You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
No one else had to work a day in their effing life , honest.
Giz a clue?
I reckon this could also be in the wrong forum. Cryptic post is cryptic!
Has to be the most ridiculous idea I've ever heard. The country is practically bankrupt and there are people looking at ways to tax and spend more.
It's never going to happen though is it?
"Let's take from the class of voters who vote most and give to the class that votes least"
It's ludicrous.
We should just give it directly to the banks instead. They'll know the best thing to do with it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44029808
The concept has much to commend it. I particularly like the bit about the inheritance tax take. But that's why it'll never happen.
Spend money to save money.
How hard is it for people to grasp?
Less housing benefits.
Less unemployment payouts.
Higher earners from better education pay more tax.
its a catalyst for a debate innit. being a millenial myself i may be in with a shout for a little cash.
I'm stuffed at 33.
I'll die working and get none of the handouts.
I reckon this could also be in the wrong forum. Cryptic post is cryptic!
Your quite right the option,
"no furum"
"bike forum"
"chat forum"
dropdown box seems to have gone, I thought it defaulted to no forum.
I’ll die working and get none of the handouts.
I'm 42 theres a good chance I WILL die before I get my pension and that's something I PAID into.
Cool story.
How much did your degree cost you?
How much was the average house price when you bought/where buying age?
I was planning to give my kids a massive leg up anyway. So its not the worst thing in the world.
If you managed to buy in the late 90's, early noughties and keep hold of it you will have made a pretty penny, I have done nicely through zero effort anyway. That will never happen again. So being forced to share it out won't kill me.
Right best get breeding then. Turn these little babies into cash cows haha
Cool story.
How much did your degree cost you?
How much was the average house price when you bought/where buying age?
I don't have a degree, I have an HNC from day release which my company paid for. My parents were poor and never owned a house either.
I think it was 165k in 2011 my first house.
True story
Higher earners from better education pay more tax.
Thats worked well, hasn’t it? Everyone and their dog has a degree these days, and still work for NLW in the local call centre.
Reckon we could fund it by selling off the water board, electric and telephone service, should provide a nice windfall and a massive bonus for those that buy the shares. Or we could make it easier by providing rental accommodation at sensible prices backed by the government and allowing people to use their rent as part payment, how about we give them all free university tuition as an alternative?
I'm sure lots of young public sector workers would trade their 10k for a pension scheme that many are retiring on now.
Anything else there?
Thats worked well, hasn’t it? Everyone and their dog has a degree these days, and still work for NLW in the local call centre.
Exactly the line "it's temporary till I can get a good job" Hope floats and all that.
Degrees are they a poor investment?
I’m 42 theres a good chance I WILL die before I get my pension and that’s something I PAID into.
41 here and I reckon I’ll be working until I shuffle off this mortal coil.
38 here, born too late to hoarde all the wealth and take advantage of the housing market in the 80s and 90, berate younger generations for being profligate and whinge about low interest rates knackering my savings and pension. But also born too early for a £10k "hand out"...
I'm sort of in favour of the idea TBH but I think it needs a little bit of adjustment, the (up to) £10k should be conditional and will require an application...
-applicants must be over 21 and under 29.
-applicants must have 5 GCSEs (A-C) or equivalent.
-applicants should have a letter of recommendation from someone other than their parents, ideally "someone of standing" in their community who they have known for at least two years.
-the application must explain what the money will be used for: personal education, training, setting up a business, as part of a mortgage deposit, investment, shove it in savings, etc and why it is a good use of the money...
-their application can be for up to £10000 but they should apply proportionately or no more than is needed, they should include costings and evidence. Applications judged to be for excess funds (i.e. £10k when £6k is more than adequate) can be dismissed by the panel...
-applications will be assessed by a locally based panel, based on merit. That "merit" might be the enrichment of wider society, some sort of benefit to the applicant improving their own quality of life, stimulating economic activity, etc; it will be entirely the panel's decision how to weight relative merit and distribute or withhold funding.
-there will be a limited fund per annum, when it's gone its gone (budget to be a fixed proportion of GDP, and local funding based on the number of people aged between 21 and 28 on the local electoral registers).
-applicants can only ever apply once, successful or not, they get a single shot (so they need to make it count)...
Sounds like a good idea. Implementation would be key but will never get the backing of the relatively wealthy who have done nothing other than to be born 50+ years ago.
I am indeed one of those people too but I haven't got to the bitter and selfish stage yet and hope I never do....
That process would certainly keep the Daily Mail in middle-class sadfaces for the foreseeable future.
FWIW it's a talking point, not an actual feasible suggestion, so on that score the think tank have done very well indeed.
Not sure I entirely buy the idea that the baby boomers are this gilded generation who have had massive advantages compared with Millenials. The 'problem' is that grandparents and parents are living longer and property/equity is not being passed down when people are at the house-buying age. Older people are also healthier in their old age, and more inclined to be active and spend their money rather than sit in a bath chair in a bungalow.
On top of that, the lifestyle expectations of younger people today are hardly Spartan. Many more have cars, foreign holidays, gadgets and nights out compared with their forebears - the idea of getting married and moving back in with your parents to save for a deposit, commonplace in the 60s/70s and even 80s, is almost unthinkable now.
I wouldn't mind it to be honest. I wouldn' be entitled to the money. But 8 years ago when I was house hunting. The local council were giving grants out of up to £10,000. It was 10% of the property value or £10,000 which ever was lower.
There was a charge put on the property and if you moved with in 5 years you had to pay the money back on a sliding scale of £2000/per year left.
I think with certain stipulations it can be a good idea.
the idea of getting married and moving back in with your parents to save for a deposit, commonplace in the 60s/70s and even 80s, is almost unthinkable now.
Yep the problems with a more mobile generation, jobs are not all at home and the days of heading down to where your dad worked and get a job for life have gone, move back in with my folks and the choices are teach, farm, hospital or commute for over an hour....
Not all baby boomers had a great life you know. Plenty out there have worked hard their whole life and will still be piss poor in retirement.
Complete bollox.
All it will achieve is a corresponding rise in house prices.
Any fool can see that.
All it will achieve is a corresponding rise in house prices.
Thought that was the right of every generation 😉
What are the other constructive suggestions to reduce inequality in the housing market, help young people up and change the direction we are heading in?
I'm not completely convinced that it's the government's job to 'give' money to people - it should concentrate more on policies that promote an environment where ordinary, everyday folk can earn a wage that will pay for at least the basics in life. Having a roof over you head is probably one of the most important of such things, and has been made almost impossible by bad management of housing stock, selling to offshore investors etc.
Giving people money - just like the 'help to buy' scheme - will just artificially inflate the market, and prices will rise even more.
Not sure if it's possible to reverse the economically unsound policies of the last 20-30 years, though, as the mindset of property being an investment is a hard one to shake.
You lot are going to spit your dummies out when you hear about Universal Basic Income, then...
We are being told (in the press) that the "Millenials" will be the first generation (since WW2?) who will be financially worse off, and have a relatively reduced quality of life when compared to their parents...
Nobody's really looking at the causes, it might the de-industrialisation of the UK meaning that the main growth in jobs is in technology, retail and finance. we're told there's various skills shortages in various area's of the economy.
A £10k bonus for being born after a certain date is maybe the first step towards "basic universal income" or simply a sticking plaster for the inter-generational wealth gap... But it isn't going to address the root cause for diminishing standards of living...
Personally I think investment in the younger generation is the answer rather than simply a blanket grant, investing in things that will bring opportunities and development for the next 50 years...
The UK feels like a nation past its best right now, this proposal will never be a vote winner and hence won't be implemented, even in a limited way, but we'll probably still spend tens of thousands per-capita on administering student loans, means testing benefits claimants and negotiating Brexit, all things brought about primarily by the older generations...
I think it's a crap idea. But something has to be done, otherwise the yoof, and future generations are up the creek.
Fanciful - we're due an economic 'adjustment' due to a consumer credit bubble, stagnant economy and the realisation how shit Brexit is going to be - the UK economy will take a bigger hit than most Western economies as we've shat in our own bed. The idea is laudible in the same way that universal income appeals, but there's no way that those with all the ca$h (e.g. pensioners) are going to vote for anything to do with a redistribution of wealth.
Truth is, the rules are broken as it stands. There is only so much property and land and it's all owned. The game's always been slanted towards owners but it gets more and more so. It's not new, it's just getting harder to ignore
When people talk about "handouts" with ideas like this or UBI or whatever else, it's kind of missing the point. These aren't gifts, they're not nice things- these are attempts to find the minimum amount of balancing possible, while making sure the people who currently benefit the most still do. It's a trivial amount compared to inheriting property or commerce or just a bag of money. Mostly these things aren't suggested out of altruism, they're suggested out of self interest. (again, it's nothing new)
It's quite interesting that the only thing that seems to be strong enough to break late stage corporate capitalism, is late stage corporate capitalism. Tax greed hurts it, automation destabilises it, and forever funneling the best of everything to the people who already have the best of everything is unsustainable.Every bit of centralisation leaves more and more people outside and resentful.
Idlejon wrote,
"Thats worked well, hasn’t it? Everyone and their dog has a degree these days, and still work for NLW in the local call centre."
It has worked well- the average starting salary for grads is £23000, which is more or less equal to the average household income for 2. The median is £30000 starting, as opposed to median £27000 overall. Yes some grads end up earning little but the averages more than pay off. Individual graduate salaries aren't as good as they were but there's a shitload more of them.
And remember, not all degrees are about bagging a pay rise- simple maths isn't the best way to judge worth or effectiveness. (I say this despite working for a university that does courses that are mostly good earners- but even so you can't criticise literature or art just because it doesn't get you a job in a bank)
What are the other constructive suggestions to reduce inequality in the housing market, help young people up and change the direction we are heading in?
How about using it to pay for additional education / training to promote long term wage growth through career development? Creating a social housing fund where people of all ages can rent for long periods with secure tenancy instead? Rebuild council housing for those who simply can't afford any other route to a home.
10K hand outs will just make starter homes 10K more expensive - it's happened every time there is an 'incentive' to buy, like stamp duty changes. It'll further fuel price inflation further up the ladder, where it's already ridiculous - a typical 4 bed home round here is now £1 Million. That's lottery / pools winner money, or top 0.01% (made up on the spot) of earners to afford such a mortgage, unless there's some trick I'm missing here - are people getting 50 year mortgages beyonfd their working lives (or indeed natural lives)?
The only thing that'd really help is a price crash back to sustainable, affordable levels - that'd 'cost' me a lot more than the 10K but I'd be happier to see it. I don't object to the 10K in theory actually, but I really don't see it being effective in any practical way.
I listened to a lecture on UBI in Feb, it was very interesting and seems to have a lot of Economists support.
I agree with dovebiker on this topic however.
Idlejon wrote,
“Thats worked well, hasn’t it? Everyone and their dog has a degree these days, and still work for NLW in the local call centre.”
It has worked well- the average starting salary for grads is £23000, which is more or less equal to the average household income for 2. The median is £30000 starting, as opposed to median £27000 overall. Yes some grads end up earning little but the averages more than pay off. Individual graduate salaries aren’t as good as they were but there’s a shitload more of them.
Your last sentence seems to agree with what I said?
I left the hallowed halls of Bristol Poly in 1989 ( 😁 ) - the average graduate starting salary was £21k.
A 10k allowance which can be put towards a restricted set of spends such as a house deposit is a great idea. A 10k cash advance to everyone in their 20s is potty. At 25 I'd have bought the biggest motherloving hi-fi and a gaming rig.
- Scrap council tax and replace it with a new property tax targeting wealthier homeowners
Great if you're in an affluent area or the tax is distributed outside of the local authority where its collected. I live in East Lancs, a "property tax targeting wealthier homeowners" would raise about fifty quid.
Actually, that's a point in itself - why aren't landlords liable for council tax rather than tenants?
I left the hallowed halls of Bristol Poly in 1989 – the average graduate starting salary was £21k.
I left what is now UCLAN in 1992. The starting salary in my first IT job was £7,500.
Actually, that’s a point in itself – why aren’t landlords liable for council tax rather than tenants?
Rent goes up by £xxx per month
The starting salary in my first IT job was £7,500.
I left the hallowed halls of Bristol Poly in 1989
Did they teach any of you about inflation? 😉
Complete bollox.
All it will achieve is a corresponding rise in house prices.
Any fool can see that.
Yep, this is spot on. Ironically this will basically be another subsidy to the homeowning generation from which the young people will be trying to buy housing (just like stamp duty relief).
We just need to build a ****-ton more housing, and continue to make it harder for existing owners to easily bid-up the price of housing as they seek buy-to-let investments, and also introduce much fairer long-term rental contracts. Easier said than done, I know, but after generations of policies encouraging nice comforting above-earnings rises in house prices, we've basically got a pyramid scheme for a housing market.
Idlejon wrote,
"Your last sentence seems to agree with what I said?"
Not sure why you think that tbh? Grad salaries are still better than average salaries, they're just not on average as high as they used to be. But that's more than offset nationally by the massive increase in the number of grads.
Essentially the pie's split more ways but that's OK because it's far bigger.
Landlord pays council tax as a % of rental income?
High rent = brutal tax...
I’m not completely convinced that it’s the government’s job to ‘give’ money to people
Don't look up Quantative Easing for ****'s sake, you'll have a shit fit.
-applicants must have 5 GCSEs (A-C) or equivalent.
I think you’ve missed the spirit of the idea. The aim is to help address an imbalance. Those who come from reasonably affluent families are more likely to do well at school, more likely to go into further education, more likely to go on to get a good job, and ultimately less likely to need the £10k to genuinely get a “leg up”. (And of course those people will also be best able to structure an application to “win” even though your vision is designed to prevent milking the system).
-applicants should have a letter of recommendation from someone other than their parents, ideally “someone of standing” in their community who they have known for at least two years.
again, those most likely to benefit from the money would be least likely to know someone of standing for two years.
-applications will be assessed by a locally based panel, based on merit. That “merit” might be the enrichment of wider society, some sort of benefit to the applicant improving their own quality of life, stimulating economic activity, etc; it will be entirely the panel’s decision how to weight relative merit and distribute or withhold funding.
so to top it all off there will be a totally non-transparent process with a postcode lottery.
It’s a terrible idea. After all no other generation got handouts from the government in the form of Right to buy, sales of state assets …
Actually, that’s a point in itself – why aren’t landlords liable for council tax rather than tenants?
Council tax is to pay for council services is it not? The tenant uses those, so pays for them? Plus as mike says they'd just get passed on, plus markup anyhow.
The simple constructive idea is just do away with landlordism. If people are only allowed 1 home and have to sell their others, that immediately floods the market with cheap houses/flats. Let that riot happen, then build the rest of the houses you need. After that, restart the property market.
Not going to happen mind.
Jesus wept if some of the people on here got together their ideas we'd end up like North Korea. Still you get a job and a house there...
A lot of the comparisons about income v average house price dont stand comparison, in 1986 income tax was 30% as a base rate and your personal allowance was about 25% of the aveage salary. I was on £190 a week in 1986 and was taking home £130 (that was a lot of Tax and NI) also interest rates were pushing 10%.
My first house was £38k (required complete renovation) I needed a 10% deposit at £3800 (7 months take home pay) and the bank kept back £3000 until some work was completed.
So even back in 1986 I needed about 12 months take home pay to get a house. I was proportionally paying a lot more tax and lot more interest.
I do acknowledge the fact that London and other areas skew the problem but we just need a lot more houses built.
Usual entitled snowlake whingers. They will make cracking lefties this lot.
Anyone who feels it's soooo unfair feel free to donate to a charity to help the poor darlings.
A great example of being bitter and selfish that I referred to earlier. Having that much hatred can't be any good for anyone - where does it come from, what has happened that causes it.
The simple constructive idea is just do away with landlordism. If people are only allowed 1 home and have to sell their others, that immediately floods the market with cheap houses/flats. Let that riot happen, then build the rest of the houses you need. After that, restart the property market.
Totally agree. Although I think over 50% of the Tory MPs are landlords aren't they so can't see that going far with this government....
The simple constructive idea is just do away with landlordism. If people are only allowed 1 home and have to sell their others, that immediately floods the market with cheap houses/flats. Let that riot happen, then build the rest of the houses you need. After that, restart the property market.
so even with the deflated prices this brings, people who currently live in rented accommodation will need to stump up several thousand immediately to buy the house they live in, or be turfed out onto the street by someone who can.
Although I think over 50% of the Tory MPs are landlords
It's 28%, and 11% of Labour. According to a C4 report from July 17. AFAIK none of them seem to believe it's a conflict of interest when they're voting on related matters such as tenant rights, responsibilities of landlords, that sort of thing.
The issue this proposal is also trying to raise is that wages have stagnated for a decade, while the value of assets and property has increased massively.
So while (mostly older) people with capital or property have effectively been handed a huge pay rise for doing absolutely nothing at all, (mainly younger) working age people (without property or assets) have seen no increase at all in the rewards for their efforts. In fact, most have seen a significant decrease. This gets more pronounced the younger you are.
This is totally unsustainable for all manner of reasons, and its going to have to be addressed at some point. And it doesn't look like its going to happen naturally, therefore there needs to be intervention. I'm not saying this is th answer, but this is a very real problem that needs to be at last discussed, and not just airily dismissed
What Binners said +1.
But a handout? Nah, not unless you can tie down it's use with Ts & Cs otherwise it's going on a lash up in Croatia - at 20 odd it's what I & most of my contemporaries would have done!
But a handout? Nah, not unless you can tie down it’s use with Ts & Cs otherwise it’s going on a lash up in Croatia – at 20 odd it’s what I & most of my contemporaries would have done!
I don't remember compaining too much when I was in my early twenties and the government not only paid for my education but also gave me a student grant "to improve my life" which in my case meant, variously buying a car and some clothes but was mostly spunked on going on the sesh with my mates.
I'd happily pay my taxes to ensure that today's youth can also benefit from the same bounty.
<div class="bbp-reply-author">oldtalent
<div class="bbp-author-role">
<div class="">Member</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
Usual entitled snowlake whingers. They will make cracking lefties this lot.
Anyone who feels it’s soooo unfair feel free to donate to a charity to help the poor darlings.
You're not even trying anymore.
</div>
Usual entitled snowlake whingers.
A snowlake whinger, yesterday...... "Ooooh! I'm so cold"
I think somebody just desperately wants a big hug, but his rufty-tuftyness is preventing him from asking for the one thing he truly craves
Sounds like a good idea. Implementation would be key but will never get the backing of the relatively wealthy who have done nothing other than to be born 50+ years ago.
I am indeed one of those people too but I haven’t got to the bitter and selfish stage yet and hope I never do….</span>
</div>
Don't worry sunshine, you are already there...
I left the hallowed halls of Bristol Poly in 1989 ( ) – the average graduate starting salary was £21k.
I left Uni in 2010 and the average Graduate starting salary was £25k
The average Graduate starting salary in 2018 is £22k (30k for those deemed as high flyers)
In 2001, my current house was sold (not to or by me) for £110k...it was valued last year at £450k.
In real world terms, salary has decreased dramatically.
Half of the 30+ "starter homes" on the new estate I've moved to have been bought by a single landlord, backed by HSBC & bought off-plan in one go. Nothing against free enterprise but that needs sorting out, surely...
I'm all for solving the housing crisis but through ownership, not mega Landlord creation.
Its not as though there were no buyers, they have a waiting list FFS.
Some of these building companies need a moral reality check.
I left the hallowed halls of Bristol Poly in 1989 – the average graduate starting salary was £21k.
I left art college in 1988 - the first job I was offered was on £3,500 (I accepted it but they withdrew their offer), finally starting a job on £7,000. I really don't believe that £21,000 was the average back then.
Handing 10k to people won't solve the housing price issue.
For starters, stop investors buying new property to let. On Buckshaw village near me there is a row of 6 newly built town houses all up for rent. This needs to stop. It's just pushing house prices upwards.
But if you look further than the housing, a lot of industry / manufacturing has disappeared from these shores, leaving us with a large service industry which in general isn't paying fantastic wages.
Add to that most young uns want the latest mobile phone, sky tv, spotify, netflix, fast food, etc.
They've spent half their monthly wage before even thinking about a mortgage.
Some of these building companies need a moral reality check.
They're not going to get one. Not in our present capitalist utopia.
If you look in Manchester City Centre, the skyline is clogged with cranes. All busy building 'luxury' apartments. They're going up all over town. But the latest figures from the City Council show that over two thirds of these are sold to buy-to-let landlords, a lot of them investors from oversees, often before a brick has been laid.
So young people couldn't even buy these, even if they could afford them, which they can't.
As a result of this, rents in Manchester have been increasing by 15-20% a year.
Given that wages have been stagnant for years, and that doest look like changing any time soon, this is totally unsustainable.
But ... hey.... someones making a hell of a lot of money, so everything is brilliant, right?
1987 - £6700 - geophysics degree.
Back then you were suppossed to be in the top 4% if you went to Uni, nowadays you are in the bottom 4% if you don't (it seems...).
All it will achieve is a corresponding rise in house prices.
Yep, no different to Help to Buy, just benefits house builders / land owners by raising prices by the corresponding amount.
I’m all for solving the housing crisis but through ownership, not mega Landlord creation.
A healthy economy needs a healthy rental market for labour flexibility. We just need to build a lot more houses....
so even with the deflated prices this brings, people who currently live in rented accommodation will need to stump up several thousand immediately to buy the house they live in, or be turfed out onto the street by someone who can.
Wouldn't be too difficult, the governemnt could issue low interest loans for first time buyers. Or guarantee them 100% mortgages. Not like they wouldn't be paying the rent anyhow.
That bit isn't really the difficult problem to get around.
Wouldn’t be too difficult for the governemnt could issue low interest loans for first time buyers. Or guarantee them 100% mortgages. Not like they wouldn’t be paying the rent anyhow.
All that achieves is a corresponding house price rise, doesn't enable any more people to buy as the problem is supply limited.
Our entire housing model in this country is now totally dysfunctional and unfit for purpose. The result of decades of being manipulated for political, not practical purposes
Homes are no longer primarily places for people to live, but are instead marketed as investment opportunities to funnel capital into
Until that changes, very very radically, things are just going to get worse.
And can you see anything changing with this shower in charge? Bearing in mind that our health secretary recently 'forgot' that he'd just purchased 7 luxury flats in a new development?
Like you do....
Add to that most young uns want the latest mobile phone, sky tv, spotify, netflix, fast food, etc.
200 a.month top's? If it will take you 10 plus years to save a deposit for somewhere you don't want to live why not forget it and enjoy yourself
All that achieves is a corresponding house price rise, doesn’t enable any more people to buy as the problem is supply limited.
You missed the part where i'm flooding the market with cut price buy to lets, and building cheap affordable(for the normal guy/lassie in the street) housing.
Own it's own, clearly charlatans are going to take advantage. If there's a will you can quite easily take them out the game.
There is no will though. That's the big problem, housing market equals nothing but profit to people.
Ok then... for the sake of argument let's assume that people who are more financially successful/stable didn't get there by parental privilege and a good upbringing or by being born at just the right time in the economy's boom and bust cycle.
Let's say it was all down to mountains of gumption and a spark of intelligence.. both genetic traits that you will have just simply inherited..
So just ****ing share stuff with people.. we have to contribute financially anyway... death and taxes and all that.
I'd much rather be giving someone lower down the ladder a leg up with my contributions, than be spending my hard earned paying for the obscene excesses of people who already have far more than enough.
Not all baby boomers had a great life you know. Plenty out there have worked hard their whole life and will still be piss poor in retirement.
That's true, and I think we should base all our considerations on one extreme or the other of the scale. But then again, even when I think about the most privileged millenials I know (specifically one with rich parents who is now a doctor), their parents bought them property, which they took over the mortgage on, which is still in negative equity and she can't afford to sell. Of course this may change, but...
The problem is that such a small proportion of people can afford to live well in the milennial and slightly - pre - milennial generation. Between myself and my older brother (4 yrs) there's a significant gap in ability to afford houses etc, despite both being fairly successful professionals. I imagine the trend has continued.
As alluded to above it will just further drive up the house prices, not enable more First time buyers.
Imo the issue lies firmly with the buy to let market. My mate just remortgaged his house to put down deposits on 2 buy to let's, his rational was that in 25 years time he would have 2 houses that had been paid by someone else...
Sound logic from a purely selfish perspective, but it's exactly these types of properties that would be the target for a first time buyer. So instead of being able to afford their own place, they have to rent and just subsidise his pension plans
I'd personally like to see the government make the buy to let market far less attractive, which would instantly drive down house prices and make society a far fairer place. Won't happen however
A lot of the comparisons about income v average house price dont stand comparison, in 1986 income tax was 30% as a base rate and your personal allowance was about 25% of the aveage salary. I was on £190 a week in 1986 and was taking home £130 (that was a lot of Tax and NI) also interest rates were pushing 10%.
My first house was £38k (required complete renovation) I needed a 10% deposit at £3800 (7 months take home pay) and the bank kept back £3000 until some work was completed.
So even back in 1986 I needed about 12 months take home pay to get a house. I was proportionally paying a lot more tax and lot more interest.
Just for comparison, currently the average deposit is £33K, and on the average salary of 27K that's about 20 months of take home pay. Yes tax and interest rates are different now (but don't forget many graduates are still paying a student loan. I'm 38 and still spending £100 a month on mine!) - but I think it's fair to compare.
Because also the flipside of higher interest rates is higher inflation. My dad's mortgage of 3 years salary in 1980 soon became worth only a few months' salary (late 80s). So there were tough years but also a big bonus as a result...
But this 10K idea is a fairly poxy solution to a massive structural problem, and surely would just be one of the first ideas floated and promptly dismissed by any group that was actually serious about sorting the issue.
The problem is that such a small proportion of people can afford to live well in the milennial and slightly – pre – milennial generation. Between myself and my older brother (4 yrs) there’s a significant gap in ability to afford houses etc, despite both being fairly successful professionals. I imagine the trend has continued.
There is more to living well than what size of house you live in or how you pay to live in that house. The options for leisure, entertainment, eating & drinking and holidays etc are all greater now than at any other time before. Not to mention a hell of a lot more affordable. House aside look at the typical contents of the 'stuff' that is owned now compared to previous generations and how easy it is to get hold of that 'stuff'. I can't see many young people now who when given the choice would actually go back and swap with their parents or grandparents time for the sake of cheaper housing.