On the Breadline on £190k a Year

PasturesNew

chucknorris wrote: »

Whenever I have looked at houses in other areas (we might eventually downsize in area, but not value/quality/size) I have found that the more you spend the better the value looks to me. As you say the £300k to £500k range might not offer anything special, but what about the £600 to £800k range? £800k doesn't buy anything much (certainly not special) in London and the better parts of the SE anyway, so to those migrating from those areas, the value will look even better. What is the (approx, first 3-4 digits) of the postcode in your area?

I'm not going to give my digits.... I live in an exclusive area and don't want people knowing just how rich I must be really

If I HAD to stay right here and buy a house, with 4 beds, looking at what's available I'd have to spend about £1.2million. That gets a 4-bed detached that's in walking distance of the shops.

The 5-bed semi on the (wouldn't go there/rejected viewings there when I was looking) council estate is £475k.

There is, possibly, one that's a bit out of the way of facilities/services at £700k for a 4-bed semi. That one looks OK enough, it's got a launching area about 50 feet from the front door too, so ideal for kayaking and faffing about on a stand up paddle board.

One of the issues here though is ... 4 beds. That's a lot of house. I dabble about in 2-bed territory, which is how come my house isn't worth nearly £1mill

chris_m

CLAPTON wrote: »

why was that alarming?
do you not think that people less intelligent that you can be worthwhile decent people?

They very possibly could, but equally so could those who couldn't get there any more because they were effectively priced out.

or is it you don't just want to mix with them?

Darned right - we had to get there on our own merits by passing entrance exams, not by dint of Daddy's bank balance.

gadgetmind

chris_m wrote: »

spoke with posh accents but were as thick as pigs**t.

Tim Nice But Dim.

setmefree2

gadgetmind wrote: »

As we've both been open that we did well enough in state schools to get into good universities, I'm guessing that the costs of privately educating a few kids aren't too onerous to either of us.

However, in my case it's definitely "despite" rather than "because of", so I'd be interested to know your reasoning.

If your kids are in their early 20s (and not their 30s or 40s) don't you wish you'd given them the money for a home?

If your kids are in their 30s and 40s, I don't think they are in the same position as young people today.

gadgetmind

setmefree2 wrote: »

If your kids are in their early 20s (and not their 30s or 40s) don't you wish you'd given them the money for a home?

Daughter, who's early 20s and still a student, has been loaned money for her house (on commercial terms!) and she'll repay us when she qualifies as a doctor in a couple of years.

Surely better that than owning her house outright but being a beauty therapist? Teach a man to fish, and all that.

setmefree2

gadgetmind wrote: »

Daughter, who's early 20s and still a student, has been loaned money for her house (on commercial terms!) and she'll repay us when she qualifies as a doctor in a couple of years.

Surely better that than owning her house outright but being a beauty therapist? Teach a man to fish, and all that.

I'm sure there are some very rich and successful beauty therapists so I personally wouldn't knock it as a career. I'm also sure there are some broke, unhappy and over-worked doctors who wished they'd never entered the medical profession (just to please their parents?). Just listen to those junior doctors whinge.

What most people outside the medical profession are probably unaware of is that you aren’t just a junior doctor for a fleeting period after qualifying; this makes up a substantial chunk of your career – sometimes a decade, and often stretching late into your 30s. Basic salaries start at around £23,000 and are enhanced by various complicated supplements, including the antisocial hours pay that is set to be cut. Because medical training takes longer than other degrees, most junior doctors have large amounts of student debt and are expected to continue paying for the exams as part of their ongoing training, in addition to putting in large amounts of unpaid study time and paying out monthly professional payments to the General Medical Council (GMC) and the BMA.
Few people chose to go into medicine for the money
http://www.theguardian.com/global/2015/sep/28/nhs-junior-doctors-forced-out-contract-department-of-health

Your attitude to beauty therapists probably explains why you chose to pay for education rather than private education itself being better quality. £150k (or whatever you paid) just to ensure your daughter didn't become a beauty therapist. Are you kidding???. :money:

So yes, I still think your finances, and ultimately your daughters, would have been better if you'd educated your daughter through the state sector. The state sector produces plenty of doctors and some great beauty therapists.

gadgetmind

setmefree2 wrote: »

I'm sure there are some very rich and successful beauty therapists so I personally wouldn't knock it as a career.

I disagree, but I guess that's why we have different flavours of ice cream.

Your attitude to beauty therapists probably explains why you chose to pay for education

There are a whole slew of "B-Ark" occupations I could add to the list, so I'm not picking on beauty therapists. But as it happens, I would have supported daughter no matter what she wanted to do, and medicine was her choice off the back of her love of science and mathematics.

So yes, I still think your finances, and ultimately your daughters, would have been better if you'd educated your daughter through the state sector.

Perfectly possible but statistically less likely. A relatively small amount of money made a lot of hassle and worry go away, and our finances are just fine, thanks. OK, she's got a student loan, which we could have (and still could) make go away, but medicine is *not* an easy choice, so we put the risk on HMG instead of her.

martinsurrey

setmefree2 wrote: »

I'm sure there are some very rich and successful beauty therapists so I personally wouldn't knock it as a career. I'm also sure there are some broke, unhappy and over-worked doctors who wished they'd never entered the medical profession (just to please their parents?). Just listen to those junior doctors whinge.

Your attitude to beauty therapists probably explains why you chose to pay for education rather than private education itself being better quality. £150k (or whatever you paid) just to ensure your daughter didn't become a beauty therapist. Are you kidding???. :money:

So yes, I still think your finances, and ultimately your daughters, would have been better if you'd educated your daughter through the state sector. The state sector produces plenty of doctors and some great beauty therapists.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29818363

presented without comment, but with a quote

"A study by the Social Market Foundation for the Sutton Trust, published in July, found UK children who are privately educated are likely to earn almost £200,000 more between the ages of 26 and 42 than those attending state schools."

Thats just 16 years of working...

[Deleted User]

martinsurrey wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-29818363

presented without comment, but with a quote

"A study by the Social Market Foundation for the Sutton Trust, published in July, found UK children who are privately educated are likely to earn almost £200,000 more between the ages of 26 and 42 than those attending state schools."

Thats just 16 years of working...

BUT... if you read the page, the more 'like for like' equivalent is a £1500 a year difference for people who went to the same uni and had the same socio-economic background; so more like a £24k difference over 16 years (not accounting for inflationary changes or promotions). I suspect the sample size was small for this one, and I inherently distrust all statistics used to create news stories..

I know families who could be sending their kids private, but don't. I know teachers at a very prestigious private school who won't send their kids there (and they get a 2/3rds discount) because they don't want their kids put under unnecessary stress.

If you are already in a decent area, with decent state schools then private may not make much difference to your kids; but if you're in a skuzzy area with bad schools then it will make much more difference.

bugslet

ringo_24601 wrote: »

If you are already in a decent area, with decent state schools then private may not make much difference to your kids; but if you're in a skuzzy area with bad schools then it will make much more difference.

Precisely. The comp I was earmarked for, had a terrible reputation all round, so my parents scrimped to pay fees for a different school. Back in the mid 70s, it was around £475.00 a term, a lot of money for my parents at the time,

I don't believe I'd have done as well as I have, had I not had that education, though my contrarian nature means that I will never be a corporate climber.