More average salary stats to argue over.....

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Your point is invalid.

Long term average, or trend line, or mean, in pricing terms has nothing to do with an afforability metric. And as prices have increased through multiple cycles over multiple decades, so has the mean. This will continue until building does not lag population growth.

As for your affordability metric, the so called "long term average" of 3.5 times income is not long term at all, and nor is it average. As little as 100 years ago 90% of property was owned by 10% of people.

In 1950, the average house cost 4 times the mean average male full time salary. Today, the average house costs 4 times the mean average male full time salary. The average from 1950 to today has also been right around 4 times the mean average male full time salary.

Like it or not, houses today are dead on the long term average, both in terms of the actual price trend line/mean and the affordability measure.

Could you get any further away from A) the subject and the question?

You also shot yourself in the foot. You are now saying long term average is nothing to do with affordability, when the only reason I quoted your post is because you said were now at long term average affordability.

Do you even know what you are talking about yourself?

You change your mind from post to post.

Really2

Thrugelmir wrote: »

A self employed person could be a hairdresser, odd job man, window cleaner, run a B&B or decorator. I'm sure a lot prefer the freedom of being self employed rather than working for someone else.

There's far more to life than just earning money.......

They still earn more than their employed counterparts (even if not stated)
I don't think it is disputable.

My college here, sister is an hair dresser she is down as earning £17k but actually earns over £35K!

Most people work for money, I would not work if I did not have to. But as I have to earning as much money as possible seems sensible.
Not many work as a hobby, you have to have the security below you to start off with, usually that is years of hard work earning as much as possible.

Ps there may be more to life than earning money but the debate is most self employed earn a better than average wage or more than their employed counterparts.

Graham_Devon

Really2 wrote: »

They still earn more than their employed conterparts (even if not stated)
I don't think it is disputable.

My college here, sister is an hair dresser she is down as earning £17k but actualy earns over £35K!

Most people work for money, I would not work if I did not have to. But as I have to earning as much money as possible seems sensible.
Not many work as a hobby, you have to have the security below you to start off with, usualy that is years of hard work earning as much as possible.

Oh, you mean turnover.

Well thats a revelation.

Really2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh, you mean turnover.

Well thats a revelation.

What are you on about earn is PAYE! (where did I mention turnover)

She pays herself £17K on the books the rest is cash in hand. Most self employed use good accountants.:rolleyes:

If you think the self employed do not earn more than they state you are naive or foolish or both.

lostinrates

I'm not naive enough to think this doesn't happen, I am howvever naive enough to consider illegality distasteful.

Really2

lostinrates wrote: »

I'm not naive enough to think this doesn't happen, I am howvever naive enough to consider illegality distasteful.

It is but just as distastefully as anyone who fiddles the system with their own accountant and tax returns.

Accountants lawyers, barristers, politicians and most self employed abuse the system to pay as little tax as possible.

Thrugelmir

Really2 wrote: »

What are you on about earn is PAYE! (where did I mention turnover)

She pays herself £17K on the books the rest is cash in hand. Most self employed use good accountants.:rolleyes:

If you think the self employed do not earn more than they state you are naive or foolish or both.

Accountantants can help minimise tax. Tax evasion is a different matter.

When I worked in the profession some 20 years ago. I still remember the self employed interior designer who came up on the radar of the Inland Revenue. She owned 4 rental properties, a Nissan 300zx and took two holidays a year to the carribbean. A lifestyle which was unaffordable from her declared income.

As the evasion had been going on over 6 years. They assessed her income prior to this period over which she had no appeal. The next 6 years my partner put together an income declaration.

She had to pay the asssessed tax due plus a 30% penalty of the tax due, plus interest on that.

Net result she was declared bankrupt.

Have more stories of this ilk.

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh, you mean turnover.

Well thats a revelation.

no, no, no.

for self employed people who are directors of their company they pay themselves a salary and a dividend.

the salary is lower as it attracts tax and NI.
the Dividend does not need to pay NI and I believe the tax rate is less than income tax on these dividend payments.

it's quite simple really...:rolleyes:

Really2

So do other than trying to derail the thread. (yes I know it illegal but we all know it is done)

Minimise Tax, Tax evasion what is the difference other than earning enough money to make your avoidance legal?

Do we actually accept the self employed generally more than average and that they earn more than their employed counterparts.

Thrugelmir

Really2 wrote: »

Do we actually accept the self employed generally more than average and that they earn more than their employed counterparts.

No.

Self employed. No holiday pay, no sickness pay , no work no pay.

For many its a lifestyle choice.