there were like zero details on where the money was going.
the article states that the family nets 10K per month, the mortgage is 2.5k and the other mortgage is paid by the rental income. they are stressed about not having money for education, but can't tell us a clue about 7.5k of excess cash each month, and then have the nerve to somehow also be running up credit card debt!?
a family of two adults and two children under three are somehow magic-ing away 7.5 k (pounds no less!!) per month on unmentionables and yet can't find 4k a semester for school?
but why is the advice: they need to sell a rental flat, that is paying for itself!? each year it should be gaining equity, even if it doesn't increase in value at all. they should be able to pay off themortgage.
i am confused, if taxes go up, why wouldn't they increase the price of the rental? in Boston, its written into most leases, that the landlord can make tax based increases in the rent. they are concerned about a future supposed increase in taxes, but not their mounting debt, or the soon to be expired 0% intro APR on their cc ,or the fact that they don't know where their money is going?
i also noticed inconsistencies in what is really going on:
'Megan, who is currently on maternity leave, usually works four days a week but she could increase her salary considerably if she goes back to work full time. "
later the article states:
"There is limited benefit in Megan going back to work full time as she would be doing 25pc more work for not even 15pc more income. Plus she'll have to foot additional potential costs of childcare. "
it seems like a lot of hemming and hahhing and no real problem solving.
i don't care, honestly, if they do private school or not, but whomever did this 'case study' should have point blank told them: they have the money, they just don't want to give up whatever else, they are spending it.