First time buyers in London

princeofpounds

Again, not all of us who live in London have the opportunity to earn this much! And we also have the high living costs to pay, just out of much less money to start with.

Maybe you missed the point of this segment, or I missed your point. I haven't been claiming that people in London should be earnings this much - the figure is used because the OP's joint income was that figure.

If you are just trying to demonstrate how difficult life is for people on an 'average' salary in London, then I completely agree. If I was a teacher or similar then no way would I work in London; the salary weightings are not nearly differentiated enough.

Why shouldn't nurses (and other allied health professionals), teachers etc. who are all highly skilled professionals working very hard (and often under tremendous pressure) but not paid much, be helped to own their own homes?

Because this money doesn't come from nowhere, it comes from the pockets of ordinary people (including yourself). It's not fair to take people's own money away from them to help any private individual who is capable of supporting themselves by essentially gifting them money for a non-essential purchase.

I particularly object to it when some arbitrary 'key worker' categorisation is used to define access to these subsidies. Is it any more fair that the teacher with the investment banker husband should have access (and this was how many of the first 'shared ownership' purchases were essentially funded in London at least) when the hospital cleaner, now outsourced, cannot?

Having said that, I think that if recruitment to various 'key worker' professions is being hampered because they cannot purchase houses (and they could do so in other professions they have the skills for) then they should just pay them more outright, rather than creating bureaucratic and economic distortions through patchwork 'schemes' like we have seen.

Leaseholder49

princeofpounds wrote: »

...they should just pay them more outright, rather than creating bureaucratic and economic distortions through patchwork 'schemes' like we have seen.

Totally agree.

I also don't understand the criteria for being 'low paid' either - I have friends the same age as me who are teachers earning 40k (yes I know they work hard but they also have 13 weeks off a year) who are eligible for these schemes, yet I'm a masters graduate working in software engineering (supposedly a highly-paid industry) in a wealthy part of the country, but for me to get a job earning 40k would be almost impossible.

Blacksheep1979

just from this quote alone

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

PS If you split the £84k in half then it's roughly £62k pa before student loans

I think you should stop giving financial advise to people

jonewer

cloudninety wrote: »

Why shouldn't nurses (and other allied health professionals), teachers etc. who are all highly skilled professionals working very hard (and often under tremendous pressure) but not paid much, be helped to own their own homes?

So where do you draw the cut off line? And if a teacher can get subsidised housing, why not a bus driver, or a mechanic? or a plumber? or an accountant? or a research scientist? or a double glazing salesman?

All these people perform roles that are needed for society to function. To single out a few of them and call them "key workers" and then steal money from the remainder to subsidise their housing is typically of the specious half-baked policy making that characterises the current government.

Mum_of_3_3

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

just from this quote alone
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mum_of_3
PS If you split the £84k in half then it's roughly £62k pa before student loans

I think you should stop giving financial advise to people

Sorry Blacksheep, I obviously should've spelt it out more for you... if you assume that each person is earning £41k then the ccombined take home pay will be roughly £62k

And I'm not giving out any financial advice, just saying that if it's tough for most people up and down the country, not just those earning £84k in London.

M_o_3

Blacksheep1979

Mum_of_3 wrote: »

Sorry Blacksheep, I obviously should've spelt it out more for you... if you assume that each person is earning £41k then the ccombined take home pay will be roughly £62k

And I'm not giving out any financial advice, just saying that if it's tough for most people up and down the country, not just those earning £84k in London.

M_o_3

Or maybe you shouldn't have been saying half of 84 is 62....

cheekymonkeb0y

Blacksheep1979 wrote: »

84k is about £50k after tax, in London for a couple you're going to be talking of £1200 a month for a 1 bed (including bills) then £100 each for a monthly travelcard. Those two costs are ~ £17k for the year, straight away without food, holidays, clothes and other expenses you're below £35k.

But I agree, it's a good salary and you can get a 2 bed garden flat for £250k if you're not looking at zone 1/2

You would be lucky to find a 1 bed to rent for £1200 per month before bills in the areas that have been discussed in the last few pages (Fulham, Clapham, Wimbledon etc).

cheekymonkeb0y

Running_Horse wrote: »

You obviously don't get out much. There is plenty of culture outside London if you look for it. My local "what's on" has pages of theatre, art, gigs, restaurants etc. And if I want London culture there is this great invention called trains. £300,000 for a couple of pokey rooms, or several bedrooms and a garden in a low crime area? Hmmm, tough choice.

So where else within a commuting distance of London would you recommend?

princeofpounds

And if I want London culture there is this great invention called trains

Unfortunately, the cost of train travel is so extortionate that it's not much cheaper to live in a lot of the more popular commuter towns, it's a false economy for many that do it (not all).

Financially speaking, you can roughly estimate the implied capital cost of ongoing transport fees by dividing the difference in cost by a 10yr fixed mortgage rate. (Why is a bit time-consuming to explain, but I'll do it if asked)

So a £4000 season ticket compared to a £1000 oyster card is about 3k/0.05% = £60k implied extra cost on the house price, which is quite material unless you are talking about places well over half a million.

Or the price of a porsche to drive to work ;-) ok, ok, I didn't include the running costs there!

princeofpounds

So where else within a commuting distance of London would you recommend?

Corby?
http://www.moreincorby.com/northamptonshire/

OK, maybe not
http://www.webbaviation.co.uk/corby/corby.htm