Retired parents UPSIZING house

[toastlover100]

I’m pretty sure IABU.

My parter and I are late 20s, renting, good careers but still waiting for salaries to increase much.

We are engaged and trying to save for a very small wedding, we know we could just go the registry office but that’s not what we want.

We are also trying to save a house deposit, but it’ll take a long time on current earnings. Hoping to maybe get there by mid thirties.

We would love to have children in the next couple of years but the likelihood is we will still be in our rented flat.

My parents are retired from reasonable jobs but never high earning at all. Through some luck, paying off their mortgage, house price rises, they are about to buy a house worth around a million. This is a huge upsizing.

AIBU to begrudge them this?
We are struggling to make any headway financially, spending thousands a year on rent, wanting a family but not being in the right position etc, whilst my parents are about to spend a huge amount of savings I didn’t know they had to upsize to a large family home they really don’t need.

I read it as on one hand, people are being told they should aspire for more, which is exactly what OPs parents are doing for themselves by upsizing their home. Yet that is considered selfish if the money isn't given to the adult children.

Too many iphones and avocado toast is it? I can't believe that, even when presented with all of the evidence regarding the relative rises in wages, rent and house prices (multiple times in this thread alone) some people still manage to bang the old drum that somehow, if you just bought a few less cappucinos, you could buy that house. Unbelieveable.

@StopTheQtipWhenTheresResistance Oh I see. Well, when you are a family, that aspiration for more can be framed individualistically, or collectively, depending on your worldview. If the OP's parents aspire for more FOR THEIR FAMILY, then that would lead to different decisions Vs if they aspire for more purely for themselves as individuals, but not for their child. That's really the crux of the issue here, ultimately.

My take : My kids will inherit a London house and an overseas house, they will be OK when DH and I kick the bucket. We have helped them out with deposits for their houses and we continue to treat them (and they are both lucky to be in good jobs). We want to see them happy and content now whilst we are alive not when we are dead. We are not wealthy but both DH and I have worked our butts off for the past 40 odd years, the kids know this and appreciate everything we give them.

@DontSetYourselfOnFireToKeepOthersWarm No, my point was that instead of expecting the bank of mum and dad to fund you, people should cut back on things that they can live without in order to save. Can't have everything.

And your point is wrong I'm afraid. Without the bank of mum and dad, it doesn't matter how many coffees you go without or takeaways you forego, for increasing numbers of people you simply won't get on the housing ladder.

My kids will inherit a London house and an overseas house, they will be OK when DH and I kick the bucket. We have helped them out with deposits for their houses and we continue to treat them (and they are both lucky to be in good jobs)

I am glad for you, but this is not comparable because the OP's parents are not on your income level. They just want a nicer house.

@DontSetYourselfOnFireToKeepOthersWarm Then that's life but it's not up to OPs mum and dad to pay for a house for her.

No it's not up to them to do it, they have a choice - I don't think anyone is saying otherwise. I will judge them on that choice though, not that they probably care what I think when they don't even seem to care what their daughter thinks.

That's unfortunate but it doesn't mean your parents should be expected to contribute to your house deposit.

Well clearly. It depends on what kind of parents they are. Fortunately mine are quite nice people, but I appreciate there are plenty out there who aren't.

@DontSetYourselfOnFireToKeepOthersWarm I just can't get my head around the entitlement of thinking our parents owe us thousands of pounds for a house. I didn't even think people thought that way until reading this thread. And judging them for making the choice to finally put themselves first? That says more about the person judging than it does about the parents.

@DontSetYourselfOnFireToKeepOthersWarm So parents who don't pay for a deposit are not nice parents now?

I mean, mine are amazing. They paid for my education, they put me through university and supported me emotionally too.

But I'm a grown up now and it's not their job to support me indefinitely.

They don't 'owe' us, but similarly I can't get my head around the fact that there are so seemingly so many people who put themselves before their children (who, let's not forget, only exist because of them), or wouldn't help them out even when they are able to but instead live luxurious retirements while their children struggle.

If they could easily afford it and don't, then it's certainly a mark in the minus column.

Without the bank of mum and dad, it doesn't matter how many coffees you go without or takeaways you forego

But foregoing car ownership would make a considerable difference. The cost of buying and running a car is not neglegible.

@DontSetYourselfOnFireToKeepOthersWarm Do you not think there comes a point in life after paying for kids for 20 odd years where a parent should be able to put themselves first for a change?

Becoming a parent doesn't mean putting yourself last until the end of your days.

I agree, but unfortunately it's a pre-requisite for the majority of jobs (outside of London and maybe a couple of other cities).

The op was bemoaning that she can't get married or have children because she doesn't own a house.

My point was that she can do both of those things. Yes the world has changed. Yes houses were cheaper back then. But the lack of deposit is not what's stopping her getting married or having children. Shes decided she has to own a house. That's fine, that's her choice. But it's not her only choice, if having children and getting married is important to her.

Then your definition of being a parent is different to mine. There is of course a difference between putting your children first and forgoing any kind of life for yourself, but that's not what we're talking about here - I don't think anyone is saying parents should impoverish themselves for their adult children. I would though throw myself in front of car for my children, regardless of what age they were. Others may choose not to.

I would though throw myself in front of car for my children, regardless of what age they were. Others may choose not to

Whoa, now aren't you virtuous, except we are not talking saving our children's lives here

Yeah, because choosing not to buy your child a house is exactly like leaving them to die in the street

@StopTheQtipWhenTheresResistance The thing is that in this situation the parents could eg buy a house for £50k less and give that to their child, which would make almost no difference to them, and a HUGE difference to her.

It would give her housing security. It would probably save her a lot of money in interest paid on a mortgage (eg £250k borrowed at 4% is a mortgage of £1320 over 25 years / £395k in total repayments, while £200k borrowed at 3% is £948 / £284k total repayments - that's a saving for their child of over £100k over 25 years, at a cost of only £50k upfront to them!)

Giving her a relatively small sum doesn't entail them being meaningfully worse off in any way - a £995k house is not that different from a £1m house - in order for their child to have a vastly more secure future.

So there's a real win-win option here from what I can see. Yet it's not one they're considering.