Relatives who just don't get it

[Dragonswan]

Hmmm.  Were you with him when they turned him down?  Because he might be just saying that to save face, not realizing that his credit score is poor for a good reason.

[Frankies Girl]

My dad told me this weekend that he and mom have refinanced their house.  Again.  I've lost track of how many times they've done this.  At least 4 or 5 since I've been old enough to understand what they're doing.  He says he's going to pay off the mortgage, a HELOC, and "some other bills" (i.e. they've run the credit cards up again and this should also take care of a loan they took out to cover some disasterous dealings with the SBA/FEMA).  Apparently it's a 30 year note that he plans on paying off when hell freezes over in six years. 

First of all, who the hell approves a 65 year-old man a 30 year mortgage?  My concern right now is that the life insurance policy he took out 28 years ago when they built the house will end and then he'll die, leaving mom (who has never bothered to learn jack about the finances) to deal with the fallout.  The only, and I mean only, saving grace of all of this is that the interest rate is only 4 point something percent.

Sounds like a serious talk with your mom is in order.  As in, "Mom, if you don't have enough life insurance on Dad to pay off this house, I won't bail you out.   That means you write the damn check so he doesn't decide he doesn't need it and cancel it without telling you.  And while you're at it, take a closer look at your finances so you don't have to be like SwordGuy's mom, who didn't have an f'ing clue what the state of her finances was when her husband died.  She didn't know what they owed, who they owed it to, or how much money they had coming in."

Sometimes bluntness is what's needed.

Unfortunately, the last time I tried to have this talk with her, the response was basically "stay in your own lane." 

It's complicated a bit by the fact that the house I live in is the one she inherited from her parents.  I've been given the option to buy it, but have thus far chosen to keep "renting" for various reasons (what that means is that I pay the property tax and insurance plus handle any maintenance issues that arise).  As far as I know, the house I live in has not been put up as collateral for anything.

Um... I honestly wouldn't say another word to them including that you mom is on her own if your dad dies. I think you have a blindspot towards your position vs their position. You are not standing on a firm foundation of being 100% self-supporting yourself.

Your living in a house heavily subsidized by their generosity. Getting a house for prop taxes/maintenance - so rent/mortgage free - seems kind of tone deaf to be overly critical of their money choices. And to say you're not going to help them when they are obviously helping you? I really think it's kind of bad to do this. They've avoided selling that house you're living in for reasons only they know, and your 65 year old dad refinanced their own house instead of just telling you to either buy the one you are living in or get ready to move as they're selling it.

I'm hoping this is just me reading this wrong, but you are coming off to me as very ungrateful and taking advantage of them by not paying at least fair market rate rent AND now are criticizing their attempts to stay solvent. Sure they likely are too spendy, but that could have been solved (or at least kicked the can down the road a ways) by selling your house or charging you actual rent...  I truly am not trying to be mean or hurtful to you/about you, but this is how it's coming across to me. :(

[better late]

My dad told me this weekend that he and mom have refinanced their house.  Again.  I've lost track of how many times they've done this.  At least 4 or 5 since I've been old enough to understand what they're doing.  He says he's going to pay off the mortgage, a HELOC, and "some other bills" (i.e. they've run the credit cards up again and this should also take care of a loan they took out to cover some disasterous dealings with the SBA/FEMA).  Apparently it's a 30 year note that he plans on paying off when hell freezes over in six years. 

First of all, who the hell approves a 65 year-old man a 30 year mortgage?  My concern right now is that the life insurance policy he took out 28 years ago when they built the house will end and then he'll die, leaving mom (who has never bothered to learn jack about the finances) to deal with the fallout.  The only, and I mean only, saving grace of all of this is that the interest rate is only 4 point something percent.

Sounds like a serious talk with your mom is in order.  As in, "Mom, if you don't have enough life insurance on Dad to pay off this house, I won't bail you out.   That means you write the damn check so he doesn't decide he doesn't need it and cancel it without telling you.  And while you're at it, take a closer look at your finances so you don't have to be like SwordGuy's mom, who didn't have an f'ing clue what the state of her finances was when her husband died.  She didn't know what they owed, who they owed it to, or how much money they had coming in."

Sometimes bluntness is what's needed.

Unfortunately, the last time I tried to have this talk with her, the response was basically "stay in your own lane." 

It's complicated a bit by the fact that the house I live in is the one she inherited from her parents.  I've been given the option to buy it, but have thus far chosen to keep "renting" for various reasons (what that means is that I pay the property tax and insurance plus handle any maintenance issues that arise).  As far as I know, the house I live in has not been put up as collateral for anything.

Given that information, if your father passes, be prepared to either buy the house at market value or move so the house can be sold. Your mother may need the money from the house.

Yeah, the only other option is for my mother to move in with us and that won't go well at all.

What am I missing?
Couldn’t she move into the house you are living in rent free and either allow you to live with her or she could ask you to leave...?

[Sugaree]

My dad told me this weekend that he and mom have refinanced their house.  Again.  I've lost track of how many times they've done this.  At least 4 or 5 since I've been old enough to understand what they're doing.  He says he's going to pay off the mortgage, a HELOC, and "some other bills" (i.e. they've run the credit cards up again and this should also take care of a loan they took out to cover some disasterous dealings with the SBA/FEMA).  Apparently it's a 30 year note that he plans on paying off when hell freezes over in six years. 

First of all, who the hell approves a 65 year-old man a 30 year mortgage?  My concern right now is that the life insurance policy he took out 28 years ago when they built the house will end and then he'll die, leaving mom (who has never bothered to learn jack about the finances) to deal with the fallout.  The only, and I mean only, saving grace of all of this is that the interest rate is only 4 point something percent.

Sounds like a serious talk with your mom is in order.  As in, "Mom, if you don't have enough life insurance on Dad to pay off this house, I won't bail you out.   That means you write the damn check so he doesn't decide he doesn't need it and cancel it without telling you.  And while you're at it, take a closer look at your finances so you don't have to be like SwordGuy's mom, who didn't have an f'ing clue what the state of her finances was when her husband died.  She didn't know what they owed, who they owed it to, or how much money they had coming in."

Sometimes bluntness is what's needed.

Unfortunately, the last time I tried to have this talk with her, the response was basically "stay in your own lane." 

It's complicated a bit by the fact that the house I live in is the one she inherited from her parents.  I've been given the option to buy it, but have thus far chosen to keep "renting" for various reasons (what that means is that I pay the property tax and insurance plus handle any maintenance issues that arise).  As far as I know, the house I live in has not been put up as collateral for anything.

Um... I honestly wouldn't say another word to them including that you mom is on her own if your dad dies. I think you have a blindspot towards your position vs their position. You are not standing on a firm foundation of being 100% self-supporting yourself.

Your living in a house heavily subsidized by their generosity. Getting a house for prop taxes/maintenance - so rent/mortgage free - seems kind of tone deaf to be overly critical of their money choices. And to say you're not going to help them when they are obviously helping you? I really think it's kind of bad to do this. They've avoided selling that house you're living in for reasons only they know, and your 65 year old dad refinanced their own house instead of just telling you to either buy the one you are living in or get ready to move as they're selling it.

I'm hoping this is just me reading this wrong, but you are coming off to me as very ungrateful and taking advantage of them by not paying at least fair market rate rent AND now are criticizing their attempts to stay solvent. Sure they likely are too spendy, but that could have been solved (or at least kicked the can down the road a ways) by selling your house or charging you actual rent...  I truly am not trying to be mean or hurtful to you/about you, but this is how it's coming across to me. :(

This is exactly why I don't talk about my housing situation often.  The reality of the situation is more nuanced than just "I'm being subsidized.". First off, if they *could* have rented this place out to non-family then they would have.  They tried to sell it and rent it and weren't successful at either.  To get a rental license from the city, the house needed several tens of thousands of dollars worth of work.  Rewiring the entire house more of less was the big one plus a whole list of little stuff like the rail on the front porch steps is 2" too short. They didn't have the money to bring it up to code.  I was asked to move in to keep the place from sitting empty (needed it to be occupied for the insurance or something).  Because I'm family, the city doesn't require a rental license for me to live here.  I guess it's okay for family members to live in a deathtrap or something (kidding...It's not that bad...anymore).  Living here was never my idea, and it's still not my forever plan, but  decisions have been made based on the assurances that I was given that it's mine as long as I want it.  Since that time, I've put nearly $20k into it.  I've had to replace the water heater, furnace (almost died from a gas leak that first winter), stove, dishwasher, fridge, six windows, and floors(though to be fair, the flooring and one of the windows was at least partially subsidized by insurance).  I am anticipating having to replace the HVAC compressor in the spring.  And the 1950s wiring is still an issue that's going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later.  It turns out that FMV rent would have been a hell of a lot cheaper, at least in the short term. 

[Sugaree]

My dad told me this weekend that he and mom have refinanced their house.  Again.  I've lost track of how many times they've done this.  At least 4 or 5 since I've been old enough to understand what they're doing.  He says he's going to pay off the mortgage, a HELOC, and "some other bills" (i.e. they've run the credit cards up again and this should also take care of a loan they took out to cover some disasterous dealings with the SBA/FEMA).  Apparently it's a 30 year note that he plans on paying off when hell freezes over in six years. 

First of all, who the hell approves a 65 year-old man a 30 year mortgage?  My concern right now is that the life insurance policy he took out 28 years ago when they built the house will end and then he'll die, leaving mom (who has never bothered to learn jack about the finances) to deal with the fallout.  The only, and I mean only, saving grace of all of this is that the interest rate is only 4 point something percent.

Sounds like a serious talk with your mom is in order.  As in, "Mom, if you don't have enough life insurance on Dad to pay off this house, I won't bail you out.   That means you write the damn check so he doesn't decide he doesn't need it and cancel it without telling you.  And while you're at it, take a closer look at your finances so you don't have to be like SwordGuy's mom, who didn't have an f'ing clue what the state of her finances was when her husband died.  She didn't know what they owed, who they owed it to, or how much money they had coming in."

Sometimes bluntness is what's needed.

Unfortunately, the last time I tried to have this talk with her, the response was basically "stay in your own lane." 

It's complicated a bit by the fact that the house I live in is the one she inherited from her parents.  I've been given the option to buy it, but have thus far chosen to keep "renting" for various reasons (what that means is that I pay the property tax and insurance plus handle any maintenance issues that arise).  As far as I know, the house I live in has not been put up as collateral for anything.

Um... I honestly wouldn't say another word to them including that you mom is on her own if your dad dies. I think you have a blindspot towards your position vs their position. You are not standing on a firm foundation of being 100% self-supporting yourself.

Your living in a house heavily subsidized by their generosity. Getting a house for prop taxes/maintenance - so rent/mortgage free - seems kind of tone deaf to be overly critical of their money choices. And to say you're not going to help them when they are obviously helping you? I really think it's kind of bad to do this. They've avoided selling that house you're living in for reasons only they know, and your 65 year old dad refinanced their own house instead of just telling you to either buy the one you are living in or get ready to move as they're selling it.

I'm hoping this is just me reading this wrong, but you are coming off to me as very ungrateful and taking advantage of them by not paying at least fair market rate rent AND now are criticizing their attempts to stay solvent. Sure they likely are too spendy, but that could have been solved (or at least kicked the can down the road a ways) by selling your house or charging you actual rent...  I truly am not trying to be mean or hurtful to you/about you, but this is how it's coming across to me. :(

ETA:  Nevermind.  This is exactly why I don't talk about my housing situation often.  There's more to it than "I live here rent-free."  What I've paid keeping the place from falling apart is way more than rent would be. 

[Frankies Girl]

My dad told me this weekend that he and mom have refinanced their house.  Again.  I've lost track of how many times they've done this.  At least 4 or 5 since I've been old enough to understand what they're doing.  He says he's going to pay off the mortgage, a HELOC, and "some other bills" (i.e. they've run the credit cards up again and this should also take care of a loan they took out to cover some disasterous dealings with the SBA/FEMA).  Apparently it's a 30 year note that he plans on paying off when hell freezes over in six years. 

First of all, who the hell approves a 65 year-old man a 30 year mortgage?  My concern right now is that the life insurance policy he took out 28 years ago when they built the house will end and then he'll die, leaving mom (who has never bothered to learn jack about the finances) to deal with the fallout.  The only, and I mean only, saving grace of all of this is that the interest rate is only 4 point something percent.

Sounds like a serious talk with your mom is in order.  As in, "Mom, if you don't have enough life insurance on Dad to pay off this house, I won't bail you out.   That means you write the damn check so he doesn't decide he doesn't need it and cancel it without telling you.  And while you're at it, take a closer look at your finances so you don't have to be like SwordGuy's mom, who didn't have an f'ing clue what the state of her finances was when her husband died.  She didn't know what they owed, who they owed it to, or how much money they had coming in."

Sometimes bluntness is what's needed.

Unfortunately, the last time I tried to have this talk with her, the response was basically "stay in your own lane." 

It's complicated a bit by the fact that the house I live in is the one she inherited from her parents.  I've been given the option to buy it, but have thus far chosen to keep "renting" for various reasons (what that means is that I pay the property tax and insurance plus handle any maintenance issues that arise).  As far as I know, the house I live in has not been put up as collateral for anything.

Um... I honestly wouldn't say another word to them including that you mom is on her own if your dad dies. I think you have a blindspot towards your position vs their position. You are not standing on a firm foundation of being 100% self-supporting yourself.

Your living in a house heavily subsidized by their generosity. Getting a house for prop taxes/maintenance - so rent/mortgage free - seems kind of tone deaf to be overly critical of their money choices. And to say you're not going to help them when they are obviously helping you? I really think it's kind of bad to do this. They've avoided selling that house you're living in for reasons only they know, and your 65 year old dad refinanced their own house instead of just telling you to either buy the one you are living in or get ready to move as they're selling it.

I'm hoping this is just me reading this wrong, but you are coming off to me as very ungrateful and taking advantage of them by not paying at least fair market rate rent AND now are criticizing their attempts to stay solvent. Sure they likely are too spendy, but that could have been solved (or at least kicked the can down the road a ways) by selling your house or charging you actual rent...  I truly am not trying to be mean or hurtful to you/about you, but this is how it's coming across to me. :(

This is exactly why I don't talk about my housing situation often.  The reality of the situation is more nuanced than just "I'm being subsidized.". First off, if they *could* have rented this place out to non-family then they would have.  They tried to sell it and rent it and weren't successful at either.  To get a rental license from the city, the house needed several tens of thousands of dollars worth of work.  Rewiring the entire house more of less was the big one plus a whole list of little stuff like the rail on the front porch steps is 2" too short. They didn't have the money to bring it up to code.  I was asked to move in to keep the place from sitting empty (needed it to be occupied for the insurance or something).  Because I'm family, the city doesn't require a rental license for me to live here.  I guess it's okay for family members to live in a deathtrap or something (kidding...It's not that bad...anymore).  Living here was never my idea, and it's still not my forever plan, but  decisions have been made based on the assurances that I was given that it's mine as long as I want it.  Since that time, I've put nearly $20k into it.  I've had to replace the water heater, furnace (almost died from a gas leak that first winter), stove, dishwasher, fridge, six windows, and floors(though to be fair, the flooring and one of the windows was at least partially subsidized by insurance).  I am anticipating having to replace the HVAC compressor in the spring.  And the 1950s wiring is still an issue that's going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later.  It turns out that FMV rent would have been a hell of a lot cheaper, at least in the short term.

As I said the bare facts you stated sounded like they were giving you a house for bare minimum $, but with the additional info, in fact you're helping them out more than they're helping you. SO definitely more gray than black and white. That's why I said I may be reading it wrong, and I do hope you get that based only on the initial post, it did cast you in a bad light considering. Definitely not being ungrateful (and apologies for jumping to that).

I am pretty sure they could sell the house even if they wouldn't get anything like market rate similar to updated homes in the same neighborhood. Pricing a house correctly ALWAYS fixes the problem. So saying that they couldn't get buyers really means they didn't want to price it low enough to sell. And you can get insurance on empty properties, but you have to track down insurers that will work with you... otherwise all the houses being sold/build/renovated would be in trouble! We got basic structure (no furnishings/property) coverage during the year + my dad's hoarder house was being worked on/sat vacant.

I'd consider telling your parents to sell the house you're living in and get out of there as soon as you can. Definitely stop pouring your money into fixing it up (get out before the HVAC goes!) Go find a nice, better maintained living space you actually like. Sounds like a terrible property and you shouldn't stay there if you don't like it anyway!

[Sugaree]

Yeah, that's why I don't talk about it a lot.  There's always a lot of assumptions made.  I know I'm not the first person to move into a place and fix it up in exchange for a sweetheart deal on rent.  And on paper, it looks awesome.  I'm probably also not the first person to find out that kind of deal is too good to be true.

I've always suspected that they priced it too high because my mom didn't really want it to sell.  I know that my grandfather requested, on his deathbed, that it stay in the family and I think she always felt guilty about even thinking about selling.  It was the house mom grew up in and the house I spent a ton of time in as a kid.  There's plenty of sentimental attachment to go around.  It's next door to both my parents and my in-laws (which can be both a good and bad thing).  All of that is what keeps us rooted here for at least the time being. 

[AlanStache]

This shows the limitations of written communication and why I dont always like bothering.  Adding the nuance or details would make the original post a wall of text but not adding it can make the OP come off in a bad light.  I dont have a solution*, its just one of many things that have bugged me about writing and written communication.

solution*: maybe put the nuance within a "Spoiler" field so it looks smaller but interested parties can see more information?  Or maybe tool tips?

I've always suspected that they priced it too high because my mom didn't really want it to sell.

Spoiler: show

 I know that my grandfather requested, on his deathbed, that it stay in the family and I think she always felt guilty about even thinking about selling.

  It was the house mom grew up in and the house I spent a ton of time in as a kid.  There's plenty of sentimental attachment to go around. 

Spoiler: show

It's next door to both my parents and my in-laws (which can be both a good and bad thing).

  All of that is what keeps us rooted here for at least the time being.

[runbikerun]

There are laws against age discrimination in lending. Most banks don't expect, and most buyers don't either, to be in the same house for 30 years to pay a mortgage off in this manner.  People are much more mobile than years ago and don't necessarily view their homes as forever homes.  I intend to buy my next house when I'm 60 and whether or not I get a loan will be based on my credit history, salary, down payment, and debt to income ratio.  It won't be based on if the bank thinks I'll live to 90 to pay it off.

I can't speak on the law in the States, but in Europe age absolutely can and should be taken into account as a factor for mortgage applications. I worked for a few years in mortgage lending, and applications which involved a repayment schedule going beyond age 75 for a borrower were outright banned - I never saw one, and never heard of one ever being done. Even getting approval for a mortgage that went beyond seventy was a serious challenge and required a very thorough explanation.

It's illegal to discriminate, but legitimate exceptions do exist, and I'd argue that taking age into account for mortgage lending is definitely a legitimate exception.

[Imma]

In my European country it's possible to have a mortgage until a very high age, but you would have to prove your pension is sufficient. The income from drawing down investments would probably not qualify as a pension because you'd be dependent on the market.

[Gail2000]

Funny, my brother just left from a visit. He was happy to eat my food and watch my tv and revealed he has no debt but only 2k in savings at 38. I am terrified for him but learning I can’t help him. Feeling a bit sad actually.

[PrairieBeardstache]

Funny, my brother just left from a visit. He was happy to eat my food and watch my tv and revealed he has no debt but only 2k in savings at 38. I am terrified for him but learning I can’t help him. Feeling a bit sad actually.

If it's any consolation, he's actually in a better position than many others. He has no hole to dig out of.

[charis]

Funny, my brother just left from a visit. He was happy to eat my food and watch my tv and revealed he has no debt but only 2k in savings at 38. I am terrified for him but learning I can’t help him. Feeling a bit sad actually.

If it's any consolation, he's actually in a better position than many others. He has no hole to dig out of.

Do you know whether he has any retirement/brokerage accounts?  Most people don't count retirement accounts when they think about "savings."  But he is better off than many.  I also have a brother in mid 30s - chunk of private student loan debt, extended car note, can barely pay rent, and needs parental financial support.  Yet constantly complaining about how tough it is, financially, for "millenials" (we are two years apart in age).  You'd think he'd consider getting a smaller apt (going from 2-br apartment to 1-br), creating a budget, and stop eating out all the time, but that's not the problem, of course. Yes, I can sympathize that wages have been stagnant and well-paying employment can be hard to find (for people actually looking), but that has nothing to do with one's ability to budget.

[zolotiyeruki]

It's illegal to discriminate, but legitimate exceptions do exist, and I'd argue that taking age into account for mortgage lending is definitely a legitimate exception.

I guess I don't understand why a lender would care about the age of the borrower, outside of the borrower's ability to make the monthly payments.  If the borrower dies, the lien on the house is still there, so the lender gets their due either way unless the house is under water.  Is there some other risk I'm missing?

[DadJokes]

It's illegal to discriminate, but legitimate exceptions do exist, and I'd argue that taking age into account for mortgage lending is definitely a legitimate exception.

I guess I don't understand why a lender would care about the age of the borrower, outside of the borrower's ability to make the monthly payments.  If the borrower dies, the lien on the house is still there, so the lender gets their due either way unless the house is under water.  Is there some other risk I'm missing?

There is probably some concern about the house being underwater. The more recently the loan was taken out, the less likely it is that the bank can recoup the full cost when all the fees are included. If someone is old enough that death within the next five years is a real possibility, I can understand the reluctance to issue a mortgage. I have no idea if that's legal or not though.

[runbikerun]

It's illegal to discriminate, but legitimate exceptions do exist, and I'd argue that taking age into account for mortgage lending is definitely a legitimate exception.

I guess I don't understand why a lender would care about the age of the borrower, outside of the borrower's ability to make the monthly payments.  If the borrower dies, the lien on the house is still there, so the lender gets their due either way unless the house is under water.  Is there some other risk I'm missing?

The borrower's ability to meet repayments is, in 99.99% of mortgage applications, dependent on their salary income. Extending the mortgage term beyond retirement age leaves the mortgage reliant on an income stream that no longer exists.

[Dragonswan]

Well a couple of things.  In most cases in the US a person of a certain age isn't purchasing their first home so would be able to put down at least 20% which will cover fees if the person dies moments after the property is bought.  Lenders can require a certain down payment to get a loan.  In their mind they can rationalize that it's because of their age but they better have  a different reason on paper to avoid legal issues.

The income verification is real and would be the number one reason a mortgage is denied for older folks.  However, new regulations have come in the last few years that have formula for taking into account investments (retirement accounts included) into the calculation of being able to afford the mortgage.  They can also take into account pensions and social security payments as well.  However it is easier to prove sufficient income while still working.

Lastly, in Europe, are elderly people only given the choice to live in an apartment or their children (if they have any) if they don't have enough money to pay cash for a property because giving them a loan at their age is too risky?  Is there no such thing as mortgage insurance that can be added to the mortgage?  Can they require a larger down payment to cover any fees to sell the property after the buyer's death (like I mention above)? I understand being risk adverse, but this makes the elderly second class citizens with less rights than the young.

[partgypsy]

My mother who sold her old house and is now renting, is 75 and would not be able to get a mortgage based on her income. She would have to buy the house outright. We were considering her buying a cheap house that she could afford the payments with my sister chipping in (who due to irratic income also doesn't qualify) but that didn't seem to be an option (she could only buy a house with cash).

[Goldielocks]

Thank you.  That would explain why the one near me is open a lot and busy.

Another reason they are used is that many businesses sell product by the truck loaded weight (produce, wood, etc) and use the official scale tickets on their invoices to be paid...   most businesses can't afford to have their own truck scale and keep it calibrated.

[runbikerun]

In the majority of cases, I'd have been dealing with people with a 20% deposit or more.

Repayment capacity on a monthly basis is treated separately to the deposit, though - the deposit protects the customer and the bank against negative equity in the event of price falls, while checking for repayment capacity protects the customer and the bank by ensuring that the customer is unlikely to have difficulties making repayments at any point in the life of the mortgage based on what is known at the time of the application.

There may be specific cases where scope might exist to work off pension income, but I've never seen one, or heard of one being done. My suspicion is that there's a huge risk of the regulatory authority taking a dim view and ordering the bank to write off the mortgage.

As far as what happens to older people: unfortunately, banks don't have much by way of options on that front. They're required to show that customers can afford repayments, and if they can't establish that then there's very little that can be done.

[Imma]

@Dragonswan yes, most elderly people either buy cash or rent. Most elderly people who own have a paid off home or an extremely low mortgage and when they downsize they use the proceeds to buy an apartment for cash. Usually people over conventional retirement age move to a smaller/cheaper place so the lack of mortgage is no problem. If they can't afford to buy they rent. Many people in my country are lifelong renters, it's not unusual.

In my country due to tax rules it's mandatory anyway to use the proceeds of a sale towards the purchase price of a new home.

[RetiredAt63]

@Dragonswan yes, most elderly people either buy cash or rent. Most elderly people who own have a paid off home or an extremely low mortgage and when they downsize they use the proceeds to buy an apartment for cash. Usually people over conventional retirement age move to a smaller/cheaper place so the lack of mortgage is no problem. If they can't afford to buy they rent. Many people in my country are lifelong renters, it's not unusual.

In my country due to tax rules it's mandatory anyway to use the proceeds of a sale towards the purchase price of a new home.

What happens when an older person doesn't want the hassles of ownership and sells a house and becomes a renter?  Here it's not an issue, the primary residence is not taxed for capital gains or losses, and the net from the house can be used for anything.

[UncleX]

@Dragonswan yes, most elderly people either buy cash or rent. Most elderly people who own have a paid off home or an extremely low mortgage and when they downsize they use the proceeds to buy an apartment for cash. Usually people over conventional retirement age move to a smaller/cheaper place so the lack of mortgage is no problem. If they can't afford to buy they rent. Many people in my country are lifelong renters, it's not unusual.

In my country due to tax rules it's mandatory anyway to use the proceeds of a sale towards the purchase price of a new home.

What happens when an older person doesn't want the hassles of ownership and sells a house and becomes a renter?  Here it's not an issue, the primary residence is not taxed for capital gains or losses, and the net from the house can be used for anything.

You don't have to buy another house, you can become a renter if you want. But if you buy another house then it's (more or less) mandatory to use the proceeds of the sale if you want to get a mortgage for the other house. It's quite complex.

Edit:
I looked it up, this is what @Imma is referring to according to "De Hypotheker" (google translate):
"You have to invest the surplus value that is released when you sell your old home if you buy the next home within three years. If you do not do this and you take out a loan for the full purchase price of your new home, you are not entitled to a mortgage interest deduction on the loan amount equal to that surplus value."

But interest deduction doesn't last forever anyway, so this might not be an issue at a certain age. As said, it's complex.

[RetiredAt63]

^^^ Thanks, at first glance it looked like once a homeowner, always a homeowner. This makes more sense.

[SwordGuy]

I know my ~78 year old mom bought a house with a mortgage.   She didn't mention any difficulties making that happen -- and she wasn't one to pass up an option to complain about things not going her way.

[prudent_one]

Interesting that DH, their son who never got a penny of EOC from them, does talk to them and makes a point to remain in contact as they get older.

The delicious ending to this story would be if DH's parents pulled a "prodigal son's dad" and left everything to DH when they die, because SIL already got her share.

I have a friend who lived in a similar scenario (my friend would have been the never-got-any-EOC child) and was self-supporting. His other siblings figured out early that if you ask, you get. They worked lower-end jobs then hit up the Bank of Dad when the mood struck, so there was little motivation to work hard. A popular approach was to drop heavy hints about trips, then sigh about how they could never afford it and how sad that their kids would never be able to experience [some other country]. Dad would fork over the money believing it was to support the kids' education. Or their poor car that needed to be replaced. Or Dad should hire a grandchild in his business in a do-little job since Junior is having such a hard time finding a "suitable" job. That went on for years, but now the dad doesn't have extra to spare. His siblings will be living on meager SS income other than the one sibling who spends nothing ever.

The fair thing would be to adjust the estate shares to compensate for people who "got theirs early" but the siblings knew Dad would never do that, it divides everything equally.  So that only encouraged the siblings to hold their hand out early and often. My friend will not get what he should have but he's not bitter about it.

Quoting my own post for an update my friend told me this week. The other three siblings (who have very little other than paid-for modest homes... thanks to EOC from their Dad) may be starting to realize they are screwed. Small SS checks, no Bank of Dad to lean on, savings dwindling. My friend, who never hit up the Dad for anything, thinks the siblings want to make nice with him since he is the only one who might be able to provide EOC in a pinch. So when the Dad decided he needed to downsize some possessions, the other siblings apparently lobbied the Dad to give my friend the Dad's collection of old movie posters (apparently worth around $10K).  My friend didn't ask for them.   But he didn't want to look like he was snubbing Dad's offer and accepted, and the siblings made sure to tell him that they proposed the idea. Now, he regrets it since he's hearing comments in family get-togethers that hint at letting one sibling have the Dad's property in the next state, and another sibling have something else of the Dad's, since my friend got Dad's posters.

Years of the siblings getting handouts all the time now forgotten... what's "fair" is getting more stuff NOW because of those posters. My friend just laughs and tells everyone to do whatever their Dad wants, it doesn't matter to him. What he finds funny is the awkward, ham-handed manipulation the siblings use to extract more from the Dad before it becomes an estate issue when whatever is left gets split evenly.

[Hula Hoop]

Lastly, in Europe, are elderly people only given the choice to live in an apartment or their children (if they have any) if they don't have enough money to pay cash for a property because giving them a loan at their age is too risky?  Is there no such thing as mortgage insurance that can be added to the mortgage?  Can they require a larger down payment to cover any fees to sell the property after the buyer's death (like I mention above)? I understand being risk adverse, but this makes the elderly second class citizens with less rights than the young.

I have no idea about the rest of Europe but here in Italy, banks are extremely conservative with mortgages as foreclosure is very difficult and takes a long time.  I know that it's possible as it happened to one of our neighbors but, from what I understand, he hadn't paid his mortgage in years before he was turfed out.

[Just Joe]

Could that be the glacially inefficient Italian government system slow to act on foreclosures?

Dealing with the Italian gov't was an adventure when I lived there years ago.

[zolotiyeruki]

Even in the US, foreclosure is generally a very long process.  It's in the lender's best interest to work with the borrower, to (try to) get the delinquent mortgage back on track.  It's expensive to go through all the legal proceedings, deal with the potential damage, and market and sell the house.

[Dragonswan]

Lastly, in Europe, are elderly people only given the choice to live in an apartment or their children (if they have any) if they don't have enough money to pay cash for a property because giving them a loan at their age is too risky?  Is there no such thing as mortgage insurance that can be added to the mortgage?  Can they require a larger down payment to cover any fees to sell the property after the buyer's death (like I mention above)? I understand being risk adverse, but this makes the elderly second class citizens with less rights than the young.

I have no idea about the rest of Europe but here in Italy, banks are extremely conservative with mortgages as foreclosure is very difficult and takes a long time.  I know that it's possible as it happened to one of our neighbors but, from what I understand, he hadn't paid his mortgage in years before he was turfed out.

Hmm.  But can they legally discriminate on the basis of age or do they couch it as insufficient current income or...?

[Imma]

Lastly, in Europe, are elderly people only given the choice to live in an apartment or their children (if they have any) if they don't have enough money to pay cash for a property because giving them a loan at their age is too risky?  Is there no such thing as mortgage insurance that can be added to the mortgage?  Can they require a larger down payment to cover any fees to sell the property after the buyer's death (like I mention above)? I understand being risk adverse, but this makes the elderly second class citizens with less rights than the young.

I have no idea about the rest of Europe but here in Italy, banks are extremely conservative with mortgages as foreclosure is very difficult and takes a long time.  I know that it's possible as it happened to one of our neighbors but, from what I understand, he hadn't paid his mortgage in years before he was turfed out.

Hmm.  But can they legally discriminate on the basis of age or do they couch it as insufficient current income or...?

In my country it's indeed framed as 'insufficient income after retirement'. I don't know how that works in other countries. They look at the income you'll get from pensions and state pension, but they can't factor in income from investment accounts.

I think the generation of people about to retire now will be the first generation where many people still carry mortgage debt in retirement, so we'll see how that works out. In the older generation many people were either lifelong renters or bought a home, paid it off and lived there for a long time. The boomers are the first generation where homeownership was widespread, the first generation to move around, the first generation in which divorce was common.

In my country it certainly happens that people carry a mortgage long into retirement but those are usually very low mortgages. My parent bought a house at 55 and took out a 30-year mortgage for that home, but they had a big downpayment so by the time they are retired the mortgage will be very low. I can't imagine a bank would have loaned them that money if they didn't put a significant amount of their own money down.

[Cassie]

They cannot deny a mortgage in the states based on age. If you have sufficient income you can buy.  Even if they don’t count investments they could use some of their investment money to put a huge down payment so their income is sufficient to qualify.

[saguaro]

Interesting that DH, their son who never got a penny of EOC from them, does talk to them and makes a point to remain in contact as they get older.

The delicious ending to this story would be if DH's parents pulled a "prodigal son's dad" and left everything to DH when they die, because SIL already got her share.

I have a friend who lived in a similar scenario (my friend would have been the never-got-any-EOC child) and was self-supporting. His other siblings figured out early that if you ask, you get. They worked lower-end jobs then hit up the Bank of Dad when the mood struck, so there was little motivation to work hard. A popular approach was to drop heavy hints about trips, then sigh about how they could never afford it and how sad that their kids would never be able to experience [some other country]. Dad would fork over the money believing it was to support the kids' education. Or their poor car that needed to be replaced. Or Dad should hire a grandchild in his business in a do-little job since Junior is having such a hard time finding a "suitable" job. That went on for years, but now the dad doesn't have extra to spare. His siblings will be living on meager SS income other than the one sibling who spends nothing ever.

The fair thing would be to adjust the estate shares to compensate for people who "got theirs early" but the siblings knew Dad would never do that, it divides everything equally.  So that only encouraged the siblings to hold their hand out early and often. My friend will not get what he should have but he's not bitter about it.

Quoting my own post for an update my friend told me this week. The other three siblings (who have very little other than paid-for modest homes... thanks to EOC from their Dad) may be starting to realize they are screwed. Small SS checks, no Bank of Dad to lean on, savings dwindling.

The update from prudent_one, (snipped for brevity and including the relevant part) prompted me to post an update on the EOC enabled SIL.     She is starting to panic as it looks like her parents might be seriously running down their money.  Both are in their late 80s and still independent however they are needing some assistance with housekeeping plus MIL no longer cooks, they simply go out every day.    FIL is thinking it may come time for assisted living fairly soon, that does not come cheap in any case but they will likely find the fanciest place they can because that's how they roll, they will take nothing less.    Already, it seems that SIL didn't think that her parents would live this long, her husband is still working at 68 to make up in retirement funds because he was a contract employee for a number of years.  This clearly is not how SIL envisioned things.   Already FIL/MIL have turned off the money spigot with regards to niece, SIL's daughter, plus they sold their second home a few years ago, now the primary one may go, so the signs are there.  Not looking good for our EOC enabled family members.   The only good thing is that DH is still considered the "poor" relative with his one modest house and small cars, so they aren't going to bank, no pun intended, on him.   

[Kitsune]

Both are in their late 80s and still independent however they are needing some assistance with housekeeping plus MIL no longer cooks, they simply go out every day.    FIL is thinking it may come time for assisted living fairly soon, that does not come cheap in any case but they will likely find the fanciest place they can because that's how they roll, they will take nothing less.   

Y'know, I'm reading this and going... yeah. If I was 80 and needed some assistance and had money that I'd earned, why WOULDN'T I go out and eat? That's assistance! And pleasant! And it's affordable! And if you can afford nice assisted living, then... why on earth wouldn't you? Go them! (Note: different reaction if they can't afford it and are relying on others to do so, but... )

But why would they deprive themselves for people who are holding out their hands without helping?

[saguaro]

Both are in their late 80s and still independent however they are needing some assistance with housekeeping plus MIL no longer cooks, they simply go out every day.    FIL is thinking it may come time for assisted living fairly soon, that does not come cheap in any case but they will likely find the fanciest place they can because that's how they roll, they will take nothing less.   

Y'know, I'm reading this and going... yeah. If I was 80 and needed some assistance and had money that I'd earned, why WOULDN'T I go out and eat? That's assistance! And pleasant! And it's affordable! And if you can afford nice assisted living, then... why on earth wouldn't you? Go them! (Note: different reaction if they can't afford it and are relying on others to do so, but... )

But why would they deprive themselves for people who are holding out their hands without helping?

I agree if they want nice assisted living and have the money, which they have, then sure go for it.  I would too.  Some background info, they always had fancy tastes (FIL compensating for very deprived childhood IMHO) which were beyond their means in their working years and caused some financial issues, but due to considerable inheritances from both sets of parents, they can actually indulge in them.  Which is fine, it's now their money and they can do whatever.  Their daughter, who they always spoiled (which caused some of their earlier financial stress btw), has had her hand out all her life in spite of having a husband who makes a good income.   Same with their granddaughter, who has expected the Bank of Grandma and Grandpa to cough up money for things, the last thing being her basement remodel.  Grandma and Grandpa have the family ATM for years, now having to shut it down in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

And agree that going out is assistance too, plus the added bonus of getting out of the house.  My mom was an avid cook who put plenty of meals on the table but by the time she and Dad hit their later 70s and 80s, respectively, they were going out a lot too.   Mom apologized to me one time because one holiday, they decided to go out instead, and I was like "Mom, you deserve the break after cooking all these years.  If anyone has earned a holiday out, it's you".

[La Bibliotecaria Feroz]

Both are in their late 80s and still independent however they are needing some assistance with housekeeping plus MIL no longer cooks, they simply go out every day.    FIL is thinking it may come time for assisted living fairly soon, that does not come cheap in any case but they will likely find the fanciest place they can because that's how they roll, they will take nothing less.   

Y'know, I'm reading this and going... yeah. If I was 80 and needed some assistance and had money that I'd earned, why WOULDN'T I go out and eat? That's assistance! And pleasant! And it's affordable! And if you can afford nice assisted living, then... why on earth wouldn't you? Go them! (Note: different reaction if they can't afford it and are relying on others to do so, but... )

But why would they deprive themselves for people who are holding out their hands without helping?

FWIW there's a middle ground between living on one's own and assisted living--independent living. My grandfather and his partner live in one of these places. The staff provide meals and I think clean linens, but things like bathing and tidying one's own apartment are up to the residents. Individually, I think Grandfather would need assisted living while his partner could probably live on her own, so this takes the pressure off her.

[AlanStache]

My grandparents moved into assisted living a bit early; before he really needed that level of care, it was very hard on them going from +2000sqft to one bedroom and a living room.  They had no real problem getting rid of stuff but not being able to get away from each other was hard.  They probably should have done various levels of in home care first. 

[Dicey]

My dad told me this weekend that he and mom have refinanced their house.  Again.  I've lost track of how many times they've done this.  At least 4 or 5 since I've been old enough to understand what they're doing.  He says he's going to pay off the mortgage, a HELOC, and "some other bills" (i.e. they've run the credit cards up again and this should also take care of a loan they took out to cover some disasterous dealings with the SBA/FEMA).  Apparently it's a 30 year note that he plans on paying off when hell freezes over in six years. 

First of all, who the hell approves a 65 year-old man a 30 year mortgage?  My concern right now is that the life insurance policy he took out 28 years ago when they built the house will end and then he'll die, leaving mom (who has never bothered to learn jack about the finances) to deal with the fallout.  The only, and I mean only, saving grace of all of this is that the interest rate is only 4 point something percent.

Sounds like a serious talk with your mom is in order.  As in, "Mom, if you don't have enough life insurance on Dad to pay off this house, I won't bail you out.   That means you write the damn check so he doesn't decide he doesn't need it and cancel it without telling you.  And while you're at it, take a closer look at your finances so you don't have to be like SwordGuy's mom, who didn't have an f'ing clue what the state of her finances was when her husband died.  She didn't know what they owed, who they owed it to, or how much money they had coming in."

Sometimes bluntness is what's needed.

Unfortunately, the last time I tried to have this talk with her, the response was basically "stay in your own lane." 

It's complicated a bit by the fact that the house I live in is the one she inherited from her parents.  I've been given the option to buy it, but have thus far chosen to keep "renting" for various reasons (what that means is that I pay the property tax and insurance plus handle any maintenance issues that arise).  As far as I know, the house I live in has not been put up as collateral for anything.

Um... I honestly wouldn't say another word to them including that you mom is on her own if your dad dies. I think you have a blindspot towards your position vs their position. You are not standing on a firm foundation of being 100% self-supporting yourself.

Your living in a house heavily subsidized by their generosity. Getting a house for prop taxes/maintenance - so rent/mortgage free - seems kind of tone deaf to be overly critical of their money choices. And to say you're not going to help them when they are obviously helping you? I really think it's kind of bad to do this. They've avoided selling that house you're living in for reasons only they know, and your 65 year old dad refinanced their own house instead of just telling you to either buy the one you are living in or get ready to move as they're selling it.

I'm hoping this is just me reading this wrong, but you are coming off to me as very ungrateful and taking advantage of them by not paying at least fair market rate rent AND now are criticizing their attempts to stay solvent. Sure they likely are too spendy, but that could have been solved (or at least kicked the can down the road a ways) by selling your house or charging you actual rent...  I truly am not trying to be mean or hurtful to you/about you, but this is how it's coming across to me. :(

This is exactly why I don't talk about my housing situation often.  The reality of the situation is more nuanced than just "I'm being subsidized.". First off, if they *could* have rented this place out to non-family then they would have.  They tried to sell it and rent it and weren't successful at either.  To get a rental license from the city, the house needed several tens of thousands of dollars worth of work.  Rewiring the entire house more of less was the big one plus a whole list of little stuff like the rail on the front porch steps is 2" too short. They didn't have the money to bring it up to code.  I was asked to move in to keep the place from sitting empty (needed it to be occupied for the insurance or something).  Because I'm family, the city doesn't require a rental license for me to live here.  I guess it's okay for family members to live in a deathtrap or something (kidding...It's not that bad...anymore).  Living here was never my idea, and it's still not my forever plan, but  decisions have been made based on the assurances that I was given that it's mine as long as I want it.  Since that time, I've put nearly $20k into it.  I've had to replace the water heater, furnace (almost died from a gas leak that first winter), stove, dishwasher, fridge, six windows, and floors(though to be fair, the flooring and one of the windows was at least partially subsidized by insurance).  I am anticipating having to replace the HVAC compressor in the spring.  And the 1950s wiring is still an issue that's going to have to be addressed sooner rather than later.  It turns out that FMV rent would have been a hell of a lot cheaper, at least in the short term.

As I said the bare facts you stated sounded like they were giving you a house for bare minimum $, but with the additional info, in fact you're helping them out more than they're helping you. SO definitely more gray than black and white. That's why I said I may be reading it wrong, and I do hope you get that based only on the initial post, it did cast you in a bad light considering. Definitely not being ungrateful (and apologies for jumping to that).

I am pretty sure they could sell the house even if they wouldn't get anything like market rate similar to updated homes in the same neighborhood. Pricing a house correctly ALWAYS fixes the problem. So saying that they couldn't get buyers really means they didn't want to price it low enough to sell. And you can get insurance on empty properties, but you have to track down insurers that will work with you... otherwise all the houses being sold/build/renovated would be in trouble! We got basic structure (no furnishings/property) coverage during the year + my dad's hoarder house was being worked on/sat vacant.

I'd consider telling your parents to sell the house you're living in and get out of there as soon as you can. Definitely stop pouring your money into fixing it up (get out before the HVAC goes!) Go find a nice, better maintained living space you actually like. Sounds like a terrible property and you shouldn't stay there if you don't like it anyway!

Just getting caught up here. I love @Frankies Girl's insights so much, and she's nailed it again here.

I'm also raising a skeptical eyebrow at Sugaree's protestation(s) that the cost of repairs have exceeded the FMV of the subsidized rent.

[bluebelle]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

[marion10]

Good advice that I have gotten and it works out well for those who can afford it is to get a two bedroom- particularly if you are a couple- for the extra space and if single, so that there is room for a caregiver- either a permanent live in or temporary.

[saguaro]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

[pachnik]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

[DadJokes]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Some women want to stay at home. I know plenty that do. Heck, I want to stay home with my child instead of work. It's why I'm pursuing FI.

[AlanStache]

...

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

I would not do well with being told my career was inadequate by people who do not work.

[SwordGuy]

...

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

I would not do well with being told my career was inadequate by people who do not work.

I have been (rarely) known to start conversations with, "This is the *last* time I will be polite about this subject.  You have had your say in the past.  I am done with this topic.  I will not be polite if you bring it up again.   Are we clear now?"   If you say it with the right intensity, it often ends the conversation too.

[saguaro]

...

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

I would not do well with being told my career was inadequate by people who do not work.

I have been (rarely) known to start conversations with, "This is the *last* time I will be polite about this subject.  You have had your say in the past.  I am done with this topic.  I will not be polite if you bring it up again.   Are we clear now?"   If you say it with the right intensity, it often ends the conversation too.

One thing they did?  They asked DH these sorts of questions, they never asked me directly which is quite telling, but of course I still heard about it.   It will be either via phone conversations with DH or, if in person, when I am out of the room.   So never the chance to blast them with @SwordGuy 's answer.   DH has told them that yes, I have a real job, that makes real money, with real benefits, it's not just for pin money or to bide time until I can stay home.    Recently MIL has been too preoccupied with her various aches and pains to focus on my job.  Thought I think MIL asked DH one time last year.

[AnnaGrowsAMustache]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Amazing to have that attitude in this day and age, that a woman should be supported by a man. However, I'm all for couples who choose to have one side of the couple stay home, for whatever reason. If that's their choice, and they can afford it, all power to 'em.

[jinga nation]

relative visiting us over the weekend loved our post-renovation house. yes it cost quite a bit, but we had a lot of work done, it's almost a brand new interior. it was 50k of work over 4-5 months.
then we talked about my family's recent trip to east africa, flights were $6500, hotels were 3000.
relative said she wished she could get a new kitchen and also take her brood to africa to see wildlife.
i told her she could if she stopped constantly buying stuff for her kids (a lot of it goes unused) and also stopped driving a massive GMC SUV (the biggest most-fully loaded one they have). she already has an suv and a minivan.
it didn't help. they need the GMC for ski trips.
lulz.
she expanded her house but failed to renovate the existing kitchens and baths. she went with the wants while ignoring the needs.

[2Cent]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Amazing to have that attitude in this day and age, that a woman should be supported by a man. However, I'm all for couples who choose to have one side of the couple stay home, for whatever reason. If that's their choice, and they can afford it, all power to 'em.

Is this not what this FIRE thing is aspiring to? In your family's view marriage is a shortcut to FIRE. Morality and pride aside, I actually think it's not a bad deal at all.

[OtherJen]

Grandma and Grandpa have indulged for years, now having to ratchet things back in the interest of looking after themselves, something DH is glad they are doing, but causing serious consternation to SIL and niece because they have actually make it on their husband's incomes for a change.

this really saddens me....that in 2019 Women have to 'make it' on their husband's incomes.....so much for equality

To clarify, I used that particular phrasing strictly in regards to DH's family.   They all are seriously behind the times, they still think it's the 50s.  I don't know how they could miss seeing women increasingly enter the workforce over the decades but there it is.  They think it's for the husband to provide while the wife stays home, even in 2019.  MIL has not worked, SIL and niece have worked very little (SIL and niece worked part time at same place years ago), niece is now SAHM.   I was and still am the only full time working woman in the family and even 35 years later, MIL thinks that DH should find a better job so I can quit and stay home.   They were horrified when we got married and I continued to work.   They saw it as a lack of responsibility on DH's part that he didn't make enough for me to stay home.  The truth was both of us were early in our careers and yes, it did take both of us to make ends meet but I would have worked in any case.   Having no children, I saw no reason to quit and I didn't.   But I still hear when I am going to quit my job and stay home.  Not kidding.

Amazing in this day and age.  The wives of a few of my dad's male cousins didn't work outside the home too.   

Amazing to have that attitude in this day and age, that a woman should be supported by a man. However, I'm all for couples who choose to have one side of the couple stay home, for whatever reason. If that's their choice, and they can afford it, all power to 'em.

Is this not what this FIRE thing is aspiring to? In your family's view marriage is a shortcut to FIRE. Morality and pride aside, I actually think it's not a bad deal at all.

Yeah, that's not FI. The wife in that scenario is dependent on the husband, who is not FIRE. If the marriage ends in divorce, the now ex-wife will have to scramble to find employment with a major gap in her resume. Not saying that will happen or that there is anything wrong at all with being a SAHM if both spouses are on board (there are many advantages, particularly re: childcare), but it is not FI for the woman and very possibly not RE.