The statement is "people could cut housing costs to retire early" but I'm not sure how much I believe myself and trying to figure out my priorities.
Here's my situation for context;
I paid off mortgage on a very small home in my late 30s. It's a safe area, close to shops and a park. It's cheap because it's small and not a fancy building. My living costs are quite modest because I don't need to pay for housing. But in some ways, I'd love to live in less cramped conditions
Our annual family income (pre-tax) is over 50% of the value of the house. People on a similar income live in much bigger places, with a big mortgage.
I changed sectors and pay went up more than expected. The big pay feels temporary, ie if I stop working, I doubt I'd be in the position again. But I don't get enough time with my young kids
I'm weighing up my priorities at the moment.
Pros : financially free, could retire early if trajectory is same for a few years.
Cons : work's very stressful for the high pay AND we have a v small space to bring up kids. But really the kids don't notice, yet!
Lots of questions.....
Is a home that's much cheaper than you can afford worth the freedom it enables?
Curious what others would do, I notice the mismatch in finances + stress + free time vs the quality of our living accommodation compared to the norm?
Have you been in this situation and gone through this phase? What did you think in retrospect?
Why are so many older people living in such valuable homes and not making this trade off? I always assumed that if your house went up by so much money (those in detached homes in SE worth close to or way over £1m), people might cash out more. Especially as children moved out.