71% of income on rent in London

Lizling

Just wanted to throw this article out there for debate.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/05/08/staggering-rents-swallow-38-of-income

The key bit (to me) is 'Meanwhile things in London are even more bleak, where rent takes up around 71% of income on average and adds up to £25,824 a year.'

If true, I find that absolutely shocking. I knew that 50%-60% of income going on rent wasn't unusual, but 71%!

Is it sustainable?

PasturesNew

Lizling wrote: »

Just wanted to throw this article out there for debate.

http://money.aol.co.uk/2012/05/08/staggering-rents-swallow-38-of-income

The key bit (to me) is 'Meanwhile things in London are even more bleak, where rent takes up around 71% of income on average and adds up to £25,824 a year.'

If true, I find that absolutely shocking. I knew that 50%-60% of income going on rent wasn't unusual, but 71%!

Is it sustainable?

If 71% = £25,824, then you're left with 29%, which is £10,547.

So, after rent's paid, you'd be left with £878 in your pocket. That's a LOT of money still ..... more than many people have left after paying their rent.

Lizling

PasturesNew wrote: »

If 71% = £25,824, then you're left with 29%, which is £10,547.

So, after rent's paid, you'd be left with £878 in your pocket. That's a LOT of money still ..... more than many people have left after paying their rent.

It doesn't actually say, but I was assuming that was 71% of gross pay, not take-home.

Edit: Never mind, turns out you were right. It is 71% of takehome pay and this is just a very badly-written article.

PasturesNew

The problem comes for single people and people unable to earn anywhere near the published "average" wages.

Lizling

PasturesNew wrote: »

If 71% = £25,824, then you're left with 29%, which is £10,547.

So, after rent's paid, you'd be left with £878 in your pocket. That's a LOT of money still ..... more than many people have left after paying their rent.

Don't you think it's likely the poorest who are paying the highest % of their income on rent though? If people on £25,824 are having to spend 71% on rent, it must be much worse for people on maybe half that.

Graham_Devon

PasturesNew wrote: »

If 71% = £25,824, then you're left with 29%, which is £10,547.

So, after rent's paid, you'd be left with £878 in your pocket. That's a LOT of money still ..... more than many people have left after paying their rent.

I'd have to disagree that it's a lot of money pastures, £878 won't go far, especially if you have kids.

PasturesNew

Lizling wrote: »

It doesn't actually say, but I was assuming that was 71% of gross pay, not take-home.

Edit: Never mind, turns out you were right. It is 71% of takehome pay and this is just a very badly-written article.

It is exceedingly badly written. They don't set out the parameters for the 'research'.... I mean, do they include Housing Association/Council rents (which are massively lower)? Do they include people in bedsits and those in 4-bed houses? Where do they get the figures from?

It's !!!!.... but it sells papers.



They also don't tell you where London is - what is included/excluded from their use of the name.

PasturesNew

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'd have to disagree that it's a lot of money pastures, £878 won't go far, especially if you have kids.

Nobody mentioned kids.... why bring them into it. Most of that lot would probably be 'entitled to' a top up too.

It's more than I've had most of my life, after paying rent/mortgage.

Lizling

PasturesNew wrote: »

It is exceedingly badly written. They don't set out the parameters for the 'research'.... I mean, do they include Housing Association/Council rents (which are massively lower)? Do they include people in bedsits and those in 4-bed houses? Where do they get the figures from?

It's !!!!.... but it sells papers.



They also don't tell you where London is - what is included/excluded from their use of the name.

I'm with you on that. The same story's been covered by a lot of sources, but none of the articles are any good. None of the broadsheets have covered it so far.

PasturesNew

Lizling wrote: »

Don't you think it's likely the poorest who are paying the highest % of their income on rent though? If people on £25,824 are having to spend 71% on rent, it must be much worse for people on maybe half that.

The article said that singles fared worst, with high rents on small flats.

some types of properties remain very expensive: "Smaller homes remain in limited supply and as a result, individuals and couples are still facing record asking prices for smaller flats and therefore spending a significant proportion of their overall household income on this.

Graham_Devon

PasturesNew wrote: »

Nobody mentioned kids.... why bring them into it. Most of that lot would probably be 'entitled to' a top up too.

It's more than I've had most of my life, after paying rent/mortgage.

True, there would be top ups I guess.

I bought kids into it, as lots of people have them.