Nobody is priced out..

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Young kids are very adaptable.

I believe that they can cope with moving at most times of their life and would only potentially need a bit of stability in the couple of years running up to their exams.

I'm not saying they are not. But look at where we are at.

From a point of suggesting I'm making things up about those who like HPI, ot those who like HPI stating everything I stated (which they claimed I was making up).

Lagoon is simply stating they uphold quality of life over quantity of money.

Many of us (including myself) have taken it upon ourselves to help Lagoon. Wotsthat has suggested moving. Pricklepants has taken one advert and decided to extrapolate that to houses in the advert area to suggest they are affordable (again, ignoring kids and the fact the poster said they do not want to move) You are suggesting you can move with kids, they adapt.

Thing is, what you don't seem to be able to grasp is precisely what Lagoon is telling you. Maybe it's an alien world to you, wotsthat etc. I dunno. But Lagoon is telling you they value quality of life for themselves and their family ABOVE money.

That means they do not want to work all hours god gives to conform to the 2 up 2 down. They do not want to move away from their friends and families, simply to be able to buy into som god forbidden flat. They do not want to sacrifice the best years to conceive (and ultimately being a parent much later in life) to buy a house.

To then turn around and suggest they take advice on moving, doing courses and taking risks misses the point entirely.

Maybe you just cannot grasp it. I dunno. But it seems to me that you think Lagoon is complaining and wants help. They are not. And they have clearly written so.

Graham_Devon

Nada666 wrote: »

If it costs £825 to rent a two bedroom house then presumably there are rooms to rent for £275.

Another one who simply cannot seem to grasp the point.

Not everyone wants to cut everything down to the bone to be able to join in the property game.

It was made quite clear to you and others when they stated "keeping my standard of living". Obviously living is more important that money to them. And that, in my mind, is no bad thing.

ruggedtoast

According to wikipedia the median gross wage in the UK is £21,300. 50% of people are earning less than this, some a lot less.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_in_the_United_Kingdom#cite_note-8

What is the average house price? £165,000 or something; almost eight times the salary most people are paid if they are lucky.

Sure, no one is priced out of the great property owning democracy we live in.

Percy1983

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

You're so special, Percy.

I know, mi mum sez!

ruggedtoast

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Young kids are very adaptable.

I believe that they can cope with moving at most times of their life and would only potentially need a bit of stability in the couple of years running up to their exams.

There are many families that move regularly, forces families are one example with no reports that I am aware of that this is detrimental, indeed there is an argument that this helps develop social skills and awareness of the world as opposed to being entrenched in a small community mindset.
I say this as a boss of mine had commented that their kids had no real desire to explore possibilities out of their village, even to relatively small towns / cities.

Moving regularly is immensely disruptive to children and any teacher will tell you switching schools has a negative effect on students performance, let alone regularly. How on earth can you actually believe the opposite?

Try doing a degree course and switching universities a few times during it and see how much fun that is, and then imagine you have no choice in the matter and only find out with a couple of months notice each time.

I also can only imagine you dont know any forces families, as I can assure you that being the spouse or kid of a soldier is extremely tough, and this is one of the reason there arent many squaddies who have partners they arent married to, as marriage entitles the family to live on base where there is at least a support network and some kind of continuity when they have to move. Still, Third Culture Syndrome is a problem for them in adulthood.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thing is, what you don't seem to be able to grasp is precisely what Lagoon is telling you. Maybe it's an alien world to you, wotsthat etc. I dunno. But Lagoon is telling you they value quality of life for themselves and their family ABOVE money.

I grasped it thanks.

The thing is if you have a priority list that includes buying a house but earn less than the average wage and have no intention of taking any steps to increase said earnings then you may as well take house buying off the list - it will never happen.

Yes moving is a big deal but a few extra hours and/ or catching up on some qualifications isn't that much of a commitment but he/ she seemed to be suggesting that compared to the all important peer group this would seem some type of city slicker type behaviour.

I've found that making the effort to buy a house has been life enhancing and am confident that this will continue. This is quite apart from the clear financial benefits to long term ownership. Just doing a little bit more than my peers means I get quality of life for my family and money. There's a fine line, which I've crossed many times, but dismissing buying a house because two years saving would have a negative impact on life is, IMO, somewhat short sighted.

Mr._Pricklepants

wotsthat wrote: »

...dismissing buying a house because two years saving would have a negative impact on life is, IMO, somewhat short sighted.

Wotsthat, you know that, I know that and Graham knows that also, but he obviously has another internet war to win.

Anyway, it looks like Lagoon and OH have made up their mind already.

Lagoon wrote: »

As I say, I don't expect to be entitled to a home and I'd be happy renting, but OH wanted to buy. The fact that he hoped to buy was weighing on me constantly, as I'd done the sums and couldn't see how it was possible without having to start a family at least into our early thirties and possibly even later. As I said to him - we can't have it both ways.

Fortunately he now agrees with me, and we've decided that renting is the way forward.

Happy renting.

CKhalvashi

Sibley wrote: »

2 people should be taking home 3K a month plus....

Easy peasy. Live with parents. Save save save.

Meanwhile in the real world, I had a long chat with OH's former business partner today, who was forced out of her own company at the age of 47 by the gentleman we sold our shares to (who was later sentenced for several fraud and Companies Act offences), and has worked in Tescos for the past three years, having run a business for the previous 7 years, and having worked for that company for 23 years before that.

She's lucky to scrape £1000 a month take home, on nights, with £600 of that going on mortgage and £250-ish on Council Tax and household bills. Her savings are rapidly depleting at the same time.

This person is unable to claim anything, is currently working for us for 2 days a week, to bring her income up by around £400 a month after tax and extra petrol, to at least be able to just about survive.

Should she have been 25 years younger, she'd be permanently priced out the market, with things going the way they are. I can see this, and so can many others.

I'm concerned that like with the idealist opinion mentioned above, many aren't aware of the full implications of high house prices at the moment.

CK

Lagoon

wotsthat wrote: »

I grasped it thanks.

The thing is if you have a priority list that includes buying a house but earn less than the average wage and have no intention of taking any steps to increase said earnings then you may as well take house buying off the list - it will never happen.

Yes moving is a big deal but a few extra hours and/ or catching up on some qualifications isn't that much of a commitment but he/ she seemed to be suggesting that compared to the all important peer group this would seem some type of city slicker type behaviour.

I've found that making the effort to buy a house has been life enhancing and am confident that this will continue. This is quite apart from the clear financial benefits to long term ownership. Just doing a little bit more than my peers means I get quality of life for my family and money. There's a fine line, which I've crossed many times, but dismissing buying a house because two years saving would have a negative impact on life is, IMO, somewhat short sighted.

(Potentially) a final point on this matter - after all, this thread wasn't about me - more setting this up as a summary of all that I've said in case anyone wants a simple statement of the points.

Whilst it might be short-sighted to you, it isn't for me.

The fact is that this isn't just two years of saving. We've been scrimping and saving, making sacrifices and always having 'something to work towards' for the last decade. I don't feel that's a good way to live, and I know that for us going forward it doesn't have to be that way. I want to live a life where I can enjoy all the wonderful achievements of myself and my family, without feeling like I haven't yet 'made it' just because, long-term, it might be more financially beneficial to be a homeowner.

Two more years would be fine, if that's all it was, though it could (and probably would) be quite a bit longer.

But there's one other thing I actually WANT from my life as a certainty (and of course OH agrees), and that something won't wait forever. Yes, some people start their families in their mid-30s and 40s, but I'm not willing to take that risk with something as important as a life. Having not had a child before, I don't know my fertility levels or any genetic conditions that together as a couple we might end up passing on. I also have no clue about my life span, or OH's.

If I suddenly come into money ten or twenty years down the line, fantastic. Then, I can get a house. The thing is, there will still be houses ten or twenty years down the line, and they don't care if I pop my clogs at 45-50 years old.

In our lives there isn't enough money to do everything we want in the order that society seems to think is 'right', and we're prioritising. I'm happy with my lot - I'm not rich but I have a good life with what we've got, but you have to understand that there will be quite a few 'young people' that are disappointed with the current situation. People that do want to buy a house, and feel that it's important to them. People that, thanks to current salaries, living costs and house prices, might be spending at least half of their life 'waiting for something better'.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Thing is, what you don't seem to be able to grasp is precisely what Lagoon is telling you. Maybe it's an alien world to you, wotsthat etc. I dunno. But Lagoon is telling you they value quality of life for themselves and their family ABOVE money.

........

Maybe you just cannot grasp it. I dunno. But it seems to me that you think Lagoon is complaining and wants help. They are not. And they have clearly written so.

Graham,
Once again you show a complete inability to read and understand posts.

I clearly said to lagoon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Hey Lagoon,
Your right, life is about choices and each situation is assessed on their own criteria.

There is no right or wrong.

I wish you the best in whatever you choose

AS WELL AS wishing Lagoon all the best, I simply made a couple of suggestions to think from a different perspective, to look further ahead and ask themselves the questions they need to think about..

What they choose to do is up to them AND I REITERATE, "There is no right or wrong" with those choices. Individuals choose a path they believe is best for them.

Sometimes it's worth considering the ends of the paths rather than the relative first few hundred yards.