House price rises

jyonda

lisyloo wrote:

Contraception is your other option.

Sorry to sound harsh, but if you can't afford BOTH a bigger house and children then you need to decided WHICH one it will be.

It sounds like you have decided and I wish you every happiness with you decision and your family.

Unfortunately the harsh reality of life is that we can't all afford every thing we want exactly when we want it.

FWIW I think you've probably made the right choice in having children over bricks & mortar but why do you think you are entitled to have everything you want when you want it?

So now children are an optional extra these days eh? Can't afford them? Then tough, you should have thought about that before being poor. What do you mean it's not your fault you lost your job, you don't have wealthy parents, you had to care for someone instead of working/ getting educated? Only people who are rich enough to pack their kids off to the nursery all day then off to boarding school after that should be allowed to have kids as poor people can't afford to bring them up properly. Oh but who's going to empty my bins, tend my garden and serve my food? Who's going to fight my wars, protect my property and care for me when I'm no longer in control of my bowell movements? No-one that's who.

talksalot81

ukbondraider wrote:

There are plenty of 2 or 3 bed houses. The problem is, is that you probably dont have the salary but still want to live in a "nice" area or a "nice" home.

And it is not unreasonable that many people want this. If they do a hard days work in a well paid and skilled job, why not!? There are plenty of people out there who do nothing of the sort and have been lucky because they were in the right place at the right time.

The arguement is hollow. Everyone should expect to start from the very bottom, that is the basic premise. So that means someone earning 30k should be expecting to start at the same place as someone earning 15k? Or does it mean the guy earning 30k should expect to afford something nicer?

jyonda

arthur_dent wrote:

I very much don't. You are absolutly 100% correct it was entirely mine and my husbands decision to have children and I certainly don't regret thet decision in any way. I was disputing the arguement that anyone can change their circumstances if they want to. I would not say because I would like a three bedroomed house that this makes me either wrong or wanting to keep up with the joneses. Also it does not mean I want everything now. My children are three and 5, in a few years time they are going to wonder why they are the only ones out of their friends who have to sleep in the same room as their parents. As house prices are continuing to rise the gaps between house prices are only going to worse and the rents are going to get higher.

Contraception may have been an option before I had them but it isn't now. (We are not having any more). We are stuck with things the way they are. I except that but that does not mean I am wrong in wishing it to be different.

Clearly being a homeowner is not benefitting you. Why not just sell up, bank the profit and rent at least a 2 bed until the market cools? As I'm sure you know, there are more important things in life than being a homeowner and your living circumstances and your families happiness has got to be top.

ukbondraider

talksalot81 wrote:

And it is not unreasonable that many people want this. If they do a hard days work in a well paid and skilled job, why not!?

I agree. This is my argument

talksalot81 wrote:

There are plenty of people out there who do nothing of the sort and have been lucky because they were in the right place at the right time.

I agree again. Some people are more lucky in life but some believe you make your own luck. Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

talksalot81 wrote:

The arguement is hollow. Everyone should expect to start from the very bottom, that is the basic premise. So that means someone earning 30k should be expecting to start at the same place as someone earning 15k? Or does it mean the guy earning 30k should expect to afford something nicer?

I believe the latter, except someone on £15K should not be considering buying a house IMO (but of course that depends on locality) and someone on on £30K should be considering starting out somewhere. In the south of England I believe these figures should be higher e.g. I was against my sister from considering houses until she obtained a salary paying her a min of £40K and I personally didnt even think about buying until I personally earned over some margin more than that and that was 4 yrs ago (but that was because I was buying alone I guess).

Alan_M_2

The point being though, that £40K incomes are far more than average, even in London.

ukbondraider

jyonda wrote:

So now children are an optional extra these days eh? Can't afford them? Then tough, you should have thought about that before being poor. What do you mean it's not your fault you lost your job, you don't have wealthy parents, you had to care for someone instead of working/ getting educated? Only people who are rich enough to pack their kids off to the nursery all day then off to boarding school after that should be allowed to have kids as poor people can't afford to bring them up properly. Oh but who's going to empty my bins, tend my garden and serve my food? Who's going to fight my wars, protect my property and care for me when I'm no longer in control of my bowell movements? No-one that's who.

Children should not be considered optional extras and all families should be entitled to have them and have as many as they want. I agree that many start life in tougher situations than others but that is not an excuse to staying poor and not trying in life. You just have to budget differently than others.

Bringing up good kids also in my opinon is not money related.

lisyloo

My children are three and 5, in a few years time they are going to wonder why they are the only ones out of their friends who have to sleep in the same room as their parents.

Not being nosey.
But why is it that their other friends parents can afford houses and not you.

I'm honestly not being judgemental or nosey.
But if other parents (with kids the same age) can afford it and you can't then why are their circumstances different from yours?

ukbondraider

Alan_M wrote:

The point being though, that £40K incomes are far more than average, even in London.

I know thats what statistics say but I personally dont believe that if you remove people like shop assistants, public transport staff, waiters etc from the statistics for London. Everyone I know even those who didnt do well at my old school (but people I still keep in touch with) earn £40K or thereabouts working in various roles from being a secretary to doing admin work.

Graduates here are also usually on around £30K starting out. Again maybe its me but if I was to guess the average wage here in London I would say somewhere in the region of £70-80K.

lisyloo

So now children are an optional extra these days eh?

I never said they were optional.

Can't afford them? Then tough, you should have thought about that before being poor.

If you genuine can't afford them i.e. can't afford to feed them properly then YES I DO believe you shouldn't bring them into this world.
I don't think however that this is what we are talking about. We are talking about people wanting kids AND other things as well.
I feel that sometimes people have to make sacrifices and can't necessarily have it ALL and have it NOW.

What do you mean it's not your fault you lost your job, you don't have wealthy parents, you had to care for someone instead of working/ getting educated?

As regards losing your job you can get insurance and I would advocate sensible financial planning (as well as sensible family planning).
Surely this is only sensible.
ALL of us can find people who are richer than us or who had a luckier upbringing.
What do you suggest. Going round with a chip on your shoulder?

Only people who are rich enough to pack their kids off to the nursery all day then off to boarding school after that should be allowed to have kids as poor people can't afford to bring them up properly.

That's not what I'm saying at all.
I'm saying that people that have children should expect to have to make some sacrifices compared.
But to be honest even working couples with 2 incomes don't get everything they want.

Oh but who's going to empty my bins, tend my garden and serve my food? Who's going to fight my wars, protect my property and care for me when I'm no longer in control of my bowell movements? No-one that's who.

The tax system sorts this out.
People that work adn don't have kids massively subsides those who don't work.
But those who have kids contribute in other ways (as you point out).
People that don't (or can't) have children don't get everything for free.
They have to pay tax.
If you think the system is unfair then I guess that's a subject for another board.

jyonda

ukbondraider wrote:

Graduates here are also usually on around £30K starting out. Again maybe its me but if I was to guess the average wage here in London I would say somewhere in the region of £70-80K.

You are living in La-la-land, not London. Averages mean nothing anyway as the top earners absolutely dwarf the earnings of even the people they work with. It doesn't matter if the MD earns millions, the secretary is still paid the going rate for answering a telephone. And that is not anywhere near 70 or even 40 grand.