https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-10-18/record-house-and-rent…
I find the entire premise of this article absolutely absurd. Granted, the concept that home ownership is beyond reach due to circumstances that are outside of a person's control seems to be something we can all sympathise/empathise with.
That is, until you get to the second paragraph:
The 35-year-old teacher lives in Sydney's south-west and has been saving to buy a property for four years, ever since she moved out of her family's home.
Both she and her husband save 10 per cent of their pay cheque towards a deposit
- She only started saving at age 31?
- She is only setting aside 10% of her pay?
I might be missing something here, but this reeks of entitlement.
How can anyone choose to spend their entire disposable income until the age of 31 then complain four years later that they cannot afford to buy a home.
I personally started setting aside money when I first started earning money - before I was even 15. I am just over double that age now and have 2 apartments - both with approximately 50% equity and 50% loan outstanding. No help from family or otherwise.
Since @GrueHunter was kind enough to try and challenge my numbers:
To anyone that thinks this couple can't save more than 10% of their income, have a look at a brief weekly budget below, and tell me what else you add that accounts for spending the rest of your disposable income of $1,700 per week after rental expenses.
$160k gross income - let's say $120k clear after tax.
$620/week rent. That's $32.2k/year.
So they clear just shy of $90k/year, which is $1,700 per week for bills and food.
The below expenses total $612 per week. Add whatever you want as monthly subscriptions. But that couple could be saving MUCH more than 10%.
| Items | Weekly | Monthly | Quarterly | Yearly | TOTAL WEEKLY |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Electricity | $ (300) | $ (23) | |||
| Gas | $ (100) | $ (8) | |||
| Water | $ (200) | $ (15) | |||
| Contents Insurance | $ (1,000) | $ (19) | |||
| Fuel | $ (40) | $ (40) | |||
| Car Insurance | $ (900) | $ (17) | |||
| Car CTP | $ (600) | $ (12) | |||
| Car Rego | $ (300) | $ (6) | |||
| Car Payments | $ (500) | $ (115) | |||
| Health Insurance | $ (397) | $ (92) | |||
| Gym | $ (100) | $ (23) | |||
| Mobile 1 | $ (60) | $ (14) | |||
| Mobile 2 | $ (60) | $ (14) | |||
| Internet | $ (60) | $ (14) | |||
| Groceries | $ (200) | $ (200) |
Indeed it all adds up.
But my argument back should be - the number of kids you (plan to) have should at least be partially influenced by your ability to financially support them.
Having 1 kid is an enourmous expense. Have 2 is even more so.
If you're planning to buy a home, then all your daily and future expected expenses (including kids) should be taken into consideration to determine what you can and can't afford to focus your discretionary spending on.
You can't just go about spending your entire disposable income, have 2 kids, and then complain that you can't afford a house.