living at home

fischerspooner

hello folks. Just wanted to ask why so many people in their 20s still live at home in Dublin? I mean the rent here isn't that bad, in comparison with our wages it's reasonable, especially if you live further out from the city centre. Sometimes when I tell people I rent they look at me in disbelief and tell me I'm stupid and that I'm wasting my money and should be saving for a mortgage. The thing is, you'll be paying a mortgage for 30 years anyway, so it's the same as renting to a certain extent, except I can move around freely and live wherever I want, without being stuck in the sticks which seems to be the only place where people can afford to buy now. I think it's a problem with dublin as there are no young areas here, like in cities in europe and the UK. The only people living out of home here seem to be foreigners and people from other parts of Ireland. I just can't believe it when I go out and talk to girls the same age as me (24) and older, that they're ALL living at home, if they're from Dublin. I couldn't bring myself to admit it even if I was... it's embarassing! What do you think about this?

irlirishkev

Just because you buy a place, doesn't mean you're stuck there forever. You can sell up , or rent the place out if you really want to move around.

Buying your own place is an investment. I was renting for a while, but after a few months of handing up 500euro a month to a stranger, I got a bit cheesed off. I own my own place now, in the city centre, and it's only costing me a little bit more than that. I get to live on my own, and it's a long term investment.

fischerspooner wrote:

you'll be paying a mortgage for 30 years anyway, so it's the same as renting to a certain extent

So why not get the mortgage then and pay all that money into something that will benifit you?

It's not for everyone I know.. but I couldn't share with strangers anymore, and I felt I was getting a bit crowded living at home. This was the best option for me.

K.

Andrew Duffy

There's no point asking people's opinion on this as you'll just get annoyed by the answer. I think the only indefensible state of being is living with, and off, your parents beyond a reasonable age.
Incidentally, I live in a rented apartment with my other half, and both of us save money now due to being away from destructive friends who all lived until very recently with their respective parents. We will buy a property when we can comfortably afford a 1500 square foot penthouse apartment in the City Centre or a restored period house in a good area - I'm not going through the pain of buying a property unless I'm going to keep it, and the other half is of the same opinion.

MorningStar

It can be worth renting or staying it home. It depends on a few things but it is a choice. If you think renting is a good use of your money fine. Most people I know who stayed at home bough other things like a car or spend a lot on clothes, holidays etc... It all what you want. Rent is paying for a service and facility that you otherwise couldn't afford. Nobody is right on which is best. Mortgages are certainly not the same as rent. If you own a house the work never stops rental property means you don't have to worry about things like a leaking tap etc...
In 30 years you own a house or have to rent for the remainder of your life and probably a reduced income. It doesn't tie you down too much but many costs people never mention like insurance,travel expenses etc...

Andrew Duffy wrote:

We will buy a property when we can comfortably afford a 1500 square foot penthouse apartment in the City Centre or a restored period house in a good area - I'm not going through the pain of buying a property unless I'm going to keep it, and the other half is of the same opinion.

How much does one of these cost now? If you can't afford it now unless your salary jumps up massively and gregularly plus property goes down you will be lucky. Even when the UK property bouble burst the top end properties value was reduced but nobody was selling.

Andrew Duffy

A lot, but both are within feasible reach within several years.

MorningStar

Andrew Duffy wrote:

A lot, but both are within feasible reach within several years.

Yeah right. If you make that much money now than you should be a bit smarter now and get on the property ladder. You don't have to live in the property. Unless of course you are pumping money into some other assets that are appreciating at a higher rate.

http://www2.myhome.ie/search/property.asp?id=234483&p=8&rt=search&searchlist=

http://www2.myhome.ie/search/property.asp?id=234273&p=9&rt=search&searchlist=

at that kind of money you would want some mega wages to get a mortgage. In a few years they will cost more too even if there is an increase of 10% that's an extra €75k-€150k (a high yearly salary). If after all that you are still on track please tell me what you and yours do for a living or what gives you this bank roll. I am not attcaking just wondering if you have it all sorted so well.

Andrew Duffy

I am a senior software designer in a small profitable firm in which I am invested (hopefully a rapidly-appreciating asset). Renumeration in this industry is high, but not much higher than, for example, the construction industry.
I hate the term "property ladder"; it's used by estate agents when drumming up the kind of frenzy that leads to overheated inflation. It's also an utterly irrelevant term in a country where even modest property transactions are subject to a 9% stamp duty, 1% conveyancy fees and an auctioneer's fee - step on more than a very small number of rungs of that particular ladder and see where your price inflation goes.

MorningStar

I work in a small software profitable company and nobody owns a €1.5 million home here. The boss invested his money and still needed to get further money, in doing so lost some control. Renumeration in the software industry when small can be good but not sustainable with increasing size. The construction industry has history and natural peeks, the software industry doesn't have the history or natural cycle. Your best hope is the industry leader buys you out and you live in hope they don't produce a similar package . In sayng that it depends on what sofware you produce and if you have clients and service money or sell off the shelf.
You may hate the term but it is a valid explanantion and the estate agent aren't actually controlling the market it is supply and demand. I couldn't afford my property now as property values rose more quickly than salary. You may have a valid view that your company asset will be worth so much you can afford a huge place but it a risk. Your compnay as an asset may not be accepted as an asset for your mortgage. Mean while you pay rent which could be 80% of your mortgage. In a few years you might have kids or you will feel different about where you want to live.
Good for you if it all works out but most people don't have the option or would take the risk.

Andrew Duffy

Renumeration in the software industry when small can be good but not sustainable with increasing size.

It certainly is when you hold a senior position. The industry is starting to mature in this country; if you look at senior postions in, say, Cambridge or Boston you can see the kind of compensation available.

You may have a valid view that your company asset will be worth so much

There's also two maximum-contribution SSIAs (there was another savings account, but diamonds & shares ate that), so I have a backup plan. I am certain that if I still lived with my parents I would have no savings or shares and local publicans and restauranteurs would be that amount richer.

Mean while you pay rent which could be 80% of your mortgage

Not my rent, but don't forget property management fees and maintenance costs.

In a few years you might have kids or you will feel different about where you want to live.

That's an argument for renting - if you need to move due to changes in situation, you can.

...or would take the risk.

Isn't it a risk when you buy a property that is intrinsically overvalued in a market where one new property for every fifty people is built each year?

MorningStar

Andrew Duffy wrote:

Isn't it a risk when you buy a property that is intrinsically overvalued in a market where one new property for every fifty people is built each year?

There have been tons of studies showing that the Irish house prices aren't inflated they have been playing catch up. You could be right that it's over priced but people who research this stuff for a living think differently and people like yourself have been saying it for about 10 years. Estate agents may have a vested interest but there are no signs this is a bubble.

If your looking at property prices along the line of the ones I posted your SSIA savings would be gone in one year. Property prices are estimated to increase and 6% for the next ten years. In one year €750k @ 6% is €45k or your 5 years of saving. I made more money on my property in 5 years than SSIAs. Your plan of owning a property at the top of the market in a few years looks a bit strained under those type of figures.

When I mentioned kids it was the fact you wouldn't want to work as hard so unable to sustain the level of work that would give an income to afford an expensive property. It also makes you take less risks or want to put your finances at risk.

I work in the software industry and I have seen more failures than sucess. Senior people are not imune to anything. Not sure how old or experienced you are according to your profile you are 26. Not seen anybody at that age outside there own compnay or really small inexperienced companies is really senior outside the company. No offense meant but I have seen people who truely belive their path is only up and that they have the best plan and dismissed both history and risk. It hasn't worked out well, they only people who do well are the exceptions that you hear more about.

Overall the Irish software industry is under a huge threat from India many of the early software companies are either gone or outsource the development out of Ireland. That include senior designers with the only people not loosing were than money men.

You will also find the people who buy property at the top end of the market were previously property owners as it is an upgrade to them. Check with estate agent and they tell you the people buying at this level aren't rich first time buyers. They may have family money but they don't do it on their own. You might be using famly money I don't know and I by no means say it is impossible but it is really unlikely. My home is not even the sq ft you mentioned and it is bigger than most of my friends and is a 3 bed semi with 3 reception rooms.

Victor

MorningStar wrote:

http://www2.myhome.ie/search/property.asp?id=234483&p=8&rt=search&searchlist=

Honestly, it doesn't even have a guest bathroom.

Andrew Duffy

Getting bored with this...

To the OP: I wholeheartedly encourage you to move out of your parents' house - it will teach you how to budget and pay bills on time if nothing else. I also expect that you will find it easier to save and eventually buy your own house than if you were living with your parents enriching publicans several times a week.

MorningStar

Andrew Duffy wrote:

Getting bored with this...

Sorry I was hoping to share experience and knowledge. If you have superior knowledge and experience in both property and the software I would geniunely be interested.

I would suggest reading "Rich Dad, Poor Dad" it didn't change my life or anything but did give a clear some vague thoughts. It might fit in with your plan too.

I know one person in the software industry who own a €1.5 million house but he's 50 and owned property before and works in a senior position in Cambridge for a leading chip manufacture. He recieved a 20% pay cut 2 years ago and it hasn't come back!

Peace

fischerspooner wrote:

Sometimes when I tell people I rent they look at me in disbelief and tell me I'm stupid and that I'm wasting my money

They tell you that because thats exactly what you are.

fischerspooner wrote:

The thing is, you'll be paying a mortgage for 30 years anyway, so it's the same as renting to a certain extent

Mortgage = investment.

Renting, you might as well f*ck your money into the liffey pal.

Maybe when you mature a little bit you'll wake up one day 30years old with no money and 10k pissed away on rent.

Imposter

Peace wrote:

They tell you that because thats exactly what you are.

Mortgage = investment.

Renting, you might as well f*ck your money into the liffey pal.

Maybe when you mature a little bit you'll wake up one day 30years old with no money and 10k pissed away on rent.

This is a very irish attitude. Don't get me wrong, I will buy a place as soon as I can comfortably afford it. But...

I will not buy a place because prices are going to continue rising. I will not buy a place that lowers my quality of life, be that because of an outragous commute to work - in order for me to buy something 'affordable' -, or because of buying in an area I would not be comfortable living in.

I've heard the argument from the other side from Austrians who justify their renting instead of buying. Their arguments include:
- You will spend less per month on rent than for a mortgage. In Ireland the difference is not so great, but with the amount of people looking to invest in property rents will have to come down relative to mortgage payments.
- You have fixed costs. Virtually no maintainence and other such costs a homeowner has to deal with.
- you can up and leave easier and cheaper should you want to.
- You are in no real danger if interest rates rise.

Also the argument about having to get on the ladder as house prices continue to rise makes no sense to me. If you have an investment property then it makes sense but the simple fact is that if you live in your house, it makes very little difference if the price rises or not. You still need a place to live in and should you want to trade-up you'll still have to pay for the pleasure including all those lovely taxes and agents fees. Imo they make the getting on the ladder thing look a little silly as you cost yourself a sizeable chunk of cash moving. Compare that to moving to rent a bigger/better place where the move only costs a fraction of what trading-up as an owner does.

MorningStar

Peace wrote:

Mortgage = investment.

Renting, you might as well f*ck your money into the liffey pal.

Maybe when you mature a little bit you'll wake up one day 30years old with no money and 10k pissed away on rent.

That's way to harsh. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. If you are never going to own a home it makes sense to rent. Nobody owns the right answer for all. I agree with the general view but no need to be nasty and it doesn't suit everybody.

Peace

Imposter wrote:

This is a very irish attitude. Don't get me wrong, I will buy a place as soon as I can comfortably afford it. But...

I will not buy a place because prices are going to continue rising. I will not buy a place that lowers my quality of life, be that because of an outragous commute to work - in order for me to buy something 'affordable' -, or because of buying in an area I would not be comfortable living in.

I've heard the argument from the other side from Austrians who justify their renting instead of buying. Their arguments include:
- You will spend less per month on rent than for a mortgage. In Ireland the difference is not so great, but with the amount of people looking to invest in property rents will have to come down relative to mortgage payments.
- You have fixed costs. Virtually no maintainence and other such costs a homeowner has to deal with.
- you can up and leave easier and cheaper should you want to.
- You are in no real danger if interest rates rise.

Also the argument about having to get on the ladder as house prices continue to rise makes no sense to me. If you have an investment property then it makes sense but the simple fact is that if you live in your house, it makes very little difference if the price rises or not. You still need a place to live in and should you want to trade-up you'll still have to pay for the pleasure including all those lovely taxes and agents fees. Imo they make the getting on the ladder thing look a little silly as you cost yourself a sizeable chunk of cash moving. Compare that to moving to rent a bigger/better place where the move only costs a fraction of what trading-up as an owner does.

I agree with most of your points Imposter.

If you were to try and sell/buy property every couple of years they you'll loose on stamp and other taxes etc. But these days you can almost get cheaper mortgages than you would pay on rent. So the Austrians POV that renting is cheaper is a narrow and short sighted view IMO/doesn't really apply here.

In the long run, in 25 years if you rent and you leave somewhere, you get your deposit back. Say 1500euro (assuming the landlord deems the place in the same condition you took it in). If you buy and move then you get your 300,000 back assuming house prices don't crash and you get left with negative equity.

Getting on the property ladder is a good idea only if you get a reasonable place that you will be keeping for a few years. Afterall if you look at what it would cost to buy a house inDublin 5 years ago compared to buying a house now then its a lot more expensive now. And wages/salaries are not rising at the same rate that house prices are rising so it is actually costing you more to wait and see rather than get moving on it.

So its almost dead cert 1500euro vs. take a chance on 300,000.

Peace

MorningStar wrote:

That's way to harsh. There are advantages and disadvantages to both. If you are never going to own a home it makes sense to rent. Nobody owns the right answer for all. I agree with the general view but no need to be nasty and it doesn't suit everybody.

The OP wasn't exactly being nice to people who were still living at home in their 20's (which is me).

He wasn't nice to me, i wasn't nice to him... meh.

Imposter

Peace wrote:

So its almost dead cert 1500euro vs. take a chance on 300,000.

Express quality of life in terms of money? It's way too often overlooked imo.

MorningStar

Imposter wrote:

Also the argument about having to get on the ladder as house prices continue to rise makes no sense to me. If you have an investment property then it makes sense but the simple fact is that if you live in your house, it makes very little difference if the price rises or not. You still need a place to live in and should you want to trade-up you'll still have to pay for the pleasure including all those lovely taxes and agents fees. Imo they make the getting on the ladder thing look a little silly as you cost yourself a sizeable chunk of cash moving. Compare that to moving to rent a bigger/better place where the move only costs a fraction of what trading-up as an owner does.

You made some good points that I can understand and see how it suits people. The bit about the property ladder could be just an age thing. All my friends who bought a few years ago have upgraded at least once and have smaller mortgages than people who started later. When you own a house you tend to invest some money into it pushing the price above the market increases. These things combined with salary increases mean a bigger better house is affordable. Yes there are extra charges like stamp duty but over the long term rents increase more than a mortgage. You could be right about agents intentions but look at this way if you get a mortgage for 100k @ 3% and house price increase by 6% you just made 3K or can afford a property worth 3K more than you who has also spent money on rent. You would be drifting further from owning an asset while the other person gets closer. In two years later if you both go for the same house the other person can get a smaller mortgage than you. I have friends who own bigger nicer houses and their mortgages are half mine because they bought before me. I couldn't afford my present home or my last home now and that is in the space of 4 years.

MorningStar

Peace wrote:

The OP wasn't exactly being nice to people who were still living at home in their 20's (which is me).

He wasn't nice to me, i wasn't nice to him... meh.

He just questioned the position and didn't insult anybody and it wasn't a personally directed insult like yours.

the_syco

fischerspooner: If you work in Dublin, live in Dublin with your parents, and can't afford to live in Dublin, and need to, some will stay at home.

MorningStar

Imposter wrote:

Express quality of life in terms of money? It's way too often overlooked imo.

Your right if you live in the sticks a 4 hour round trip will effect your quality of life. But if you are 55 and don't own your own home and are renting your quality of life might not be so hot. If you get to the pensionable age and don't own your own home how are you going to afford rent?
Rent will normally stay as a constant percentage of your income as it stays in line with inflation . Mortgages tend to remain relatively static and therfore a reducing percentage of your income.

ixoy

I'm from Dublin and have been renting in Dublin for two years. My current lease is ending and I'm looking to rent again - not buy yet. Couple of reasons, but Imposter's really covered my thinking - I enjoy the freedom of movement and I loathe long commutes.

If I were to try and purchase a house, I'd first of all struggle to get the initial lump sum downpayment. Secondly, I'd be stuck out in some large housing estate at the county border. I'd really need to try and get a second party to invest in the house with me to make it feasible and that could lead to massive potential problems.

Given the insane price house rises and the equally insane lack of pay rises experienced in IT, I can't see any immediate way out of it. Even the likes of affordable housing isn't an option given there's often requirements to be in a job for two years, rather than two weeks as I am. I really don't see a choice but to rent now unless I want to go crawling back to the parental nest and all the hassles therein.

Andrew Duffy

If you have superior knowledge and experience in both property and the software I would geniunely be interested.

I'm not sure what the tone is in that. I have done my sums and know I can comfortably afford, with my wife, the repayments for the kind of property we both want. Note that this isn't a €1.5 million house - the apartment was closer to the mark. The problem is deposits and stamp duties. I have taken a risk in investing some of my savings in a small shareholding in the company that employs me; I'm confident that the return from that will solve the problem. If it doesn't, I'm still saving, and will buy a good apartment when I have enough saved.
If you don't think your wages will rise in the future, that your bonuses will continue, or that your shareholding will be sold for a profit, I'd suggest you change jobs.

Back on topic, this attitude that rent paid to your landlord is wasted is ridiculous. In every case I know of from acquaintances, rent paid to a landlord was previously paid to publicans, and then some. If you have a goal of owning a property and you are actually saving hundreds, or indeed thousands, per month, then by all means continue doing so until they force you to leave. If you find that it all goes on trips to the pub to meet your friends, trips to restaurants to get time alone with your partner and payments to motor insurers and filling station owners so you can get to work, then start doing the sums.

MorningStar

Andrew Duffy wrote:

I'm not sure what the tone is in that. I have done my sums and know I can comfortably afford, with my wife, the repayments for the kind of property we both want. Note that this isn't a €1.5 million house - the apartment was closer to the mark. The problem is deposits and stamp duties. I have taken a risk in investing some of my savings in a small shareholding in the company that employs me; I'm confident that the return from that will solve the problem. If it doesn't, I'm still saving, and will buy a good apartment when I have enough saved.
If you don't think your wages will rise in the future, that your bonuses will continue, or that your shareholding will be sold for a profit, I'd suggest you change jobs.

You really are putting a lot of eggs in one basket relying on your company to compensate you for house prices rises. Effectively you are investing in one market to catch up in another unrelated one, basic economics say that is risky. A smallish property rise will make 5 years of your saving disappear and increase the stamp duty, deposits etc... Next year house prices and building prices are going to jump as the SSIA money becomes active. I would guess next year there will be a 20% rise.
I am sure you have done your maths but you may have over looked some factors and be relying heavily on one thing that isn't as solid as you think. I am sure you talk to some financial people about this but as they rarely truely independant and can be more intersted in selling you investement than looking out for your best interests. From what you have described here it sounds risky but I am sure there is more to it which may even it out.
They are actually bringing in stricter laws and regulations about pensions because so many people who worked for long profitable companies lost their jobs and pensions in one go because the pension fund was invested into the compnay. When I was younger I didn't know these risks and no financial advisor told me. I was around when the software industry took the stock value dive. I didn't loss money as such but I could have made a lot. It's your life. You could be lucky but do you need to take the risk. I'll leave it alone but it is all meant as friendly advise, if I new some things earlier I'd have a smaller mortgage and a bigger home.

deisedevil

I was wondering does anyone now how the money back for renting system works? i know you can claim some of it back but was wondering if anyone knows what % of it can you get back and when do you get it, at the end of the year or when? where do you apply for it?obviously i haven't looked into it yet just lookin to see if anyone else has been doing it?

Andrew Duffy

You fill out a RENT1 form, which you can have posted to you, pick up in the tax office off O'Connell Street, or print out from oasis.gov.ie. Despite what someone says on these boards at least once a week, you don't need your landlord's PPSN and sending in the form will not cause him any trouble whatsoever, even if he is putting your rent into funding wars in Angola or whatever else takes his fancy.

When you send in the form you will get sent a new tax credits certificate, as will your employer, with the princely sum of 300 euros added to your credits. To get the full 300 you have to pay 1500 euros per year in rent; this is undoubtedly the case.

Andrew Duffy

A smallish property rise will make 5 years of your saving disappear

No it won't. It will make mortgage repayments higher, and will effectively devalue savings used to purchase property by ten percent of the rise. Example: a nice penthouse is 600,000 now and I don't have 60,000 for a deposit. In two years time a similar apartment in a building next door is 650,000 (4% increase each year) and by that stage I do have 65,000 for a deposit. The loan amount will be 585,000 rather than 540,000 - an increase of less than 200 per month on repayments at 3.5% over 35 years.

Next year house prices and building prices are going to jump as the SSIA money becomes active. I would guess next year there will be a 20% rise.

This is a reasonable concern, and one I share. However, the age profile of SSIA holders tends towards mid-thirties who are more likely to use the money to fund car purchases or holidays, as surveys have borne out. Any large increases in price due to SSIA cash coming on stream are likely to affect lower-end properties in any case.

I was around when the software industry took the stock value dive.

So was I. I can afford to lose the money I have invested in my (private) company, but would rather not. The sale of the company is the difference between a stamp-duty exempt new apartment and a 6% (thanks Mr. Cowen) or 9% liable period house requiring restoration.

MorningStar

Andrew Duffy wrote:

No it won't. It will make mortgage repayments higher, and will effectively devalue savings used to purchase property by ten percent of the rise. Example: a nice penthouse is 600,000 now and I don't have 60,000 for a deposit. In two years time a similar apartment in a building next door is 650,000 (4% increase each year) and by that stage I do have 65,000 for a deposit. The loan amount will be 585,000 rather than 540,000 - an increase of less than 200 per month on repayments at 3.5% over 35 years.

That's €85k but I guess not a huge deal over 35 years. No matter how much money you make it has got to be advisable not to waste money. House prices have already gone up 4% so far this year by the end of the year it will be at least 6%. 50K increase still costs you one way or the other. The normal idea is to minimise the cost not let it increase. No matter what way you look at it if waiting 2 years to get into property and it costs you 50k and it took you 5 years to save 45k it wastes that saving.

Andrew Duffy wrote:

This is a reasonable concern, and one I share. However, the age profile of SSIA holders tends towards mid-thirties who are more likely to use the money to fund car purchases or holidays, as surveys have borne out. Any large increases in price due to SSIA cash coming on stream are likely to affect lower-end properties in any case.

It probably won't have a direct effect on the high end of the market but the market is an entire entity. People in their mid 30s are moving up the property ladder and a sudden cash boost will be likely used on their home either to extend or to move up the ladder . By not considering this you are missing a big part of what happens in the market. The market is now staggered so people are not staying in the first house they buy.

Andrew Duffy wrote:

So was I. I can afford to lose the money I have invested in my (private) company, but would rather not. The sale of the company is the difference between a stamp-duty exempt new apartment and a 6% (thanks Mr. Cowen) or 9% liable period house requiring restoration.

You seem to understand the figures in general but I don't get why you simply dismiss the way the property market is generally understood. You seem to be saying I am going to earn so much money in the future I don't care what the price of the house I want is. Am I getting you wrong?

If that's your thinking I really recommmend you research property markets and history. My family have been involved in property all my life so it has been a constant issue to us. If you can afford a 50k in two years it makes sense to buy a small investment property first. Check with an estate agent and ask how many people buy this level of properrty as a first time buyer. If there are none or few you should think why.

Andrew Duffy

People in their mid 30s are moving up the property ladder and a sudden cash boost will be likely used on their home either to extend or to move up the ladder

As I mentioned, surveys since the SSIA scheme started have found that very few holders intend to reinvest in any way. Of course, a survey is not a perfect prediction.

I don't care what the price of the house I want is

More-or-less. Obviously I would like a trophy home on Shrewsbury road but it's not realistic. The type of property I want is affordable for a couple with moderately high incomes so long as the initial deposit and stamp duty can be met.

I really recommmend you research property markets and history

I see second-hand starter properties sitting on the market due to the staggering numbers of competing properties being built new. I'm not prepared to live in an area I don't like for any length of time, and I'm not prepared to be stuck in a chain while the property I want is sold to someone else.

Besides, if you look at history you won't find an example of a boom that was created by a sustained and massive growth in prosperity and inward migration like ours.

If you can afford a 50k in two years it makes sense to buy a small investment property first

Well, barring a change in my employment situation which would mean as many problems with a debt of 300K as 600k, I'll be able to afford a new-build apartment of the type I'd be happy with in two years. So why would I buy a small property? I'd have to live in it for about three years before selling would be worthwhile, and since the price of the property I'd like would also have increased the overall effect on mortgage repayments would be small. I would also have used up my first time buyer status which is worth 1.5% of the price of a property under 635K - this could well wipe out any remaining gain.