Taking possession of something you own.

As do I doubt that anyone wants to be in a position where, regardless of how much graft they put in, they will be unlikely to ever be able to afford a place of their own.

When "less" actually means "a place to live", let alone heat and keep in a condition that would be suitable even for a dog, something has gone very wrong with society in general, and you in particular.

The ones who'll be paying your pension, doing your diabetes monitoring, stroke rehab, keeping your neighbourhood safe, wiping your @RSE, you mean?

They're probably fed up of miserable old c##ts like you, happy that the ladder is being pulled up behind you, while you sneer down at them and tell them "you can't imagine how hard I had it" (y)
It's called being a realist and has absolutely nothing to do with being down on younger generations.

Your first point above, there has ALWAYS been a portion of society that can't afford to buy a house no matter how hard they graft and, you ready for this, there ALWAYS will be. FACT.

Your second point above, believe it or not, I agree with. Society should ensure the first two layers of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs are met for those who require it. e.g. has there been an abysmal rate of building truly affordable houses? Yes.

Your third point above. Ah that old chestnut. You ready for another shock? When I was younger (and working) I was contributing directly/indirectly to things for older folk, just as younger folk today are. And if I retire at 60, I'll have been doing so ('paying in') for 40 odd years.

Your fourth point above, I'm pulling up no proverbial ladder, neither am I sneering at anyone, neither am I bleating on to anyone about how hard anything was in years gone by. However, I get fed up with this narrative spouted mainly by younger folk that they are all that is good and anyone over 40 is all that is bad.

Society ebbs and flows over the decades, peaks and troughs in a socioeconomic sense. How that affects the individual is down to a multitude of factors, determining things like who has what, who owns what, who owns more etc.

That won't change.
 
Your first point above, there has ALWAYS been a portion of society that can't afford to buy a house no matter how hard they graft and, you ready for this, there ALWAYS will be. FACT.

You're missing the point.
It has never been so difficult for "the average person" to afford a place of their own.
Which means more and more people are stuck between being unable to afford to buy, and because rents basically track mortgages, unable to afford to rent either.

Your third point above. Ah that old chestnut. You ready for another shock? When I was younger (and working) I was contributing directly/indirectly to things for older folk, just as younger folk today are. And if I retire at 60, I'll have been doing so ('paying in') for 40 odd years.

So you agree that the young are a benefit, rather something to be "fecking sick of hearing about [their troubles]".
Good.
However, I get fed up with this narrative spouted mainly by younger folk that they are all that is good and anyone over 40 is all that is bad.

What "narrative"?
The one you made up, in an attempt to justify your appeal-to-extremes modelled argument?
 
perhaps you can answer - if its not too hard a question for you.

Through taxation and redistribution, I believe there should be a mechanism to provide people with decent accommodation if they cannot afford to pay for it themselves. To me, that is part of a civlized society.
 
Through taxation and redistribution, I believe there should be a mechanism to provide people with decent accommodation if they cannot afford to pay for it themselves. To me, that is part of a civlized society.

Yes, but there have to be limits, which allow for an incentive to do better for oneself. Had someone come along and given me, all that I have got now, no doubt I would have stayed at home and relaxed.
 
You're missing the point.
It has never been so difficult for "the average person" to afford a place of their own.
Which means more and more people are stuck between being unable to afford to buy, and because rents basically track mortgages, unable to afford to rent either.
I'm not missing any point.

Completely depends on the area in which people live. Are there areas of the country where the average earner is priced out of buying and maybe renting? Yep. Is that reflected across all areas of the country? Nope.

Next door to one of my rentals (in a perfectly nice area) a terraced 3 bed house, ex council, has gone on for £135k. And believe it or not there are decent 3 bed ex councils 4-5 miles from Edinburgh centre for £180k - £200k.
 
I'm not missing any point.

Completely depends on the area in which people live. Are there areas of the country where the average earner is priced out of buying and maybe renting? Yep. Is that reflected across all areas of the country? Nope.

Next door to one of my rentals (in a perfectly nice area) a terraced 3 bed house, ex council, has gone on for £135k. And believe it or not there are decent 3 bed ex councils 4-5 miles from Edinburgh centre for £180k - £200k.
All with 105% mortgages like the good old days.
Not.
 
Do grow up John, and act your age, rather than your shoe size!
But it's true.

Most of us paid market price for our homes

Relative to wages, houses are now much more expensive, and are out of reach of many more

Hardly any decent social housing remains
 
I'm not missing any point.

Completely depends on the area in which people live. Are there areas of the country where the average earner is priced out of buying and maybe renting? Yep. Is that reflected across all areas of the country? Nope.

Next door to one of my rentals (in a perfectly nice area) a terraced 3 bed house, ex council, has gone on for £135k. And believe it or not there are decent 3 bed ex councils 4-5 miles from Edinburgh centre for £180k - £200k.

What do you have to earn to get a £200,000 mortgage?
 
Back
Top