Do people look down on you when your in your 30's and don't own a house?

oceanclub

Kipperhell wrote: »

So you were in your 20s neither your 30s nor 40s which seems to be what the thread is about.

I think you're still in with a chance there, partyguinness.

P.

partyguinness

Kipperhell wrote: »

So you were in your 20s neither your 30s nor 40s which seems to be what the thread is about.

Well I am sorry for posting. I should have known my place.:(

The thread is also not about whether or not the bank actually owns your property..;)

My point was that a lot of people did buy in the last 5-6 years in the mad and obsessive scramle for property and a lot of people in their 30s/40s (some who bought 2/3 houses) deeply regret it as they are up to their necks in debt. As I am nearly 31 I would have been be in that position now.

(frantically starts searching daft.ie for overpriced properties to buy ASAP and with the longest mortgage term possible/I]

There is a lot to be said for renting and its nothing to be ashamed of.

As I said earlier, in mainland Europe entire families rent out for generations (particularly France and Germany) without any problem. The Irish need to lose that mentaility.."You have to own property"...'there must be something wrong with you if you dont buy 3-4 houses' attitude

Kipperhell

oceanclub wrote: »

At the end of the day, you haven't yet paid for the house, and the bank can take it back if you don't.

P.

You mean like a loan:eek: Shocking revelation.

Seeing as the topic is not how mortgages work and whether people look down on people who don't have property in their 30s the answer is some will. If you have no sizeable assets more will look down on you but if the situation remains so into your 40s the answer is more again will look down on you. Property isn't the issue but what you have been up to is and can be indicated not by your accumulation of wealth but rather the inability to have forward planning.
Anybody operating pay cheque to pay cheque indicates poor responsibility and will be looked as such. People can be unlucky and end up that way but the majority who do end up that way are normally a result of their own behaviour.

Kipperhell

D3PO wrote: »

if you want to be in your own little fantasy world far be it for me to burst your bubble

I bet you went around talking about your paper net worth when house prices were on the rise aswell :rolleyes::rolleyes:

No I was busy working to pay of my mortgage as quickly as I could while the economy was good. I am one of those many people who bought and aren't in negative equity or close. I doubt anybody with legal training has ever told you the bank own the property and you think you know how the legal system works.

oceanclub

Kipperhell wrote: »

You mean like a loan:eek: Shocking revelation.

Seeing as the topic is not how mortgages work and whether people look down on people who don't have property in their 30s the answer is some will.

The point about mortgages has everything to do with the subject. According to you, someone who is 40 and has a 40 year, 100% mortgage which they're barely covering, on a property worth 50% of what they paid for (none of these unlikely in modern Ireland), is somehow because of this more responsible than someone who has just saved for that time. It's a ridiculous point of view.

I suppose now you're going to say "ah, well, it depends on the type of mortgage, etc", to which the obvious retort is - are these the type of details you try and drill out of a guy when you're dating?


P.

partyguinness

Kipperhell wrote: »

No I was busy working to pay of my mortgage as quickly as I could while the economy was good. I am one of those many people who bought and aren't in negative equity or close. I doubt anybody with legal training has ever told you the bank own the property and you think you know how the legal system works.

Okay can I settle this for once and for all.

There are two types of interests when a person gets a mortgage for residential property (in the common sense of the word).

The bank takes either:

1. A Charge over the property (registered title)

2. A Mortgage (unregistered titles).

To the lay person, the difference doesnt mean anything.

A Mortgage is the transfer of rights of ownership on the understanding that they are to be reconveyed or released in the event of the obligation being performed (the right of redemption i.e. paid back)

Unlike a Mortgage, a Charge does not transfer or confer any estate or interest in the property and does not confer a right to possession on the Mortgagee (bank/lender).

With a Mortgage, the bank does own the property.

With a Charge, the bank does not own the property but realises the debt by exercising the rights under the Charge Deed.

Whether one has a Mortgage or a Charge depends on the type of property.

ps I do have legal training and have worked with Mortgages/Charges for years.

Kipperhell

oceanclub wrote: »

The point about mortgages has everything to do with the subject. According to you, someone who is 40 and has a 40 year, 100% mortgage which they're barely covering, on a property worth 50% of what they paid for (none of these unlikely in modern Ireland), is somehow because of this more responsible than someone who has just saved for that time. It's a ridiculous point of view.


P.

The cross posting is very certainly a personal attack and I think you should remove it. I stand by it and don't care what others think of me

If you can tell me which bank is giving an unsecured 100% mortgage for 40 years to a 40 year old I will concede all my points and hail you as the next supreme being. None of what you said is likely and it misrepresents what I said by selectively ignore the context.

oceanclub

Kipperhell wrote: »

The cross posting is very certainly a personal attack and I think you should remove it. I stand by it and don't care what others think of me

If you can tell me which bank is giving an unsecured 100% mortgage for 40 years to a 40 year old I will concede all my points and hail you as the next supreme being. None of what you said is likely and it misrepresents what I said by selectively ignore the context.

If you're going to go on about how linking to your own posting is a "personal attack" (if you don't care what others think, then why are you bothered about me linking to it?), then perhaps you could refrain from twisting my arguments. I said a 40 year old _with_ a 40 year mortgage (that is, say, someone who got one at 25) - not a 40 year old who _just_ got one.

P.

Kipperhell

partyguinness wrote: »

Okay can I settle this for once and for all.

etc...

The bank do not own the property they have some ownership rights but never actually own the property. They cannot sell the property. This is my understanding based on legal advise face to face with more than one lawyer.

You will have to forgive me for not believing what you say. In all fairness why would I believe you over that of more than one lawyer? I will not believe you on that basis.
My response was however directed at the comment that you don't own the property and have a mortgage which is not true by any understanding of saying the bank own the property. If they own it it is part of the mortgage then that is all you have not both.

harsea8

partyguinness wrote: »

Well I am sorry for posting. I should have known my place.:(

The thread is also not about whether or not the bank actually owns your property..;)

My point was that a lot of people did buy in the last 5-6 years in the mad and obsessive scramle for property and a lot of people in their 30s/40s (some who bought 2/3 houses) deeply regret it as they are up to their necks in debt. As I am nearly 31 I would have been be in that position now.

(frantically starts searching daft.ie for overpriced properties to buy ASAP and with the longest mortgage term possible/I]

There is a lot to be said for renting and its nothing to be ashamed of.

As I said earlier, in mainland Europe entire families rent out for generations (particularly France and Germany) without any problem. The Irish need to lose that mentaility.."You have to own property"...'there must be something wrong with you if you dont buy 3-4 houses' attitude

As has been said before, that mentality will never be lost until we get comparable tenant laws to mainland europe. I'd also be interested to know how well France and Germany look after their elderly, cos I know many people who bought here and in UK in order to try and give themselves a "nest-egg" for retirement based on the fact that the state pension is a pile of sh*te (I'm not saying it is , I'm just saying that is what they said)

whizzbang

Kipperhell wrote: »

The bank do not own the property they have some ownership rights but never actually own the property. They cannot sell the property. This is my understanding based on legal advise face to face with more than one lawyer.

You will have to forgive me for not believing what you say. In all fairness why would I believe you over that of more than one lawyer? I will not believe you on that basis.
My response was however directed at the comment that you don't own the property and have a mortgage which is not true by any understanding of saying the bank own the property. If they own it it is part of the mortgage then that is all you have not both.

Did any of these lawyers have any financial interest in you buying a property? Just curious.

Kipperhell

oceanclub wrote: »

If you're going to go on about how linking to your own posting is a "personal attack" (if you don't care what others think, then why are you bothered about me linking to it?), then perhaps you could refrain from twisting my arguments. I said a 40 year old _with_ a 40 year mortgage (that is, say, someone who got one at 25) - not a 40 year old who _just_ got one.

P.

Then the 40 year mortgage would be called a 25 year old mortgage is how the English works on that. I just took it from what you said. If that was your argument I would find anybody who took out 100% mortgage 15 years ago would have quite a lot of equity in their house also making your scenario even more unlikely. I don't think there is any twisting need on your argument as it just can't withstand any reality.

Kipperhell

whizzbang wrote: »

Did any of these lawyers have any financial interest in you buying a property? Just curious.

None what so ever. I know the bank can take the property and for all intense purposes I don't own it out right but I was told "the bank own the house" is an incorrect statement. This is really just a silly side note on the actual topic.

I think your age and where you are at life means a lot to people.

FutureGuy

I almost bought a house 2 years ago but I didn't. The same "friends" that kept at me for not having one are mainly jobless now and one won't have a home for much longer.

Don't mind what people are telling you and do your own thing. Pay rent, and save the ****e out of it for a while. Oh, and if you haven't asked for a reduction in rent in the last 12 months, do so now.

When the time comes and the house prises drop to more reasonable levels, you will be in a great position to get your house.

oceanclub

Kipperhell wrote: »

Then the 40 year mortgage would be called a 25 year old mortgage is how the English works on that. I just took it from what you said. If that was your argument I would find anybody who took out 100% mortgage 15 years ago would have quite a lot of equity in their house also making your scenario even more unlikely. I don't think there is any twisting need on your argument as it just can't withstand any reality.

If you take out a 40 year mortgage, and you're halfway through it - you're halfway through a 40 year mortgage. It's not a 20 year mortgage. You seem to think you can win arguments by redefining terminology.

Sorry, but are you denying there are people out there who stretched themselves to buy property for long terms that they can't afford?

Wait, you're not Liz O'Kane, are you?

P.

partyguinness

Kipperhell wrote: »

The bank do not own the property they have some ownership rights but never actually own the property. They cannot sell the property. This is my understanding based on legal advise face to face with more than one lawyer.

You will have to forgive me for not believing what you say. In all fairness why would I believe you over that of more than one lawyer? I will not believe you on that basis.
My response was however directed at the comment that you don't own the property and have a mortgage which is not true by any understanding of saying the bank own the property. If they own it it is part of the mortgage then that is all you have not both.

What is the difference?

But you cant mortgage, lease, transfer/convey the property either without their permission...so what exactly does owning the property mean in your book...

partyguinness

Kipperhell wrote: »

The bank do not own the property they have some ownership rights but never actually own the property. They cannot sell the property. This is my understanding based on legal advise face to face with more than one lawyer.

You will have to forgive me for not believing what you say. In all fairness why would I believe you over that of more than one lawyer? I will not believe you on that basis.
My response was however directed at the comment that you don't own the property and have a mortgage which is not true by any understanding of saying the bank own the property. If they own it it is part of the mortgage then that is all you have not both.

Dont just take my word for it.

See "Property Law" 2 ed. by Paul Coughlan B.L., Chapter 17 - Mortgages pages 350-351.

That will provide you a good start on understanding the whole concept of mortgages and charges.

In fact here is a nice little quote at page 355

"The creation of a legal mortgage entails the transfer of a legal estate by the mortgagor to the mortgagee."

and another little gem

"It is immaterial that there has been no default on that part of the mortgagor so as to necessitate the initiation of legal proceedings by the mortgagee."

Those lawyers were sparing you from the truth. A white lie. No point in freaking out the client.

Kipperhell

partyguinness wrote: »

What is the difference?

But you cant mortgage, lease, transfer/convey the property either without their permission...so what exactly does owning the property mean in your book...

You don't ask their permission you notify them. The bank has a vested interest in the property as it is what the loan is based on. Having the right to decide on how it is decorated, heated, changed and the right to keep the profit from a sale, are all part of the ownership. If the bank owned the property they would have sold it and kept the profit.

It is like you never left a deposit on anything like a tenner for the pool balls.

I am done with my views on ownership versus the banks they really aren't relevant.

partyguinness

Kipperhell wrote: »

You don't ask their permission you notify them. The bank has a vested interest in the property as it is what the loan is based on. Having the right to decide on how it is decorated, heated, changed and the right to keep the profit from a sale, are all part of the ownership. If the bank owned the property they would have sold it and kept the profit.

It is like you never left a deposit on anything like a tenner for the pool balls.

I am done with my views on ownership versus the banks they really aren't relevant.

Mate you brought it up.

In case you missed my edits:

Dont just take my word for it.

See "Property Law" 2 ed. by Paul Coughlan B.L., Chapter 17 - Mortgages pages 350-351.

That will provide you a good start on understanding the whole concept of mortgages and charges.

In fact here is a nice little quote at page 355

"The creation of a legal mortgage entails the transfer of a legal estate by the mortgagor to the mortgagee."

and another little gem

"It is immaterial that there has been no default on that part of the mortgagor so as to necessitate the initiation of legal proceedings by the mortgagee."

Those lawyers were sparing you from the truth. A white lie. No point in freaking out the client.

partyguinness

Kipperhell wrote: »

You don't ask their permission you notify them. The bank has a vested interest in the property as it is what the loan is based on. Having the right to decide on how it is decorated, heated, changed and the right to keep the profit from a sale, are all part of the ownership. If the bank owned the property they would have sold it and kept the profit.

It is like you never left a deposit on anything like a tenner for the pool balls.

I am done with my views on ownership versus the banks they really aren't relevant.

You are forgetting about the mortgagors equitable right of redemption and no..it is not a mere case of notifying them. You need their consent. Of course usually just a formality. Check your mortgage deed.

whizzbang

Interesting discussion. What happens if you knock down your house for the craic and the insurance don't pay up so all you have is land and rubble. Can the bank sue you for destruction of their property? What if you then stop paying your mortgage? You have destroyed that which the loan was secured against!

partyguinness

harsea8 wrote: »

As has been said before, that mentality will never be lost until we get comparable tenant laws to mainland europe. I'd also be interested to know how well France and Germany look after their elderly, cos I know many people who bought here and in UK in order to try and give themselves a "nest-egg" for retirement based on the fact that the state pension is a pile of sh*te (I'm not saying it is , I'm just saying that is what they said)

Yes that is true. A lot of French/Germans cannot belive how little protection tenants have in this country.

Nicola xxx

i turned 30 in july and i am still renting, actually been renting in dublin for the past 13 years lol, moved over from england in 1995, started renting in 1996 and still doing it, doesnt bother me so long as you are happy, many of my friends have bought apartments etc, and cars, but i know that they are struggling and are not happy, i go out every weekend, have money saved for a car and i am renting, i am happy doing that, so dont worry what ur mates say, dont go to australia because of that I dont care if ppl know i am 30 and renting, dublins an expensive city, i did have a girl in work say to me i wouldnt be renting at 30, but then she has a child and as i pointed out to her, our circumstances are different, when u have no dependants you can do what u like with regards to accomodation, could live in a b+b if u wanted lol. my mate owns one in drumcondra so could always go there if i was stuck lol. 36 is still young by the way!

Kipperhell

oceanclub wrote: »

Sorry, but are you denying there are people out there who stretched themselves to buy property for long terms that they can't afford?



P.

No

You seem to have got all excited and missed this is about perception of people who don't own property in their 30s. I have clearly stated how I feel many people perceive this. I emphasised that it is worse in your 40s and how I generally feel about it. I am in my 30s and heading to the 40s my perception is based on that. What is your perception based on? Do you have many single friends in their 30s and 40s?

You have clearly got your own example mixed up as a it takes 15 years for a 25 year old to reach 40 and not 20 which is half of 40. Your example was not very good but the relevance here is pretty weak too.

I repeatedly clarified the property isn't important but what you have been doing with your life is and the property is but one indicator.

partyguinness

whizzbang wrote: »

Interesting discussion. What happens if you knock down your house for the craic and the insurance don't pay up so all you have is land and rubble. Can the bank sue you for destruction of their property? What if you then stop paying your mortgage? You have destroyed that which the loan was secured against!

An insurance company will pay out if the property is damaged/lost by one of the causes in the insurance schedule. Knocking it down for the sake of it would not be covered...

But its an interesting question to see if the insurance company would pay out. My guess is that yes they would pay back the bank and then come after you for their money back

Have we any volunteers?:D

partyguinness

Another point to consider is if you own an apartment in an apartment complex.

You would have signed a Lease for viz. 990 years.

Legally you are a Tenant and must pay rent every year i.e. €10.00 and never actually "own" the property.

di2772

partyguinness wrote: »

Another point to consider is if you own an apartment in an apartment complex.

You would have signed a Lease for viz. 990 years.

Legally you are a Tenant and must pay rent every year i.e. €10.00 and never actually "own" the property.

But then neither would the bank own it
Completely off topic i know.

gurramok

Kipperhell wrote:

"If I was single and I met somebody in their 40s who didn't own property I probably wouldn't pursue a relationship"

I find its usually the person inside that counts on whether i want to pursue a relationship, materialism doesn't come into it at all.

amacca

Originally Posted by Kipperhell
"If I was single and I met somebody in their 40s who didn't own property I probably wouldn't pursue a relationship"
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Hey Kipperhell, I'm single, lonely and own lots of stuff outright but Im only interested in good looking girls.

If your interested in meeting up this weekend please pm a photo of yourself beside a daily paper with the date clearly visible + a scan of your passport or drivers license and ill make up my mind at that stage.

I feel it only fair to warn you however that I have taken the liberty of drawing up a draft pre nup for your perusal on our first meeting.

btw, do you like thai food?

meglome

I was talking to a friend about this earlier. He was offered a foreign holiday home a few years back, a supposed 'great deal'. A lot of his friends were pushing for him to buy it as they all had their property portfolios. He felt really that they were almost laughing at him for not getting involved. So he owns his family home outright and now that he has to cut back in the recession, no problem. Some of his friends are not so lucky. We really had almost got to the point where if you didn't have a second home some people would look at you funny.

TiwstaSista

I would look down on myself if I am 40 and have not owned a house.

Kipperhell

amacca wrote: »

Hey Kipperhell, I'm single, lonely and own lots of stuff outright but Im only interested in good looking girls.

My wife might find it strange that I would meet up with some guy.

gurramok wrote: »

I find its usually the person inside that counts on whether i want to pursue a relationship, materialism doesn't come into it at all.

Good for you, amazingly there are other people out there who don't feel the same way about what they have worked hard for being given away. I think the OP is going to meet a lot of people who see it my way in reality. . I personally think woman in their 30s are a lot more likely to judge you on achievements by this by the time you hit your 30s.

I find people's actions tell you a lot about them and have repeatedly pointed out it is not the material objects that are important but what it represents. If you are in your 30s and all you have is a big tv and a car or a nice collection of clothes many people will see that as somebody who has no forward planning. So we agree it is what is inside that counts

amacca

Kipperhell wrote: »

My wife might find it strange that I would meet up with some guy.

Its o.k. she can come too!!

Im not into exclusivivty in a relationship.

jmayo

Kipperhell wrote: »

My wife might find it strange that I would meet up with some guy.

...

Up to this point you sounded like a girl someone once fixed me up with it.
On our one and only date she asked where did I see myself careerwise in 5 years :rolleyes:
Then she proceeded to tell me how her ex boyfirend was so successful in London and their carreer paths
I know she worked in HR, but bloody hell she conducted a date like a frist round interview.
And of course I hadn't any property at the time, so I really must have looked like a right loser :mad:

EDIT: hang on what am I saying you could still be a girl, girls can have wives nowadays :eek:

am i bovvered

"Do people look down on you when your in your 30's and don't own a house?"

No, but they do if you own more than one house, and on Accommodation & Property you could be strung up for being a DEVELOPER !!! :eek::D

Kipperhell

jmayo wrote: »

Up to this point you sounded like a girl someone once fixed me up with it.
On our one and only date she asked where did I see myself careerwise in 5 years :rolleyes:

So to answer the OPs question you have personally met somebody who judges people on their progress through life? I don't see why people think it is so funny that I personally would judge anybody by their current progress. It really doesn't sound like many of you have reached 30 yet so probably don't really know how things change.

Amy33

I have no intention of ever owning my own home, my parents both became seriously ill in their 30's and had terrible problems for years paying their mortgage, it's a headache I can certainly do without..

D3PO

Kipperhell wrote: »

I don't see why people think it is so funny that I personally would judge anybody by their current progress. It really doesn't sound like many of you have reached 30 yet so probably don't really know how things change.

Its not funny but its not the way to conduct or try to find a relationship. Oh and Im 30 before you start.

Id give up every penny I own and Id rob a bank if I had to if the situation arose for somebody I love. Given you wouldnt be with somebody unless they had some kind of material wealth I asume you wouldnt.

Whilst somebodies career progression and material wealth might help you assertain their drive, that is a small part of anybodies personality and you clearly cant convince anybody on here otherwise.

so what if somebody is 45 and doesnt own their own house, is getting to know the person and seing how your personalities intertwine far less significant :eek:

D3PO

trish990 wrote: »

I have no intention of ever owning my own home, my parents both became seriously ill in their 30's and had terrible problems for years paying their mortgage, it's a headache I can certainly do without..

Clearly your a waster who doesnt deserve to find love. I mean just ask kipperhall :rolleyes:

oceanclub

D3PO wrote: »

Its not funny but its not the way to conduct or try to find a relationship. Oh and Im 30 before you start.

Id give up every penny I own and Id rob a bank if I had to if the situation arose for somebody I love. Given you wouldnt be with somebody unless they had some kind of material wealth I asume you wouldnt.

I'm 38, married, and think it's an appallingly cynical way to go through life personally.

P.

Cuverdindust

Hi Iguana,
Never fear! I'm from Cork, Female and will be 34 soon. I own nothing and thats the way I like it!! My bank balance is healthy and I have a good financial head on me. A cute h**r, as "the fella says!" Ha ha ha!
My friends are the same, got all loved up and married straight after graduating from UCC, some of their divorces should be due soon enough! I never cared about owning my own home. I knew I would buy when the time is right and I honestly don't think I could settle in Ireland either. To answer your question, Yes, I do think people judge if you don't own property in your 30's, but I just smile on the inside. . . I was never stupid enough to commit to an overpriced house thats identical to all the others near it!! How unimaginative!! So, never fear. . Dust is here and you can buzz me for a beer anytime and we'll leave all the couples to fight!!;)

Kipperhell

trish990 wrote: »

I have no intention of ever owning my own home, my parents both became seriously ill in their 30's and had terrible problems for years paying their mortgage, it's a headache I can certainly do without..

What's your plan for when you are on a pension?

While your parents situation might be unusual how much better do you think it would have been if they were renting?

Cuverdindust

Kipperhell wrote: »

No
I repeatedly clarified the property isn't important but what you have been doing with your life is and the property is but one indicator.

Give it up Kipper!! You're giving us a headache. I don't own any property and it's precisely because I have good forward planning! It's a mug's game!

Kipperhell

D3PO wrote: »

Its not funny but its not the way to conduct or try to find a relationship. Oh and Im 30 before you start.

Id give up every penny I own and Id rob a bank if I had to if the situation arose for somebody I love. Given you wouldnt be with somebody unless they had some kind of material wealth I asume you wouldnt.

Whilst somebodies career progression and material wealth might help you assertain their drive, that is a small part of anybodies personality and you clearly cant convince anybody on here otherwise.

so what if somebody is 45 and doesnt own their own house, is getting to know the person and seing how your personalities intertwine far less significant :eek:

Good for you does that mean everybody else thinks like you too? NO!

There are many ways to look for a relationship and your idea of what a relationship means does not make it the only way to look at it. I never said I would not be with somebody without material wealth. I clearly expresses that if I was single in my 40s I would not pursue a relationship with somebody who had achieved nothing and had no plans made for the future. I used property as an indicator and clearly stated that it was lack of progress I see as the problem. If I see drive as an important personality trait then that is no more shallow than wanting somebody with a good sense of humour. Compatibility is important.

So you have assumed incorrectly about me and I am not trying to change anybodies mind. People will judge you on your actions. I started with nothing and together with my wife we achieved some of our goals. I take that as building my character and somebody who hasn't done similar will probably not appreciate the work involved. I wouldn't give my hard earned progress away to somebody who just messed about. There are lots of people who feel the same.

Cuverdindust

TiwstaSista wrote: »

I would look down on myself if I am 40 and have not owned a house.

Hence the name!

amacca

Kipperhell wrote: »

Good for you does that mean everybody else thinks like you too? NO!

There are many ways to look for a relationship and your idea of what a relationship means does not make it the only way to look at it. I never said I would not be with somebody without material wealth. I clearly expresses that if I was single in my 40s I would not pursue a relationship with somebody who had achieved nothing and had no plans made for the future. I used property as an indicator and clearly stated that it was lack of progress I see as the problem. If I see drive as an important personality trait then that is no more shallow than wanting somebody with a good sense of humour. Compatibility is important.

So you have assumed incorrectly about me and I am not trying to change anybodies mind. People will judge you on your actions. I started with nothing and together with my wife we achieved some of our goals. I take that as building my character and somebody who hasn't done similar will probably not appreciate the work involved. I wouldn't give my hard earned progress away to somebody who just messed about. There are lots of people who feel the same.

To be fair, I see exactly what you're saying and agree (at least partially) with it now that you have clarified repeatedly. I just couldn't resist earlier as the original post looked quite mercenary and Ive met girls (I now know you're not one) who perfectly embodied the "I don't want no scrubs mentality" That I found it deliciously ironic going out with them is a subject for another post.

Yes if you're 40 and want to settle down and build some financial security you are not likely to be interested in someone that does not share/have these goals, it did however appear from the original post that you would dismiss a person simply if they did not own a house..........

di2772

Kipperhell wrote: »

What's your plan for when you are on a pension?

That was always a nightmare of mine.
Imagine being old and living in a ****hole because thats all the rent allowance will get you.
Sort your house out while you are young. Or make damn sure you are going to get a nice pension. Better still, do both.

astrofool

If you're not paying off a mortgage, you should at least be putting the equivalent away every month for your retirement, by the age of 30. With life spans going the way they are, you could be 30 years in retirement, and needing to rent for all that length of time (or buy accommodation straight off with the savings).

And that's not including a pension for day to day living.

di2772

astrofool wrote: »

If you're not paying off a mortgage, you should at least be putting the equivalent away every month for your retirement, by the age of 30. With life spans going the way they are, you could be 30 years in retirement, and needing to rent for all that length of time (or buy accommodation straight off with the savings).

And that's not including a pension for day to day living.

Im lashing a hell of a lot of money into my pension now. I could only start to do that once my mortgage was paid off or half paid off anyway. If i was renting all my life i couldnt though.

Duckjob

If I discovered I had been dumped or rejected on account of not owning a property I would consider myself to have dodged a bullet TBH.