Tying up would a better phrase, I take your point.
Downsizing is good in theory but many struggle to give up the extra space as you still want family to visit / gran kids etc. Plus the majority don't end up buying some big "forever" home, they stay in a modest sized house which doesn't really allow downsizing. Moving somewhere cheaper maybe but at that age you'll likely want to be near people you know.
The reality for most people is that you either end up in a care home and the house is sold to pay for it or you die and your kids inherit whatever is left after tax. So given the choice between having that at the end of your life or more disposable income during your better years, I think I can guess what most people would choose.
This.
How much better would life be if houses were 50 percent cheaper.
I could have a 400 ppm gain or pay of the mortgage and actually have a retirement.
Really, the cost of housing is denying people a retirement. Because mortgages are so long and so burdening
It really won't be long before we are at multi generation mortgages. With 30+ year mortgages we are getting close
I earn above average. Not higher tax yet. But even in this wage I won't pay down the mortgage until 20 to 25 years. To even get the bank to lend I had to go for 30
Everyone also seems to think it's great to have no money when you're young and have a big locked away asset when you're old. But health goes. You might end up being a care or cared for. And never be able to use that. If this was paying off a mortgage at 40 vs 70 that's different. But this is 70 vs 60. I'd much rather have some freedom now.
So you get old, have this great asset but you can't use it because you're basically spent