My kids will only ever own a property if their g/parents leave them massive amount

Jim_B_3

Charis wrote: »

Whereas rent, rising all the time, is a delight to pay until you die?

Your monthly rent is not a thirty year debt.

Timmne

Absolutely - I would rather have a rope around my neck until I'm 48 years old than be worrying about where my rent's coming from when I'm 80!

Bogof_Babe

It could also be argued that any sibling who has done very well in life has had the benefit of "success" genes, whereas those who achieved less might feel they were dealt an inferior hand at birth.

My younger sister is taller than me, blonde, got straight A grades in her 'O' Levels, is well qualified as an accountant, and has two lovely children with her husband who she met at University. She definitely takes after our late father, who followed a similar educational and career path.

I am short(ish), with mousey (now grey) hair, could not have children, and only achieved sufficiently average 'O' Levels to do a succession of non-career-type office jobs for the 33 years of my working life.

Despite this I don't feel hard done by, because that's the way the cookie crumbles. I am content with my husband and modest home, and I realise that my sister has pressures that I will never have to face, like putting the kids through Uni at a time when her husband is reaching retirement age.

I do watch the finances (it's a good job one of us does :rolleyes: ) but I have no aspiration to inherit anything. It would be foolish to think so, as my mum's care home is eating up her dosh, delightful as it is. I'm just pleased that she is happy and settled there. The alternative would be too problematic to contemplate.

CB1979_2

the op can't reply she only gets net access for half an hour per day, in between exercise & lockdown!

if you check her IP address it'll be coming from some HMP address.

Charis

I once knew a man whose son was left a large sum of money by an elderly uncle, enough to have made a substantial deposit on a house. Instead the son frittered some away, became involved with the wrong sort of people and started to take drugs. The last time the man saw his son was when he tracked him down to a street in London, where he was living in a cardboard box, his last traces of self-respect long gone. He was too far down that road for his father to rescue. Those posters who reasoned that a good education, respect for hard work and money and a close family were more important than inheritance were absolutely right.

seven-day-weekend

Bogof_Babe wrote: »

My take on that remark is that there is no "just" about it. I understand you live more or less permanently in your Spanish house, and probably enjoy a much nicer lifestyle than those who cannot aspire to the luxury of a second home in a sunny climate. Some people can barely afford the rent on a grotty inner city bedsit here, so you are extremely fortunate you know.

No offence intended, but it would be nice if you could count your very substantial blessings as regards your seemingly idyllic lifestyle, rather than just shrug it off as if the inheritance that enabled it was neither here nor there (no pun intended).

I assure you I do count my blessings and know we are very fortunate to live here.

However, my two houses are worth about £220,000 between them if I go to the top of the price range. That is only the same or less as many people pay for one house, so it's not as though we are lording it up with pots of money. My UK house is an inner-city mid-terrace that we have owned since 1976.
Our Spanish house cost £35,000 just over three years ago and is also a terraced house. It has no land and certainly not a pool - don't think 'villa' here!.

So I don't think actually we have pushed the boat out any more than anyone else.

The inheritance was very nice, of course,I can't say otherwise, but my husband had paid most of the price of the property anyway before he inherited it, and had he not inherited - well, what you've never had, you never miss, do you?

poppy10_2

Timmne wrote: »

Absolutely - I would rather have a rope around my neck until I'm 48 years old than be worrying about where my rent's coming from when I'm 80!

With average mortgage terms approaching 35 years, and the average FTB being 35, you will be paying the mortgage till you are 70.

Then you will need social services care and the govt will sell your home to pay for it.

Yay! It was well worth breaking your back with huge mortgage repayments for all those years! :j :T :beer: :rotfl:

Me on the other hand - I'll keep renting. When I get to 60 and stop working, I'll claim my pension, and get housing benefit to cover the rent for the rest of my life - after all I've paid taxes all my life. And being elderly I'm likely to have downsized to a smaller place which would be easily covered by the housing benefit. I'll hand down all the savings I've accumulated from my landlord subsidising my rent to my children and grandchildren, after I've spent as much of it as I want. Govt don't get a penny.

peter999

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

Our Spanish house cost £35,000 just over three years ago and is also a terraced house. It has no land and certainly not a pool - don't think 'villa' here!.

Don't spoil the picture.

I had you living in a big villa on the side of a mountain or on the Costa del Watsit :rotfl:

Maybe a "Marbella Belle" !!
(ask your son, if you haven't seen ITV series, http://www.itv.com/page.asp?partid=7707)

peter999

seven-day-weekend

peter999 wrote: »

Don't spoil the picture.

I had you living in a big villa on the side of a mountain or on the Costa del Watsit :rotfl:
Maybe a "Marbella Belle" !!
(ask your son, if you haven't seen ITV series, http://www.itv.com/page.asp?partid=7707)

peter999

No - we have a little teraced house joined to an empty house one side and a derelict one the other!:rotfl: Someone else's land right up to our back window and onto the street (which is at a 45 degree angle, or so it seems) at the front.

The view from our roof is terrific though!

I've heard of Marbella Belles - don't know whether the goats and mules that pass our house every day on their way to work would quite fit in with their image!

Timmne

poppy10 wrote: »

With average mortgage terms approaching 35 years, and the average FTB being 35, you will be paying the mortgage till you are 70.

Then you will need social services care and the govt will sell your home to pay for it.

Yay! It was well worth breaking your back with huge mortgage repayments for all those years! :j :T :beer: :rotfl:

Me on the other hand - I'll keep renting. When I get to 60 and stop working, I'll claim my pension, and get housing benefit to cover the rent for the rest of my life - after all I've paid taxes all my life. And being elderly I'm likely to have downsized to a smaller place which would be easily covered by the housing benefit. I'll hand down all the savings I've accumulated from my landlord subsidising my rent to my children and grandchildren, after I've spent as much of it as I want. Govt don't get a penny.

I can see your point, but as long as one is a late FTB and has a mortgage that has too long a term. Even in that situation I'd rather buy.

Imagine being told at 65 years old you'll have to move house as the owner wants to sell - and then being told every six months as you can't get an owner to keep their property! I don't want to be moping around with my belongings in my older years.

I suppose this is always going to be a big discussion area really - I'm happy for my house to be sold for care when I have to go into a home; I will go to the nicest home around and I'll waste all my money on every luxury around - why worry about giving it to the government? I won't - I'll leave in a plush (if they exist) home miles away from any government run place.