are the ones that scrape by doing the very bare minimum with no regard for the people that are paying for their services.