Skipping Netflix won't cover a home down payment in Spain

Ditching Netflix and travel pays for one down payment, not two

Is giving up streaming services and annual trips really enough to buy two apartments? A viral calculation on financial forums claims that a young couple living with their parents, earning between €1,200 and €1,500 net per person, can save €15,000 to €20,000 annually by eliminating all discretionary spending. In three or four years, they could afford the down payment on a €150,000 to €200,000 property. The catch is that such properties are rarely found in central Madrid or Barcelona. Moreover, even with a down payment, mortgages often extend to 40 years.

The maximum savings touted in this calculation approach €2,000 per month if you live with your parents while supporting a partner and children. Twelve months yield €24,000; ten years, €240,000. This figure seems impressive until compared with actual housing prices in job-rich areas. Those who bought in Madrid in the 90s recall that the effort was different then; today, the down payment consumes these savings without touching the principal amount.

What gets cut to save €2,000 a month

The list is specific: no beers, snacks, dinners out, subscriptions, cinema, books, video games, or new clothes. Only essential food—meat, fish, legumes, vegetables—rent, and utilities remain. Three basic items like dental care, insurance, and phone bills total around €120 per month, or €1,440 annually, according to repeated breakdowns. This saving isn't a fairy tale; it's a subtraction.

Critics of this exercise don't dispute the numbers, but rather the premise. Living like a hermit to secure a tiny apartment with a 40-year mortgage isn't a life plan; it's a sentence. And those advocating this usually already own a paid-off home or have ample space at their parents'.

The down payment isn't the issue: the term is

The argument dismantling this calculation isn't about price, but timing. At age 45, signing a mortgage means risking death before paying it off. The alternative is renting indefinitely, with the debatable comfort that rent hikes aren't guaranteed. The comparison between renting and buying hinges on annual adjustments, not initial costs.

Some argue renting is a bad deal unless accessing subsidized housing. Calculating wasted yearly rent hurts, but 40-year mortgages also cost money. The difference lies in who you pay and what guarantees you get.

Salary matters more than sacrifice

With €4,000 net monthly income, one can spend €1,000 on luxuries and still save. With €2,000, cutting leisure doesn't bridge the gap. The target property price changes everything: €250,000 demands less than €500,000. The decisive variable is salary, not canceled subscriptions.

Inflation erodes half of savings over ten years, according to common adjustments. Either invest wisely or let cash lose value. Index funds and gurus selling them as safe bets generate both enthusiasm and distrust: the game is rigged, and exiting relies more on luck than method.

The tattoo case and the ant-and-grasshopper fable

The most cited example isn't a number, but a scene. An acquaintance loses their job, lives in someone else's vacant home, finds temporary work, and upon getting paid, buys a tattoo instead of paying debts or clothes. This anecdote illustrates a profile, not statistics.

The fable of the ant and the grasshopper closes the debate. The problem is that today's grasshopper pays rent, and today's ant can't buy an apartment with Netflix savings. With these disparities, cutting leisure covers the down payment. Not two homes. Otherwise, someone is miscounting the years.