7x average income, topped out

lisyloo

andrewf75 wrote: »

Agree, but needs to take into account the childcare costs that allow both parents to work.

Yes, there will be costs associated - an extra commute and childcare being the main ones I can think of.


Persumably there's few people who would go to work if it didn't pay i.e. was more than the child care + commute, so we should be still looking at an increased income situation.


As an aside I'm not sure life has improved but that's by the by.

ukcarper

lisyloo wrote: »

Yes, there will be costs associated - an extra commute and childcare being the main ones I can think of.


Persumably there's few people who would go to work if it didn't pay i.e. was more than the child care + commute, so we should be still looking at an increased income situation.


As an aside I'm not sure life has improved but that's by the by.

I don't know about now but when I have applied for mortgages in the past the cost of commute did effect the amount I could borrow.

C_Mababejive

Well HM Government has for several years taken your taxpayer money and squandered it by making it available for short term interest free loans to buy new homes.

The new homes are often 3 bed and up detached homes. There is now clear evidence that housebuilders are simply factoring in the free loan and inflating the price accordingly.

HM Government will start charging interest after the initial free period ,increasing year on year, presumably by RPI as Government prefers RPI when charging.

Why are HMG fixing the housing market? Housebuilder share prices and profits continue to rise whilst CEOs feed from the trough,witness the furore of the Persimmon homes head and his £75m bonus. Does anyone really need that sort of money??

And yet the greed continues.
Why doesnt HMG give free taxpayer loans to buy cars,new kitchens, new bathrooms, central heating systems, solar panels,air source heat pumps and a plethora of other things?

And yet the country is poorer for it. In the 70s/80s we had older peoples homes,very good,government funded. They were shut down.

We had meals on wheels for stranded elderly people who needed a hot meal each day

We didnt have the rip off council tax

We had MIRAS for homebuyers

We had free at point of use university education.

feel free to add your own...

So we had money then,,why do we not have money now? Where has the money gone that funded all the above? Who has got it? What went wrong?

Well a partial explanation could be selling off the family silver.

As an example, once upon a time the energy sector in the UK was state owned i,e gas and electric,,from production to point of use. All the money made from it flowed back to Government. Thats all gone. Our energy industry is owned by foreign investment.

Railways,,well we once owned it all. Now its private, the private companies take the profit and yet the lunacy is,we still pay taxpayers money to these companies to run them !

You couldnt make it up..

andrewf75

lisyloo wrote: »

Yes, there will be costs associated - an extra commute and childcare being the main ones I can think of.


Persumably there's few people who would go to work if it didn't pay i.e. was more than the child care + commute, so we should be still looking at an increased income situation.


As an aside I'm not sure life has improved but that's by the by.

Yes clearly people wouldn’t do it unless it paid, but my point is it often only just pays! Most of the second income is used up in childcare.

lisyloo

andrewf75 wrote: »

Yes clearly people wouldn’t do it unless it paid, but my point is it often only just pays! Most of the second income is used up in childcare.

So are you suggesting we just ignore women's income then?
including the majority who either don't have kids or they are school age and don't need childcare. It's quite a limited period that they require full time child care.

OR


should we include their income and count childcare costs


I think the latter is now more appropriate although I accept there is no historical series.

andrewf75

lisyloo wrote: »

So are you suggesting we just ignore women's income then?
including the majority who either don't have kids or they are school age and don't need childcare. It's quite a limited period that they require full time child care.

OR


should we include their income and count childcare costs


I think the latter is now more appropriate although I accept there is no historical series.

I don’t know to be honest, the 2nd partner income shouldn’t be ignored, but counting it in full might distort things that’s all I’m saying. Even with school age children you pay for before and after school care which is often necessary depending on what jobs/hours the job involves. People are often nowhere near as well off as the combined income would suggest.

kabayiri

lisyloo wrote: »

....
I work in IT and there is some ability to work from home but it's limited as it is harder to collaborate remotely.

I set up a collaborative platform, and the result is a small team with 6 members who work on 4 continents.

Emails between the group fell by 90%. Version control and tracking of product changes improved.

There were no more accidental 'forwarding' of email chains with a rude mention about an awkward client ! :rotfl:

I went to some dems on the latest 4K hi-res interaction systems; they are super impressive, if a little bit pricey at the moment.

...but the biggest limitation to remote working I think is trust. It's either there or it's not.

kabayiri

ukcarper wrote: »

I think despite the efforts of a few companies it is getting worse and considering the property prices and the strain on the infrastructure in London and surrounding areas it would make sense to distribute the jobs more evenly around country but to be honest I don't see anything changing anytime soon.

The ONS have projected 2m more people in the London area within a decade.

Even within this, 1m of those will be Newham/East end.

I'm not knowledgeable on this, but do you even have enough space for a million new homes in London?

Is it time to drop greenbelt protection there?

andrewf75

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm not knowledgeable on this, but do you even have enough space for a million new homes in London?

Is it time to drop greenbelt protection there?

I'm sure you do if they build up. Most densely populated countries seem to do this much more than we do.

Herzlos

kabayiri wrote: »

I'm not knowledgeable on this, but do you even have enough space for a million new homes in London?

New York has the same population as London but in half the space, so it's certainly possible to double Londons population density if you have the appropriate infrastructure
(https://www.6sqft.com/maps-compare-nycs-footprint-to-other-cities-around-the-world/)