Tory council leader believes ‘basic salary’ is 80k

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

Maybe if taxes weren't so high it would help.

So would finding a goose that lays golden eggs but unless you have a cunning plan for where we're going to find the money to cut taxes on the top 10% they're both about as insightful when it comes to actually solving the problem

N1AK

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

...er... that may be Welsh maths, but in England, salary distributions are heavily skewed. Just think how much the handful of people on incomes of £2m add to the average.

Hence in such a distribution, the majority of people must be lower than the average. The 'median' salary is always far lower than the average salary, and is the value at which exactly the same number of people are above the median than below.

All true LM but you're responding to post pointing out that Clapton's basic mathematics comment was wrong, which it is. The 'mean' tells you nothing about the distribution of the population.

Basic economic knowledge on the other hand tells you that UK wages aren't 'normally distrobuted' but are skewed towards the lower end. This is why mean wages are higher than median.

MrRee_2

Back to the OP .... £50k - £80k is not a high wage in the South.

A family needs to pull in around £100k to live what I would call a decent life - Detached House in leafy suburb with 4 Beds and 3 Bathrooms, a double garage and ample off street parking, good size gardens and conservatory for entertaining.

Anything less would be extreme hardship and completely unacceptable IMO. I am talking about those who wish to achieve and work hard to do so, of course. Not thicko chavs innit!!

cepheus

lvader wrote: »

Actually doesn't he have a point?. Even someone on 50K a year would struggle to get on the housing ladder especially on London, which sounds ridiculous.

PS I earn between 50 and 80K and do quite a basic, simple job.

Why do you get paid that much for a basic job then? Perhaps salaries need to reflect their true worth, especially in London, then properties and mortgages will become more affordable and reflect what they are really worth.

PS Love that post 144 above, that is extreme right wing trolling even by the standards of this forum.

noodle_doodle

MrRee wrote: »

Back to the OP .... £50k - £80k is not a high wage in the South.

A family needs to pull in around £100k to live what I would call a decent life - Detached House in leafy suburb with 4 Beds and 3 Bathrooms, a double garage and ample off street parking, good size gardens and conservatory for entertaining.

Anything less would be extreme hardship and completely unacceptable IMO. I am talking about those who wish to achieve and work hard to do so, of course. Not thicko chavs innit!!

Why do you need 3 bathrooms? Treatment for what must be chronic diarrhoea would seem a cheaper solution.

MrRee_2

Right Wing Trolling? Hardly! I did qualify my post by saying that I was speaking for the aspirational in society ...... not the 'also rans'.

And 3 Baths are needed in a 4 Bed house because Mummy and Daddy need an en-Suite away from the children. The guest bedroom needs an en-Suite to save the blushes of guests.

Then the family needs a bathroom - this would be the one with a bath and a seperate shower of course.

The cloakroom downstairs houses a loo and sink - maybe a bidet too.

grizzly1911

MrRee wrote: »

Right Wing Trolling? Hardly! I did qualify my post by saying that I was speaking for the aspirational in society ...... not the 'also rans'.

And 3 Baths are needed in a 4 Bed house because Mummy and Daddy need an en-Suite away from the children. The guest bedroom needs an en-Suite to save the blushes of guests.

Then the family needs a bathroom - this would be the one with a bath and a seperate shower of course.

The cloakroom downstairs houses a loo and sink - maybe a bidet too.

You missed out the loo outside for the hired help, maids and manservant. They are also restricted to one sheet of shiny sided Izal toilet paper not the tri-ply aloevera of homeowners.

cepheus

Why do you need 3 bathrooms? Treatment for what must be chronic diarrhoea would seem a cheaper solution.

You missed out the loo outside for the hired help, maids and manservant. They are also restricted to one sheet of shiny sided Izal toilet paper not the tri-ply aloevera of homeowners.

:rotfl:

he also needs a security guard to throw out the embarrassing in laws!

BillJones

John_Pierpoint wrote: »

http://www.purplemath.com/modules/meanmode.htm

Can I put in a word for the bank of mum and dad ?

For some time there has been a cleansing operation, designed to clear the economically inactive from central London and free up accommodation for workers.

Which is surely a good thing. Using state finds and assets to have non-working people living in the most expensive major city on Earth just makes no sense at all. We've workers commuting hours each way, at great expense, who walk past council housing a couple of hundred metres before they get to their office in the mornings. If there was a way to rearrange housing such that workers could afford to live in Central London, and non-workers lived further out, then everyone wouuld benefit.

cepheus

BillJones wrote: »

Which is surely a good thing. Using state finds and assets to have non-working people living in the most expensive major city on Earth just makes no sense at all. We've workers commuting hours each way, at great expense, who walk past council housing a couple of hundred metres before they get to their office in the mornings. If there was a way to rearrange housing such that workers could afford to live in Central London, and non-workers lived further out, then everyone wouuld benefit.

That's right send em to Manchester, Glasgow etc, it should prevent all the useless beggars spoiling the London scenery. Oh hang on they've already done that haven't they?