Incorrect by most definitions of the term, boomer refers to people born between 1946 and 1964. So there are still plenty of people who fall into that category in their mid to late 50's.
And boomers wonder why millennials are bitter towards them..
- Thread starter Scam
- Start date
Incorrect by most definitions of the term, boomer refers to people born between 1946 and 1964. So there are still plenty of people who fall into that category in their mid to late 50's.
It was originally for the boom in births right after the war but extended up to 64 in very recent times, it doesn't alter my point re the age of the landlords and property buyers who appear in those TV programmes I mentioned who in many cases are around 25-35
Extended recently? Many couples were still having 5-10 kids well into the 60's and even 70's.
Your point on landlords was rather anecdotal. I'm a fan of homes under the hammer on a slow work day and I don't agree with your view that most of the landlords who appear on there are of the younger generation. The vast majority appear to be 40-60.
In that case the vast majority are not boomers then are they
as the youngest would have to be 56 to qualify for the current definition of a boomer.A 40 year old would be born in 1980 a period with the highest interest rates in recent history, 17.5% for my first mortgage. I only managed a deposit by us hardly going out, saving hard, no holidays for 2 years. Our savings had a boost with a similar high interest rate but the mortgage was crippling at first. However I don't recall blaming the previous generation for our struggle
Last edited:
In that case the vast majority are not boomers then are they
I didn't argue they were, most of them aren't the younger generation you alluded to though. "no they are nearly all young and in many cases foreigners" Good to see you don't define all boomers as 70+ now
How did you come to the conclusion that many of them were foreigners btw?
Last edited:
I didn't argue they were, most of them aren't the younger generation you alluded to though. "no they are nearly all young and in many cases foreigners" Good to see you don't define all boomers as 70+ now
I agree, you didn't argue they were boomers, however many posters here are steamed up and blaming boomers for everything when it simply is not true. They all think everyone could buy a house even on low wages.
In the 1980's I paid Comet £900 for a 37" flat screen TV, nothing special, that's how much they cost. I also saved up to buy a Sony 8mm camcorder that cost £850 look what you privileged lot can get for that sort of money now
I didn't argue they were, most of them aren't the younger generation you alluded to though. "no they are nearly all young and in many cases foreigners" Good to see you don't define all boomers as 70+ now
How did you come to the conclusion that many of them were foreigners btw?
Smell of garlic?
Soldato
- Joined
- 17 Jun 2012
- Posts
- 9,898
- Location
- South Wales
House cost to wages have gone drastically up over the last 30 years. Houses are more expensive comparatively than they used to be.
Their accent is neither English,Irish or Scottish so presumably not born here or led a very sheltered life
Was it you who made a thread about your brother a cou
In many cases the cost of a new phone or a big TV, etc. is a drop in the ocean compared to what someone needs to get on the housing market and going without does nothing material to changing that situation (unless they are going mad buying new stuff). In fact if they are putting it on and paying off their finance it might slightly improve the way potential lenders look at them maybe.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Jul 2004
- Posts
- 20,341
- Location
- Stanley Hotel, Colorado
Are you accounting for inflation, currency losses during that time. Arguably your neighbours made no money though I can see people want hold every price as true, there is a cost to housing, taxes and repairs. They havent done quite as well as they appear to have.
Instead of moaning the latest generation needs to recognise gratitude is more profitable, you arent being drafted into another war and you have the giant benefits of decades of investment. UK has its problems but its richer then ever before generally, just being born here is like being a lotto winner comparatively.
The currency devaluation is a problem, its likely going to get worse so I'd suggest anyone who wasnt alive when OCUK was first setup learn a bit of history because it helps you guess what happens next.
Maybe hold a little gold via any means would be a good proactive reaction. If the neighbours sold in 2004 and held in British sovereign currency which is tax free till now they'd have easily cleared £2m. They'd not have had the house to live in so its arguable but the house price appreciation isnt as it appears is the main point.
Oh no not those pesky Welsh people from Wales, damn them!Their accent is neither English,Irish or Scottish so presumably not born here or led a very sheltered life
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
I'm just old enough to be a boomer.
I borrowed the money for my first deposit and bought with a mate 50/50. Within months, we had massive negative equity and an interest rate of over 15%. We nearly returned the keys to the building society. Today I'm lucky enough to have traded up to a nice house that I've extensively invested in.
I don't think that makes me a bad person.
If you need to complain, complain about the selling off of council housing. When it existed, poorer people lived in it on subsidised rents (compared to the private sector). They didn't need to worry about care home costs because statistically they didn't live long after retirement (for all demographics).
I feel for those trying to get on a housing ladder where the first step is so high, especially in the South-East but the answer isn't to tax people on money that's already been taxed. A nice house going up in value doesn't provide any cash to be able to pay tax on that "paper increase". Similarly inheritance tax is a way to get money into the chancellor's hands but also provides a fine income for accountants working out ways around it for those who can afford their fees.
The answer is to build protected housing for those on lower incomes with low rents. IOW, council estates. God knows what we do about an ageing population in the future. perhaps we'll all be underwater or deep-fried by then anyway.
Way too much money is tied up in the hands of <1000 people worldwide. The system has led to the likes of Bezos effectively reducing the money supply to levels that inhibit growth for the masses.
I borrowed the money for my first deposit and bought with a mate 50/50. Within months, we had massive negative equity and an interest rate of over 15%. We nearly returned the keys to the building society. Today I'm lucky enough to have traded up to a nice house that I've extensively invested in.
I don't think that makes me a bad person.
If you need to complain, complain about the selling off of council housing. When it existed, poorer people lived in it on subsidised rents (compared to the private sector). They didn't need to worry about care home costs because statistically they didn't live long after retirement (for all demographics).
I feel for those trying to get on a housing ladder where the first step is so high, especially in the South-East but the answer isn't to tax people on money that's already been taxed. A nice house going up in value doesn't provide any cash to be able to pay tax on that "paper increase". Similarly inheritance tax is a way to get money into the chancellor's hands but also provides a fine income for accountants working out ways around it for those who can afford their fees.
The answer is to build protected housing for those on lower incomes with low rents. IOW, council estates. God knows what we do about an ageing population in the future. perhaps we'll all be underwater or deep-fried by then anyway.
Way too much money is tied up in the hands of <1000 people worldwide. The system has led to the likes of Bezos effectively reducing the money supply to levels that inhibit growth for the masses.
When I was saving my money, I was not specifically saving to buy a house. I was saving as I hated my job and I worked out if I saved £240k I could live off the interest (5% at the time) as that was about my take home when I started saving (I was about 16/17 at the time I think). I had clearly not thought about needing somewhere to live at that point as I was with my parents (although paying £210 a month rent).
Did I have it harder than my parents (who are now 66 and 68)? I think I have had it relatively easy tbh.
I appreciate some people can't save as they have kids or are stuck in a low paid job with high rent to pay. How did this happen though, whose fault is it really? I should have studied hard and gone to uni like all my friends who earn 100k + a year, but I didn't, that was my mistake and I take full responsibility for that. I still turned my situation around and made something of it.
Did I have it harder than my parents (who are now 66 and 68)? I think I have had it relatively easy tbh.
I appreciate some people can't save as they have kids or are stuck in a low paid job with high rent to pay. How did this happen though, whose fault is it really? I should have studied hard and gone to uni like all my friends who earn 100k + a year, but I didn't, that was my mistake and I take full responsibility for that. I still turned my situation around and made something of it.
Last edited:
I'm technically a 'Millennial' and I'm personally not at all salty over what came before.
I've far more issues with my fellow 'millennials' in fact.
I agree with this, wasn't it Thatcher that brought in the right to buy for social housing?
The world is becoming a smaller place, and with inflation out-pacing salary in many cases we're obviously seeing problems.
At the same time however, I've lost count of the amount of money people I know spend on frivolous crap year on year while refusing to buy outside of very specific requirements in terms of housing. Spending £1000 on a new phone every year, expensive car leases that cost them a fortune each month, the top broadband/tv packages which cost them thousands a year, and so on. It all adds up, my parents and grandparents especially were far more inclined to be frugal and spend no more than they absolutely needed. They were also much more flexible, willing to buy property that wasn't exactly what they wanted or where they wanted in order to get on the ladder.
While I absolutely believe things are tough for some people at the moment, there's a mixture of reasons and some of the problems are self inflicted.
I've far more issues with my fellow 'millennials' in fact.
I agree with this, wasn't it Thatcher that brought in the right to buy for social housing?
The world is becoming a smaller place, and with inflation out-pacing salary in many cases we're obviously seeing problems.
At the same time however, I've lost count of the amount of money people I know spend on frivolous crap year on year while refusing to buy outside of very specific requirements in terms of housing. Spending £1000 on a new phone every year, expensive car leases that cost them a fortune each month, the top broadband/tv packages which cost them thousands a year, and so on. It all adds up, my parents and grandparents especially were far more inclined to be frugal and spend no more than they absolutely needed. They were also much more flexible, willing to buy property that wasn't exactly what they wanted or where they wanted in order to get on the ladder.
While I absolutely believe things are tough for some people at the moment, there's a mixture of reasons and some of the problems are self inflicted.
Soldato
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 8,305
- Location
- Aranyaprathet, Thailand
Aye, we didn't'ave gyms when I were young. You worked too 'ard to 'ave energy for crap like that! Or cars! happy to walk we were.
Seriously though, gym memberships, Netflix accounts, Amazon Prime, unlimited data on a fancy phone, designer trainers and nights out in bars with holidays in Ibiza. Obviously not true for some on here but if you can't afford to save, look at where your money is being spent and decide if it's all really that essential.
Absolutely.
I know a bunch of people who are making 20-30K a year that spend almost 5k a year on the sort of stuff mentioned above. I'm from the North East of England, you can get a decent house or flat here for 100-200k easily. Those very same people constantly bitch and moan about how it's impossible to get out of renting property because deposits are so expensive. If they'd actually saved the money for a few years they'd have had more than enough to put down on a deposit for the area they're in, but they seem to think they should be able to walk into 4-5 bedroom homes in high value areas immediately while peeing money at everything in sight.
Funnily enough they also have no interest in pensions or anything else, it's just vapid self indulgence followed by confusion as to why they can't have everything at the same time.
The thing that is mentioned often in this thread is a deposit. I'm 62 years old, left school in 1974 and bought my first house in 1979.
For those of you moaning about deposits, let me tell you some facts. In 1979 just about the only place to get a mortgage was a building society. If you had a perfect credit history, a 15% deposit was a minimum.............................sound familiar ?
Yes, house prices were cheaper but wages were lower. I had a £25,000 mortgage on a house that i had put down a £4000 deposit on and i did that on an income of £75 a week. How did i do it................................i did it through hard graft and not spending on stupid stuff. Even in 1979 there was plenty of stupid things that i could have spent money on. One thing i knew 100% though was that i would never own a house unless i made sacrifices to get a house.
There really are some very stupid educated people on this forum who really do not understand that life owes them nothing. If you want something badly (like a house) you have to work and plan for it and be prepared to do with out to get there.
No, i'm not a "baby Boomer" or a "Millennial"............................what i am is a normal hard grafting 62 year old that has never been given anything from parents or the state. Maybe some of the moaning whingers on here should just stop moaning and do something themselves to change their own lives.
EDIT: looks like i am a baby boomer.........................never felt like one that's for sure...............and defo will never benefit from "Mommy and Daddy's" inheritance.
Last edited:
This, exactly this but it will fall on deaf ears. My experience was exactly the same from buying my first house in 1980, we saved hard from 1978, had no holidays for two years, my girlfriend gave up her bedsit and came to live with my parents so we could save hard, we had to turn the dining room into a bedroom for her as back then my parents wouldn't allow sleeping together
i.I was on £80 per week and the girlfriend £55 but my parents charged us nothing. The interest rate for borrowers was 17.5% at the time but it also meant that savings rocketed with around 13% interest
We ended up with £11,000 savings! Our house was a Victorian end terrace cottage with a huge garden but in need of modernisation and cost £24,500, should we use all of the savings to lower the mortgage or should we keep a big sum towards doing up the house?, it was a no brainer so we ended up with a £14,000 mortgage and enough to pay the solicitor and fees etc. I worked in TV scenery so had access to materials and woodwork machines and it took about 4 years to do the whole place up in time for our first child 1985.
I watched a game show recently where the contestants were a young couple living in a rented flat, they desperately wanted to get a home of their own but if they won any money they wanted a big dream wedding, really? that shows the mentality of the current generation, spend thousands on a big wedding and whinge they can't get on the property ladder.
