Renting in your 40's and staring into the abyss

missyrichards

Generali wrote: »

I used to get round the (c)rush hour problem by negotiating a very early start and finish. I was the first into the office, even at Goldman Sachs which takes some doing!

That's what I used to do when I used to commute into London, not that I worked anywhere as posh as that.:p

ruggedtoast

Generali wrote: »

I used to get round the (c)rush hour problem by negotiating a very early start and finish. I was the first into the office, even at Goldman Sachs which takes some doing!

The problem with that is that everyone sees you leaving early, but hardly anyone sees you arriving early.

I switched to earlies for a while because I am too tight to pay for parking so wanted to get in before the free spaces had gone, did a full day plus and still got people ribbing me when I was out of the door at 4.

Then you get people who stroll in at 10 with a Starbucks, spend half an hour making porridge and looking at cats on the internet; who then leave at 6.45, with a full lunch hour - who have a reputation for "putting the hours in".

Jerks.

ruggedtoast

lisyloo wrote: »

Where are Fiona's special challenges described pleased? I haven't seen anything that describes her being disadvantaged except at her own hands.

I am grateful for having good health, but the rest I.e. deciding to buy a house a build a pension pot was down to me. If Fiona had other priorities the she is responsible for the consequences. Unfortunately her children are affected and from the little I've read she is not a good mother and has put her own priorities first before her children.

I am totally sympathetic to people who might be disadvantaged e.g. By ill health, but I haven't seen that in Fiona's case, only bad decisions from someone who took on the responsibility to be a parent.

I am pretty sure it said in the article that her husband became disabled and now can't work. They have three children so its quite possible that after paying market rent in Colchester she can't get save for a mortgage.

House prices are too high and renting in the UK with a family is dreadful. You may not like the messenger but the message is valid.

ukcarper

remorseless wrote: »

I think it depends on her expectations, the story says they both work at uni so salary is around £40k+ each, though they have 3 kids (11, 8, 6) say they bring net a month around £4k+, a 3 bedroom detached around there is £1k+ taxes, utilities, blah blah

in say 5 years (she was not born 40) she couldn't save £25k? (£400/month)

To save money it takes time, sacrifices and lifestyle choices. Maybe she prefers to have 2 cars, maybe she prefers to send kids to expensive schools, maybe she works part time, maybe maybe - we don't know but reality is, money for a deposit don't just magically appear!

If the earnings are as you say allowing for 6% pension contributions they will bring home £2363 a month each so would have £3726 a month + child benefit after paying rent. I live on about 1/3rd of that and am expected to feel sorry for her!

I have sympathy for you people who have difficulty getting good jobs and have to cope with high house prices but people in her position moaning does nothing to further their case.

remorseless

ukcarper wrote: »

If the earnings are as you say allowing for 6% pension contributions they will bring home £2363 a month each so would have £3726 a month + child benefit after paying rent. I live on about 1/3rd of that and am expected to feel sorry for her!

I have sympathy for you people who have difficulty getting good jobs and have to cope with high house prices but people in her position moaning does nothing to further their case.

That should be £4726!

ukcarper

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I am pretty sure it said in the article that her husband became disabled and now can't work. They have three children so its quite possible that after paying market rent in Colchester she can't get save for a mortgage.

House prices are too high and renting in the UK with a family is dreadful. You may not like the messenger but the message is valid.

It says in article that they both work in university.

ukcarper

remorseless wrote: »

That should be £4726!

No it's £4726 before they pay £1000 rent.

remorseless

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I am pretty sure it said in the article that her husband became disabled and now can't work. They have three children so its quite possible that after paying market rent in Colchester she can't get save for a mortgage.

House prices are too high and renting in the UK with a family is dreadful. You may not like the messenger but the message is valid.

It does but also that both work. No details on the nature of disability... wheel-chair disable? can still lecture, though may need special car/house arrangements...

3 children, lifestyle choice. Do you really need 3? why not 2?

We can feel sorry for her and empathise but so we can do with a big chunk of the population. Not sure what should be the morale of her story. That renting is expensive or difficult? That AST should be regulated better? That it is her right to own an Edwardian house? That someone else should pay her rent?

She has a house, the story does not mention about her ever been homeless so she must have managed. How's that different from the other 36% of people renting in England, me included. Or that she should be spared from any hardship in life because that would be only for the 'working class'?

lisyloo

I am pretty sure it said in the article that her husband became disabled and now can't work.

This is indeed a situation that deserves compassion and support.
In that situation my income would be covered by PHI (that's insurance that would pay my income until retirement), so financial planning is always an option. Inability to work due to health is quite forseeable and an option often mentioned by financial advisors.
I do agree that every eventuality cannot be covered but this is a common one and not an exception.
Failing that I think we should be compassionate and support people however they cannot expect to have the ideal home in the ideal area.
If they wanted to maintain a high standard of living beyond the safety net then they should have taken insurance for this eventuality.
Benefits are a safety net - if you want better then PAY FOR IT.

They have three children

Completely selfish in an overpopulated world. Don't they know we have a housing crisis and lack of infrastructure !! They have a cheek complaining when they are part of the cause of the issue.

so its quite possible that after paying market rent in Colchester she can't get save for a mortgage.

Indeed.
Why would you expect to get a deposit together and buy once you've fallen on hard times that you didn't insure against?
I want to support people but I find that an astonishing expectation.

House prices are too high

Partly because selfish people have 3 kids (multiple birth excluded).

You may not like the messenger but the message is valid.

I see a selfish person who had too many kids, didn't plan financially and is now whinging that the safety net doesn't allow them to live to the standard they want.
I don't agree it's a valid complaint.
It's astonishing to me that people expect a high standard of living once they've fallen on hard times when they did nothing to help themselves.
They should expect support but at a safety net level that is fair to tax payers.

lisyloo

One thing I do agree with you on is:

"There but for the grace of God go I". It is only a hair's breadth of chance that separates you from her.

That's why now I'm both lucky and grateful to have good health, I save, plan financially, insure, work at my marriage etc. etc. oh and family planning too (whod'thunkit).
If readers don't have income cover past their employers sick pay then this should be a wake up call to consider how they want to live should they fall on hard times. If you put yourself at the mercy of the safety net then expect exactly that.