We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
What Quarter of a Million gets you in London
Comments
-
If only London had some form of public transport, buses, trains, or even an underground system, then people could work in the centre without needing to live there.
Sadly it must have none of these, given the weird posts such as yours bemoaning the cost of living in the centre...
Where did I bemoan the cost of living in Central London? <<facepalm>>It's almost as though they may have to live on the outskirts and commute in...
These are the prices in the outskirts.0 -
The prices are prohibitive for the lower end of the earners. For those on better incomes they are affordable. The many home owners and first time buyers are testiment to that. Saving the deposit is the hard bit, that requires a lot of self motivation and living carefully as to be expected. If you are are a shop assistant then home ownership isn't really going to be achieveable as it is much the case in the rest of the country. If you are a professional, say a lawyer then a few years out of uni you are going to be earning a minimum of £40k probably more if working in central. A couple on that are on at least £80k. That is £360k mortgage, add £40k deposit and you have £400k. If you already own a property then even better you can release the equity and have for example a £100k deposit. These are a very realistic and common scenario in London. Other situations I observed are one higher earner £60k and another earning £30k. Clearly that doesn't get in the way of ownership.0
-
The prices are prohibitive for the lower end of the earners. For those on better incomes they are affordable. The many home owners and first time buyers are testiment to that. Saving the deposit is the hard bit, that requires a lot of self motivation and living carefully as to be expected. If you are are a shop assistant then home ownership isn't really going to be achieveable as it is much the case in the rest of the country. If you are a professional, say a lawyer then a few years out of uni you are going to be earning a minimum of £40k probably more if working in central. A couple on that are on at least £80k. That is £360k mortgage, add £40k deposit and you have £400k. If you already own a property then even better you can release the equity and have for example a £100k deposit. These are a very realistic and common scenario in London. Other situations I observed are one higher earner £60k and another earning £30k. Clearly that doesn't get in the way of ownership.
It's simply not that simple.
These scenarios ALWAYS ignore children. They ALWAYS ignore childcare and ALWAYS assume both adults in a couple work full time with above average jobs.
And that's the issue here. It's not the calculations, it';s what you base them on.
The people you point out will exist, sure, but in far fewer numbers than the numbers of people juggling school times, child care etc.
There would be something very VERY wrong if two full time, childess lawyers couldn't afford the average home. Even in your calculation you have to provide them with a huge deposit in able to make the sums work. And it's alright for bill to simply say that a checkout operator should "commute in" as if it were that simple. How do they get the kids to school AND commute in AND afford the commuting costs to sit there on £7-8 per hour, earning a large enough wage to cover all expenses of working in AND be back at the school gates at 3?
Your calculation itself shows the problems - just depends if you are willing to look at them or not.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »It's not really about single people. Many people with children cannot have both adults working full time, so are reduced to a single income. Often any part time income is spent on childcare, not neccesarily all year round, but certainly in school holidays etc....Theres no magic child minder that appears at school holiday time unless you are lucky enough to have parents close by who are willing to help.
Yes, if you have children, and don't earn a high wage, then you may find that you don't get your choice of house in London at a price that leaves you plenty of money each month.
That doesn't seem either surprising, or wrong.
The idea that a young couple in an average job with a couple of children should be able to afford a house in Greenwich makes little sense, really. If you want to live there then of course you are going to need to be in a relatively high-paying job.
The debate about hose prices at some times comes across as slightly surreal, with people strongly implying that there is a problem when a checkout worker with two children can't get a nice Georgian mews house near the park...There would be something very VERY wrong if two full time, childess lawyers couldn't afford the average home.
I've two friends who are lawyers, a nice couple, they've quite a big house in Esher, and get the train in to work in the square mile each day. I think that they could have bought a pleasant enough place in the centre had they wanted to, but preferred something large further out.0 -
The prices are prohibitive for the lower end of the earners. For those on better incomes they are affordable. The many home owners and first time buyers are testiment to that. Saving the deposit is the hard bit, that requires a lot of self motivation and living carefully as to be expected. If you are are a shop assistant then home ownership isn't really going to be achieveable as it is much the case in the rest of the country. If you are a professional, say a lawyer then a few years out of uni you are going to be earning a minimum of £40k probably more if working in central. A couple on that are on at least £80k. That is £360k mortgage, add £40k deposit and you have £400k. If you already own a property then even better you can release the equity and have for example a £100k deposit. These are a very realistic and common scenario in London. Other situations I observed are one higher earner £60k and another earning £30k. Clearly that doesn't get in the way of ownership.
Earning very high wages clearly doesn't prevent you owning a house in London or indeed anywhere else.
Yes, a couple of corporate lawyers can afford a £400,000 property if they don't want kids for a decade, don't get sick, can get a mortgage at the very top end of what the bank of England considers reasonable for banks to hold and happen to have about 9 months net income stashed away after working for just 24 months.
Even then, our high fliers (and they are really doing very well for themselves) can't afford anything at all in the nice areas. Even they're looking at a big chunk of compromise.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »There would be something very VERY wrong if two full time, childess lawyers couldn't afford the average home.
This is the key point for me. 2 people with a disposable income higher than it likely to be at any point in their lives can currently afford a 2 bed flat in Tottenham Hale or Crystal Palace.
Let's say they're on £100,000 a year between them (so likely to be well paid professionals aged about 30) and have saved a year's net income (£60,000 give or take).
They could max out at £510,000 a year in mortgage and TBH I think this is a far more realistic scenario. The woman in the couple, assuming a heterosexual couple, has 10-12 years of assisted child bearing years left, little more than 5 unassisted. This is not a scenario for a happy family future, if that's what they want, and the finances we're looking at is of a tiny, tiny number of people. Miniscule.0 -
-
How long has it been since a single person working in a coffee shop or a factory has been able to buy, on their own, in a nice part of town? I know I couldn't do it in Manchester in 1993.
Neither could we afford Central London when we bought our first house.
So we bought in Watford. Then Chiswick, now Englefield Green. All of these places have an easy commute of less than on hour into Central London.
A one year season ticket Egham (our nearest BR station)-Waterloo costs 2.5K.
I really don't get this argument that lower income workers should be able to afford city centre properties. It has never been the case and never will be.
Ah yes, forgot to add.. we have 2 kids.Don't blame me, I voted Remain.0 -
This is the key point for me. 2 people with a disposable income higher than it likely to be at any point in their lives can currently afford a 2 bed flat in Tottenham Hale or Crystal Palace.
Let's say they're on £100,000 a year between them (so likely to be well paid professionals aged about 30) and have saved a year's net income (£60,000 give or take).
They could max out at £510,000 a year in mortgage and TBH I think this is a far more realistic scenario. The woman in the couple, assuming a heterosexual couple, has 10-12 years of assisted child bearing years left, little more than 5 unassisted. This is not a scenario for a happy family future, if that's what they want, and the finances we're looking at is of a tiny, tiny number of people. Miniscule.
A lot of these debates seem to end up polarised and devoid from reality.
For example, we appear to find ourselves in a situation where a GP, earning £75,000 a year is lambasted for suggesting he can't afford to buy in an area that has tube links in London.
Why is he lambasted? Because he has 3 children and a stay at home wife (a wife with her hands very much full and carrying out a very much full time job based on the age of his kids).
It's suggested that this GP has got things wrong, shouldn't have had the kids if he wanted a house, both should workd and they should have saved until he could afford the house and possibly, by the time he's done that, forgo kids due to natural causes and time passing by.
We end up in a situation where people make out that life itself is about buying a house and everything else should stop. Living itself should stop.
That's terribly sad in my view. Life is about more than buying a house. It's about the joy of children, time with family, enjoying your life whie it's here.
Some seem to be turning it into someting much more depressing...suggesting every single wage rise means you can have more debt. Why does it never mean a holiday, or nice days out for the children? It's always about loading up with more debt.
Gone off on a tangent a bit really, but I do feel rather saddended that peoples choices to have children over buying a house are attacked in such a way that it becomes a choose of house or childen and this is seen as totally acceptable.
The really sad part is this is starting to be an issue renting now, where, if you want to rent a place, you too should avoid children, and life itself in order to pay the fees, deposit, rent. The average rent for a 3 bed down here now is roughly 65% of the average wage. So the answer? Don't have kids and rent a 1 bed.0 -
This is the key point for me.....
It's a good point - what we're witnessing is the effect of a change in fashion/change in practicality of two professionals with a family continuing to live in inner London.
20 years ago, even if they were trendy young things with their urban lifestyle, they would probably have moved out to the suburbs (or beyond) to have children.
That's now a less popular choice, and "villagey" areas of Zone 2-3 inner London have boomed as a result.
Apart from "nappy valley" fashion, there are obviously practical issues in play - longer hours being one, and commuting costs being another. However, it makes no sense to me for a couple + 1 or 2 small children to stay in an overpriced zone 2-3 location, whining about not being able to buy, when they could go out to zone 5/6 and get something much bigger for similar money(*).
http://www.rightmove.co.uk/property-for-sale/property-45124643.html?premiumA=true
(*) We also need to acknowledge that in over-heated parts of London, the rental yield is much lower than in cheaper areas elsewhere. I assume that this is because the market is factoring-in greater potential for capital growth.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.4K Life & Family
- 258.8K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards