Renting in your 40's and staring into the abyss

remorseless

lisyloo wrote: »

I've just had a good experience of renting.
My circumstances are not the same as Fiona's - a major difference is that I chose not to have kids (just emphasising that her circumstances are entirely her choice).
We paid no fees and got our deposit back in full on the day of moving out (we have been excellent tenants).
I don't have any complex about renting. nobody I know professionally or personally looks down on me.

One anedote, but I just wanted to add some balance to this idea that renting is universally awful.

I agree - I have been renting and it's not so dreadful as pictured really! I was worried about my last place (first in London) but I got my full deposit back quickly.

I think some folks may not realise that life is more expensive now than 30 years ago, so finding something to rent uber cheaply is going to be disappointing.

Keeping realistic expectations help the outcome!

lisyloo

Keeping realistic expectations help the outcome!

Certainly does.
We were entirely realistic about what we could get at our price point and location. We found a new flat in 2 days and it's quite nice too (for the price point).

dktreesea

wotsthat wrote: »

Fiona is the wrong pin up girl for the problems you highlight.

Almost every priority she's set herself in life has been achieved.

She wanted to be highly qualified - tick - no student loans either.

She wanted to travel - tick

She didn't want to enter the jobs market in her twenties - tick

She wanted to work in academia - tick

She wanted three children - tick

She didn't want to save - tick

I'm sympathetic to the idea that houses are expensive and renting is generally considered crap and I'm sorry she seems to have a complex about being a renter but when did reality strike? Could she really have got to her mid-forties and found this a surprise?

I'm a similar age to her, from a much poorer background, same number of kids, nearly as well qualified, I've travelled the world, and, without setting the world alight in any way of note find myself owning a house.

To me she's exactly the right sort of person for the problems being highlighted on this thread.


She got a degree and a decent job to go with it, so doesn't sponge off the tax payer to support her children.


She delayed entering the job market so she could get the necessary higher qualifications, presumably (which may have included needing to travel) to ensure she could have a careeer in academia. No mean feat.


She joined the baby breeding programme, which everyone in Britain is under huge pressure to join in on, hence the heavy "investment" of our taxes by the government in things like child benefit, child tax benefit, free child care, free school (not even so much as an annual levy, not to mention not even having to stum,p up for the jotters the children use. Seriously, our non user pays attitude to education is scary), housing benefit tailored to however many children you have etc etc.


She, presumably, spent on her children rather than banking her money and saving for a deposit on a house, but hey, like I say, the government's attitude is "breed, baby, breed!"


Yes, she can't afford to put a deposit on a house just now, but that shouldn't mean she should have to invest a massive percentage of her income on rent just to rent a halfway decent house close to decent schools.

remorseless

dktreesea wrote: »

Yes, she can't afford to put a deposit on a house just now, but that shouldn't mean she should have to invest a massive percentage of her income on rent just to rent a halfway decent house close to decent schools.

and let's not forget that she may even be too old to qualify for a mortgage now!

So, should the tax payer chip in and assist with her rent so she would have to invest less? Sounds like an idyllic land...maybe tax payers should also chip in for her children school lunches!

I thought up to 1/3 income spent on rent is 'acceptable'. She is not on a low wage, she just doesn't want to believe that building a roof over her head falls under her responsibility!!!!

dktreesea

lisyloo wrote: »

I'm a permanent employee.
No payrise for 5 years (and even then they were around 1%-2%, no promotion for for 12). For some of my colleagues it's been 10 years without a payrise.
This is not just my company as I can obviously look at job ads.
Senior Software engineer jobs have generally been around £45K-£50K for the last 10 years. There are exceptions in London but the top jobs also require 80 hours per week.
My department is now 85% in Bangalore - not many jobs for youngsters here in the UK.

We are now not getting payrises ever. We are getting bonuses instead which about half the time are zero because we don't meet the targets.

I'm not complaining because I'm lucky to be already senior and on a decent salary.
It's just an anecdote to demostrate that in some sectors pay isn't rising and in many cases going down in real terms and sometimes (contractors) nominal terms.

And that's a reality facing many working people, - and what the public sector could have to look forward to. Wages that not only don't go up in real terms, and don't even stand still. Instead they decline, year on year.


Meanwhile rents, driven by demand outstripping supply, continue on their seemingly neverending rise. And mortgages are no different. Even if interest rates stay low, which I doubt, the amount of money you have to raise via a mortgage increases year on year, as house prices rise.


I suppose at some point people need to face up to reality, that their dream house is getting further and further away from them as time goes on, bite the bullet and buy something.

dktreesea

remorseless wrote: »

and let's not forget that she may even be too old to qualify for a mortgage now!

So, should the tax payer chip in and assist with her rent so she would have to invest less? Sounds like an idyllic land...maybe tax payers should also chip in for her children school lunches!

I thought up to 1/3 income spent on rent is 'acceptable'. She is not on a low wage, she just doesn't want to believe that building a roof over her head falls under her responsibility!!!!

It used to be that one should only spend a 1/4 of their gross income on rent, not 1/3. She doesn't have to worry about not getting a mortgage. Even people in their 50s can get one. It's just that the term of the possible mortgage is shortened. So if she is 45, then the maximum term she would get is 20 years.

lisyloo

It used to be that one should only spend a 1/4 of their gross income on rent, not 1/3.

Was that as half of a couple?
Most people buy their first home with 2 incomes.

remorseless

dktreesea wrote: »

And that's a reality facing many working people, - and what the public sector could have to look forward to. Wages that not only don't go up in real terms, and don't even stand still. Instead they decline, year on year.


Meanwhile rents, driven by demand outstripping supply, continue on their seemingly neverending rise. And mortgages are no different. Even if interest rates stay low, which I doubt, the amount of money you have to raise via a mortgage increases year on year, as house prices rise.


I suppose at some point people need to face up to reality, that their dream house is getting further and further away from them as time goes on, bite the bullet and buy something.

I agree that it's good to buy something, at least if not living there right away at least for later on in life, but the picture you're describing is pretty grim, maybe I am lucky but really, it is not that gloomy out there!

Wages maybe are not going up (some are, prices are also going down) and industries are changing (we have been outsourcing for 10+ years now) but that is inevitable over time.

Maybe the pace feels like it's accelerating but it's better than keeping still...

A lot of people come to the UK because they see it as the land of 'plenty' and somehow they succeed in getting established, could it be that some people are maybe just complacent and don't want to adapt, it is easier to stay comfortable.

I don't think it's just the UK that is changing, this 'phenomenon' is happening a bit everywhere!

lisyloo

some are, prices are also going down

I find it rather amusing.
Wages have been going up for about 5 minutes (I exaggerate) ok 6 months, after 5 years of real terms decreases.
CPI is now close to zero after many many years of price increases - and many would argue that CPI does not represent the true situation of those on low/fixed income who don't buy decking, patio heaters or flights abroad.
I am delighted that finally things seem to be turning around, but the fact that we've been getting (on average) slightly above inflation pay increases for 5 minutes, does not mean we are cooking on gas after many many years of being squeezed.

ukcarper

dktreesea wrote: »

It used to be that one should only spend a 1/4 of their gross income on rent, not 1/3. She doesn't have to worry about not getting a mortgage. Even people in their 50s can get one. It's just that the term of the possible mortgage is shortened. So if she is 45, then the maximum term she would get is 20 years.

What is her gross income this is £875 a month there are cheaper properties. http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-to-rent/property-50804893.html