I'm suggesting that I don't know enough about the reasons that she cannot afford a deposit. My suspicion (which may be totally wrong) is that she could find a cheaper place to rent but chooses not too. That's her choice, but if that is the case (big IF) then the headline is not really fair.
How do you know? Does the article say anything about having a cheaper place?
You're just putting onto her the usual "they pay too much rent", "eat too many avocados" rubbish I read in the Mail once a month.
I really think you are missing the point of what I am saying. The headline is not backed up by the story details. Its not about avocados. Its about realistic expectations, working out your goals and how you get there.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
How dare she plan ahead.
The point is that unless you live in a 1 bed flat with a long commute (which then costs), little money is left over from a reasonable salary in Birmingham.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
The fact you are telling someone earning 150% of the median wage that they have to share a flat should be telling you something
The problem is that, like many good policies, it will cost lots of money up front. And deliver results, noticeably, about 10 years from now. So terrible politics.
The mentality against increasing training is often hilarious. I recall at the beginning of Boris's term in government, the pledge to increase police numbers. Impossible, was the cry. One obstacle was that *there weren't enough* lockers at Hendon.
I mean, OK, classrooms might be an issue - order in some temporary units, as used on building sites. Shipping containers that lego together. Not ideal, but they work, while you build new classrooms.
Mentoring places in the police force, OK. That might be a bottleneck....
But lockers?
Hank Scorpio : Lockers!.... there's four places. There's the Locker Hut, that's on third....There's Lockers-R-Us, that's on third too. You got Put-Your-Stuff-There.... That's on third. Swing Low, Sweet Lockers... Matter of fact, they're all in the same complex; it's the Lockers District on third.
If Keir Starmer is remotely sensible then now is the time to be making difficult choices that will only see rewards 10 years from now.
Getting re-elected today isn't an issue, there's no election today. Getting re-elected in 2028/29 won't be much of a problem, if the Conservatives continue to be unelectable.
The challenges will start around 10 years from now. It would be helpful in 10 years time to be getting rewards from tough choices a decade earlier.
Making choices now that will pay off in 10 years time is good politics, not bad politics, for a newly elected government with a healthy majority. Whether they'll do it is a different matter.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
How dare she plan ahead.
The point is that unless you live in a 1 bed flat with a long commute (which then costs), little money is left over from a reasonable salary in Birmingham.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
The fact you are telling someone earning 150% of the median wage that they have to share a flat should be telling you something
I'm not telling her to do anything. I'm suggesting that there are ways.
If Biden has Alzheimer's - possible - then Trump certainly does.
Playground stuff. If our man smells of wee your man smells of double wee. Anyone who wants to keep trump out should be ecstatic about Biden going, and why he went is now academic. I hope trump is demented but don't see the evidence.
Trump forgot which town he was in mid-speech!
I think the evidence that Biden is demented is just as significant with Trump.
You can watch Trump's same decline between 2016 and now.
You say you hope Trump is demented but could you possibly be a bit blind as you seem to vaguely support what he has to say?
I think every word trump utters is a lie including "the" and "and" and that the most important thing in the world is that he should lose in November. How you get from there to vague support I have no idea.
Then I find it baffling you conclude he doesn't have dementia or cognitive decline. Just watch him speak in 2016 vs now.
The thing is, I can tell Biden's less able than he was. But as I say below, I'm not qualified to diagnose whether that's Alzheimer's, dementia, a.n.other condition or just a natural thing of doing a very hard job and trying to communicate at an advanced age.
And having said that, I have to say the same for Trump. Yes, I think he's less able than he was back in 2016; but have no idea what is causing that.
Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it
If Biden has Alzheimer's - possible - then Trump certainly does.
Playground stuff. If our man smells of wee your man smells of double wee. Anyone who wants to keep trump out should be ecstatic about Biden going, and why he went is now academic. I hope trump is demented but don't see the evidence.
Trump forgot which town he was in mid-speech!
I think the evidence that Biden is demented is just as significant with Trump.
You can watch Trump's same decline between 2016 and now.
You say you hope Trump is demented but could you possibly be a bit blind as you seem to vaguely support what he has to say?
I think every word trump utters is a lie including "the" and "and" and that the most important thing in the world is that he should lose in November. How you get from there to vague support I have no idea.
Then I find it baffling you conclude he doesn't have dementia or cognitive decline. Just watch him speak in 2016 vs now.
The thing is, I can tell Biden's less able than he was. But as I say below, I'm not qualified to diagnose whether that's Alzheimer's, dementia, a.n.other condition or just a natural thing of doing a very hard job and trying to communicate at an advanced age.
And having said that, I have to say the same for Trump. Yes, I think he's less able than he was back in 2016; but have no idea what is causing that.
My point was that if one concludes Biden has mental decline, Trump ticks all the same boxes.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
How dare she plan ahead.
The point is that unless you live in a 1 bed flat with a long commute (which then costs), little money is left over from a reasonable salary in Birmingham.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
The fact you are telling someone earning 150% of the median wage that they have to share a flat should be telling you something
I'm not telling her to do anything. I'm suggesting that there are ways.
Okay you are suggesting that a person earning 150% of the median wage should be living in shared accommodation.
My point still stands that it shows how screwed our housing market (both rental and purchase) is
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
I reckon there's a fair bit of rewriting of history on Biden. Back in 2020, many of us who backed him were concerned that he was well past his best, but we had to run with him because he was the best (only?) chance of beating Trump. Covid helped him a lot: it gave the Dems a good reason to limit his exposure during the heat of the 2020 campaign.
Roll on four years to 2024, and our fears have come to pass: of course he has declined further, and would only continue to do so up to 2028. The precise diagnosis doesn't matter at all. And if there was some Washington conspiracy to hide his decline from us all, they made a pretty poor job of it, didn't they? So, it's great that he's now seen sense and passed on the baton.
The Democrat's Employee of the Year award should go to whatever staffer came up with the idea of having a ludicrously early debate, then managed to sucker Trump into agreeing with it. On the normal calendar they'd have had to deal with this stuff in October, it would have been a total catastrophe.
That thought struck me too.
PS: It'll be interesting to see how Trump goes about dodging a debate with Harris.
Why should he ? It's not in his interest to do so.
Exactly. But he can't say that. "I refuse to debate my opponent because there's a big risk it will cost me a ton of votes." No, don't think so. He'll have to come up with an excuse and I'm just wondering what it might be.
Oh dont be daft he'll come up with some formula to get out of it like I dont debate beneath my pay grade or since Harris needs the debate he'll change all the conditions to things like he can interrupt any time he wants or Harris has to wear a bag on her head,
With 107 days left and having already won a debate, theres not much pressure on him unless he's mad enough to do it.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
We did that in the 2000s and it went tits up. Then we have had help to buy, soon to be relaunched as Freedom to Buy. Unfortunately it comes with a number of wider economic downsides. There is no free lunch especially when demand is massively outstripping supply.
I reckon there's a fair bit of rewriting of history on Biden. Back in 2020, many of us who backed him were concerned that he was well past his best, but we had to run with him because he was the best (only?) chance of beating Trump. Covid helped him a lot: it gave the Dems a good reason to limit his exposure during the heat of the 2020 campaign.
Roll on four years to 2024, and our fears have come to pass: of course he has declined further, and would only continue to do so up to 2028. The precise diagnosis doesn't matter at all. And if there was some Washington conspiracy to hide his decline from us all, they made a pretty poor job of it, didn't they? So, it's great that he's now seen sense and passed on the baton.
The Democrat's Employee of the Year award should go to whatever staffer came up with the idea of having a ludicrously early debate, then managed to sucker Trump into agreeing with it. On the normal calendar they'd have had to deal with this stuff in October, it would have been a total catastrophe.
That thought struck me too.
PS: It'll be interesting to see how Trump goes about dodging a debate with Harris.
Why should he ? It's not in his interest to do so.
Exactly. But he can't say that. "I refuse to debate my opponent because there's a big risk it will cost me a ton of votes." No, don't think so. He'll have to come up with an excuse and I'm just wondering what it might be.
Oh dont be daft he'll come up with some formula to get out of it like I dont debate beneath my pay grade or since Harris needs the debate he'll change all the conditions to things like he can interrupt any time he wants or Harris has to wear a bag on her head,
With 107 days left and having already won a debate, theres not much pressure on him unless he's mad enough to do it.
Well we're both being daft then since we're saying the same thing - that he'll dodge it and come up with some bullshit excuse.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So 1999 when house prices and rent were rather lower. If we are talking history between 1999 and 2004 house prices doubled in most parts of the UK
Edit Oh I missed the deposit bit so you agree that it’s only bank go mum and dad that got you into the living you actually have. Strange that only came up as we pushed the point
Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it
The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
Good morning
Sky are reporting Reeves is expected to move to abolish the 2 child benefit cap due to pressure from her left
Sky showed a you gov poll yesterday that by 60%/28% the public support the cap
Fiscal responsibility for Labour seems to be an optional choice depending on their politics
I would expect the result of these inflationary moves will see interest rates remain high for much longer
The cost of not paying salaries that enable you to recruit and retain teachers, nurses and others is far, far higher than the cost of doing so. The same applies to the two child policy. Short-termism guided by opinion polls has cost this country dear. It's about time it was consigned to the rubbish bin.
Then you have the choice of higher taxes and interest rates
Yes, the previous government left a disastrous legacy.
Including 4p off NI rates that wasn't funded, isn't affordable and didn't even manage to buy many votes.
That's a great legacy not a disastrous one, NI should be abolished.
Don't care if it didn't get any votes (and it didn't get mine either), it was the right thing to do.
If income tax needs to go up to balance NI going down, then that's OK, but taxing only those who work for their income is what is disastrous.
No NI should be ringfenced to fund contributory unemployment benefits, the state pension and some healthcare and social care as it was set up to do
If Biden has Alzheimer's - possible - then Trump certainly does.
Playground stuff. If our man smells of wee your man smells of double wee. Anyone who wants to keep trump out should be ecstatic about Biden going, and why he went is now academic. I hope trump is demented but don't see the evidence.
Trump forgot which town he was in mid-speech!
I think the evidence that Biden is demented is just as significant with Trump.
You can watch Trump's same decline between 2016 and now.
You say you hope Trump is demented but could you possibly be a bit blind as you seem to vaguely support what he has to say?
I think every word trump utters is a lie including "the" and "and" and that the most important thing in the world is that he should lose in November. How you get from there to vague support I have no idea.
Then I find it baffling you conclude he doesn't have dementia or cognitive decline. Just watch him speak in 2016 vs now.
The thing is, I can tell Biden's less able than he was. But as I say below, I'm not qualified to diagnose whether that's Alzheimer's, dementia, a.n.other condition or just a natural thing of doing a very hard job and trying to communicate at an advanced age.
And having said that, I have to say the same for Trump. Yes, I think he's less able than he was back in 2016; but have no idea what is causing that.
My point was that if one concludes Biden has mental decline, Trump ticks all the same boxes.
Yes, I'd agree with that, with a caveat that Trump's are less pronounced. But that might just be because people are not highlighting every little slip-up as much.
I reckon there's a fair bit of rewriting of history on Biden. Back in 2020, many of us who backed him were concerned that he was well past his best, but we had to run with him because he was the best (only?) chance of beating Trump. Covid helped him a lot: it gave the Dems a good reason to limit his exposure during the heat of the 2020 campaign.
Roll on four years to 2024, and our fears have come to pass: of course he has declined further, and would only continue to do so up to 2028. The precise diagnosis doesn't matter at all. And if there was some Washington conspiracy to hide his decline from us all, they made a pretty poor job of it, didn't they? So, it's great that he's now seen sense and passed on the baton.
The Democrat's Employee of the Year award should go to whatever staffer came up with the idea of having a ludicrously early debate, then managed to sucker Trump into agreeing with it. On the normal calendar they'd have had to deal with this stuff in October, it would have been a total catastrophe.
That thought struck me too.
PS: It'll be interesting to see how Trump goes about dodging a debate with Harris.
Why should he ? It's not in his interest to do so.
Exactly. But he can't say that. "I refuse to debate my opponent because there's a big risk it will cost me a ton of votes." No, don't think so. He'll have to come up with an excuse and I'm just wondering what it might be.
Oh dont be daft he'll come up with some formula to get out of it like I dont debate beneath my pay grade or since Harris needs the debate he'll change all the conditions to things like he can interrupt any time he wants or Harris has to wear a bag on her head,
With 107 days left and having already won a debate, theres not much pressure on him unless he's mad enough to do it.
Well we're both being daft then since we're saying the same thing - that he'll dodge it and come up with some bullshit excuse.
And that will give Kamala Harris tons of ammunition to throw at him if he ducks it.
I think refusing to debate her would be a big unforced error.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
We did that in the 2000s and it went tits up. Then we have had help to buy, soon to be relaunched as Freedom to Buy. Unfortunately it comes with a number of wider economic downsides. There is no free lunch.
What's tits up is ever escalating house prices.
We had a house prices falling in the early 90s so that we were in the fantastic position in 1997 that houses cost the same as they were costing in 1987. As a result home ownership hit record highs then.
House prices falling back in nominal terms to what they nominally were in 2014 would be a good start.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
We did that in the 2000s and it went tits up. Then we have had help to buy, soon to be relaunched as Freedom to Buy. Unfortunately it comes with a number of wider economic downsides. There is no free lunch.
What's tits up is ever escalating house prices.
We had a house prices falling in the early 90s so that we were in the fantastic position in 1997 that houses cost the same as they were costing in 1987. As a result home ownership hit record highs then.
House prices falling back in nominal terms to what they nominally were in 2014 would be a good start.
That is one of the arguments against help to buy type schemes you basically just inflating the prices, while also making people take on a load of extra debt.
While demand massively outstrips supply you still have a huge problem. Doing no money down / government puts the money down for you doesn't solve the issue, it makes it worse, particularly if it is the norm.
Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it
The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
Remove or reduce the cap on NI contributions from higher rate taxpayers - anything up to £12.5 billion raised. Aligning capital gains tax and income tax rates in the UK - £12 billion raised.
Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it
The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
Good morning
Sky are reporting Reeves is expected to move to abolish the 2 child benefit cap due to pressure from her left
Sky showed a you gov poll yesterday that by 60%/28% the public support the cap
Fiscal responsibility for Labour seems to be an optional choice depending on their politics
I would expect the result of these inflationary moves will see interest rates remain high for much longer
The cost of not paying salaries that enable you to recruit and retain teachers, nurses and others is far, far higher than the cost of doing so. The same applies to the two child policy. Short-termism guided by opinion polls has cost this country dear. It's about time it was consigned to the rubbish bin.
Then you have the choice of higher taxes and interest rates
Yes, the previous government left a disastrous legacy.
Including 4p off NI rates that wasn't funded, isn't affordable and didn't even manage to buy many votes.
That's a great legacy not a disastrous one, NI should be abolished.
Don't care if it didn't get any votes (and it didn't get mine either), it was the right thing to do.
If income tax needs to go up to balance NI going down, then that's OK, but taxing only those who work for their income is what is disastrous.
No NI should be ringfenced to fund contributory unemployment benefits, the state pension and some healthcare and social care as it was set up to do
Social care you say - time to increase it and create a social care system that works rather than using council tax for it then
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
There needs to be a reckoning for the mainstream leftist media in the US who have helped cover up Biden's rate of decline over the last few years. It's been an open secret that his mental faculties have been declining but the white house staffers pressured a pliant media to not report the truth "for the greater good".
The owners of these companies need to clean house and get rid of all of those journalists who helped the white house cover this up. All of those selectively reported events, copy pasted denials and complete lies they reported for the past two years has denied the American people a proper say on who should face Trump this year and it's likely going to result in a Trump victory.
A journalist's responsibility should be to the facts, not some sense of "greater good". As soon as that moral compass is distorted this is the inevitable result.
You're rattled because today this doesn't matter any more. Fine. But the evidence was out there for years. People on here were talking about it. Trump was running on it. So the cover up was simply that part of a free press took an editorial line you don't like.
Of course it matters because this stupidity and cover up has made Trump the favourite to win in November and against Harris I think he could get a landslide victory with Harris only picking up three or four coastal states.
It's not an "editorial line" it was a pack of lies to do their friends in the white house a favour. An editorial line would have been to admit that Biden was struggling with his mental agility but say it's still better than the alternative, not to simply deny the obvious truth of it and push the white house agenda that he's all good and the doctors all say he's great etc... it's just lies.
I am bemused by your inability to spot that EVERYTHING HAS CHANGED after yesterday.
No one is gonna give a shit what went before, Harris v. Trump is all that matters now. Harris will win comfortably in November.
Yes Harris will win California comfortably in November granted. Arizona and Michigan, Wisconsin and Ohio on the other hand....
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
We did that in the 2000s and it went tits up. Then we have had help to buy, soon to be relaunched as Freedom to Buy. Unfortunately it comes with a number of wider economic downsides. There is no free lunch especially when demand is massively outstripping supply.
+1 without massively increased supply the only thing those schemes have created is excess demand and multiple subsequent problems
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
We did that in the 2000s and it went tits up. Then we have had help to buy, soon to be relaunched as Freedom to Buy. Unfortunately it comes with a number of wider economic downsides. There is no free lunch when demand is massively outstripping supply
Let's do it better then. Properly managed, properly regulated. It's not a free lunch if the interest rate incorporates the credit risk.
F1: I do agree predicting specific running orders can be tricky, but the McLaren has been consistently best or joint-best for over half the season. Mercedes' two wins both benefited from fortune, whereas McLaren's relative lack is down to a mix of bad luck and strategic ineptitude (which hopefully they can finally learn from).
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So 1999 when house prices and rent were rather lower. If we are talking history between 1999 and 2004 house prices doubled in most parts of the UK
Edit Oh I missed the deposit bit so you agree that it’s only bank go mum and dad that got you into the living you actually have. Strange that only came up as we pushed the point
I didn't need to save in the end, but would have done if we'd had too.
I'm not an idiot - I know its very tough out there. I just think this headline was (deliberately) provocative with not enough detail in the story.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
We did that in the 2000s and it went tits up. Then we have had help to buy, soon to be relaunched as Freedom to Buy. Unfortunately it comes with a number of wider economic downsides. There is no free lunch.
What's tits up is ever escalating house prices.
We had a house prices falling in the early 90s so that we were in the fantastic position in 1997 that houses cost the same as they were costing in 1987. As a result home ownership hit record highs then.
House prices falling back in nominal terms to what they nominally were in 2014 would be a good start.
That one the arguments against help to buy type schemes you basically just inflating the prices, while also making people take on a load of extra debt.
I disagree with that argument.
Prices are inflated because supply is less than demand and even without help to buy people are still willing to pay over the odds.
A house price crash would be better, but house prices surged before help to buy existed. Fuelled by a shortage of supply and people wanting to make money from buy to lets, not help to buy.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
There needs to be a reckoning for the mainstream leftist media in the US who have helped cover up Biden's rate of decline over the last few years. It's been an open secret that his mental faculties have been declining but the white house staffers pressured a pliant media to not report the truth "for the greater good".
The owners of these companies need to clean house and get rid of all of those journalists who helped the white house cover this up. All of those selectively reported events, copy pasted denials and complete lies they reported for the past two years has denied the American people a proper say on who should face Trump this year and it's likely going to result in a Trump victory.
A journalist's responsibility should be to the facts, not some sense of "greater good". As soon as that moral compass is distorted this is the inevitable result.
You're rattled because today this doesn't matter any more. Fine. But the evidence was out there for years. People on here were talking about it. Trump was running on it. So the cover up was simply that part of a free press took an editorial line you don't like.
Of course it matters because this stupidity and cover up has made Trump the favourite to win in November and against Harris I think he could get a landslide victory with Harris only picking up three or four coastal states.
It's not an "editorial line" it was a pack of lies to do their friends in the white house a favour. An editorial line would have been to admit that Biden was struggling with his mental agility but say it's still better than the alternative, not to simply deny the obvious truth of it and push the white house agenda that he's all good and the doctors all say he's great etc... it's just lies.
Harris will win California, Oregon, Washington, Hawaii, Illinois and DC, New York and most of the North East and Illinois but yes has no certain wins beyond that. If as now seems likely the Democrats want to give Harris a coronation then Trump and Vance will likely sweep the rustbelt swing states and middle America
I know you study this sort of thing, but I wonder if we’re going to see a gender effect, in that in the privacy of the voting booth, women are going to vote for a woman.
They did for Hillary, she still lost as even more men went for Trump
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
The Tories are rapidly losing any sense in my mind that they will be able to get back in within five years. They seem intent on learning all the wrong lessons and choosing the wrong candidate. Why you would watch Labour in 2010 and 2015 and then do the same thing is beyond me.
Ed Miliband led half the polls from 2010 to 2015, Corbyn got a hung parliament in 2017, it was not all Tory traffic
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
We did that in the 2000s and it went tits up. Then we have had help to buy, soon to be relaunched as Freedom to Buy. Unfortunately it comes with a number of wider economic downsides. There is no free lunch.
What's tits up is ever escalating house prices.
We had a house prices falling in the early 90s so that we were in the fantastic position in 1997 that houses cost the same as they were costing in 1987. As a result home ownership hit record highs then.
House prices falling back in nominal terms to what they nominally were in 2014 would be a good start.
That one the arguments against help to buy type schemes you basically just inflating the prices, while also making people take on a load of extra debt.
I disagree with that argument.
Prices are inflated because supply is less than demand and even without help to buy people are still willing to pay over the odds.
A house price crash would be better, but house prices surged before help to buy existed. Fuelled by a shortage of supply and people wanting to make money from buy to lets, not help to buy.
Most economists disagree with you on what no money down does to house prices. But the rampant buy to pet has masked it by pumping things even more.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
I don't have an issue with that, although I think the financial checks that are done by mortgage providers could be more stringent. They mostly seem to be asking people to be very honest about their spending and how much they can afford, and not everyone is totally upfront, or perhaps just forgets about the one off costs through the year.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it
The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
Remove or reduce the cap on NI contributions from higher rate taxpayers - anything up to £12.5 billion raised. Aligning capital gains tax and income tax rates in the UK - £12 billion raised.
Manifesto promises paid for.
Doubt it. People will just work less and the total take will fall.
That would mean anything above £60k and I would be paying a marginal rate of about 75%.
No thanks I will go part time (actually I already did, partly for that reason).
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So 1999 when house prices and rent were rather lower. If we are talking history between 1999 and 2004 house prices doubled in most parts of the UK
Edit Oh I missed the deposit bit so you agree that it’s only bank go mum and dad that got you into the living you actually have. Strange that only came up as we pushed the point
I didn't need to save in the end, but would have done if we'd had too.
I'm not an idiot - I know its very tough out there. I just think this headline was (deliberately) provocative with not enough detail in the story.
The detail is all too real, the data backs it up.
Buying a home without parental or other support is all but impossible currently, which is wrong. Everyone working for a living should be able to afford their own home, from their own efforts, not rely upon handouts from others.
The headline was not remotely provocative, you just don't like what it has to say.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
We did that in the 2000s and it went tits up. Then we have had help to buy, soon to be relaunched as Freedom to Buy. Unfortunately it comes with a number of wider economic downsides. There is no free lunch.
What's tits up is ever escalating house prices.
We had a house prices falling in the early 90s so that we were in the fantastic position in 1997 that houses cost the same as they were costing in 1987. As a result home ownership hit record highs then.
House prices falling back in nominal terms to what they nominally were in 2014 would be a good start.
That one the arguments against help to buy type schemes you basically just inflating the prices, while also making people take on a load of extra debt.
I disagree with that argument.
Prices are inflated because supply is less than demand and even without help to buy people are still willing to pay over the odds.
A house price crash would be better, but house prices surged before help to buy existed. Fuelled by a shortage of supply and people wanting to make money from buy to lets, not help to buy.
Most economists disagree with you on what no money down does to house prices. But the rampant buy to pet has masked it by pumping things even more.
Love to meet those economists because it’s easy to demonstrate that the ability to use rent as part of the mortgage application gives landlords a large advantage over first time buyers
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So 1999 when house prices and rent were rather lower. If we are talking history between 1999 and 2004 house prices doubled in most parts of the UK
Edit Oh I missed the deposit bit so you agree that it’s only bank go mum and dad that got you into the living you actually have. Strange that only came up as we pushed the point
I didn't need to save in the end, but would have done if we'd had too.
I'm not an idiot - I know its very tough out there. I just think this headline was (deliberately) provocative with not enough detail in the story.
The detail is all too real, the data backs it up.
Buying a home without parental or other support is all but impossible currently, which is wrong. Everyone working for a living should be able to afford their own home, from their own efforts, not rely upon handouts from others.
The headline was not remotely provocative, you just don't like what it has to say.
I profoundly disagree. There is not enough information.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
Lets say a 10% deposit is desired. For a £215k house that's 21.5k - basically 9 years at £200 per month.
But the problem is that is for a 10% deposit in today's prices. The way things have been going, in 9 years time that price will be 430k and a 43k deposit will be needed.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
We did that in the 2000s and it went tits up. Then we have had help to buy, soon to be relaunched as Freedom to Buy. Unfortunately it comes with a number of wider economic downsides. There is no free lunch.
What's tits up is ever escalating house prices.
We had a house prices falling in the early 90s so that we were in the fantastic position in 1997 that houses cost the same as they were costing in 1987. As a result home ownership hit record highs then.
House prices falling back in nominal terms to what they nominally were in 2014 would be a good start.
That one the arguments against help to buy type schemes you basically just inflating the prices, while also making people take on a load of extra debt.
I disagree with that argument.
Prices are inflated because supply is less than demand and even without help to buy people are still willing to pay over the odds.
A house price crash would be better, but house prices surged before help to buy existed. Fuelled by a shortage of supply and people wanting to make money from buy to lets, not help to buy.
Most economists disagree with you on what no money down does to house prices. But the rampant buy to pet has masked it by pumping things even more.
Love to meet those economists because it’s easy to demonstrate that the ability to use rent as part of the mortgage application gives landlords a large advantage over first time buyers
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
You seem to be trying to repeat a story we’ve already debunked - you said she could reduce her rent, we demonstrated that it didn’t seem possible so now you are suggesting the same thing from a different angle.
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
the other thing to mention about home ownership now - also relevant in the context of the article - is that it is becoming increasingly difficult for single-income buyers to afford.
A decade or so ago if you were earning a decent salary you wouldn’t have had tremendous problems. You might have had to wait a few years to build a deposit but you’d get there. Now I think for a lot of people it is increasingly out of reach.
"Morris actually pioneered a method which made sense..." yes, in the Long Ago times, when politics was boring and the leaders were all the same, and a pandemic and financial crisis were in the distant past.
Ah yes those Halcyon days between the crisis of the third century and the Justinian Plague.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
How dare she plan ahead.
The point is that unless you live in a 1 bed flat with a long commute (which then costs), little money is left over from a reasonable salary in Birmingham.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
Lets reset.
Someone earring in the top 10% can't buy a house in Birmingham.
Contrary to the policy’s title, HtB may not have ‘helped’ the population of credit constrained households in the most unaffordable areas of the country. There are two reasons for this. First, the policy pushed up house prices, increasing housing costs rather than housing consumption in square meters....
THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HELP TO BUY* Felipe Carozzi London School of Economics & Centre for Economic Performance
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
You seem to be trying to repeat a story we’ve already debunked - you said she could reduce her rent, we demonstrated that it didn’t seem possible so now you are suggesting the same thing from a different angle.
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
Kerry was a prosecutor but it didn't help him in 2004 to win
George W. Bush wasn’t a criminal.
He was, he had a conviction for DUI, even if only a minor criminal he had a criminal record
That's fair comment. DUI is socially acceptable still in the USA. Not like here (generally).
It's not clear whether he was guilty of a misdemeanour or a felony.
Socially acceptable maybe in some quarters but still a criminal act, it was a misdemeanour though obviously if he had injured or killed someone when DUI like Ted Kennedy did it would have been a felony
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
You seem to be trying to repeat a story we’ve already debunked - you said she could reduce her rent, we demonstrated that it didn’t seem possible so now you are suggesting the same thing from a different angle.
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
How did you kid save the money then?
Living at home because she didn’t head to university having won the career lottery and got a degree apprenticeship in a location that didn’t require her to relocate
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
How dare she plan ahead.
The point is that unless you live in a 1 bed flat with a long commute (which then costs), little money is left over from a reasonable salary in Birmingham.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
Lets reset.
Someone earring in the top 10% can't buy a house in Birmingham.
The housing market is fucked up.
Dont worry, with Reeves handing out inflation busting pay rises and ending benefits caps, interest rates will soon cause a price crash.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
We did that in the 2000s and it went tits up. Then we have had help to buy, soon to be relaunched as Freedom to Buy. Unfortunately it comes with a number of wider economic downsides. There is no free lunch.
What's tits up is ever escalating house prices.
We had a house prices falling in the early 90s so that we were in the fantastic position in 1997 that houses cost the same as they were costing in 1987. As a result home ownership hit record highs then.
House prices falling back in nominal terms to what they nominally were in 2014 would be a good start.
Also with stable house prices negative equity wouldn't be such a fear factor for borrowers or lenders. Ability to service the loan (with a prudence buffer) should suffice as the key criteria rather than upfront deposit.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
How dare she plan ahead.
The point is that unless you live in a 1 bed flat with a long commute (which then costs), little money is left over from a reasonable salary in Birmingham.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
Lets reset.
Someone earring in the top 10% can't buy a house in Birmingham.
The housing market is fucked up.
Dont worry, with Reeves handing out inflation busting pay rises and ending benefits caps, interest rates will soon cause a price crash.
Prices crashing and pay rising would be a fantastic combination. 👍
Kerry was a prosecutor but it didn't help him in 2004 to win
George W. Bush wasn’t a criminal.
He was, he had a conviction for DUI, even if only a minor criminal he had a criminal record
Absolutely comparable to the legal issues Trump has.
PS - I hope Buttigieg endorsing Harris hasn’t hurt you too much.
No, just confirmed my view that Trump will now win Middle America comfortably in November if Harris gets a coronation at the convention. Coronations didn't exactly help Howard, Brown, May and Sunak win big election victories here
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
Lets say a 10% deposit is desired. For a £215k house that's 21.5k - basically 9 years at £200 per month.
But the problem is that is for a 10% deposit in today's prices. The way things have been going, in 9 years time that price will be 430k and a 43k deposit will be needed.
And don’t forget legal fees, surveyors fees, moving costs etc. It all adds up.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
You seem to be trying to repeat a story we’ve already debunked - you said she could reduce her rent, we demonstrated that it didn’t seem possible so now you are suggesting the same thing from a different angle.
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
It's quite obvious, Turbo already made up their mind before even reading the article so it's now just a case of them confirming that actually there's something else afoot. Can't possibly be because housing is too expensive.
Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it
The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
Remove or reduce the cap on NI contributions from higher rate taxpayers - anything up to £12.5 billion raised. Aligning capital gains tax and income tax rates in the UK - £12 billion raised.
Manifesto promises paid for.
Doubt it. People will just work less and the total take will fall.
That would mean anything above £60k and I would be paying a marginal rate of about 75%.
No thanks I will go part time (actually I already did, partly for that reason).
If your job could be done part-time, why were they paying you a full-time salary?
Kerry was a prosecutor but it didn't help him in 2004 to win
George W. Bush wasn’t a criminal.
He was, he had a conviction for DUI, even if only a minor criminal he had a criminal record
Absolutely comparable to the legal issues Trump has.
PS - I hope Buttigieg endorsing Harris hasn’t hurt you too much.
No, just confirmed my view that Trump will now win Middle America comfortably in November if Harris gets a coronation. Coronations didn't exactly help Howard, Brown, May and Sunak win big election victories here
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
You seem to be trying to repeat a story we’ve already debunked - you said she could reduce her rent, we demonstrated that it didn’t seem possible so now you are suggesting the same thing from a different angle.
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
It's quite obvious, Turbo already made up their mind before even reading the article so it's now just a case of them confirming that actually there's something else afoot. Can't possibly be because housing is too expensive.
Can't two things be true at the same time? I accept that house prices are too expensive. I also think there is something missing from the story.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
I don't have an issue with that, although I think the financial checks that are done by mortgage providers could be more stringent. They mostly seem to be asking people to be very honest about their spending and how much they can afford, and not everyone is totally upfront, or perhaps just forgets about the one off costs through the year.
The main big 'auditable' thing is what you're paying to rent. If you're forking out a sum of similar magnitude to what a mortgage would cost on a suitable place to buy, yet you can't get finance to do this for lack of several thousands in cash to put down as a deposit, there's something wrong there imo.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
You seem to be trying to repeat a story we’ve already debunked - you said she could reduce her rent, we demonstrated that it didn’t seem possible so now you are suggesting the same thing from a different angle.
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
It's quite obvious, Turbo already made up their mind before even reading the article so it's now just a case of them confirming that actually there's something else afoot. Can't possibly be because housing is too expensive.
Can't two things be true at the same time? I accept that house prices are too expensive. I also think there is something missing from the story.
You started off saying rents are £750 a month, we had to correct that and it went downhill from there.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
You seem to be trying to repeat a story we’ve already debunked - you said she could reduce her rent, we demonstrated that it didn’t seem possible so now you are suggesting the same thing from a different angle.
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
It's quite obvious, Turbo already made up their mind before even reading the article so it's now just a case of them confirming that actually there's something else afoot. Can't possibly be because housing is too expensive.
Can't two things be true at the same time? I accept that house prices are too expensive. I also think there is something missing from the story.
Why?
Its the case up and down the entire bloody country for a generation of people.
The £50k lady, that is a salary now that is an absolute rotter in a way. Under the Tories, you become in that spot where you earn too much for benefits, tax are high now and you are making substantial student loan repayments and pension contributions..You are also on the cliff edge for 40% tax bracket, so a couple of grand pay rise won't help that much. Particularly bad if you were single parent as until last budget £50k was cliff edge for child benefit.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
Lightweight - twin A saved £15,000 in 31 months
Hang on - so it IS possible?
Mid 2010s we saved £1k+ per month for deposit for our first home (which cost ~£200k). But but our combined income was ~£90k in today's money (we were on ~£35k each at the time) and our rent on a reasonably nice, but small, two bed house was £700pcm.
So, the lady in question on, probably after tax about half the take home income, and with lord knows what rent - I can believe it's much more of a struggle
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
You seem to be trying to repeat a story we’ve already debunked - you said she could reduce her rent, we demonstrated that it didn’t seem possible so now you are suggesting the same thing from a different angle.
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
It's quite obvious, Turbo already made up their mind before even reading the article so it's now just a case of them confirming that actually there's something else afoot. Can't possibly be because housing is too expensive.
Can't two things be true at the same time? I accept that house prices are too expensive. I also think there is something missing from the story.
You started off saying rents are £750 a month, we had to correct that and it went downhill from there.
Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it
The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
Remove or reduce the cap on NI contributions from higher rate taxpayers - anything up to £12.5 billion raised. Aligning capital gains tax and income tax rates in the UK - £12 billion raised.
Manifesto promises paid for.
Doubt it. People will just work less and the total take will fall.
That would mean anything above £60k and I would be paying a marginal rate of about 75%.
No thanks I will go part time (actually I already did, partly for that reason).
If your job could be done part-time, why were they paying you a full-time salary?
Because there are more than one of me, in fact a complete team and it also gives more opportunities for young graduates and finishing apprentices to join.
And because if they didn't agree to part time I would have left after nearly 40 years and they would have had rather a hole to fill.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
You seem to be trying to repeat a story we’ve already debunked - you said she could reduce her rent, we demonstrated that it didn’t seem possible so now you are suggesting the same thing from a different angle.
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
It's quite obvious, Turbo already made up their mind before even reading the article so it's now just a case of them confirming that actually there's something else afoot. Can't possibly be because housing is too expensive.
Can't two things be true at the same time? I accept that house prices are too expensive. I also think there is something missing from the story.
Why?
Its the case up and down the entire bloody country for a generation of people.
We've ran the numbers for you and they check out.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
Lightweight - twin A saved £15,000 in 31 months
Hang on - so it IS possible?
Mid 2010s we saved £1k+ per month for deposit for our first home (which cost ~£200k). But but our combined income was ~£90k in today's money (we were on ~£35k each at the time) and our rent on a reasonably nice, but small, two bed house was £700pcm.
So, the lady in question on, probably after tax about half the take home income, and with lord knows what rent - I can believe it's much more of a struggle
You’re all slackers.
I bought my first house before I even started my first job.
Thanks to my parents providing the deposit and first few month of mortgage payments.
Granny Eagles provided some money to furnish the place.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
You seem to be trying to repeat a story we’ve already debunked - you said she could reduce her rent, we demonstrated that it didn’t seem possible so now you are suggesting the same thing from a different angle.
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
How did you kid save the money then?
He's already said, by living with his parents and not paying rent.
Not an option for many people, nor should it need to be.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
Lightweight - twin A saved £15,000 in 31 months
Hang on - so it IS possible?
Mid 2010s we saved £1k+ per month for deposit for our first home (which cost ~£200k). But but our combined income was ~£90k in today's money (we were on ~£35k each at the time) and our rent on a reasonably nice, but small, two bed house was £700pcm.
So, the lady in question on, probably after tax about half the take home income, and with lord knows what rent - I can believe it's much more of a struggle
You’re all slackers.
I bought my first house before I even started my first job.
Thanks to my parents providing the deposit and first few month of mortgage payments.
Granny Eagles provided some money to furnish the place.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
First mortgage was 147 thousand. But as I said I was very lucky.
Yes, both in getting help and buying decades ago when prices were affordable.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
How much would she need for a minimum deposit? How long would it take to save for that? Can she save 400 a month? Thats 20,000 over 4 years (and extra with prudent investment). Or 200 a month for 4 years for 10K.
You seem to be trying to repeat a story we’ve already debunked - you said she could reduce her rent, we demonstrated that it didn’t seem possible so now you are suggesting the same thing from a different angle.
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
It's quite obvious, Turbo already made up their mind before even reading the article so it's now just a case of them confirming that actually there's something else afoot. Can't possibly be because housing is too expensive.
Can't two things be true at the same time? I accept that house prices are too expensive. I also think there is something missing from the story.
Why?
Its the case up and down the entire bloody country for a generation of people.
We've ran the numbers for you and they check out.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
Even doing that its incredibly hard to save enough for a deposit, especially when the required amount is increasing annually whenever prices rise. That's the problem with ever escalating prices, the amount needed for the deposit is ever escalating.
Saving £200 a month isn't enough for a deposit if it takes a decade to save for a deposit at that rate, and in a decades time its half of what you need for a deposit.
I'm not suggesting she is secretly loaded. I suspect she has chosen to live in a nice house etc and could make a choice to live in a slightly less nice one to save some money for a deposit.
In shocking news, what everyone thought you thought, is exactly what you think. With posts like these, it is not surprising the problem has gone unresolved for so long. "Doesn't exist."
Many moons ago a friend was doing a PhD in my lab. Every day he withdrew 10 quid, and over the course of the day spent it (mainly food for lunch etc). As he was struggling financially his back called him for a chat and discussed this - could he take the time to make sandwiches and save a bit each week? He did.
Now of course its absurd to suggest that everyone who cannot afford to save for a deposit or get a mortgage just needs to make sandwiches, and I don't believe that. House prices are vastly higher compared to wages than they were 40 years ago. But it is also the case that most of us make choices about what we do and in this headline case, something smelled off to me. But not to everyone.
Yes - make your own lunch vs buying from Pret every day is saving a thousand a year. Or more.
Looking at the BBC story - you have a lady who probably has student loans. A house in a vaguely decent area of Birmingham will set her back north of 1,250 for rent.
As to why she wants a house - nesting is a word. We were discussing the effect of housing on the population just yesterday.
Which is fine, but she probably needs to decide what she wants more - a nest now, or owning a nest in the future.
I've been bloody lucky with my housing, but also make choices about what I spend on. I'm very lucky and know it. But the headline was not backed up by the story (at least in her case).
This is such nonsense, it's actually kind of insulting. Young people are not struggling to afford housing because they get Pret too much. Most young people don't even go to Pret.
And I am not saying that. I consistently suggest that the article headline is not backed up by facts about her circumstances. You are projecting what you think I am saying.
You are implying that if she spent some of her money differently, she'd suddenly have no issue buying a house. Pret was cited as a reason. Therefore you conclude that Pret makes a difference. You and I both know that is rubbish.
If you're a first time buyer I don't think you should need a deposit. You should just have to show you can afford the mortgage (with a prudence buffer for if it increases by say 25%).
I don't have an issue with that, although I think the financial checks that are done by mortgage providers could be more stringent. They mostly seem to be asking people to be very honest about their spending and how much they can afford, and not everyone is totally upfront, or perhaps just forgets about the one off costs through the year.
The main big 'auditable' thing is what you're paying to rent. If you're forking out a sum of similar magnitude to what a mortgage would cost on a suitable place to buy, yet you can't get finance to do this for lack of several thousands in cash to put down as a deposit, there's something wrong there imo.
The housing market is completely broken that people are paying rent that covers a landlord's mortgage but isn't covering their own.
In a healthy market rent is less than a mortgage not more than it.
Could she flat share? Or take in a lodger? Who knows?
And did you do a flat share or take in a lodger?
Yes - I lived in many shared accommodations during my time pre-mortgage.
And how much money were you able to save? What deposit did you need, how much was your mortgage?
I lived pretty well. In NZ I shared a shitty house with three others and saved about 3-4 grand in a year. Helped when I moved back to the UK in 1999. I lived in shared houses in Norwich when at UEA and saved money there.
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
So you saved about £10K for a deposit over a few years? What was your mortgage worth?
Lightweight - twin A saved £15,000 in 31 months
Hang on - so it IS possible?
Mid 2010s we saved £1k+ per month for deposit for our first home (which cost ~£200k). But but our combined income was ~£90k in today's money (we were on ~£35k each at the time) and our rent on a reasonably nice, but small, two bed house was £700pcm.
So, the lady in question on, probably after tax about half the take home income, and with lord knows what rent - I can believe it's much more of a struggle
You’re all slackers.
I bought my first house before I even started my first job.
Thanks to my parents providing the deposit and first few month of mortgage payments.
Granny Eagles provided some money to furnish the place.
But it was all down to my hard work obviously.
You took a small loan of a $1 million ;-)
Nearly, my father took the mortgage out in his name and mine but he took on the burden because my mother just wasn’t going to let me rent.
Honestly I won the lottery by buying a house in London in 2000, all before my 22nd birthday.
Dunno about crowdstrike but the EU is falling way behind on tech. See the latest comments out of Meta. Refusing to release new tech modalities in the EU because of GDPR
Kerry was a prosecutor but it didn't help him in 2004 to win
George W. Bush wasn’t a criminal.
He was, he had a conviction for DUI, even if only a minor criminal he had a criminal record
Absolutely comparable to the legal issues Trump has.
PS - I hope Buttigieg endorsing Harris hasn’t hurt you too much.
No, just confirmed my view that Trump will now win Middle America comfortably in November if Harris gets a coronation at the convention. Coronations didn't exactly help Howard, Brown, May and Sunak win big election victories here
The only real fix for housing situation is a) building more supply, b) reduce demand and c) get the economy growing sustainabily at above inflation so people are better off... country GDP / per person is growing.
The problem is no government in the past 20+ years has achieved that and we are starting from a terrible position of poor productivity, out of control immigration, and inability to buile anything quickly.
I know people on here don't think its an option, but many people DO flatshare. I did. It can be fun. It can be shit. Surely one way to save money?
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
You are incredibly out of touch. Most people already flatshare, I can't think of anyone in their 20s who I know that doesn't. Nobody can afford to live on their own unless they have significant savings or a very good salary.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
A telling statistic is that France has about the same population as do we - and about 8m more households.
Comments
Getting re-elected today isn't an issue, there's no election today.
Getting re-elected in 2028/29 won't be much of a problem, if the Conservatives continue to be unelectable.
The challenges will start around 10 years from now. It would be helpful in 10 years time to be getting rewards from tough choices a decade earlier.
Making choices now that will pay off in 10 years time is good politics, not bad politics, for a newly elected government with a healthy majority. Whether they'll do it is a different matter.
And having said that, I have to say the same for Trump. Yes, I think he's less able than he was back in 2016; but have no idea what is causing that.
My point still stands that it shows how screwed our housing market (both rental and purchase) is
I was very lucky that my wife and I were gifted a deposit. Without that it would have been tougher but we would have saved.
I know its hard and for some, impossible. I just think her story is not playing fair with the reader.
With 107 days left and having already won a debate, theres not much pressure on him unless he's mad enough to do it.
Or Farage could break through and it happens next year
Edit Oh I missed the deposit bit so you agree that it’s only bank go mum and dad that got you into the living you actually have. Strange that only came up as we pushed the point
Nigel becoming Trump's proctologist is both unpopular and stupid.
I think refusing to debate her would be a big unforced error.
We had a house prices falling in the early 90s so that we were in the fantastic position in 1997 that houses cost the same as they were costing in 1987. As a result home ownership hit record highs then.
House prices falling back in nominal terms to what they nominally were in 2014 would be a good start.
While demand massively outstrips supply you still have a huge problem. Doing no money down / government puts the money down for you doesn't solve the issue, it makes it worse, particularly if it is the norm.
Aligning capital gains tax and income tax rates in the UK - £12 billion raised.
Manifesto promises paid for.
I'm not an idiot - I know its very tough out there. I just think this headline was (deliberately) provocative with not enough detail in the story.
Prices are inflated because supply is less than demand and even without help to buy people are still willing to pay over the odds.
A house price crash would be better, but house prices surged before help to buy existed. Fuelled by a shortage of supply and people wanting to make money from buy to lets, not help to buy.
PS - I hope Buttigieg endorsing Harris hasn’t hurt you too much.
So this lady if she's not so lucky, having no support and today when prices are sky high, then that's entirely believable is it not?
Here is a good argument why 99% mortgages are bad even for the individual
https://youtu.be/bGgA_C7znwY?si=9-g7QJAdlrrnPLib
That would mean anything above £60k and I would be paying a marginal rate of about 75%.
No thanks I will go part time (actually I already did, partly for that reason).
Buying a home without parental or other support is all but impossible currently, which is wrong. Everyone working for a living should be able to afford their own home, from their own efforts, not rely upon handouts from others.
The headline was not remotely provocative, you just don't like what it has to say.
But the problem is that is for a 10% deposit in today's prices. The way things have been going, in 9 years time that price will be 430k and a 43k deposit will be needed.
https://www.ft.com/content/19236eef-abed-4401-a6b1-25c1035ab095
Being blunt if you rent at the moment as a single person you are not going to be in a position go save enough money to get a deposit
A decade or so ago if you were earning a decent salary you wouldn’t have had tremendous problems. You might have had to wait a few years to build a deposit but you’d get there. Now I think for a lot of people it is increasingly out of reach.
Someone earring in the top 10% can't buy a house in Birmingham.
The housing market is fucked up.
THE ECONOMIC IMPACTS OF HELP TO BUY* Felipe Carozzi London School of Economics & Centre for Economic Performance
https://x.com/fxshaw/status/1814894383982125496
It's not clear whether he was guilty of a misdemeanour or a felony.
I also think there is something missing from the story.
Its the case up and down the entire bloody country for a generation of people.
We've ran the numbers for you and they check out.
So, the lady in question on, probably after tax about half the take home income, and with lord knows what rent - I can believe it's much more of a struggle
And because if they didn't agree to part time I would have left after nearly 40 years and they would have had rather a hole to fill.
A colleague has taken a job in Newcastle but is staying in Bath and commuting. She rents a room in a house with another professional for her time in Newcastle. Could the lady in the story do that for a year or two?
I bought my first house before I even started my first job.
Thanks to my parents providing the deposit and first few month of mortgage payments.
Granny Eagles provided some money to furnish the place.
But it was all down to my hard work obviously.
Not an option for many people, nor should it need to be.
You're suggesting things that even the most stupid 20 year old has already done.
The problem is that you're coming at this from the angle of "if only they did this". It doesn't work like that, housing is too expensive, there is no getting away from it. No amount of lifestyle change is going to change that.
Just accept you've got it wrong.
Saving £200 a month isn't enough for a deposit if it takes a decade to save for a deposit at that rate, and in a decades time its half of what you need for a deposit.
In a healthy market rent is less than a mortgage not more than it.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy08gz5xz3do
Will Bailey "injuries that still affect me to this day".
Honestly I won the lottery by buying a house in London in 2000, all before my 22nd birthday.
Do you too enjoy tripe, is that why you give me likes?
The EU will become a museum land
We have the big PR event next month…
The problem is no government in the past 20+ years has achieved that and we are starting from a terrible position of poor productivity, out of control immigration, and inability to buile anything quickly.