What percentage of your income was on monthly mortgage (FTBs)?

Southernman

Mine is 41%- that's not counting any money i get from a lodger. Without him though it would be quite tough and i wouldn't be able to enjoy myself, go on holiday etc as it's a sole mortgage.

With lodger money it's 29.5%

ukcarper

khgibb wrote: »

Actually, my current commute is 1.5 hours each way at the moment as I work in central London (which is not an affordable place to live, and also not a good location as my husband does not work in London). There are plenty of cheaper places to live but they are no where near train stations so I've had to give up work to live there.

Where I am is 45mins from a London mainline station and £300k will buy you a 4 bed detached within a mile of the station.

ukcarper

Tancred wrote: »

In the 60s and 70s the main problem was high interest rates (12-13%), but at least they had MIRAS, so the interest payments we made from gross, not net salary. Houses were cheap in relation to incomes and most people bought in their early 20s. Today people are having to wait until well into their 30s before they can afford to buy, and this often means paying a mortgage until retirement, which was unheard of in the olden days. There are deep and far reaching social and economic implications to all this.

In the early 70s property in relation to earnings was very similar to now.

Southend1

khgibb wrote: »

Actually, my current commute is 1.5 hours each way at the moment as I work in central London (which is not an affordable place to live, and also not a good location as my husband does not work in London). There are plenty of cheaper places to live but they are no where near train stations so I've had to give up work to live there.

I'd recommend a bit more research. Where I am, £300k will buy you a beautiful 3/4 bed house overlooking the park and only 2 minutes walk to the station - commute time to central London just under one hour.

Danni-R

I agree. In my area you can get a lovely house with large garden for £300k and a 10 min walk to the station and London in an hour. (Reading way).

And just over a third of my pay goes on my Mortgage.

Tancred

ukcarper wrote: »

In the early 70s property in relation to earnings was very similar to now.

Rubbish. The average salary is now £26k - what can you get in the south-east for three times that (£78k) these days? Or even three times £30k - £90k? A studio flat maybe?

In 1976 the average wage was £3,744 a year and for three times that - £11,232 - you could buy a 3 bedroom semi in most parts of southern England. Maybe not with central heating and in perfect condition, but you could certainly find one.

LittleMissAspie

Tancred wrote: »

It's all relative. If you take home £6k a month then paying 42% of it is perfectly doable, whereas if you take home, for instance, £1.5k a month then quite clearly it isn't!

42% of £1500 is more than doable, it would be easy peasy!

I put 56.7% per month towards the mortgage, another 18.4% for bills and another 7.5% towards decorating/household purchases. I bring home less than £1500. My boyfriend matches what I pay so everything is half each.

I have a pension that comes out of my salary before tax. I have a shared savings pot with my boyfriend, plus our decorating pot which could be diverted to an emergency if needed, plus some of the 56.7% goes into another savings pot and they are all offsetting against our interest.

When we bought, I ensured that the amount we spent/borrowed was such that if my boyfriend lost his income I could pay all the bills by myself. At the time it would have taken all my salary to do that, but thanks to all this overpaying I could now do it and have some money left over too.

Lizling

Tancred wrote: »

It's all relative. If you take home £6k a month then paying 42% of it is perfectly doable, whereas if you take home, for instance, £1.5k a month then quite clearly it isn't!

Lol, I assure you I'm on MUCH nearer £1.5k a month than £6k. Not far off £1.5k a month at all, in fact.

What makes the difference is that my other fixed outgoings are very low. I haven't got any kids (the big one!), haven't got a car, have minimal commuting costs and eat very cheaply (vegetarian and from Lidl/Indian supermarket).

Affordability is what's key, not income alone.

Lizling

ukcarper wrote: »

In the early 70s property in relation to earnings was very similar to now.

Household income or individual income?

Probably true for household income since women were less likely to work back then. To put it another way, the average house cost maybe 3.5 times one person's earnings in the 70s and now it costs roughly 3.5 times 2 people's earnings!

martinsurrey

Lizling wrote: »

Household income or individual income?

Probably true for household income since women were less likely to work back then. To put it another way, the average house cost maybe 3.5 times one person's earnings in the 70s and now it costs roughly 3.5 times 2 people's earnings!

This is exactly the point that is always overlooked in the media.

I would love to see the data on employment for men and women on a graph form 1976 to 2013, all of that extra household income has to go somewhere, into houseprices!

*edit*

found one


http://www.employment-studies.co.uk/pubs/summary.php?id=294