Should I buy a house or am I making silly assumptions that I can afford it?
"The (interest bearing) mortgage of £300,000 would be SIX times your salary. That's a ratio that was found in Japan, and (I believe) was a main reason for their depressed economy of the past two decades. Even with an interest free loan of nearly £150,000, it would be a huge gamble for someone of your income. Essentially, you are gambling that 1) your income will ""grow"" into your mortgage, (and that's counting income from renting part of the property) or 2) the house will rise in value, thereby bailing you out. That was a gamble that many Americans took, and lost, in the past ten years. If you do this, you may be one of the ""lucky"" ones, you may not, but you are really taking your future in your hands.  The American rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5-3 times income, that is maybe up to £150,000. Perhaps £200,000 if £50,000 or so of that is interest free. But not to the numbers you're talking about." The rules of thumb are there for a reason. In this case, they reflect good banking and common sense by the buyer. When we bought our house 15 years ago it cost 2.5 times our salary and we put 20% down, putting the mortgage at exactly 2X our income. My wife thought we were stretching ourselves, getting too big a house compared to our income. You are proposing buying a house valued at 7X your income. Granted, rates have dropped in these 15 years, so pushing 3X may be okay, the 26% rule still needs to be followed. You are proposing to put nearly 75% of your income to the mortgage? Right? The regular payment plus the 25K/yr saved to pay that interest free loan? Wow.  You are over reaching by double, unless the rental market is so tight that you can actually rent two rooms out to cover over half the mortgage.  Consider talking to a friendly local banker, he (or she) will likely give you the same advice we are. These ratios don't change too much by country, interest rate and mortgages aren't that different. I wish you well, welcome to SE. "Having convinced myself that there is no point of paying someone's   else mortgage Somewhat rhetorical this many years later, but I expect some other kid forcefed the obsession with propping up the housing market might be repeating the nonsense about ""paying someone else's mortgage"" and read this. Will you be buying your own farm to grow your own food, or are you happy with people using the money you spend on food for a mortgage? How about clothes? Will you be weaving your own clothes because you don't want money you spend on clothes to pay someone else's mortgage? What's special about the money you pay for rent that you get annoyed at how someone else spends it? Don't get a mortgage just because you don't like the idea of how other people might spend the money that's no longer yours after you pay them with it. As an aside, at your age with your income and no debt, you could be sensibly investing a lot of money. If you did that for five years, you'd be in a much better position that you would be tying yourself to whatever current scheme the UK is using to desperately prop up house prices." A common rule of thumb is the 28/36 ratio. It's described here. In your case, with a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that means that you should spend no more than 28% of it, or £1,167 per month on housing. You may be able to swing a bit more because you have no debts and a modest amount in your savings. The 36% part comes in as the amount you can spend servicing all your debt, including mortgage. In your case, based on a gross (?) salary of £50,000, that'd be £1,500 per month. Again, that is to cover your housing costs and any additional debt you are servicing. So, you need to figure out how much you could bring in through rent to make up the rest. As at least one other person has commented, the rule of thumb is that your mortgage should be no more than 2.5 - 3 times your income. I personally think you are not a good candidate for a mortgage of the size you are discussing. That said, I no longer live in England. If you could feel fairly secure getting someone to pay you enough in rent to bring down your total mortgage and loan repayment amounts to £1,500 or so a month, you may want to consider it. Remember, though, that it may not always be easy to find renters. When I bought my own place, mortgage lenders worked on 3 x salary basis.  Admittedly that was joint salary - eg you and spouse could sum your salaries.   Relaxing this ratio is one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. You are shrewd (my view) to realise that buying is better than renting.  But you also should consider the short term likely movement in house prices.  I think this could be down.  If prices continue to fall, buying gets easier the longer you wait. When house prices do hit rock bottom, and you are sure they have, then you can afford to take a gamble.  Lets face it, if prices are moving up, even if you lose your job and cannot pay, you can sell and you have potentially gained the increase in the period when it went up. Also remember that getting the mortgage is the easy bit.  Paying in the longer term is the really hard part of the deal.
"Short answer: NO.  Do NOT buy a house.  Houses are a ""luxury"" good (see Why is a house not an investment?).  Although the experience of the early 2000s seemed to convince most people otherwise, houses are not an investment.  Historically, it has usually been cheaper to rent, because owning a house has non-pecuniary benefits such as the ability to change things around to exactly the way you like them.  Consult a rent vs. buy calculator for your area to see if your area is exceptional.  I also would not rely on the mortgage interest deduction for the long term, as it seems increasingly likely the Federal government will do away with it at some point. The first thing you must do is eliminate your credit card and other debts.  Try to delay paying your lawyers and anyone else who is not charging you interest (or threatening to harm you in other ways) as long as possible.  Save enough money to maintain your current standard of living for 6 months should you lose your job, then put the rest in your 401(k). Another word of advice: learn to live with less.  Your kids do not need separate bedrooms.  Hopefully one day the time will come when you can afford a larger house, but it should not be your highest priority.  You and your kids will all be worse off in the end should you have unexpected financial difficulties and you have overextended yourself to buy a house. Now that your credit score is up, see if you can renegotiate your credit card loans or negotiate a new loan with lower interest." Do you want a house?  Sounds like you do.  Did you think about what it will take to own a run a house?  I am betting you have.  Buying a home shouldn't be about an investment in anything other than you happiness and you sure seem conscientious and ready. Your worries are good ones, but don't forget about unemployment insurance, that as responsible people you can get another job.  Do you have a life insurance policy?  If you really really can't afford your payments, you can try to sell the house because you should have plenty of equity per your plans. Furthermore, chances are you will earn more in your paychecks over your lifetime.   Think about what features you want, shop the market hard, take time and buy a house on reason rather than love.  Don't you dare love the house until you buy it. This is how its done  I am a certain french bank, aka sg  I have some PIIGS debt, I can use this as collateral at face value (100), with the ECB in order to secure cash... Lets say I use 1mn of BTPS (italian debt), this has an MTM (clean) of 88.  I use that 88 to get me 100 (1mn) of cash, from which I buy another BTPS, for (88), of which I use as collateral pledged to the ECB to get this, get another BTPS.  So now I am long 3 BTPS, all pledged to the ECB and I have 36 in cash and I owe the ECB 300+r in 3 years.  remember the yield on my shitty btps is a lot higher than the interest on the deposits.  Secondly, I have three years, so I don't need to give a fuck about the mark to market on the notes (I could even buy a 2 year and n month note maturing just before). So I can make some free yield at the ECB's expense.  Also this frees up 36 in cash, of which I can use to meet short term funding instead of tapping the bond market, this trade can be made infinitely, although the ECB might catch on.  You can view it as getting a mortgage on your house to buy another house, then mortgaging house #2 to buy house #3, and so on. I would say generally, the answer is No.   There might be some short term relief to people in certain situations, but generally speaking you sign a contract to borrow money and you are responsible to pay.  This is why home loans offer better terms then auto loans, and auto loans better than credit cards or things like furniture.  The better terms offer less risk to the lender because there are assets that can be repossessed.  Homes retain values better than autos, autos better than furniture, and credit cards are not secured at all. People are not as helpless as your question suggests.  Sure a person might lose their high paying job, but could they still make a mortgage payment if they worked really hard at it?  This might mean taking several part time jobs.  Now if a person buys a home that has a very large mortgage payment this might not be possible.  However, wise people don't buy every bit of house they can afford.   People should also be wise about the kinds of mortgages they use to buy a home.  Many people lost their homes due to missing a payment on their interest only loan.  Penalty rates and fees jacked up their payment, that was way beyond their means.  If they had a fixed rate loan the chance to catch up would have not been impossible. Perhaps an injury might prevent a person from working.  This is why long term disability insurance is a must for most people.  You can buy quite a bit of coverage for not very much money. Typical US households have quite a bit of debt.  Car payments, phone payments, and either a mortgage or rent, and of course credit cards.  If income is drastically reduced making all of those payments becomes next to impossible.  Which one gets paid first.  Just this last week, I attempted to help a client in just this situation.  They foolishly chose to pay the credit card first, and were going to pay the house payment last (if there was anything left over).  There wasn't, and they are risking eviction (renters).     People finding themselves in crisis, generally do a poor job of paying the most important things first.  Basic food first, housing and utilities second, etc...  Let the credit card slip if need be no matter how often one is threatened by creditors.  They do this to maintain their credit score, how foolish. I feel like you have a sense of bondage associated with debt.  It is there and real despite many people noticing it.  There is also the fact that compounding interest is working against you and with your labor you are enriching the bank.  This is a great reason to have the goal of living a debt free life.  I can tell you it is quite liberating. "Here in the UK, the rule of thumb is to keep a lot of equity in your home if you can. I assume here that you have a lot of savings you're considering using. If you only have say 10% of the house price you wouldn't actually have a lot of choice in the matter, the mortgage lender will penalise you heavily for low deposits. The practical minimum is 5%, but for most people a 95% mortgage is just silly (albeit not as silly as the 100% or greater mortgages you could get pre-2008), and you should take serious individual advice before considering it. According to Which, the average in the UK for first-time buyers is 20% (not the best source for that data I confess, but a convenient one). Above 20% is not at all unusual. You'll do an affordability calculation to figure out how much you can borrow, which isn't at all the same as how much you should borrow, but does get you started. Basically you, decide how much a month you can spend on mortgage payments. The calculation will let you put every penny into this if you choose to, but in practice you'll want some discretionary income so don't do that. decide the term of the mortgage. For a young first-time buyer in the UK I think you'd typically take a 25-year term and consider early repayment options rather than committing to a shorter term, but you don't have to. Mortgage lenders will offer shorter terms as long as you can afford the payments. decide how much you're putting into a deposit make subtractions for cost of moving (stamp duty if applicable, fees, removals aka ""people to lug your stuff""). receive back a number which is the house price you can pay under these constraints (and of course a breakdown of what the mortgage principle would be, and the interest rate you'll pay). This step requires access to lender information, since their rates depend on personal details, deposit percentage, phase of the moon, etc. Our mortgage advisor did multiple runs of the calculation for us for different scenarios, since we hadn't made up our minds entirely. Since you have not yet decided how much deposit to make, you can use multiple calculations to see the effect of different deposits you might make, up to a limit of your total savings. Putting up more deposit both increases the amount you can borrow for a given monthly payment (since mortgage rates are lower when the loan is a lower proportion of house value), and of course increases the house price you can afford. So unless you're getting a very high return on your savings, £1 of deposit gets you somewhat more than £1 of house, and the calculation will tell you how much more. Once you've chosen the house you want, the matter is even simpler: do you prefer to put your savings in the house and borrow less and make lower payments, or prefer to put your savings elsewhere and borrow more and make higher payments but perhaps have some additional income from the savings. Assuming you maintain a contingency fund, a lower mortgage is generally considered a good investment in the UK, but you need to check what's right for you and compare it to other investments you could make. The issue is complicated by the fact that residential property prices are rising quite quickly in most areas of the UK, and have been for a long time, meaning that highly-leveraged property investment appears to be a really good idea. This leads to the imprudent, but tempting, conclusion that you should buy the biggest house you can possibly afford and watch its value rises. I do not endorse this advice personally, but it's certainly true that in a sharply rising house market it's easier to get away with buying a bigger house than you need, than it is to get away with it in a flat or falling market. As Stephen says, an offset mortgage is a no-brainer good idea if the rate is the same. Unfortunately in the UK, the rate isn't the same (or anyway, it wasn't a couple of years ago). Offset mortgages are especially good for those who make a lot of savings from income and for any reason don't want to commit all of those savings to a traditional mortgage payment. Good reasons for not wanting to do that include uncertainty about your future income and a desire to have the flexibility to actually spend some of it if you fancy :-)" It seems very risky have all of your net worth in this one home. If I were to buy the house, I'm not sure I would put that much down, consider 20% and keep cash on hand, in retirement assets, etc. I would look at how much a mortgage, plus interest, taxes, insurance, etc. would cost with 50% down and with 20% down and see how that impacts your cash flow. Renting may make more sense, it's hard to tell without more specifics (NYTimes Rent/Buy calculator is a nice tool), but regardless, I would not want to have so much net worth tied into one asset and so would opt for less money down if I were to buy. Focus on rebuilding some retirement assets. Mortgage qualification is typically done based on pretax income. To keep the math easy, let's assume $10K/month gross.  A well written loan allows 28% or $2800 to be used for the mortgage and property tax. Property tax varies, but 1% is the average of the 2 states mentioned. This results in $7500/yr property or $625/mo tax leaving $2175/mo. Note here - OP stated $750K house.  $2175 will finance $450K at 4%/30 years. $2175 will finance $300K at 3.5% /15years. Let me pause here. Facts are most important to make these decisions. Unless you're clear on gross income, which may be higher, the constraints above quickly come into play.  Once the numbers are spelled out, you may find that you are qualified to only borrow $350K based on a 30 year note. Nathan's $2500 payment was correct, but for the mortgage only. Add property tax and you'd be at $3125. You'd need a gross $11,160/mo. to meet the 28% rule.  The above discussion would render any further thoughts (of mine) moot. "In most parts of the US, even the more expensive parts, a $100k income can afford the rent or mortgage on a reasonably safe* 2-3 bedroom home within an hour commute of your work, plus the means to commute, plus health insurance, plus retirement savings, plus at least some discretionary income (i.e., choice between living in a nicer neighborhood, eating out more often, buying brand-name apparel, etc). In some places, $100k affords a very comfortable lifestyle, with plenty of savings.   A lot of people who live in or around big, expensive cities think it is outrageous that their $100k income doesn't get them a designer apartment, a wardrobe full of fitted suits, eating out twice a week, two overseas vacations per year, etc. They confuse not having a Hollywood lifestyle, with being poor. Those are some of the most obnoxious people in the world.   *because this post is sure to draw the ire of some privileged people who think that ""reasonably safe"" means top 5%, I will offer the definition of ""reasonably safe"" as one of the top three quintiles of US zip codes with lowest violent crime rates per capita."