Boris announces new housing scheme

Graham_Devon

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

I think you have your figures wrong.
According to statistic.gov.uk (below) the average median wage in London is £28,105 or as a mean £34,661.

Even if you took the high specific area of City of Londonthe average median wage is £44,871 or as a mean £56,953.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2008/tab7_1a.xls

My figures may be out. Take a look at westminster. I remember seeing something at £70,000 somewhere? Might have been an average of a certin section of society, dunno.

Also, no one is saying this is Boris's own plan. He just announced it, as he would, be mayor.

mitchaa

ISTL..I notice you link to the weekly figures, although there is a direct link to the yearly figures, perhaps it's best to use these

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2008/tab7_7a.xls

The 2 tables confusingly are different.

The UK mean weekly figure is shown as £471.90 but when multiplied by the 52wks in the year only equates to a figure of £24,538 When you look at the yearly figures in table 7a, the figure is shown at £26,020.

Anyway pulling some data out of the tables.....

Average Mean London salary = £40,354 (UK £26,020)
Average Median London salary = £29,260 (UK £20,801)

However dig a little deeper into male FT...

Average mean London salary = £54,628 (UK £35,122)
Average median London salary =£36,256 (UK £27,500)

Looking at the figures it appears Londoners are paid an additional 55% or thereabouts over the national average in terms of mean salaries and 32-40% more in terms of median salaries.

So an ''average'' FT working couple in London should be pulling in £54,628 + £34,533 = £89,161, or more realistically the 2 median salaries combined £36,256 + £28,997 = £65,253

Facts and figures galore, i would probably say to the nature of some mega high banking salaries in London, the £65k figure is more realistic than the £89k figure or perhaps somewhere in between.

Fly_Baby

chewmylegoff wrote: »

all these nonsense schemes really annoy me.

people should only buy houses if they can afford to. if they cannot afford to buy houses they shouldn't. they should use the options that are open to them: renting or social housing.

schemes like this are just a stupid excuse to try to not provide proper social housing.

on the income point, £72k is not particularly high for a joint income, given that the average london salary is now supposedly £40k+.

IMO, social housing should be for people who cannot afford any other way. Surely, families with the income of £72k can safely rent, if not buy. And it IS high enough for a joint income not to be considered for any particular scheme or social housing. Again, IMO.

IveSeenTheLight

Graham_Devon wrote: »

My figures may be out. Take a look at westminster. I remember seeing something at £70,000 somewhere? Might have been an average of a certin section of society, dunno.

Its not a problem, I just corrected the figures you were stating as statistics.gov.uk

Originally Posted by Graham_Devon
The 72k is just the top cap.

Around 70k is the average salary in London though, according to statistics.gov.uk

IveSeenTheLight

mitchaa wrote: »

ISTL..I notice you link to the weekly figures, although there is a direct link to the yearly figures, perhaps it's best to use these

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE_2008/tab7_7a.xls

The 2 tables confusingly are different.

The UK mean weekly figure is shown as £471.90 but when multiplied by the 52wks in the year only equates to a figure of £24,538 When you look at the yearly figures in table 7a, the figure is shown at £26,020.

Thanks mitchaa,

I'll happily use the yearly ones.

There are a couple of reasons for the variances between the two.
On a minor point, you cant multiply by 52, it should be 52.178 (365.25/7), although slap my hands I used 52.28 (366/7)

More likely though is the conditions that the weekly and yearly figures need to meet.
The yearly one has a proviso that: -
a Employees on adult rates who have been in the same job for more than a year.
the weekly one has the proviso of: -
a Employees on adult rates whose pay for the survey pay-period was not affected by absence.

Its possible that the weekly figures could be more accurate as it would cater for people with less than one years service or in a position where you move jobs more frequently.
I'm not sure how contractors pay would equate to this either.

lukekelly_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

A scheme I can't really fault....at the moment anyway!

Like any scheme that helps people buy houses they couldn't otherwise afford this will increase housing costs for the rest of the population. It will also have to be paid for, presumably by the rest of the population. So it sounds like a lovely scheme for those benefiting from it, it would though carry a cost to be borne by the rest of the population. It is a case of deciding whether those costs to the many outweigh the gains for the few. In this case I suspect the answer is a resounding no.

Rent is also not "dead money". You get something for it, accommodation. It's not more "dead" than money spent on groceries or mortgage interest.