Nobody is priced out..

Generali

Lagoon wrote: »

Exactly that.

I get that not everyone is 'entitled' to have a chance to save up for a house. Those of us on lower salaries just can't, and OH and I have just made the decision that we're not going to get there and that rather than spending our lives trying to save for something we'll never afford, we'll find somewhere we'd want to rent for life.

Home ownership would be lovely, but it's not going to happen for us. It only frustrates me because paying the monthly mortgage wouldn't be an issue - it's only the deposit that stops it happening.

The deposit thing will change at some point. If you live within your means then you'll get a chance to buy.

N1AK

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Most homeowners have started out small, or in a less desirable area and worked their way up.

Quotation needed

My parents bought a three bed semi-detached in a nice area in their early twenties with no help (and not from well off families). My partners parents both got decent homes in a nice village before getting married.

Hell just look at council housing, that'll give you an insight into housing expectations in the 60s/70s/80s, because those were the houses built for people who couldn't afford to get one themselves!

I've seen very little evidence that people buying their first houses ~30-50 years ago all had to buy studio apartments or 1-bed flats. Yet again, surely the fact that so many properties from that period are being divided into multiple properties now should be a hint

N1AK

Lagoon wrote: »

I get that not everyone is 'entitled' to have a chance to save up for a house. Those of us on lower salaries just can't, and OH and I have just made the decision that we're not going to get there and that rather than spending our lives trying to save for something we'll never afford, we'll find somewhere we'd want to rent for life.

Home ownership would be lovely, but it's not going to happen for us. It only frustrates me because paying the monthly mortgage wouldn't be an issue - it's only the deposit that stops it happening.

Put aside £100 a month. In 5 years you've got ~£7,500 which is a decent way towards a deposit especially in LTV ratios are falling. In return you're likely to save considerably on the cost of housing for the rest of your lives. Might not be easy but if it's possible then you're unlikely to regret it.

Also factor in that when you say you can afford the monthly payments you need to account for interest rate variation. If you're really unable to save for a deposit now then I would doubt that you have the financial resources to survive much higher interest rates if you bought.

Lagoon

Mr._Pricklepants wrote: »

Maybe you should look into the help to buy scheme, starting 1 January 2014.
https://www.gov.uk/affordable-home-ownership-schemes/help-to-buy-mortgage-guarantees

Disclaimer: Before any silly bear jumps on me for daring to suggest such a scheme, I just said they should "look into" it.

We did look into this, and it gave us something to think about but it was where I set my ultimatum (and I suppose it's me prioritising that really puts a stop to it ever being a possibility for us).

The fact is, if we had years and years to save for a deposit then we'd get there eventually. However, I want to start a family and on our current salaries it really will be a choice between saving for a deposit or having enough money to raise a child. To me, a family is more important than home ownership, and I'd like to have a family at/around 30 years of age.

So, yes, I'm prioritising, but there's no way that those two things can go together financially for us. Once we have a child, we won't have enough money to save anything. If we save for a deposit, then we won't have enough money to responsibly start a family.

On our current salaries, it would take us approximately two years to save a deposit to purchase a house under the Help to Buy scheme. That puts me just about at my limit, for the time I'd want to start settling down and thinking about a family. It also assumes that we have no unexpected outgoings in the next two years, stopping us from saving that amount of money.

I'd be willing to save for another two years, but I don't want to spend my life letting everything else pass me by, and delaying starting a family, because the car broke down and set us back two months, then my office PC broke and set us back another two months...we're not exactly frivolous with our spending, but the necessary things add up.

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. I don't want to spend a large portion of my life with saving hanging over me, constantly living on barely any money and being unable to start a family in the hope that I'll eventually have enough money to go and buy a house. To me, that's no life.

I'm not one to go about grumbling; I just saw this thread and the comment that people could easily save £20k in two years and thought how amazing that would be!

ruggedtoast

There arent many jobs in Maidstone so most people will have to commute to London.

A 12 month season ticket from Maidstone to London costs almost £4000, if you are fortunate enough to work near a mainline station. If not you will need to add a travelcard onto that which makes the yearly cost almost £4600, and thats only if you're confident enough (or rich enough) in your job security to front the whole lot in advance to get the "cheap" rate.

So there we go, our thrifty young couple are back to being priced out if they dont have £10k between them to get to work and back.

And this is the same problem for every other "commuter" region. If you are renting and on an average salary it doesnt matter much where you live if you have to get to central London each day - you simply cannot win as your living costs will not leave you enough to save for a deposit.

Graham_Devon

Lagoon wrote: »

The fact is, if we had years and years to save for a deposit then we'd get there eventually. However, I want to start a family and on our current salaries it really will be a choice between saving for a deposit or having enough money to raise a child. To me, a family is more important than home ownership, and I'd like to have a family at/around 30 years of age.

Children are always overlooked on this forum.

Truth is, with some leaving uni in their twenties, babies are coming soon after.

The house is problematic, and you lay this out very well.

On this forum especially, figures are always based on a couple earning above average wage, with no children and no living costs. Of course, that creates the situation many want to see.

ruggedtoast

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Children are always overlooked on this forum.

Truth is, with some leaving uni in their twenties, babies are coming soon after.

The house is problematic, and you lay this out very well.

On this forum especially, figures are always based on a couple earning above average wage, with no children and no living costs. Of course, that creates the situation many want to see.

At the risk of sounding insensitive thats because a lot of people on this forum are older men (and some women) who for whatever reasons have no children and / or a partner.

What they have is money and some property and they come here to reassure themselves that they are better off that way. It's confirmation bias. Any suggestion that families are struggling financially is met with little sympathy as they are mostly anti-family.

Conrad

It's all about delaying gratification.

You stay with parents and save hard even though it might not be an ideal situation as you long for independance.

Same with starting a family, many of us put it off and delay the gratification until were in a position to afford it. They should teach this schitt at school.

Mr._Pricklepants

ruggedtoast wrote: »

At the risk of sounding insensitive thats because a lot of people on this forum are older men (and some women) who for whatever reasons have no children and / or a partner.

I'd guess it's men and women who have been through the whole children/work/housing balancing act, got on with it, managed perfectly fine and wonder what all the fuss is about.

Conrad

Lagoon wrote: »

Fortunately he now agrees with me, and we've decided that renting is the way forward. I don't want to spend a large portion of my life with saving hanging over me, constantly living on barely any money and being unable to start a family in the hope that I'll eventually have enough money to go and buy a house. To me, that's no life.

Lagoon I would strongly recommend you delay the gratification of starting a family for the sake of your long term security.

All too often I get enquiries from frustrated 40 somethings that left it too late and now face a life renting, never building the security blanket thier contemporaries by then enjoy, never having that big asset if the wheels fall off, never knowing how long they will be 'allowed' to stay in the landlords property.

You could end up with serious unfulfilled ambition issues.