HPC thread of the week

Graham_Devon

cells wrote: »

How do you explain half the country where property is very cheap (1 - 2 x joint full time income. Yes, less than 2 x joint full time income!) yet renting has increased and ownership has decreased.

2 x TWO full time average incomes is not cheap by any historical standard.

You appear to base many of your arguments on this, but no historical standard has ever seen that as "cheap". And if you are going to base it on two full time incomes, you have to allow for childcare which it appears you simply refuse to do.

Historical standards have always been based on 3x one income and 1x the other income.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

2 x TWO full time average incomes is not cheap by any historical standard.

You appear to base many of your arguments on this, but no historical standard has ever seen that as "cheap". And if you are going to base it on two full time incomes, you have to allow for childcare which it appears you simply refuse to do.

Historical standards have always been based on 3x one income and 1x the other income.

Seeing as Nationwide says longterm average is just over 4x male median 2 x average is quite low.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Seeing as Nationwide says longterm average is just over 4x male median 2 x average is quite low.

Please read what's stated if you are going to comment.

No one is talking about 2x average income.

westernpromise

Graham_Devon wrote: »

2 x TWO full time average incomes is not cheap by any historical standard.

You appear to base many of your arguments on this, but no historical standard has ever seen that as "cheap". And if you are going to base it on two full time incomes, you have to allow for childcare which it appears you simply refuse to do.

Historical standards have always been based on 3x one income and 1x the other income.

Graham, Graham, Graham.

You are sooooooooo stuck in the past it's painful.

As I have pointed out many times, the "3x one income and 1x the other income" practice arose in the distant past when wives were a line item on their husbands' tax return. They got no personal allowance (instead he got a larger married man's allowance) and her entire salary was taxed at his marginal rate.

If her salary took his into the top rate of 83% in the 1970s that meant she lost £5 out of every £6 in tax. Deduct the cost of travel to work and work attire and she earning, net, literally nothing. A woman who married a man on the higher rate suffered an instant 100% salary cut. This was a neat way of limiting female employment - by making it more advantageous through the tax system for singles and married men to work than married women.

For this reason mortgage lenders routinely discounted the second salary for lending calculation purposes, because it was worth somewhere between little and nothing. If both were low earners it was less of an issue, if both were high earners it was a very big issue. Empirically they arrived at 3x main and 1x the other.

This was not changed until 1988, from which point married women were treated the same as other humans in the tax system. Coincidentally, that's around when 3x joint salary became the norm (although the increasing need to design products for those cohabiting also had a role even before then - you cohabited because you couldn't afford to get married, but you still wanted to buy a house together).

You either know this and are a troll, or you are posting in genuine total ignorance of some highly salient historical context that you ought to know before pontificating about how it was in the golden age of the past . The past was in fact a poverty stricken hellhole but if you want to go back to "3x one income and 1x the other income" then start lobbying your MP to restore the pre-1988 sexist tax treatment of married women. Let us know how you get on with that.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Please read what's stated if you are going to comment.

No one is talking about 2x average income.

Full time average is less than full time male.

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

Full time average is less than full time male.

Yes.

As I said, have you read what cells was stating?

He was stating that a house that costs two times TWO full time incomes is "cheap". (Not two times average income)

It's a stat he's made up. And I'm not sure it's that cheap anyway, as you are basically suggesting 4x single income is cheap - which it's pretty clear, it isn't.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes.

As I said, have you read what cells was stating?

He was stating that a house that costs two times TWO full time incomes is "cheap". (Not two times average income)

It's a stat he's made up. And I'm not sure it's that cheap anyway, as you are basically suggesting 4x single income is cheap - which it's pretty clear, it isn't.

I believe he took the trouble to look up price for average terraced house in various areas then he looked up average full time earnings for that area and used that to calculate his figures.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

2 x TWO full time average incomes is not cheap by any historical standard.

You appear to base many of your arguments on this, but no historical standard has ever seen that as "cheap". And if you are going to base it on two full time incomes, you have to allow for childcare which it appears you simply refuse to do.

Historical standards have always been based on 3x one income and 1x the other income.

Sounds cheap to me.

In the now famous Stoke houses are cheap vs multiples and cheap vs renting.

Home ownership is falling when it's demonstrably cheaper to buy. I don't know why people who come from Stoke, who work in Stoke and have no plans to leave are choosing to pay more to rent.

EDIT: I think it's because they're either irrational or can't get a mortgage.

Crashy_Time

westernpromise wrote: »

Who's Mathew Wright?

Someone who gets more views than this sub sub troll station.....:rotfl:

cells

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Yes.

As I said, have you read what cells was stating?

He was stating that a house that costs two times TWO full time incomes is "cheap". (Not two times average income)

It's a stat he's made up. And I'm not sure it's that cheap anyway, as you are basically suggesting 4x single income is cheap - which it's pretty clear, it isn't.

a lot of the country is between 2 - 4 x single male wage

That is affordable and it is cheap.

A person on £35k (a little under the median full time wage of most regions) buying a house for £140k mortgage and £20k deposit would spend less than £600 per month on a repayment mortgage

Their take home pay is £2,241 per month the repayment mortgage is £600 per month or less than 27% of their take home pay is for the repayment mortgage (it is actually closer to 10% of their take home pay on the housing and the other 17% is effectively a savings account in the form of paying off the mortgage)


So how is 10% of take home pay anything but cheap and very affordable?