Love has died but the mortgage lives on

DaveyDave_3

Love and large financial committments are not good bedfellows. I know of a couple who recently met and intended moving in together. Rather than rent somewhere, they decided to buy a new build flat, in a shared ownership scheme with an interest only mortgage right at the top of the market in mid 2007. Ouch. I told them it would be a bad mistake but they ignored me - ho hum. Love is blind it seems. (perhaps that's why I'm single - LOL).

dopester

Bought for £116,000, then valued at £200,000 in 2005, and remortgaged at £170,000. What did she do with the £54,000 of free money?

The heartache of it all.

What is the problem? She's already found a new guy and popped out another sprog.

At least the house got repossessed, with some sucker paying £140,000.

Max_Headroom_3

SGE1 wrote: »

Er, that or she genuinely likes the guy?

I don't think many women have babies in order to keep their partner.

Aww... How charmingly naive.

SGE1

Max_Headroom wrote: »

Aww... How charmingly naive.

Really?

I'm just going on what appears logical... Maybe it's a generational thing. Women nowadays have more aspirations, they earn their own money, men become a (mostly) nice extra, rather than a necessity.

I don't know anyone, or of anyone, that has ever used a child in order to blackmail someone into staying in a relationship (and fail). It all sounds very alien to me...

lostinrates

SGE1 wrote: »

Really?

I'm just going on what appears logical... Maybe it's a generational thing. Women nowadays have more aspirations, they earn their own money, men become a (mostly) nice extra, rather than a necessity.

I don't know anyone, or of anyone, that has ever used a child in order to blackmail someone into staying in a relationship (and fail). It all sounds very alien to me...

I think thats as blanket a statement as it would be to say all woman would suse a child to keep a man. If women of today's generation are more aspirational why are they more teen pregnancies? Surely those aspirational girls might consider that babies, while lovely, are expensive, time consuming and sadly often are not helpful in career aspirations?

SGE1

lostinrates wrote: »

I think thats as blanket a statement as it would be to say all woman would suse a child to keep a man. If women of today's generation are more aspirational why are they more teen pregnancies? Surely those aspirational girls might consider that babies, while lovely, are expensive, time consuming and sadly often are not helpful in career aspirations?

I did say that I was basing my view and comment on my own personal perceptions... Yes, teen pregnancies are up - but that's just one proportion of the female population. I don't know the exact figures, but I believe birth rates are down overall, and women choosing to marry and have children at a later age - which does fit in with the overall growth in ambition and aspiration. It just appears to be leaving a section of the population behind. Hence why it appears to me to be slightly old-fashioned to think that nowadays, a man is going to stay in a relationship just because there's a child, or even that women should want that to be the case.

housesitter

I'm looking to buy and my partner is going to be a lodger paying rent. Her choice. She wants nothing to do with the purchase of it as isn't ready for that level of commitment yet.

I think I'm in love

olly300

SGE1 wrote: »

I did say that I was basing my view and comment on my own personal perceptions... Yes, teen pregnancies are up - but that's just one proportion of the female population. I don't know the exact figures, but I believe birth rates are down overall, and women choosing to marry and have children at a later age - which does fit in with the overall growth in ambition and aspiration.

Birth rates are up over the last 5 years illustrated by lots of boroughs not having enough primary school spaces, however they are not at their 60's peak.

SGE1 wrote: »

It just appears to be leaving a section of the population behind. Hence why it appears to me to be slightly old-fashioned to think that nowadays, a man is going to stay in a relationship just because there's a child, or even that women should want that to be the case.

My female friends, myself and my sisters have been brought up to stand on our own two feet so it was a shocked to me to meet women who thought that having a child would save their relationship.

However in all cases I know it doesn't work. The guy if responsible does look after his child but in lots of cases they leave with no further contact with the child.

SandC

dopester wrote: »

Bought for £116,000, then valued at £200,000 in 2005, and remortgaged at £170,000. What did she do with the £54,000 of free money?

The heartache of it all.

What is the problem? She's already found a new guy and popped out another sprog.

At least the house got repossessed, with some sucker paying £140,000.

My thoughts exactly dopestar. What exactly did they do with over £50k when they remortgaged? Ah well, they've got to pay it back now.

SandC

SGE1 wrote: »

I did say that I was basing my view and comment on my own personal perceptions... Yes, teen pregnancies are up - but that's just one proportion of the female population. I don't know the exact figures, but I believe birth rates are down overall, and women choosing to marry and have children at a later age - which does fit in with the overall growth in ambition and aspiration. It just appears to be leaving a section of the population behind. Hence why it appears to me to be slightly old-fashioned to think that nowadays, a man is going to stay in a relationship just because there's a child, or even that women should want that to be the case.

I see it more like you meet the 'love of your life' and have a child, buy a house maybe. You split up then you meet the 'real love of your life'. You already have a child so you know it's doable - you want to give this 'real love of your life' (cos you got it wrong with the last one) a child as well. So it all evens out.