http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/pers ... ldren.html


I can see this becoming a serious problem.

Insurance companies penalise single, young and especially male drivers. Welcome to the real world, except that having children is a choice and already subsidised.

I was thinking that it might be more down to evictions. It might be considerably harder if kids are involved. Having a partner can be even more financially draining than kids.

At least in comparison to the consequences of lending people money they can't afford to repay as soon as the interest rate climbs by a small increment I don't see it as a problem. There are plenty of places up for rent round my way, hardly any for sale. If you can't afford to buy, rent. That's what I did. There is a peculiarly British idea that you have a 'right' to own your home. Firstly, you don't. You have a right to shelter but that's a mile away from owning a property. Secondly, if you have a mortgage, you don't actually own it anyway, you're just renting it off a bank rather than landlord (except of course the bank has virtually none of the legal responsibilities a landlord does).

When I took out a mortgage on my place, the maximum any bank would give me was three times my income (which was a lot less than it is now, as well). My brother bought a house about five years ago and his mortgage was four times his and his wife's joint incomes. I'm fairly comfortable with my payments, he's bricking it every time the base rate rises by half a percent. Which of us has a 'serious problem'?

If we don't give people outlandish mortgages, they won't buy houses at outlandish prices. Thus the price of property will fall and lower income buyers (and those being sensible about the amount of money they borrow) will be able to afford to mortgage a property. I don't see how any of this is a problem at all.

Jon

I am not disagreeing with you. The problem is that with out children people will have to save a lot more to provide for their pensions and possible care. It was that aspect I was thinking of. It is like children are a huge extra liability. Extra heating will be minimal, Council tax would not be affected. Phone bills could be higher but only if you do not have a sensible call plan that the kids stick to. Landline calls can be free. I actually think that the reasoning is more as a way of raising margins on mortgages. I totally agree about the renting from a bank but if you tell people that they will not listen.


That is why I think mortgages should have a maximum loan to income ratio. Banks told the government that things were different now and we were under a new paradigm. Which has all being shown to be crap. House prices will fall and those with income multiples of 3 or less will cope better than those that took out loans with much higher multiples.


I was thinking that a mortgage drought is excellent. As long as the new tighter rules are maintained. If they relax them in future then we will have the same problem with property bubbles.

The biggest issue will be for first time buyers who are just finishing their first 2/3 year fixed deal. A lot of first time buyers don't have children when they buy, but have them shortly afterwards. It won't be an issue for people who've have their mortgage for a while as they'll have more equity, so won't need to borrow as much when they renew.
I can see more first time buyers going for longer term fixed deals as a results of this (5 years or longer if they're available).

News to those who don't have them yet...CHILDREN ARE.....EXPENSIVE


Been there, still doing that!

Yes, we know, that's why we don't have them yet

They do not have to be expensive. Yes if you buy everything new and go over the top. But second hand baby clothes are perfectly fine. Reusable nappies can reduce the costs. You just need to be organised. Loads of people on benefits do it and they do not get any more other than child benefit.

We use reusable nappies, breast feed and got most of our clothes and kit second hand, and as a result, haven't really noticed any great rise in our living costs.

However, I suspect she will start costing a lot more as she gets older.

Yes but invariably families adjust to their spending to their incomes. People cope.

I notices last year that they started asking the question "Will you be carrying children in the car?". I was wondering what the motive behind that was. Are parents more likely to be distracted by a kid throwing a toy at them from the back seat?

Really? It's been a long time but they used to just ask if it was for SDP, business or both.

Probably because you will take the kids on the school run which is probably the most dangerous route of all. Will parents have to muzzle the kids and put them in cages now?

It's true; the number of kids killed or maimed on the way to school is over 9000 higher than it was just 30 years ago when everyone walked or took the bus. Most of them are run over by their friend's mum's Chelsea Tractor.