64% of FTB's have parental help

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Percy1983 wrote: »

In summary right now those who manage there finances well will be fine and those who don't will be locked out until they sort themselves out,

No.

Under the system we have now, most without parental help will continue to be forced to rent and enrich their landlords, driving up their lifetime housing costs and permanently being disadvantaged.

While those who can count on family help are almost completely unaffected.

And in the meantime, not enough houses get built and rents continue to soar.

I'm staggered that you can't see the folly of this path.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Why?

Good question isn't it. Why won't you try those figures?

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

2002 deposit 10% £12k or 0.6x salary, now deposit 20% £32k or 1.2x salary.

Where are you getting those average wage figures from?

Based on that, the average person was earning £13.33 an hour in 2002.

I highly doubt that considering the average wage today, according to the ONS is less that £12 per hour.

Surely not more statistics used simply to provide the view you want to provide?

I really struggle to believe were arguing about this to be honest. All of you who want higher house prices will do anything to argue this one.

Your figures are wrong too.

In January 2002, the average house price, according to Land Registry was £98,117. In January 2013 it was £162,029.

So not only have you used a higher figure to prove your point in 2002, but used a lower figure to prove your point today.

You've them used what average wage? The ONS says todays average worker takes home under £12 an hour. You have used £16.41 an hour (based on a 37.5 hour week). All this on top of massaged house prices.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Where are you getting those average wage figures from?

Based on that, the average person was earning £13.33 an hour in 2002.

I highly doubt that considering the average wage today, according to the ONS is less that £12 per hour.

Surely not more statistics used simply to provide the view you want to provide?

I really struggle to believe were arguing about this to be honest. All of you who want higher house prices will do anything to argue this one.

Your figures are wrong too.

In January 2002, the average house price, according to Land Registry was £98,117. In January 2013 it was £162,029.

So not only have you used a higher figure to prove your point in 2002, but used a lower figure to prove your point today.

You've them used what average wage? The ONS says todays average worker takes home under £12 an hour. You have used £16.41 an hour (based on a 37.5 hour week). All this on top of massaged house prices.

Salary figures are both ASHE ONE median full time earnings .

Average house price Dec 2002 £120k

I thought I used £162k for now.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Salary figures are both ASHE ONE median full time earnings .

Average house price Dec 2002 £120k

I thought I used £162k for now.

Oh god, were using those figures again, ignoring half the population.

Like how you have used the december figure for 2002.

I said compare to 2001, You come along and give us 2002. I thought it would have been as close as possible to 2001....you know, cus all the data is there and you were replying to my point about 2001....but no, you've used the best figure possible for your vested interest...literally having looked through the list for the highest price for your sums.....you may aswell have just used 2003.

Always the same game. Always the same smoke and mirrors.

Won't simply use the average wage. Pick the absolute best, figure from 2002.....yadda yadda.

Percy1983

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No.

Under the system we have now, most without parental help will continue to be forced to rent and enrich their landlords, driving up their lifetime housing costs and permanently being disadvantaged.

While those who can count on family help are almost completely unaffected.

And in the meantime, not enough houses get built and rents continue to soar.

I'm staggered that you can't see the folly of this path.

I understand what you are saying, prices go up more will get built...but,

where are all the houses which got built in the 2000-2007 boom?

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Good question isn't it. Why won't you try those figures?

I don't know what the equivalent data for 2001 will show. You make it sound like you've got them waiting on the tip of your keyboard waiting to make a killer point - post them - I'll wait.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Oh god, were using those figures again, ignoring half the population.

Like how you have used the december figure for 2002.

I said compare to 2001, You come along and give us 2002. I thought it would have been as close as possible to 2001....you know, cus all the data is there and you were replying to my point about 2001....but no, you've used the best figure possible for your vested interest...literally having looked through the list for the highest price for your sums.....you may aswell have just used 2003.

Always the same game. Always the same smoke and mirrors.

Won't simply use the average wage. Pick the absolute best, figure from 2002.....yadda yadda.

You really don't get it do you it doesn't matter what earnings I used so long as I use same set both years. I used full time because generally you need to be working full time to buy.

in 2001 median full time salary £19.7k average house price average price £95k deposit £9.5k about the same earning ration 4.3x

ukcarper

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't know what the equivalent data for 2001 will show. You make it sound like you've got them waiting on the tip of your keyboard waiting to make a killer point - post them - I'll wait.

I've just posted 2001 figures deposit about same as 2002 but smaller mort in relation to earning plenty of people buying in 2002.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

You really don't get it do you it doesn't matter what earnings I used so long as I use same set both years. I used full time because generally you need to be working full time to buy.

in 2001 median full time salary £19.7k average house price average price £95k deposit £9.5k about the same earning ration 4.3x

About the same being nearly 20% less?

My point is proven.