58% of properties can be bought by "average income"

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Really?

Pretty sure chucky has a graph showing household income by quintile, including benefits and tax credits, that seems to indicate a much higher average income for the top 3 quintiles, ie, those in full time employment.

Chucky may have done.

But the ONS figures do not include them.

Ask yourself....how would you figure out income for those on benefits? How would you include all the extra's, such as milk tokens, rent, council tax, tax credits etc etc. Instead of just using the inland revnue to calculate income, they would have to use loads of various departments.

greggymagic

5 people earn 1 million pounds each: £5,000,000

95 people earn 10,000 pounds each: £950,000

Total for 100 workers = £5,950,000

Average per worker = £59,950

Try telling those 95 percent of workers that there's no problem and that houses are affordable.

But then in this wonderful world the answer would be that those 95 workers shouldn't or don't deserve to be able to afford a house and wouldn't be the typical house buyer.

And I speak as a thirtysomething homeowner.

PasturesNew

Cleaver wrote: »

Lots of people living in sheds? Where on earth do you live?

Cornwall. Land of the 2nd home and banker money.

greggymagic

PasturesNew wrote: »

Cornwall. Land of the 2nd home and banker money.

Surely you miss typed the w....

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

greggymagic wrote: »

5 people earn 1 million pounds each: £5,000,000

95 people earn 10,000 pounds each: £950,000

Total for 100 workers = £5,950,000

Average per worker = £59,950

Try telling those 95 percent of workers that there's no problem and that houses are affordable.

But then in this wonderful world the answer would be that those 95 workers shouldn't or don't deserve to be able to afford a house and wouldn't be the typical house buyer.

And I speak as a thirtysomething homeowner.

You do realise the median average works differently?

So when the median income for the full time employed is £25,800, 50% of people earn more and 50% of people earn less.

DaddyBear

58% hey?

Lets try my area.

Number of properties for sale on rightmove..... 590
Median local wage (ONS)........................ £23,500
Number of properties for sale under 95k.......... 18 (that aren't long boats, caravans and retirement homes)
Number of properties for sale under 190k........ 130


So, at 4x income a single person can afford 3% of properties in Bath and a couple on 4x joint income can afford 22% of properties in Bath

Another quality link from Hamish. :rotfl::T:rotfl:

chucky

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes. And that's exactly what he said.

When mortgage rates or interett rates go back up again, it will make affordability even worse than it is now.

but that's not what i said... :wall:

i said....

affording mortgage repayments is fine and Hamish's point is right even if rates rise - it won't have that much of an impact on people.

what Hamish seems to be avoiding is raising a deposit is the tough part - a person on even an "average wage" will not be able to raise a 25% deposit for a mortgage.

the affordability comments get skewed by people comparing apples and oranges

chucky

stueyhants wrote: »

That's fine chucky, as long as this calculation is not used to argue affordability at the whole population level. Houses are affordable to an ever decreasing number of people, but across the whole population affordability is decreasing.

i know this, you know but most people on here don't realise that the bottom two quintiles of salaries will not be able to buy a property

the ratio of low salary vs cheapest properties on the market has reduced in the last 10 years - this is what the less bright bearish posters miss completely.

it's a bearish point but it's a better made point with regards to affordability that they don't understand.

chucky

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Really?

Pretty sure chucky has a graph showing household income by quintile, including benefits and tax credits, that seems to indicate a much higher average income for the top 3 quintiles, ie, those in full time employment.

it would be wasted Hamish - see below, it was from the ONS :wall:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Chucky may have done.

But the ONS figures do not include them.

Graham_Devon

chucky wrote: »

it would be wasted Hamish - see below, it was from the ONS :wall:

Get it then.