Handy little website courtesy of the IFS - "Where do you fit in"?

mbga9pgf

Good site to show how distorted prices have become

http://www.ifs.org.uk/wheredoyoufitin/


Updated last year.


Just out of interest, can we have a consensus as part of the poll which area of the curve people exist in? IE 0-9%, 10-19% etc? Its anonymous, so Dan doesnt have to worry about his minimum wage becoming public.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

This is for household income.

So obviously dual earners with two good jobs will score very highly indeed, even if neither of them are exceptionally well paid.

According to the chart, we are in the top 5% or so of household income.



But in reality both of us have pretty ordinary management jobs. What skews it I think is that being DINKS, the wife earns within a couple of grand of what I do, whereas most women are lower paid having taken career breaks for kids.

tommy75

Thread only 30mins old and already more votes for 90%-100% than any other . Whats that, over 50 grand after tax? Snobs.. :rotfl:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

tommy75 wrote: »

Thread only 30mins old and already more votes for 90%-100% than any other . Whats that, over 50 grand after tax? Snobs.. :rotfl:

:rotfl:

Thats the thing, I think the 90% bracket probably starts somewhere around 70K, which is certainly a very good income if it's just one earner, but it's pretty unremarkable if it's two earners on 35K each....

mbga9pgf

Hamish, are you doubting the IFS? Think you should get over there and have a word...

Or, it could be that the average wage isnt actually 35K and you have been talking rubbish as usual. The distribution curve is for HOUSEHOLD income, not individual income....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Hamish, are you doubting the IFS? Think you should get over there and have a word...

Or, it could be that the average wage isnt actually 35K and you have been talking rubbish as usual. The distribution curve is for HOUSEHOLD income, not individual income....

I stated in the first line of my first post that this is for household income.

I didn't say the average wage was 35K, I said 35K is pretty unremarkable.

Have you completely lost your marbles?

mbga9pgf

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

I stated in the first line of my first post that this is for household income.

I didn't say the average wage was 35K, I said 35K is pretty unremarkable.

Have you completely lost your marbles?

The point you are attempting to make is that a 70K joint income is unremarkable. When in fact, less than 10% of all households in the UK fall into this category. To this end, you are, once again, talking rubbish.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

mbga9pgf wrote: »

The point you are attempting to make is that a 70K joint income is unremarkable. When in fact, less than 10% of all households in the UK fall into this category. To this end, you are, once again, talking rubbish.

Not at all.

The point I made, and made clearly, is that 35K is an unremarkable single income.

It's the sort of money an experienced teacher or lorry driver is on. It's not big money.

If a lorry driver and teacher couple are in the top 10% of household income, then I find that surprising.

Not saying it's not true, just that it's surprising.

mbga9pgf

If a lorry driver and teacher couple are in the top 10% of household income, then I find that surprising.

Not saying it's not true, just that it's surprising.

Well be surprised then. Because it blows your entire argument on here that households in the UK can easily afford house prices as they stand without overextending out of the water.

It's the sort of money an experienced teacher or lorry driver is on. It's not big money.

You are truly, truly disillusional. My OH is a teacher and she doesnt know of a single experienced teacher earning anything like 35K a year. Maybe a head of department, but not a teacher.

I have just looked again. A joint income of 70K actually puts you closer to the top 5% of earners, not 10%.

LydiaJ

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

What skews it I think is that being DINKS, the wife earns within a couple of grand of what I do, whereas most women are lower paid having taken career breaks for kids.

I'm not sure what you mean by saying that being DINKS "skews" it. Being DINKS is part of what makes you a lot better off than the great majority of people in this country. Because most people aren't DINKS, especially at your age. (You said that you're late 30s IIRC.) And lots of the DINKS that there are aren't both on £35k+.

You are nevertheless, as a household, much better off than almost everyone else. Which might help you to understand why almost everyone else doesn't find this whole housing thing as easy as you do. Use this graph as a stimulus to your imagination. Consider how your experience of housing might have been different if you'd had some kids, or if your household only had one salary coming in (because of illness, unemployment, relationship breakdown, bereavement... it doesn't matter what reason - some of them aren't things you can just choose to avoid).

Then try to understand why so many of your "housebuying is a no-brainer and renting is for losers" type comments are regarded as crass and insensitive by many posters. Most of us don't dispute that it has worked out very well for you, but things were likely to work out well for you with a top 5% household income anyway. It isn't as simple for those of us lower down the curve.

Generali

I was top 15% from my position when working in the UK with Mrs Generali out of the labour force and 2 littl'uns.