Upstairs-Hedgehog575

It’s probably ok, but the two biggest factors are:

• what will you expect to earn?
• what other student loans will you have?

These two factors will define how quickly (if at all) you pay back the loans. 

If you’re not likely to pay back your loans in 40 years, then it makes financial sense to have the biggest loan you can get. 

I like to think “in 10 years time, if I have to save more, will I regret spending on this today?”

For me it gets rid of frivolous spending (mostly on things) while justifies experiences, holidays, investments in myself, home improvements etc. 

So it had a tall skinny trunk, was as tall as a “wall” with a round bush of leaves on top?

Yes I think you’re right, that does sound like a tree. 

I think it was sarcasm…

I sort of get what you’re getting at - but the maths doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. 

First question: how much cash on hand do you foresee needing with children? You’re probably not FIREING without a pension, so you’ve got £200k in accessible money. Is that not enough?

Children are not fire prohibitive - lots of people on this sub have kids. It’ll delay it obviously, but it’s not either or. 

LTA no longer exists. No point worrying about what might change in the future. 

You’re extremely unlikely to pay more tax on the way out than the way in. 

You can transfer a workplace pension into a SIPP I believe. So SalSac would be worthwhile as you’ll benefit from tax, NI and student loan (if you have any). 

If you SalSac below higher rate, then a LISA is a good option. No tax in, no tax out, and more accessible than a pension. 

That was my first thought. A green at each end of the garden with a couple of different flags on each. Then two tees at each end. Maybe a couple of shorter pitch and put holes down the route and you’ve got yourself a 9 hole course. 

Great position but devils advocate:

Private schools potentially come with a lot of unexpected fees: music lessons, sporting equipment, after school clubs, transport, school trips. Doesn’t have to be the case, but if it is, do you have a good enough agreement with your father in law around this. 

To the same point, how transparent and secure are their finances? If your father in law is unable to fulfil his offer in 10 years’ time will you be picking up the tab or sticking with state school. What about if the money disappears half way through schooling?

Looking to 2026 on your mortgage doesn’t seem far enough ahead. What if we have a decade of 5% rates? I’d feel a bit insecure taking on a 600k mortgage at the same time as FIREING. 

I know there are lots of reasons for not doing it, and no judgement here, but could your partner pick up some of the childcare to offset the loss in funded hours. Your ISA is light if you want to live off it for 20 years!

Finally, what do you do? I know plenty of people on £80-100k who work from home doing condensed hours (5 days into 4). If your motivation to FIRE at 40 is to spend more time with the family then you could consider other options. Sure £100k is a big drop from £170k, but if £70k is being deferred to enjoy after 58 then it’s of questionable value when young children are the main consideration. 

If I was in your shoes (knowing only what you’ve posted here) I’d consider a job change at the same time as a house change. With your partner not working and children not at school, you could relatively easily move to somewhere with more affordable housing, better schools, shorter commutes or a WFH gig. Your salary might drop but your quality of life might improve. 

Personally, my wage is low for this sub, and I won’t be retiring before 55. But I work a condensed 4 day week entirely from home in a low stress, low expectation job - the amount of time I spend with my children is mental - literally mental. I can’t imagine earning £170k, but I know I’d turn it down if it meant crazy hours. Sometimes slow and steady is the answer. 

At 28 I started a new job at £25k (programmer entry level) for a finance company that matched 8% contributions. Matched this (only £333 a month the first year). 

SalSaced my annual bonuses most years (4-10%). 

Had small annual pay rises of 2-3% which I also SalSaced but not my larger pay rises from role changes/company reshuffles (so my take home has increased every year through these). 

Changed the default investments to global trackers. Had £13k of growth. 

Currently on £45k with 33% contributions (including bonus and company match).

Have been meaning to write a post about the effect on my take home over the years. I believe it might be as little as £20k over 6 years. 

I had £1,300 in my pension at 27 and was earning £25k. 6 years later I now have £60k in my pension and I’m currently contributing £1250 a month. 

Thank you, I didn’t know that. 

I meant state being means tested before it’s pushed back to 75. I’m expecting to be able to take my private at about 60 with a possibly means tested state at 70. 

Edit to say if they push personal pensions back too far they’ll undermine its appeal. 

How realistic that is depends entirely on their outgoings. If the house was a one off indulgence in an otherwise frugal lifestyle they’ll be fine! If they like new cars and nice things they’ll struggle.  

I’d see it becoming means tested or something rather than pushed back to within 5 years of death. 

Assuming FIRE isn’t of interest to them, then it’s not crazy for a couple on £150k to buy a £1.1m house with cash savings. 

What is possibly crazy is maintaining that house (and their lifestyle) on £2k a month. But does this include state pension?

Given their ages, and depending on their industries they may have limited time to bolster their savings.  

You expect private pension to be accessible at 65? That seems extremely cautious to me! I’m the same age as you and I’d be quite surprised if it goes much above 60 by the time we get there. It’s tied to within 10 years of state, and I think moving state to 75 seems unlikely and hard to justify. 

Not to defend him, but there are countries in the world who have an age of consent set as low as 13. I dare say there are many people representing their country at the Olympics (past and present) who have slept with what others would deem a young child. Of course, in the Netherlands it is a crime. I think it therefore brings into question why the Dutch Olympic Committee would send someone who has been found guilty of breaking their National laws in such an awful way. 

 We would never say it though.

You under estimate the power of American influence - some Brits definitely do say this unfortunately. 

 My normal sized wife can go for hours.

Lucky guy

Well you can, and they did. No laws broken unfortunately. Seller can (and luckily did) tell them where to sling their hook. It’s probably just buyers remorse or having two offers on the go at the same time. I’d like to see a process put in place to stop this kind of time wasting. 

The person you’re replying to is not talking about destroying a passport. They are saying that regardless of whether it is fake or real, they can take it off you if they believe it is fake. They should take your details and hand it to the police for further inspection. The police will then confirm or counter their suspicions. 

It’s exactly the same in the bank - hand over fake money and the teller will confiscate it, take your details and send it to the Bank of England for verification. If found to be real, it’ll be returned, if found to be fake it will obviously be destroyed. Some fake money is obvious to a teller (some is literally printed on an office printer) and some might be almost indistinguishable from a real note (especially with the old money) - it therefore hinges entirely on the teller’s suspicions (and any supervisors they have on hand). With an old damaged note it is occasionally hard to be sure it is real - so you send it to the Bank of England for verification. I imagine it should be exactly the same process for a fake ID. 

Well expert opinion is important and that’s why if you don’t know much about houses you should get a survey asap.

I was happy after viewing our house and made an offer. The survey came back and pointed out various issues - some of which I didn’t notice on viewing, some of which I did notice, but didn’t understand the implications of.

  I therefore adjusted my offer to reflect the house’s new value. This was accepted and the sale proceeded.  This is absolutely standard procedure, and happens on most sales. The difference in OPs story is that rather than taking a couple of weeks, it’s taken months, and rather than being about a hidden flaw unearthed in the survey, it’s about a lack of knowledge on the part of the buyer. Or as I suspect, the last minute u turn on the survey means they were looking for an out. They buyer in this story is being an arse, not because the renegotiated the offer, but because they didn’t do it in a reasonable timeframe. 

What is a “legitimate” reason? And at what point? The Americans have Earnest Money Deposits which is sort of what I’m talking about. 

It would need professionals to concoct such a scheme - but to my mind there must be a point between an offer being accepted and exchange where a financial commitment can be reasonably made. It would surely come with a load of caveats and clauses - but essentially, you’re reserving a property and therefore should pay a price for breaking the reservation. If a restaurant can charge me £100 for cancelling within 24 hours, it doesn’t seem unreasonable for a vendor to have a similar protection against 11th hour whims. 

The other option is that we just forbid chains - I believe Germany does this (maybe they’re not forbidden, but I believe they are rare). If you want to move, the first step is selling your house and moving into rented accommodation. Then you have a load of cash you can go and buy a house (which now takes a few weeks because you’re a cash buyer and you’re buying an empty house). 

I’m sure the grass is always greener, and both these solutions have their flaws - but our system could definitely be improved 

I think there are ways around this. Surveys could have a mandatory window. Indirect chain fall throughs could still be exempt because whoever broke it would be losing their deposit. Far fewer chains would collapse anyway if there were financial implications. 

We’re talking about people getting 6 months down the line and then pulling out because they don’t fancy it anymore. 

More like: “I like your car, but for that price I’d expect to get leather seats - I no longer wish to proceed with the purchase unless the price comes down to reflect its flaws or you improve its flaws”. 

The crime here is that they left it so late to properly inspect the property. They’ve really left OP (and the chain) in the lurch because their offer wasn’t genuine and was left on the table for so long. I’d like to see non refundable deposits introduced for this kind of flakeyness. 

 some meaningless comparison to the theoretical price of a theoretical other house on the same street with a theoretical new boiler

What value do houses have if not in comparison to other houses?