Is London living cost affordable?

cashbackproblems

princeofpounds wrote: »

Renting is not dead money. When you have a mortgage, you rent from the bank and buy an option to purchase the property by paying back the principal of the loan. If you own a house, you forfeit the income you could generate if you sold the house and invested the capital (even in a buy to let).

Housing ALWAYS costs money.

That doesnt really make sense, as most rental prices are similar to mortgage payments so how are you able to "invest" this money elsewhere when its not there. PLus the way the markets are at the moment small private investors are not going to be making any big gains in the foreseeable future without taking big unjustified risks.

Paying a mortgage is in itself an investment as your building up equity in that property plus you have somewhere which is your own and you can do up etc, something which you cant put a price on.

sticky23

olly300 wrote: »

Odd how I have family and friends who managed to be working mothers and not all of them are high rate tax payers.

I guess they are more friendly then you as part of their solution for childcare was talking to mothers at the school gate and finding those who worked different hours to them or didn't work at all, finding relations who didn't mind looking after children, etc.

Well apart from being decidedly unfriendly, I also don't have any relatives in London who are prepared to take over the childcare... I'm also not sure that hawking at the school gates for childcare, works, until the child is actually at school. So what do you suggest I do for the first 4 years?

In my profession, long and unsociable hours are expected.. So I may be able to get part funding for a nursery, but that nursery would often be closed when I need to be working.. (The same goes for my partner, who also spends weeks or months working away)..

So I have a choice between juggling impossible childcare arrangements, working long hours, and hardly seeing the child, or becoming a stay at home mum, funded by the tax payer. None of these appeal to me, so I reckon children are out of the question...

That's fine by me - My point, however, was that the system doesn't encourage people like me and my partner to have children. But it does encourage people, who to be frank, shouldn't even be allowed to have pets...

cashbackproblems

silvercar wrote: »

You are looking for too much. I've just looked on right move for something similar to my first step on the property ladder. You can get perfectly decent 2 bed flats in North Finchley for around 200k. A walk to the tube station and supermarket but very near the cinema complex and parks.

Iv looked before and didnt find anything decent for that price.

My requirements are:

1. fairly new build/modern
2. not in a crowded complex/development as alot of them are, 6/7 floors max.
3. ideally (not essential) walking distance to the tube, this helps it hold its value and easier to sell
4. not on a council estate

e.g. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/new-homes/property-17602076.html

Funnily enough since i posted my message yesterday, i found out today from grandparents that they are giving me and my sister some money theyv been saving to use towards a deposit (30k) so my dream might not be too many yrs away!

olly300

sticky23 wrote: »

Well apart from being decidedly unfriendly, I also don't have any relatives in London who are prepared to take over the childcare... I'm also not sure that hawking at the school gates for childcare, works, until the child is actually at school. So what do you suggest I do for the first 4 years?

In my profession, long and unsociable hours are expected.. So I may be able to get part funding for a nursery, but that nursery would often be closed when I need to be working.. (The same goes for my partner, who also spends weeks or months working away)..

So I have a choice between juggling impossible childcare arrangements, working long hours, and hardly seeing the child, or becoming a stay at home mum, funded by the tax payer. None of these appeal to me, so I reckon children are out of the question...

Either:
1. change your job - I know lots of women who purposely choose their jobs because they knew they wanted to have children or have changed their jobs when they have had children.
2. get a nanny
3. use a nursery and au-pair

sticky23 wrote: »

That's fine by me - My point, however, was that the system doesn't encourage people like me and my partner to have children. But it does encourage people, who to be frank, shouldn't even be allowed to have pets...

The system has never "encouraged" anyone to have children.

Those on benefits just know how to work the system to their advantage. Those who work and don't qualify for benefits have to make do the best way they can.

Oh and child care isn't your only your responsibility if you have a partner. One of my brothers was told exactly what he had to do and when he had to take care of his own children by his wife while another one of my brother's had to do all the night feeds (his wife wasn't breast feeding when she went back to work.)

Some employers realising they have a lack of female staff in roles such as engineering (proper engineering not technicians) do everything they can to make it easier for women to go back to work. Or they are already known for being child friendly i.e. civil service.

sticky23

olly300 wrote: »

Either:
1. change your job - I know lots of women who purposely choose their jobs because they knew they wanted to have children or have changed their jobs when they have had children.
2. get a nanny
3. use a nursery and au-pair


The system has never "encouraged" anyone to have children.

Those on benefits just know how to work the system to their advantage. Those who work and don't qualify for benefits have to make do the best way they can.

Oh and child care isn't your only your responsibility if you have a partner. One of my brothers was told exactly what he had to do and when he had to take care of his own children by his wife while another one of my brother's had to do all the night feeds (his wife wasn't breast feeding when she went back to work.)

Some employers realising they have a lack of female staff in roles such as engineering (proper engineering not technicians) do everything they can to make it easier for women to go back to work. Or they are already known for being child friendly i.e. civil service.

I know you're right, and I probably would do either of those things, if I really wanted a child.. (Apart from using a nanny, as they make more money that I do)

But isn't it a waste of 4 years of education, and several more years of working my way up the ranks, to have to change career because of having children? How many people at 18 choose careers they know to be child-friendly?

And, yes of course my partner would be just as responsible for the childcare, but as I said, he travels a lot with work. We're both freelancers, so have to take the jobs on offer.. So in order for us to have children, we'd both have to change careers.. And we don't want them that badly..

Laws and regulations DO encourage certain behaviours - by either using the carrot or the stick. The system as it is now, rewards unemployed parents by giving them more cash than they could ever earn in a mimimum wage job - just by having children.

olly300

sticky23 wrote: »

I know you're right, and I probably would do either of those things, if I really wanted a child.. (Apart from using a nanny, as they make more money that I do)

But isn't it a waste of 4 years of education, and several more years of working my way up the ranks, to have to change career because of having children?

Depends what you mean by change.

sticky23 wrote: »

How many people at 18 choose careers they know to be child-friendly?

You would be surprised.

For example a lot of the now female doctors I know and met when I was at university were specifically aiming at child-friendly specialities.

sticky23 wrote: »

And, yes of course my partner would be just as responsible for the childcare, but as I said, he travels a lot with work. We're both freelancers, so have to take the jobs on offer.. So in order for us to have children, we'd both have to change careers.. And we don't want them that badly..

Then don't have any then. There is nothing wrong with making that decision. You aren't a freak.

sticky23 wrote: »

Laws and regulations DO encourage certain behaviours - by either using the carrot or the stick. The system as it is now, rewards unemployed parents by giving them more cash than they could ever earn in a mimimum wage job - just by having children.

It's not just the unemployed though. The labour government invented a system were it's better for single parents on minimum wages to work 16 hours than a full 35-40 hour week as they get more money.

All this was under the premise of lifting children out of poverty.

StevieJ

princeofpounds wrote: »

Renting is not dead money. When you have a mortgage, you rent from the bank and buy an option to purchase the property by paying back the principal of the loan. If you own a house, you forfeit the income you could generate if you sold the house and invested the capital (even in a buy to let).

Housing ALWAYS costs money.

That is good so it means those in negative equity can walk away with no comebacks, I didn't realise that.

ess0two

StevieJ wrote: »

That is good so it means those in negative equity can walk away with no comebacks, I didn't realise that.

Last time i rented from the bank,i sold 10yrs later and made over 100k,would a private rental have given me that return.

Fiddlestick

drc wrote: »

Any decent parent faced with the prospect of what they consider to be placing their child in "poverty" would do their utmost to find work rather than inflicting "poverty" on their child surely?

You would think that, but many would rather spend their money on drugs, alcohol or cigarettes than give their children a decent upbringing.

Fact.

princeofpounds

StevieJ wrote: »

That is good so it means those in negative equity can walk away with no comebacks, I didn't realise that.

No. Which may have been what you are getting at. But for clarity's sake I should elaborate.

The mortgage = fixed rent (interest) plus option to buy only works as an analogy if the mortgage is serviced. The situation in default is very different, as in a mortgage you remain liable for the principal sum.

Mind you, if you can't service your rent or your mortgage you are likely going bankrupt either way!