PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.

Is it wise to buy if you have no heirs?

Options
SarahLu
SarahLu Posts: 118 Forumite
First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker
in House buying, renting & selling
My partner and I are currently in the process of saving to buy our first home. We have no kids and won't be having any in future. That is certain. Our reason for wanting to buy was mainly to have financial security when we retire in so far as not needing to find money to pay rent each month. We were then going to look at options to release equity or downsize or something similar in order to get a bit of something back from what we have put in over the years, since we will have no kids to leave it to, but that is something we will have to obviously look into when the time comes.

My question is, is it wise to buy in our circumstances or would it make more sense to rent? Having to find rent when retired does not seem appealing at all and I can't see another way around that other than owning our own home.

So if we want to live securely in retirement and also have access to at least part of that money if possible, what would be the wisest thing to do in our situation?

Thanks
«1345

Comments

  • RainbowLaura
    RainbowLaura Posts: 240 Forumite
    First Anniversary Combo Breaker
    Options
    If I were you then I would definitely buy, for all the reasons you have stated. Surely once you are gone it won't really matter what happens to the house? I may be missing something, but I can't see any reason at all not to buy just because you will have nobody to pass the house on to. I certainly wouldn't want to be renting into retirement if I had any choice at all :)
  • Niv
    Niv Posts: 2,469 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post
    Options
    I bought my first house about 20 years ago and had no intention to have kids. I have a kid now but it has no effect on my opinion regarding if i should own a home for myself (and wife + kid ofc) to live in.


    I just do not see the logic of only buying a house if you have a child to leave it to when you die.
    YNWA

    Target: Mortgage free by 58.
  • SarahLu
    SarahLu Posts: 118 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Options
    I agree, I was just wondering if I was missing something myself, like whether it is cheaper in the long run to rent rather than pay interest on a mortgage plus all the maintenance etc. I'm new to all this and quite clueless so I'm trying to get as much info as I can.

    You're right, it doesn't really matter what happens to the house after we're gone but it would be nice to try and access some of that money seeing as we'd have no kids to leave it to, so I think we would probably be looking at some kind of equity release scheme. But I guess i will worry about that nearer the time.
  • Yellow_mango
    Yellow_mango Posts: 450 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary
    Options
    As others have said, I don’t understand why it would not be wise. What is the downside?

    If you don’t have heirs, all the more reason to do whatever is best for you during your lifetime.
  • SarahLu
    SarahLu Posts: 118 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Options
    Niv wrote: »
    I bought my first house about 20 years ago and had no intention to have kids. I have a kid now but it has no effect on my opinion regarding if i should own a home for myself (and wife + kid ofc) to live in.


    I just do not see the logic of only buying a house if you have a child to leave it to when you die.

    I just came across this article online and it got me thinking https://www.cnbc.com/2018/02/08/kevin-oleary-unless-you-can-pass-this-test-dont-buy-a-home.html. No idea who the guy is or is credibility, it just got me thinking about my own situation
  • davidmcn
    davidmcn Posts: 23,596 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary First Post
    Options
    Even if you had kids, there's no obligation to leave them a house! Given average lifespans these days, children are quite likely to already be retired (or at least paid off their own mortgages) by the time their parents kick the bucket. I'm not expecting/hoping/needing to inherit anything, I'd prefer my parents to enjoy their retirements (or at least be able to pay for nursing homes etc) rather than feel obliged to leave something for me.

    In any event, people will often have already sold up (or radically downsized) by the end of their lives.
  • SarahLu
    SarahLu Posts: 118 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Options
    Yellow_mango wrote: »
    As others have said, I don’t understand why it would not be wise. What is the downside?

    If you don’t have heirs, all the more reason to do whatever is best for you during your lifetime.

    I guess the only downside I can think of is that you plough loads of money into your home over the years and it can turn into a bit of a money pit so would this be a waste if we can't access that money later in life or leave it to our kids. But at the moment I think the security of having no rent payments later in life would outweigh that
  • SarahLu
    SarahLu Posts: 118 Forumite
    First Post First Anniversary Name Dropper Combo Breaker
    Options
    davidmcn wrote: »
    Even if you had kids, there's no obligation to leave them a house! Given average lifespans these days, children are quite likely to already be retired (or at least paid off their own mortgages) by the time their parents kick the bucket. I'm not expecting/hoping/needing to inherit anything, I'd prefer my parents to enjoy their retirements (or at least be able to pay for nursing homes etc) rather than feel obliged to leave something for me.

    I completely agree. Do you have any advice about what the other options are if you don't leave your house to your kids?
  • pjcox2005
    pjcox2005 Posts: 1,015 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Anniversary Combo Breaker First Post
    Options
    I think the only difference (and this is generalising) is that those with kids are less mobile (school places) etc. So if for example you are expecting to consistently move (e.g. new jobs, overseas living) then renting may be more beneficial given the costs of purchasing a house.


    If you are looking for one place to stay for life, then buying now and selling (or doing an equity release which is likely to be more costly but perhaps give more security) in old age to free up money may be the better option. Gives security whilst you own the house, and often rental payments are higher than the mortgage interest.
  • AnotherJoe
    AnotherJoe Posts: 19,622 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    Options
    SarahLu wrote: »
    Do you have any advice about what the other options are if you don't leave your house to your kids?


    Downsize. Equity release. Sell it and use the money for whatever.
This discussion has been closed.
★ ★ ★ Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.3K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 248K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards