Where are the deposits coming from?

The_Conductor

kearnsr wrote:

What civil servant makes that much?

That would be Principle Officers and higher. Not that many of them around.....

godtabh

smccarrick wrote:

That would be Principle Officers and higher. Not that many of them around.....

A PO would be fairly high up the ladder would they? They arent going to be in their 20's or 30's are they? Surely this is what the 100% home loan is geared towards

Sponge Bob

why do you need savings ????? I thought that was the whole idea of a 100% mortgage , you did not need savings for it .

godtabh

Sponge Bob wrote:

why do you need savings ????? I thought that was the whole idea of a 100% mortgage , you did not need savings for it .

To kit it out and what not

iguana

elven wrote:

At 27, with no kids, do I really need to be panicking about getting on this frickin ladder?

Umm, but it would be easier to buy a house now, before you have the expense of children, than it will be after you have them. I've bought my house now at 27 (though actually I turned 28 today), so that I can pay off as much as possible before I have kids. That way in a few years when I do have children I won't owe as much. I would hate to start looking or trying to move up when I have kids to consider.

And if you continue renting you will find it harder to do so with a child. I have known people who had to move for supposed reasons given by their landlord after having children and their search options became very limited. I assume it's illegal, but it still happens.:(

Sponge Bob

but dude, surely the person who helps you to have kids, aka the other half, will also contribute to the mortgage going forward.

godtabh

Sponge Bob wrote:

but dude, surely the person who helps you to have kids, aka the other half, will also contribute to the mortgage going forward.

Not if they decide to stay at home with the kids.

Mind y ou thats probably not done as much as it used to be

iguana

Sponge Bob wrote:

but dude, surely the person who helps you to have kids, aka the other half, will also contribute to the mortgage going forward.

Perhaps I should have been more clear, I'm married and the house and mortgage payments are shared between us both.

kearnsr wrote:

Not if they decide to stay at home with the kids.

Mind y ou thats probably not done as much as it used to be

I probably won't have kids if I can't stay at home with them. So the mortgage would largely by on my husband's shoulders, though if we need it I will be an a childminder to other peoples kids to supplement our income.

(Not for everyone but I appreciated having my mum there for me when I grew up, and she was a childminder through my teens and I certainly preffered having both my mum and part-time "brothers and sisters" around than to have her working somewhere else.) Paying off a chunk of the mortgage before we have kids is the only way to insure that I have that option.

Sponge Bob

iguana wrote:

I probably won't have kids if I can't stay at home with them. So the mortgage would largely by on my husband's shoulders, though if we need it I will be an a childminder to other peoples kids to supplement our income.

At least you are giving yourself the choice of doing this by reducing the mortgage overhead so that its payable on one salary. The back of my envelope always tells me that its cheaper to run a beemer than a kid once creches are factored in at between €700 and €1200 a month per kid , depending on where you live (and after tax of course) .

You could also be 5-7 years away form having kids which will give you a good run at the mortgage , not in the least unusual to start well into the 30s these days , nor should it be. Were you a recent FTB and already aged 35 I would be more sceptical of course.

iguana

Sponge Bob wrote:

At least you are giving yourself the choice of doing this by reducing the mortgage overhead so that its payable on one salary. The back of my envelope always tells me that its cheaper to run a beemer than a kid once creches are factored in at between €700 and €1200 a month per kid , depending on where you live (and after tax of course) .

You could also be 5-7 years away form having kids which will give you a good run at the mortgage , not in the least unusual to start well into the 30s these days , nor should it be. Were you a recent FTB and already aged 35 I would be more sceptical of course.

That's the plan, it's like this in life. You are either going to have a future or you are going to die, 1 or the other. So you have to plan for your future and house prices being what they are if you want to both own a house and have children then you should try to do the house thing and lower your mortgage before having kids. Very little in life comes without sacrificing something else. And I for one would rather sacrifice a little now, so I don't have to sacrifice a whole lot in the future.

Sponge Bob

then again many 27 y o peeps have not met theirs other halves yet and cannot plan what you described and nor do i think they should at that age, 35 is soon enough IMO

CiaranC

35? You'd wanna get some splooge on ice in case you are impotent by then!

iguana

Sponge Bob wrote:

then again many 27 y o peeps have not met theirs other halves yet and cannot plan what you described and nor do i think they should at that age.

There are ways of planning for the future when you are still single. You can have a decent savings account, some investments, you could buy a home with a friend, buy a house and rent the other rooms. It's not as easy but it isn't impossible.

Sponge Bob wrote:

35 is soon enough IMO

Studies in the US show that approximately 10% of women between ages 20 and 29 report difficulty in conceiving, that figure rises to around 25% for women in their thirties and geometrically increases to more than 50% for women over 40.

35 could be too late for many women to be able to concieve. At least without painful, invasive and expensive treatments and they are no guarauntee.

chump

iguana wrote:

There are ways of planning for the future when you are still single. You can have a decent savings account, some investments, you could buy a home with a friend, buy a house and rent the other rooms. It's not as easy but it isn't impossible.



Studies in the US show that approximately 10% of women between ages 20 and 29 report difficulty in conceiving, that figure rises to around 25% for women in their thirties and geometrically increases to more than 50% for women over 40.

35 could be too late for many women to be able to concieve. At least without painful, invasive and expensive treatments and they are no guarauntee.

Serious question, what does "geometrically increases to more than 50% for women over 40." mean?

Sponge Bob

A woman in her late 20s can get pregnant sort of when she wants. A woman in her late 30s can have more difficulty getting pregnant and for a woman in her 40s starting off there is a VERY low probability that she will be able to conceive.

Putting off starting a family until 35 is not daft in my experience but putting off starting a family until 42 is daft , Iguana is right .

As for a man Ciaran the laddies work pretty well until 50 with no serious drop in quality and quantity unless there is a hidden type 2 diabetes or something congenitally wrong.

In real life I never discuss having kids with childless couples aged between 35 and 45 , I never go there because I am not sure whether there may be fertility issues or not. After 45 they usually accept that there wil be no kids but not invariably.

Iguana has given herself the OPTION of doing what she wants WHEN she wants, others do not think as clearly as her.