Join the Labour Party and save your country!

TheBigBean

rjsterry wrote:

It's changed out of recognition since our office was there and that was only 6 years ago. It's all high end offices ovetspilling from the City now. Clapham hasn't been cheap or nasty for decades.

Going off topic, but Shoreditch is a trivial thing that annoys me. There are so many places in London that actually have character.

And Clapham still has plenty of grotty places.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Owning property is not a one way bet. They will be even more whiney if their property goes down 25% in value and takes a decade to go back to what they paid.

Forget iPhones, when these thoughtless pensioners were growing up they did not have a freezer and colour TVs were for the rich and the pikeys on HP. Actually scrap freezer and go with no fridge and an outside bog.

So a bunch of millennials face the choice of either waiting for property to crash, moving out of the area /region they want to live. (so if in a couple that means two people with long commutes or having to find new jobs).

All the while being told that because they spend 2 quid on avocados a week, they don't deserve to be able to save for a deposit.

And that is what every other generation did to get on the property ladder. They did not move to Clapham because it was nice and trendy they did so because it was nasty and cheap. And now these victims of petty crime are now being told by millennials that is is their god given right to live in the property of their choosing in the area of their choosing.

Let me know somewhere poncey (ideally Shoreditch) in London that sells crushed avocado on toast for £2.

Getting on the property ladder has always been hard (or undesirable) and compromises and sacrifices have always been made. Show me a millennial who has switched his iPhone for android, takes packed lunch to work, doesn’t buy coffee, hasn’t paid for a holiday in years whilst scouring the likes of Deptford for a bargain and I will show you some empathy.

Anyone of those suggestions may should like a joke but that is, the equivalent, of what people used to do.

You've never actually been to Clapham or Shoreditch, have you, SC.

The cheapest one bed flat in Deptford I could find will set you back £230K, ramping up steeply from there. A couple both on £30K* pa could only borrow about £200K. They might be able to find something in Plumstead, at a push, but they would still need to find somewhere they could rent for a low enough price to allow them to save a £20K deposit.

£30K pa works out at about £1800 per month take home. Rent for a 1 bed in Deptford starts at £900 a month + service charge, so over a quarter of the couple's income on rent

*median salary is still stuck at around £27K.

Used to work near the jct in the early 90s and have been know to roll up my trousers, take my socks off, jump on the fixie and join the wvbkfest that is Shoreditch.

You need to factor in Rick’s mum and dad assertion to your affordability calculations

It's changed out of recognition since our office was there and that was only 6 years ago. It's all high end offices ovetspilling from the City now. Clapham hasn't been cheap or nasty for decades.

Yep I was there in about 1990, the only people with mobile phones were the drug dealers who also had dogs vicious enough to see off the police dogs.

If I was looking for cheap and to out perform the market I would buy freehold in one of the shltholes between bank and Canary Wharf that you pray the DLR does not break down in.

surrey_commuter

TheBigBean wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

It's changed out of recognition since our office was there and that was only 6 years ago. It's all high end offices ovetspilling from the City now. Clapham hasn't been cheap or nasty for decades.

Going off topic, but Shoreditch is a trivial thing that annoys me. There are so many places in London that actually have character.

And Clapham still has plenty of grotty places.

I feel I should instinctively disagree but Shoreditch, and more particularly the inmates, are very annoying.

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

I'm certainly not doing that. The value of my house is pretty academic unless I downsize or die.

It is people not having this attitude and treating their home as an investment that has screwed the market.
It could bite them one day.

I knew people on circa £30k who would remortgage to get a deposit on a BTL. Their e posture to one part of the London property market was mind boggling. Those who experienced the property recession of the early 90s never went for such leverage. Is why we did not make the stellar “profit” and don’t get the obsession with owning property.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Owning property is not a one way bet. They will be even more whiney if their property goes down 25% in value and takes a decade to go back to what they paid.

Forget iPhones, when these thoughtless pensioners were growing up they did not have a freezer and colour TVs were for the rich and the pikeys on HP. Actually scrap freezer and go with no fridge and an outside bog.

So a bunch of millennials face the choice of either waiting for property to crash, moving out of the area /region they want to live. (so if in a couple that means two people with long commutes or having to find new jobs).

All the while being told that because they spend 2 quid on avocados a week, they don't deserve to be able to save for a deposit.

And that is what every other generation did to get on the property ladder. They did not move to Clapham because it was nice and trendy they did so because it was nasty and cheap. And now these victims of petty crime are now being told by millennials that is is their god given right to live in the property of their choosing in the area of their choosing.

Let me know somewhere poncey (ideally Shoreditch) in London that sells crushed avocado on toast for £2.

Getting on the property ladder has always been hard (or undesirable) and compromises and sacrifices have always been made. Show me a millennial who has switched his iPhone for android, takes packed lunch to work, doesn’t buy coffee, hasn’t paid for a holiday in years whilst scouring the likes of Deptford for a bargain and I will show you some empathy.

Anyone of those suggestions may should like a joke but that is, the equivalent, of what people used to do.

You've never actually been to Clapham or Shoreditch, have you, SC.

The cheapest one bed flat in Deptford I could find will set you back £230K, ramping up steeply from there. A couple both on £30K* pa could only borrow about £200K. They might be able to find something in Plumstead, at a push, but they would still need to find somewhere they could rent for a low enough price to allow them to save a £20K deposit.

£30K pa works out at about £1800 per month take home. Rent for a 1 bed in Deptford starts at £900 a month + service charge, so over a quarter of the couple's income on rent

*median salary is still stuck at around £27K.

Used to work near the jct in the early 90s and have been know to roll up my trousers, take my socks off, jump on the fixie and join the wvbkfest that is Shoreditch.

You need to factor in Rick’s mum and dad assertion to your affordability calculations

It's changed out of recognition since our office was there and that was only 6 years ago. It's all high end offices ovetspilling from the City now. Clapham hasn't been cheap or nasty for decades.

Yep I was there in about 1990, the only people with mobile phones were the drug dealers who also had dogs vicious enough to see off the police dogs.

If I was looking for cheap and to out perform the market I would buy freehold in one of the shltholes between bank and Canary Wharf that you pray the DLR does not break down in.

You realise that is nearly 30 years ago

Shadwell starts at £270K for an ex council 1 bed flat in a '70s block. Limehouse is about the same. On Poplar High St, you might find a ground floor flat just under £200K, but even that area quickly jumps up to £250K. I fear you have missed the boat on that one.

Yes the whole cheap BTL thing got very silly; thank goodness that has been shut off.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Owning property is not a one way bet. They will be even more whiney if their property goes down 25% in value and takes a decade to go back to what they paid.

Forget iPhones, when these thoughtless pensioners were growing up they did not have a freezer and colour TVs were for the rich and the pikeys on HP. Actually scrap freezer and go with no fridge and an outside bog.

So a bunch of millennials face the choice of either waiting for property to crash, moving out of the area /region they want to live. (so if in a couple that means two people with long commutes or having to find new jobs).

All the while being told that because they spend 2 quid on avocados a week, they don't deserve to be able to save for a deposit.

And that is what every other generation did to get on the property ladder. They did not move to Clapham because it was nice and trendy they did so because it was nasty and cheap. And now these victims of petty crime are now being told by millennials that is is their god given right to live in the property of their choosing in the area of their choosing.

Let me know somewhere poncey (ideally Shoreditch) in London that sells crushed avocado on toast for £2.

Getting on the property ladder has always been hard (or undesirable) and compromises and sacrifices have always been made. Show me a millennial who has switched his iPhone for android, takes packed lunch to work, doesn’t buy coffee, hasn’t paid for a holiday in years whilst scouring the likes of Deptford for a bargain and I will show you some empathy.

Anyone of those suggestions may should like a joke but that is, the equivalent, of what people used to do.

You've never actually been to Clapham or Shoreditch, have you, SC.

The cheapest one bed flat in Deptford I could find will set you back £230K, ramping up steeply from there. A couple both on £30K* pa could only borrow about £200K. They might be able to find something in Plumstead, at a push, but they would still need to find somewhere they could rent for a low enough price to allow them to save a £20K deposit.

£30K pa works out at about £1800 per month take home. Rent for a 1 bed in Deptford starts at £900 a month + service charge, so over a quarter of the couple's income on rent

*median salary is still stuck at around £27K.

Used to work near the jct in the early 90s and have been know to roll up my trousers, take my socks off, jump on the fixie and join the wvbkfest that is Shoreditch.

You need to factor in Rick’s mum and dad assertion to your affordability calculations

It's changed out of recognition since our office was there and that was only 6 years ago. It's all high end offices ovetspilling from the City now. Clapham hasn't been cheap or nasty for decades.

Yep I was there in about 1990, the only people with mobile phones were the drug dealers who also had dogs vicious enough to see off the police dogs.

If I was looking for cheap and to out perform the market I would buy freehold in one of the shltholes between bank and Canary Wharf that you pray the DLR does not break down in.

You realise that is nearly 30 years ago

Shadwell starts at £270K for an ex council 1 bed flat in a '70s block. Limehouse is about the same. On Poplar High St, you might find a ground floor flat just under £200K, but even that area quickly jumps up to £250K. I fear you have missed the boat on that one.

Yes the whole cheap BTL thing got very silly; thank goodness that has been shut off.

You need to re-read my first post, when I pointed out that in the 90s people bought in Clapham because it was a cheap shlthole.

The ref to Shoreditch was somebody reckoning you could buy avocados for £2

Pross

Rick Chasey wrote:

Also love the idea that a) most under 25s pay for their own phone (no grad I’ve worked with does) and b) they can afford to live within zone 3.

You realise there are under 25s living outside London don't you? You're so London focussed it's incredible especially as you've moved out yourself. A lad who worked for me is about 25, not only does he pay for his own car and his own phone he is on his second house having bought something cheap up the valleys to start and then saving more to get something more expensive in the suburbs of Cardiff. He had to put up with the overcrowded, terrible train service for a long commute for a couple of years.

There is plenty of work for graduates outside of London other than a few sectors such as financial services and media but for some reason people decide to opt for London then spend all their time moaning how they can't afford to live there. I've never understood why people in my sector opt to work in London, they'll earn maybe 5-10% more but it costs them way more for the 'honour' of living there.

rjsterry

Surrey Commuter wrote:

You need to re-read my first post, when I pointed out that in the 90s people bought in Clapham because it was a cheap shlthole.

The ref to Shoreditch was somebody reckoning you could buy avocados for £2

I think we must be talking about different bits of Clapham. I looked up one of the houses I have worked on in Clapham and found that it was sold for just under £300K in 1997, when the average London house price was just over £100K. The average London terraced house now costs a whisker under £500K and the house in question is still worth about 3 times that average, which suggests it wasn't too bad a place. The more relevant point is that in the same period, median salary has gone up about 35% (compared with 500%).

rick_chasey

Pross wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Also love the idea that a) most under 25s pay for their own phone (no grad I’ve worked with does) and b) they can afford to live within zone 3.

You realise there are under 25s living outside London don't you? You're so London focussed it's incredible especially as you've moved out yourself. A lad who worked for me is about 25, not only does he pay for his own car and his own phone he is on his second house having bought something cheap up the valleys to start and then saving more to get something more expensive in the suburbs of Cardiff. He had to put up with the overcrowded, terrible train service for a long commute for a couple of years.

There is plenty of work for graduates outside of London other than a few sectors such as financial services and media but for some reason people decide to opt for London then spend all their time moaning how they can't afford to live there. I've never understood why people in my sector opt to work in London, they'll earn maybe 5-10% more but it costs them way more for the 'honour' of living there.

Sure but in the discussion with SC I imagine most millennials he encounters are in the SE/London, so that’s the context.

FWIW childcare is another cost that has gone up a lot; 48% since 2008, and I’m feeling that.

There’s not a chance I’ll be able to give up my 100min commute that costs me £5k since the London jobs I am so are the only ones where the pay will increase sufficiently to cover the whole family as childcare is so ludicrously expensive it doesn’t make sense for Mrs Chasey to work.

The local jobs round here just don’t pay enough.

pblakeney

Welcome to the early ‘80s when most mothers didn’t work and young families were skint.

rick_chasey

PBlakeney wrote:

Welcome to the early ‘80s when most mothers didn’t work and young families were skint.

Yay, progress.

rick_chasey

Probably more on point for the thread - the amount of baby/child services in my ‘hood that have been shut down in the past three years.

Eye opening.

pblakeney

Rick Chasey wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Welcome to the early ‘80s when most mothers didn’t work and young families were skint.

Yay, progress.

Who was in power then?
Who is in power now? Coincidence?

shirley_basso

Who was in power in between and didn't deliver any progress from one generation to the next?

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Probably more on point for the thread - the amount of baby/child services in my ‘hood that have been shut down in the past three years.

Eye opening.

cost of childcare is interesting. The actual amount per hour really is not that much, roughly the same as for a cleaner. The problem is that in London there are two hours commuting added to each day, plus cost of commuting and is all paid out of taxed income.

From memory Mrs SC would have needed to earn £28k to break even.

Try and persuade Mrs Chasey to earn £12k a year in Waitrose

pblakeney

Shirley Basso wrote:

Who was in power in between and didn't deliver any progress from one generation to the next?

Wasn’t there a boom before 2008 that started this part of debate on housing?

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Probably more on point for the thread - the amount of baby/child services in my ‘hood that have been shut down in the past three years.

Eye opening.

cost of childcare is interesting. The actual amount per hour really is not that much, roughly the same as for a cleaner. The problem is that in London there are two hours commuting added to each day, plus cost of commuting and is all paid out of taxed income.

From memory Mrs SC would have needed to earn £28k to break even.

Try and persuade Mrs Chasey to earn £12k a year in Waitrose

Mrs. 666 doesn't react well to my suggestions that she gets paid work now that our kid is 17.

I'll also be trying to persuade junior to earn a few quid in Waitrose and fund some of her social life through sixth form and probably 5 years of uni.

rick_chasey

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Probably more on point for the thread - the amount of baby/child services in my ‘hood that have been shut down in the past three years.

Eye opening.

cost of childcare is interesting. The actual amount per hour really is not that much, roughly the same as for a cleaner. The problem is that in London there are two hours commuting added to each day, plus cost of commuting and is all paid out of taxed income.

From memory Mrs SC would have needed to earn £28k to break even.

Try and persuade Mrs Chasey to earn £12k a year in Waitrose

To what end? Making a few extra quid here and then to never see your kid.

Existentially, what's the point? Might as well suck it up.

I'm not looking for advice - i'm managing my own finances fine - but point is I earn more than most people my age so if I'm having to make some significant cutbacks, I dread to think what it's like for the majority who are on not even half of my wage.

surrey_commuter

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Probably more on point for the thread - the amount of baby/child services in my ‘hood that have been shut down in the past three years.

Eye opening.

cost of childcare is interesting. The actual amount per hour really is not that much, roughly the same as for a cleaner. The problem is that in London there are two hours commuting added to each day, plus cost of commuting and is all paid out of taxed income.

From memory Mrs SC would have needed to earn £28k to break even.

Try and persuade Mrs Chasey to earn £12k a year in Waitrose

Mrs. 666 doesn't react well to my suggestions that she gets paid work now that our kid is 17.

I'll also be trying to persuade junior to earn a few quid in Waitrose and fund some of her social life through sixth form and probably 5 years of uni.

the eldest is only 5 so that does not fill me with hope

it is usually suggested that I go and get a job in Waitrose. At my tax rate, assuming they pay £10 an hour I would have to work 250 hours a month to net £12k a year. Maybe she is a leftie as she certainly does not get marginal tax rates

rick_chasey

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Probably more on point for the thread - the amount of baby/child services in my ‘hood that have been shut down in the past three years.

Eye opening.

cost of childcare is interesting. The actual amount per hour really is not that much, roughly the same as for a cleaner. The problem is that in London there are two hours commuting added to each day, plus cost of commuting and is all paid out of taxed income.

From memory Mrs SC would have needed to earn £28k to break even.

Try and persuade Mrs Chasey to earn £12k a year in Waitrose

To what end? Making a few extra quid here and then to never see your kid.

Existentially, what's the point? Might as well suck it up.

I'm not looking for advice - i'm managing my own finances fine - but point is I earn more than most people my age so if I'm having to make some significant cutbacks, I dread to think what it's like for the majority who are on not even half of my wage.

Also, my comment was more in terms of after birth care etc.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Probably more on point for the thread - the amount of baby/child services in my ‘hood that have been shut down in the past three years.

Eye opening.

cost of childcare is interesting. The actual amount per hour really is not that much, roughly the same as for a cleaner. The problem is that in London there are two hours commuting added to each day, plus cost of commuting and is all paid out of taxed income.

From memory Mrs SC would have needed to earn £28k to break even.

Try and persuade Mrs Chasey to earn £12k a year in Waitrose

To what end? Making a few extra quid here and then to never see your kid.

Existentially, what's the point? Might as well suck it up.

I'm not looking for advice - i'm managing my own finances fine - but point is I earn more than most people my age so if I'm having to make some significant cutbacks, I dread to think what it's like for the majority who are on not even half of my wage.

either you are a touchy bugger or I need to use more emojis

TheBigBean

Surrey Commuter wrote:

I need to use more emojis

Irrespective of the problem that is never the solution.

This is the serious problem with millenials, they are unable to emote without emojis/emoticons.

rick_chasey

Cost of commuting shouldn’t need to be paid out of taxable income if my firm wasn’t so tight fisted.

Is usual for firms to buy your ticket and take the cost out of your salary each month.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cost of commuting shouldn’t need to be paid out of taxable income if my firm wasn’t so tight fisted.

Is usual for firms to buy your ticket and take the cost out of your salary each month.

It is always a benefit in kind unless you can prove you have another usual place of work. You can make an argument that your usual place of work is at home, but not if you are doing 5 days a week in the office.

Also, note that the trains are subsidised already.

rick_chasey

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cost of commuting shouldn’t need to be paid out of taxable income if my firm wasn’t so tight fisted.

Is usual for firms to buy your ticket and take the cost out of your salary each month.

It is always a benefit in kind unless you can prove you have another usual place of work. You can make an argument that your usual place of work is at home, but not if you are doing 5 days a week in the office.

Also, note that the trains are subsidised already.

I guess so. Never known a firm turn it down till now.

cost of trains again has gone up much faster than wages and has done for last 20 years.

surrey_commuter

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cost of commuting shouldn’t need to be paid out of taxable income if my firm wasn’t so tight fisted.

Is usual for firms to buy your ticket and take the cost out of your salary each month.

It is always a benefit in kind unless you can prove you have another usual place of work. You can make an argument that your usual place of work is at home, but not if you are doing 5 days a week in the office.

Also, note that the trains are subsidised already.

I guess so. Never known a firm turn it down till now.

cost of trains again has gone up much faster than wages and has done for last 20 years.

I thought companies were giving you an interest free loan rather than anything tax free.

Childcare is quite cheap so the only other difference would be to make it tax deductible.

Rough calculation is that your missus would need to earn about £50k to net £12k and would be paying somebody to bring up your kid. As the kid gets older and can go into nursery (or whatever) it does become free/tax free and gives the wife enough hours to work locally and earn £12k which is nice money and gets her a life/conversation outside of babies

Stevo_666

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Probably more on point for the thread - the amount of baby/child services in my ‘hood that have been shut down in the past three years.

Eye opening.

cost of childcare is interesting. The actual amount per hour really is not that much, roughly the same as for a cleaner. The problem is that in London there are two hours commuting added to each day, plus cost of commuting and is all paid out of taxed income.

From memory Mrs SC would have needed to earn £28k to break even.

Try and persuade Mrs Chasey to earn £12k a year in Waitrose

Mrs. 666 doesn't react well to my suggestions that she gets paid work now that our kid is 17.

I'll also be trying to persuade junior to earn a few quid in Waitrose and fund some of her social life through sixth form and probably 5 years of uni.

the eldest is only 5 so that does not fill me with hope

it is usually suggested that I go and get a job in Waitrose. At my tax rate, assuming they pay £10 an hour I would have to work 250 hours a month to net £12k a year. Maybe she is a leftie as she certainly does not get marginal tax rates

For me its more about getting junior more into the work/reward and self reliance type mindset and also getting Mrs. 666 out of her domestic setting a bit more - she last had a job in 2001.

If you need a good layman's explanation of marginal rateds then the 'men in a bar' tax parable is a good one. Although lefties seems to dislike it for some reason.

TheBigBean

Rick Chasey wrote:

TheBigBean wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cost of commuting shouldn’t need to be paid out of taxable income if my firm wasn’t so tight fisted.

Is usual for firms to buy your ticket and take the cost out of your salary each month.

It is always a benefit in kind unless you can prove you have another usual place of work. You can make an argument that your usual place of work is at home, but not if you are doing 5 days a week in the office.

Also, note that the trains are subsidised already.

I guess so. Never known a firm turn it down till now.

cost of trains again has gone up much faster than wages and has done for last 20 years.

You won't appreciate the argument, but I have known farmers complain that farm workers are unable to afford to live in the countryside, because it is occupied by people who work in large towns and cities. The morning commute therefore consists of farm workers coming from the suburbs of the large towns and cities in one direction, and then your normal commuters going in other direction.

The normal commuters benefit from subsidised trains. So, isn't this subsidy simply enabling middle class people to live in nice houses in the countryside at the expense of farm workers?

I know farms are one massive subsidy which you may feel negates the point.

rick_chasey

I do appreciate the argument; I’d slightly counter it with the idea that many towners have been priced out of their city of work, so the move out is not necessarily for a big house. Mine certainly isn’t

It’s hard to fathom why it is so expensive if it is subsidised.

bompington

Rick Chasey wrote:

It’s hard to fathom why it is so expensive if it is subsidised.

https://nationalcareersservice.direct.g ... in-driver#