To want to do the things I've always wanted to do now I'm retired and not give DC house deposit money

[Mumcouchtotri]

I've worked for over 35 years. I've recently retired and finally I have a reasonable income (34kk - I still have to pay income tax on that and have a few btl that give no income now but should do in 3-5 years when mortgages are paid off) considering I have no mortgage or debt outstanding. I have two DC (23 and 26) who both live in the south east. Iknow theybwould like s house, but I've said I won't be able to help them st all. I think all help ends at 18, now I want to enjoy my life - go on cruises , have a new CSR etc. Just simple stuff like that that I've never done.

It does seem most of their friends are getting help from parents. But surely not all? Your responsibility with a child ends financially once they are an adult working full time?

I suppose it depends on what you think of as a 'normal' retirement. For many in their sixties it seems to be 2/3 holidays a year. But this sort of retirement is unprecedented.

Younger generations are old that the older generation deserve this lifestyle because they 'worked hard.' Undoubtedly as a generation they did work hard. And many will have come from poverty and feel they deserve a comfortable life.

I was laughing about all this the other day wuth friends. We all work hard, we have professional jobs, we are renting or have crippling mortgages.

We will never have that kind of retirement. No matter how hard we work. We will struggle to help out children financially. It's a constAnt worry, a constant burden,

But what can you do? It's a generational thing. I just worry about my children.

Agree, i fully expect to retire about 70, possibly doing a little paid work p/t, not on a final salary pension and probably paying something towards my healthcare. No cruises, am sure! As for my dc? I despair. Unless there is a sea change in government policy that is.

I wonder about future civil unrest due to the policies of the last 25 yeas which are geared towards supporting the baby boomers.

Movingonmymind How would you address it?

Another thing that the 1970s baby boomers didn't have to worry too much about was job security - unlike the younger generations now. I cannot remember anyone in the 1970s being made redundant. Jobs then, especially in banking, civil service, legal, were actually described as "jobs for life ". With that came a sense of financial security, something that today's young families have never, and probably will never, know. The OP, like anyone else, is free to spend her money however she likes. But I always thought that it was the natural thing to want your children to "progress "in life; to help them whenever you could. If your circumstances dictate that this isn't possible, for whatever reason, that's fine, but to have the means to give a helping hand, and refuse to do so, seems unnatural to me.

My father was made redundant in the 1970s.

That's a shame sooty. I didn't know him.

In the 1970's my parents bought their first home for £4000. Neither of them passed their A levels. My dad worked as an insurance clerk and my mum, a nurse, worked saturdays only. Their first home with no savings was a 3 bed semi in a leafy london suburb with a huge garden. Those houses now sell for £550,000. You'd need a joint income of what, £150,000 to do that now. You just can't compare. The house they sold shortly before retirement went for around £500,000. Over the years they remortgaged numerous times to fund holidays, spending, whatever. But effectively their investment increased 100 times. So this argument, we worked hard and deserve it is fine but you have to see that times have massively changed for the young people of today.

your children shouldnt expect you to help them out but if you can even £5k then all goes towards a deposit

my nan died just has dh and i were buying our home and my parents got think £20k and they gave my brother and i £5k of it each -we were omg and didnt expect it

and someone said about not being bothered that they will always rent and not have a mortgage, then you will always be paying out for somewhere to live

even if buy a house 25/30yrs and have a 25 mortage by 50/55 you will be mortgage free, yet if you rent and live to 80 you will be paying rent for another 30years

kinda see where op is coming from, im now 42 but from 26 when i moved out/brought my home i have stood on my own two feet, i wouldnt expect my dad (mum now dead) to bail me out

i want dad to spend his money on him

op do your kids expect/want you to give them money?

Agreed blobbity , our first house cost £6500 for a 3 bed semi, in 1973. My parents were horrified that we were "saddling ourselves with debt for the next 25 years " (they had always rented). But we were both employed within the civil service, at that time, and so had enormous job security, something few people have today. We sold our house, in 2013, to downsize, and sold it for £450k, thereby enabling us to offer help to our kids. They didn't ask or expect any help from us. But I'm very glad we could and did.

Serious question. Why is it so important to 'get on the property ladder'
I rented for many years before I could afford to buy. I have parents who cry if I borrow a tenner from them!

I think the best favour 'you' can do for your children is to encourage them to save money from an early age. I always told them to 'save some, spend some' with their money from a very early age. ds1 had a job at 15 . He is now nearly 20 and has best part of 15k saved. I know everyone can't Dave this much at such an age but he is years off getting a house yet and won't need us for a deposit.

My generation always saw renting as "dead money " what , I suppose because you paid pretty much the same in rent as you would a mortgage, but it would never actually belong to you. If you own your property, it can be sold later in life, if you need or want to downsize, thus giving you a sum of money to help with late life care, retirement etc.
I agree with you re encouraging your children to save for a deposit on property depositsales, mine both did just that. But when property prices are rising much faster than wages, and university fees are added to the burden, a bit of help would seem very welcome and much appreciated. I could never stand by and watch my kids struggling, especially if I had the means to help, but not offer. What's the point of having a family if you don't offer help when it's needed?

Sorry OP but whether you like or not- your their parent until the day your put in the ground. Id hope if your children both lost their jobs and had no money you would give them something if you could afford to.

It is of course your choice to spend your money how you like. Dont let anyone tell you otherwise.

Why is it so important to 'get on the property ladder' If we lived somewhere with long leases, designed to be a permanent choice, landlord-tenant Court to enforce rules and good rent control, there would be no issue. Renting in the UK is too random, insecure, expensive and badly policed to be a decent long-term option.

I grew up with a normal 70's 80's lifestyle. There were far less luxuries then. So our lifestyles have improved. Conversely many of our children have grown up with a comparatively luxurious lifestyle that we've managed to provide for them. That's great but it's going to be a huge shock when they are earning their own money, even if they are grafting hard, and they can't keep themselves in the manner they were accustomed to when growing up. In effect their lifestyles will have declined. Not anyone's fault but surely difficult to get their heads around even if they understand the reasons why. Mental health issues must eventually be a consequence of this for some kids of today.

I will help them out. We've spoilt them by default, in effect by providing a nice upbringing. I want to continue spoiling them to maintain their lifestyles and keep the status quo. Surely every parent if they have the means wants their children to do at least as well as they have.
Our parents helped us. We want to pay it forward. I agree they need to make an effort themselves though. I'm not forfeiting my luxuries for ungrateful and lazy kids. I just want them to have the opportunities and luck we had. But now that has to come from us rather than free university education and property booms.

As you've contributed to the housing problem by having "btl" properties then I think you should help your children.

Ubik, I agree re civil unrest risk.

I think the best favour 'you' can do for your children is to encourage them to save money from an early age. I always told them to 'save some, spend some' with their money from a very early age. ds1 had a job at 15 . He is now nearly 20 and has best part of 15k saved. I know everyone can't Dave this much at such an age but he is years off getting a house yet and won't need us for a deposit.

Adding to what MrsTerryPratchett said about the insecurities of renting in the UK, it's statements like these which show how painfully out of touch some people are with SE property prices.

It's great that your son has managed to save 15k in 5 years, although presumably he doesn't have any dependents (and was living at home for at least some, if not all, of that savings period).

The average deposit needed for a first-time-buyer in London last year was £90k. Your son has saved 3k a year. Let's assume he's got a huge payrise and can now save an average of 1k a month from now on (which is fat chance for most people).

In 2023, he'll be 27 and have enough for a first-time-buyer house deposit -- in 2016. If property prices increase at 10% each year, he'll have about half what's actually required for a 2023 deposit. Keep on saving. Do not have kids. Do not rent your own place. Work a professional job but live like a student, into your thirties and beyond. Keep on chasing prices which were expensive when you started and that are increasing much, much faster than your salary.

The price of property in the SE is so insane that getting a deposit goes way beyond simple, careful saving for most people. It's not a case of staying home and eating cheap cereal any more. You need a jump-up: a windfall, an inheritance, a city bonus or a help from affluent relatives to get that initial huge sum together. By all means teach your kids to 'save some, spend some', but don't let them think this'll make any particular difference if they want to live in their nation's capital, or anywhere near.

Babooshkayou have made assumptions in your post about my comment.

DS hasn't saved that amount of money in 5 years. I actually said he had a job at 15, not started to save at 15. That money is a lifetime of saving including Christmas and birthday money ( back to the spend some, save some) and occasionally if I had some money spare ( which wasn't often when they were young) maybe a couple of weeks child allowance.

The way some people talk you would think the whole population lived in the SE. We live in the North West and property is relatively cheap compared to other regions. He has no intention of moving away ( as long as things stay similar to now) Also DS has said if he buys a house he won't be buying it alone but with his gf, who will be putting in an equal share.
So between them they shouldn't need help.

It's not like I have supported them into adult life. I have paid for cars, driving lessons and insurance, holidays and helped fund an expensive sport.
He can't say I've been tight with him!

"if they want to live in the nation's capital or anywhere near"

People make choices and then expect someone else to fund their choices. You don't like your lifestyle choose another.

My parents gave me nothing, I didnt expect it. I grew up in a rented house that didnt even have an indoor toilet or a hot water supply for years, I was often cold, too often hungry. When my parents were old I was expected to help them out.

The people complaining here have probably had a secure childhood with foreign holidays. Their parents have probably scrimped and saved to provide that. They get to retirement, the children are off their hands and for once they think they can think of themselves for a few years. But it's not enough for spoilt children that they will inherit, they must have everything when they want it and can't even allow their parent a few years without money grabbing demands.

Are your children loving and affectionate, OP? If so then help them out later when you've had a few years of fun. If not keep your money to pay for better care in your nursing home because the sort of spoilt, selfish child that makes up most of this thread will not be looking after you. They'll put you in the cheapest home they can find.

My generation wanted to give our children all the things we didn't have. In so doing we have raised a generation who are spoilt, greedy, wasteful and constantly expecting someone else to provide for them. Will they help you in your old age - I doubt it because they don't have an ounce of gratitude in their bodies. They have benefited from your hard work and yes, your good fortune, but they totally ignore that.

I agree with BeaufortBelle that the OP's financial attitude and that of others like them often extend beyond money to spirit.

The pil had a marvellous retirement until they succumbed to dementia. Five holidays a year at one point. Mil shopping in Jaeger and fil in Gieves & Hawkes. They would not pay dh's maintenance at university, they gave presents such as out-of-date boxes of Ferrero Rocher and Christmas contributions like the infamous box of crackers with two extracted. They were mean .

Sorry, tatt, but too right the dcs chose their nursing home. And too right it wasn't the one with gold-plated taps.

whathaveIlost you completely miss my point, which was that you can't act like the situation in the SE is remotely comparable to the NW. Everything you've listed about your son's saving and your support: all of it's great, and very prudent, and none of it would bring him or his GF anywhere nearer to buying a home if you'd been located in London. Not even close.

And London isn't a 'lifestyle' it's a city where, until the present generation, perfectly average families could afford to buy homes if they saved and managed their money well. blobbityblob's post above about her parents living a modest lifestyle and managing to buy, for £4000, a London suburban home that now goes for £550k -- shows the amazing shift between generations. I get the feeling people see 'London' and assume we're talking about a penthouse in Zone 1. A smallish house in a safeish area: that's all most people ask for, and it's still unobtainable without help.

If something caused house prices in the NW to suddenly jump entirely out of your DS's financial reach gold and oil discovered under Lancashire; China and the Middle East falling over themselves to buy up land and your generation benefited from a 100-fold increase of their initial investments, would you just shrug and say: tough?

I actually don't believe parents are obligated to help their kids with deposits, and I'd hate any sense of expectation -- but, equally, it's frustrating to hear advice along the lines of 'look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves' applied to the SE. Or to have London referred to as some luxury destination, when it's a functional city that needs everyone from bus drivers to bankers, and where millions of people have employment and personal links.

You say £34k on retirement is "reasonable". You must be deluded. Your children could never dream of having anywhere near half that.

How do you know this?

These days you get (assuming you're 65) £3900 a year (increasing at 3% p a) for every £100k in your pension. That means if OP were buying her pension as her children will have to, she would need £870k in her pension, and spend all of that on a annuity.

Tax relief on pension contributions has been cut, and is likely to be cut further. If her kids go to university they'll have to repay around £60k of loans, and don't forget they need to find a deposit for a house purchase, the prices of which are higher because so many people want to make a fast buck in the buy-to-let market.

The Legal and General calculator reckons that to get OP's pension income, starting from scratch at age 25 someone would have to pay £3308 a month (£2646 out of net income).

So, it's unaffordable. And OP is deluded.

Some of you have the weirdest ideas of the 1970s. No one lost their jobs? Some did, mostly those at the bottom of the socio-economic scale. The ones for whom the upswing in fortunes took longest to reach.

Warning: you really won't like these pictures. I was born in one of these areas during the time these were taken... I could have been one of the children in these pictures. Maybe, when you see them, you will see why I am believe that today's poor are rich beyond my wildest childhood dreams and why I am so persistent in these threads.

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2776842/Shocking-photos-capture-real-squalor-Britain-s-slums-poverty-meant-afford-Playstation.html

Given that there is research that suggests that, financially, we are moving back towards the 70s you had better gird your loins as you have no idea...

www.jrf.org.uk/report/poverty-and-wealth-across-britain-1968-2005

It really isn't as simple as some seem to think. There are so many variables some are just not acknowledging. Home ownership, mummies and daddies gifting cash deposits really isn't a good measure of what you have or have not.

Those photos are indeed very sad, but I suppose what people on here are trying to say is that they want a similar experience for their dcs as they themselves had, which may well have been the middle-class 4-bedroom house in suburbia on a modest income model.

No, I didn't have an iPhone in the 70s and never had a Starbucks coffee. And neither did anyone else . Duh. The pil used to go on in the vein, "We never had..." but you might as well extend the argument to say that someone in 1672 didn't have a car, or a caveman didn't have central heating.

My dcs could have smartphones stacked up as high as a double decker bus, and bathe in Starbucks coffee, but currently buying a property like ours (or my parents') is about as achievable as time travel.