Fascinating as the "Small" / "Further Away" Father Ted debate is between the Essicks Massiv and the World Expert, do either of them propose any solution to London/SE property prices once they finish their stats death battle?
It doesn't matter whether the prices are the average or below average or whatever - as the people needing to live in them are paid double digit multiples less than the mortgage (my example was a mortgage 13.8x average salary) they won't be buying them anyway.
All the potential solutions threaten the property prices mainly held by the kind of people who vote Tory and higher up the ladder own the Tories, so the chance of any change is zero.
My three-pronged solution:
Lower taxes so people can save more of their own income to enable them to get more of a deposit/have more disposable income for affordability.
More and easier construction to lower house prices.
Higher inflation to allow house prices to earnings ratios to deflate without people going into negative equity.
I do appreciate you proposing a solution! Question - how does it work? I've just looked at Wembley Park, where they have built a dozen new apartment blocks with thousands of apartments available (for rent). A fucking studio with room to break your cat's neck when swung costs £1,600 a month.
So lets assume that space exists for "more and easier construction" in and around that London. They're about to build at Old Oak Common, so how much do you need to lower taxes on people earning £26k a year for them to be able to afford the mortgage on a reduced cost £250k apartment?
Wages are completely disconnected from property prices and you aren't going to cut taxes or find places to build homes in to close off the gap in the private sector.
The only possible solution is the public sector. If that vast Wembley Park development had been done by Brent council (stop sniggering at the back) and rents were being offered for the cat decapitating studio apartments at affordable prices, then maybe you'd be onto something. That would collapse private sector prices though which is why it won't be done.
If the places you build are selling for that much then the bottleneck is almost definitely finding land you're allowed to build on and how high you're allowed to build on it, so it won't make much difference whether Brent Council builds it or some private developer builds it.
Tokyo has the cheat codes for this, just legalize building things and people will build things.
They're selling for that - to big developers - because there are huge numbers who have no option but to pay rents to a private owner like the big developers.
If that was the root of the problem then what it would imply would be that the big developers were making massive profits, and anyone could also set up as a small developer and also make (marginally less but still) massive profits, by selling to customers for slightly less. You don't need Brent Council to be the new competition, literally any creditworthy business could also show up and do it and also make vast sums of money.
I'm not an expert on this market but I suspect it doesn't work like that. More likely it's the same problem that's occurring in every popular city in the world that bans people from building things, and isn't occurring in cities that don't ban people from building things.
Yes - in places where you can build practically at will, the absurdly high housing costs don't occur.
We have a population growing much faster than the rate of construction of new homes. The idea that it is strange, weird, or even unusual that house prices then escalate ridiculously is itself somewhat funny.
Attempts at price controls have been trialled around the world, many times. They simply create a sub-class of the fortunate and actually make things worse for everyone else.
The high house prices are a symptom of the shortage.
I nearly bought some agricultural land in Marden in Kent a couple of years ago. £6,500 an acre for prime land. 1 hour from Charing Cross station....
The reason? - I was doing sums on how many £500k houses I could cram onto an acre....
The solution to all this is to end the shortage.
- Build a lot of new homes in the South East/West - Move alot of people around the country - Reduce the population
Which options do you like?
There is only 1 solution - build homes...
NIMBY may well be an overused term, but if you've spent just five minutes involved in the planning system and the excuses people will use to try to prevent anything, literally anything, from getting built, it's impossible to not know that NIMBYs do exist and they are powerful.
My wife is a planner in a National Park - I know all about objections.
In my National Park the planners are net emitters of objections.
Planners make decisions - that's their job. Objections are things they have to consider and most of the time the reasons given have little resemblance to anything that is a rational complaint or very often even vague rationality.
Fascinating as the "Small" / "Further Away" Father Ted debate is between the Essicks Massiv and the World Expert, do either of them propose any solution to London/SE property prices once they finish their stats death battle?
It doesn't matter whether the prices are the average or below average or whatever - as the people needing to live in them are paid double digit multiples less than the mortgage (my example was a mortgage 13.8x average salary) they won't be buying them anyway.
All the potential solutions threaten the property prices mainly held by the kind of people who vote Tory and higher up the ladder own the Tories, so the chance of any change is zero.
My three-pronged solution:
Lower taxes so people can save more of their own income to enable them to get more of a deposit/have more disposable income for affordability.
More and easier construction to lower house prices.
Higher inflation to allow house prices to earnings ratios to deflate without people going into negative equity.
"More and easier construction to lower house prices."
Every so often, this comes up on PB, and we get into the same discussion: is it even possible to build accommodation people want to live in for the price people can afford? For all the talk of £100k houses a few years back, few seem to be being made, even accounting for inflation (and most of those got down to that price by cheating, e.g. by not including land costs).
The problem was, and is, standards. Houses have to be built to certain standards, and these are being added to all the time, e.g. energy efficiency. We want houses to be built to these standards, but few standards actually reduce cost. Despite mechanisation in construction, the cost of producing a house continues to increase.
And IMO those standards a good thing: Grenfell Tower shows what can happen when lip-service is paid to standards and standardisation processes.
An 'easy' way to lower costs I've seen stated is to reduce the S106 obligations. Well, from my experience S106 needs strengthening if we're actually going to make liveable spaces, not just houses. Developers are getting away with too much.
So after all this negativity, what can be done? It'd be a minor change, but our town centres are dying. The government should encourage (i.e. pay) councils to accept this fact and turn more derelict or 'charity' shops into good, liveable accommodation. Make our town centres cheery, lively spaces once more.
The problem is land value - and the problem with land value is planning permission.
Why is land worth £100k without PP worth £1m+ with PP?
I don't think it is just land value: although land value is a major part of it.
Also, I don't think alterations to the planning process that would house prices significantly would actually lead to a liveable environment, for either the homeowners or others in the area. Many modern developments are bad enough with that as it is.
Land value is a major, major point. The cost of a house in London is completely disconnected from the cost of building a house. The right to build a property on a piece of land is where the money is.
Consider my personal example below. In Marden, Kent
- Agricultural land - £6,500 an acre - Local House prices - a nice 3/4 bed is £500k+ You could trivially fit a couple of them on an acre.....
You're missing a point: agricultural land considered suitable for development is certainly not £6,500 per acre.
Yep agricultural land with any chance in the next 20 years of becoming residential property (i.e. on the edge of a village / town) will be going for many times that already.
Even if it is cheap any sane landowner will add a 25 year uplift requirement on profits from subsequent changes in usage.
I did a bit of digging around. The price was due to the land being turned down for development, relatively recently. However, recently, other developments had been approved near by, that would probably effect a future application. Hence the gamble of buy, rent it out as agricultural land and wait.
It's an interesting phrase - "suitable for development". The land itself was near the town, well drained, moderately sheltered from prevailing wind, close to an existing road etc etc. In the Goode Olde days, someone would have been building there already, probably.
Yes, of course it means "the planners might well give it the thumbs up" - but it is interesting to consider the alternate meanings in the phrase.
The housing crisis has been carefully constructed and planned. It is as artificial as Donald Trumps skin colour.
Fascinating as the "Small" / "Further Away" Father Ted debate is between the Essicks Massiv and the World Expert, do either of them propose any solution to London/SE property prices once they finish their stats death battle?
It doesn't matter whether the prices are the average or below average or whatever - as the people needing to live in them are paid double digit multiples less than the mortgage (my example was a mortgage 13.8x average salary) they won't be buying them anyway.
All the potential solutions threaten the property prices mainly held by the kind of people who vote Tory and higher up the ladder own the Tories, so the chance of any change is zero.
My three-pronged solution:
Lower taxes so people can save more of their own income to enable them to get more of a deposit/have more disposable income for affordability.
More and easier construction to lower house prices.
Higher inflation to allow house prices to earnings ratios to deflate without people going into negative equity.
"More and easier construction to lower house prices."
Every so often, this comes up on PB, and we get into the same discussion: is it even possible to build accommodation people want to live in for the price people can afford? For all the talk of £100k houses a few years back, few seem to be being made, even accounting for inflation (and most of those got down to that price by cheating, e.g. by not including land costs).
The problem was, and is, standards. Houses have to be built to certain standards, and these are being added to all the time, e.g. energy efficiency. We want houses to be built to these standards, but few standards actually reduce cost. Despite mechanisation in construction, the cost of producing a house continues to increase.
And IMO those standards a good thing: Grenfell Tower shows what can happen when lip-service is paid to standards and standardisation processes.
An 'easy' way to lower costs I've seen stated is to reduce the S106 obligations. Well, from my experience S106 needs strengthening if we're actually going to make liveable spaces, not just houses. Developers are getting away with too much.
So after all this negativity, what can be done? It'd be a minor change, but our town centres are dying. The government should encourage (i.e. pay) councils to accept this fact and turn more derelict or 'charity' shops into good, liveable accommodation. Make our town centres cheery, lively spaces once more.
Isn't the problem mostly localized to London and the South-East? That implies it's more about how much land you're allowed to build on and how many stories you're allowed to build than anything about construction standards. (Although obviously if there are building requirements that are adding costs for no good purpose then that should be fixed.)
The cost of housing in the U.K. is driven (in approx order):
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
And by the way I qualified my support if you read my post properly
G, you are too polite , he is a greedy grasping two faced arsehole. Fact you paid in for 50 years has escaped his pea brain and as you say , happy to get free lolly himself, bloody hypocrite. It is great pensioners don't have to be soaked yet another time to suit these whining lazy gits.
I did not read CHB's statement of his personal circumstances as a boast.
Fascinating as the "Small" / "Further Away" Father Ted debate is between the Essicks Massiv and the World Expert, do either of them propose any solution to London/SE property prices once they finish their stats death battle?
It doesn't matter whether the prices are the average or below average or whatever - as the people needing to live in them are paid double digit multiples less than the mortgage (my example was a mortgage 13.8x average salary) they won't be buying them anyway.
All the potential solutions threaten the property prices mainly held by the kind of people who vote Tory and higher up the ladder own the Tories, so the chance of any change is zero.
My three-pronged solution:
Lower taxes so people can save more of their own income to enable them to get more of a deposit/have more disposable income for affordability.
More and easier construction to lower house prices.
Higher inflation to allow house prices to earnings ratios to deflate without people going into negative equity.
I do appreciate you proposing a solution! Question - how does it work? I've just looked at Wembley Park, where they have built a dozen new apartment blocks with thousands of apartments available (for rent). A fucking studio with room to break your cat's neck when swung costs £1,600 a month.
So lets assume that space exists for "more and easier construction" in and around that London. They're about to build at Old Oak Common, so how much do you need to lower taxes on people earning £26k a year for them to be able to afford the mortgage on a reduced cost £250k apartment?
Wages are completely disconnected from property prices and you aren't going to cut taxes or find places to build homes in to close off the gap in the private sector.
The only possible solution is the public sector. If that vast Wembley Park development had been done by Brent council (stop sniggering at the back) and rents were being offered for the cat decapitating studio apartments at affordable prices, then maybe you'd be onto something. That would collapse private sector prices though which is why it won't be done.
If the places you build are selling for that much then the bottleneck is almost definitely finding land you're allowed to build on and how high you're allowed to build on it, so it won't make much difference whether Brent Council builds it or some private developer builds it.
Tokyo has the cheat codes for this, just legalize building things and people will build things.
Yes the Japanese system works.
Of course in Japan they build individual homes rather than developments as you can simply get on with building if you have the land.
But that threatens people's unearned wealth by dropping house prices so its politically unpalatable with NIMBYs.
The average property in Tokyo costs $16,322 per square meter to buy, still pretty expensive and Tokyo has far more skyscrapers and highrise buildings than London and certainly no parks on the scale of Hyde Park for example so less greenspace than London too. https://moneyinc.com/the-20-most-expensive-cities-to-buy-a-home-in-the-world/
I'm scratching my head at that number but in any case they think it's half the cost they give for London, which is a big deal. Add to that that you can typically build higher on the same piece of land, so the impact on the amount of floor space you get per dollar is pretty drastic.
As far as the parks go it's true that London has some very big ones, but although I'm not advocating selling Hyde Park off to developers I'm not sure it's a great use of the space. Tokyo has a few biggish parks but also loads and loads of little teensy community ones with little playing areas for kids. I haven't lived in London but I think these are friendlier. Then if you want to get away from the bustle you can jump on a train, an hour and a half out of Shinjuku plus a 25 minute walk and there will be more bears around you than people.
London does have, in addition to the major parks, quite a lot of smaller green spaces.
I note that those left-of-centre commentators who were so critical of Johnson and the London govt and laudatory of the administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff for their respective Covid responses have gone quiet of late.
Much as I am loathed to defend the divisive Ms. Sturgeon, the policy to allow a free for all in travel to India from these islands was largely driven by Mr Johnson, allegedly so that he could cultivate a trade deal with India. Ms Sturgeon, it could be argued, has clearly been pretty crap at managing the fallout from that.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
Most homes are sold for below average but you still think average is the lowest you can go?
How thick are you? Do you think that zero homes are sold above average? Since when was average the lowest you can go?
First time buyer homes are sold for below average yes and as I have shown you even the average home bought by first time buyers in London is still priced at a value those on an average London wage cannot afford.
You can rant and be as rude as you like but clearly you do not understand that in London most Londoners on an average wage cannot afford to buy.
It doesn't matter what the average is, since the majority of sales are below average. It matters what is available. Repeatedly saying "average", "average", "average" is irrelevant when literally over half of all sales are for below average.
I've show you literally thousands of homes available well below the average.
Most can't afford to buy due to ruinous rent and taxes, meaning they can't get a deposit together without help. If taxes were lower, it'd be possible to save more and get a deposit together.
There are 8 million people in London, about 4 million of whom + now rent.
For goodness sake you have not found 4 million homes available for them to affordable buy have you? You have found a handful of cheaper properties in the worst areas of London!!
That's absolutely irrelevant, there aren't 4 million people looking to buy right now.
Those who are able to get a deposit together and get a mortgage are able to find a property. The issue is that today most people can't get a deposit together without help - but that's not a fact of life that has to be true.
There are over 4 million people in London who rent now and would ideally like to buy. Even if not all of them are imminent first time buyers there are also far more first time buyers in London than the handful of properties in the worst parts of London you found that could be affordable to them even with a deposit
No there aren't. There isn't a town or city anywhere in the world where the properties currently available on the market would match the quantity of renters.
That's not how the market works.
The simple fact is, even in London, if you can get a deposit and you can get a mortgage then you can get a property. And many people do that every year. But its nigh-on impossible as it stands to accrue a deposit using your own savings as costs and taxes are so high - and that is what should be getting fixed, not rely upon windfalls from inheritance as the solution for a very few people.
A few do, the majority don't and cannot on an average London income even with a deposit. Hence London has the highest percentage of renters in the UK
What evidence do you have that people can't afford a property on an average London income even with a deposit? As opposed to being unable to afford to save the deposit.
And for the love of everything please do not quote an average price again when most sales are literally below-average since that's how mean averages work.
By the same token, quoting the mean salary is also "wrong" - the two should more-or-less cancel out though.
Anyway:
Median house price in London is about £500k. Median salary in London is about £40k pa. So, a couple, both on median salaries can get a mortgage up £400k, although whether they can afford the repayments is another question entirely. So, they still need another £100k deposit on top. Even if they put £10k a year from their combined net salary of around £60k, it'd still take them 10 years to save. By which time of course, prices have gone up another x% in excess of wage inflation.
They don't cancel each other out, because people climb up the property ladder.
A couple on a median income who has repaid fifteen years of their mortgage on their existing property and is now looking to move may be able afford much higher than the median average house price.
A couple on a median income who has scrimped and saved to get a deposit and is looking to buy for the first time will not.
They also climb up the career ladder.
Your analysis would be correct if our housing market was functional. The problem is (and you seem to be pointing this out in many of your other posts, so I'm confused why you haven't joined the dots?) that the market isn't functional, and there are millions of families trapped renting long after the point where they would ideally have bought.
Couples on starter incomes can't afford starter houses. Couples on median incomes can't afford median houses, and can't use starter houses because they aren't big enough. So how are they supposed to get onto the ladder?
That's a fair point on the career ladder.
I don't agree that people can't use starter homes if they're on median incomes but yes I'm not claiming the property market is perfect - far from it, it needs major root and branch reform.
PS Malan out 5 runs from 33 balls. That could be good for both England and India.
How dare you Big G, my grandmother worked hard every day of her life, including during WW2 when she worked for MI5, protecting this country from the Nazis.
I am incredibly fortunate to have inherited money from her when she passed away and I wish others had the same fortune that I did. I did not boast in any way about this money and I totally resent the implication that I did - which you have now repeated as has another poster.
I am going to leave this site for a while because otherwise I am going to say something that will get me banned. I apologise again for anyone who might have been offended by my language but I do feel in this case it was warranted.
Fascinating as the "Small" / "Further Away" Father Ted debate is between the Essicks Massiv and the World Expert, do either of them propose any solution to London/SE property prices once they finish their stats death battle?
It doesn't matter whether the prices are the average or below average or whatever - as the people needing to live in them are paid double digit multiples less than the mortgage (my example was a mortgage 13.8x average salary) they won't be buying them anyway.
All the potential solutions threaten the property prices mainly held by the kind of people who vote Tory and higher up the ladder own the Tories, so the chance of any change is zero.
My three-pronged solution:
Lower taxes so people can save more of their own income to enable them to get more of a deposit/have more disposable income for affordability.
More and easier construction to lower house prices.
Higher inflation to allow house prices to earnings ratios to deflate without people going into negative equity.
I do appreciate you proposing a solution! Question - how does it work? I've just looked at Wembley Park, where they have built a dozen new apartment blocks with thousands of apartments available (for rent). A fucking studio with room to break your cat's neck when swung costs £1,600 a month.
So lets assume that space exists for "more and easier construction" in and around that London. They're about to build at Old Oak Common, so how much do you need to lower taxes on people earning £26k a year for them to be able to afford the mortgage on a reduced cost £250k apartment?
Wages are completely disconnected from property prices and you aren't going to cut taxes or find places to build homes in to close off the gap in the private sector.
The only possible solution is the public sector. If that vast Wembley Park development had been done by Brent council (stop sniggering at the back) and rents were being offered for the cat decapitating studio apartments at affordable prices, then maybe you'd be onto something. That would collapse private sector prices though which is why it won't be done.
If the places you build are selling for that much then the bottleneck is almost definitely finding land you're allowed to build on and how high you're allowed to build on it, so it won't make much difference whether Brent Council builds it or some private developer builds it.
Tokyo has the cheat codes for this, just legalize building things and people will build things.
Yes the Japanese system works.
Of course in Japan they build individual homes rather than developments as you can simply get on with building if you have the land.
But that threatens people's unearned wealth by dropping house prices so its politically unpalatable with NIMBYs.
The average property in Tokyo costs $16,322 per square meter to buy, still pretty expensive and Tokyo has far more skyscrapers and highrise buildings than London and certainly no parks on the scale of Hyde Park for example so less greenspace than London too. https://moneyinc.com/the-20-most-expensive-cities-to-buy-a-home-in-the-world/
I'm scratching my head at that number but in any case they think it's half the cost they give for London, which is a big deal. Add to that that you can typically build higher on the same piece of land, so the impact on the amount of floor space you get per dollar is pretty drastic.
As far as the parks go it's true that London has some very big ones, but although I'm not advocating selling Hyde Park off to developers I'm not sure it's a great use of the space. Tokyo has a few biggish parks but also loads and loads of little teensy community ones with little playing areas for kids. I haven't lived in London but I think these are friendlier. Then if you want to get away from the bustle you can jump on a train, an hour and a half out of Shinjuku plus a 25 minute walk and there will be more bears around you than people.
As well as fewer big parks and more high rise to follow Tokyo London would also have to restrict immigration from and purchase of property by higher net worth foreigners and immigrants. Tokyo is a much less multicultural city than London with tight immigration laws and also has only 30 billionaires compared to 63 in London
Fascinating as the "Small" / "Further Away" Father Ted debate is between the Essicks Massiv and the World Expert, do either of them propose any solution to London/SE property prices once they finish their stats death battle?
It doesn't matter whether the prices are the average or below average or whatever - as the people needing to live in them are paid double digit multiples less than the mortgage (my example was a mortgage 13.8x average salary) they won't be buying them anyway.
All the potential solutions threaten the property prices mainly held by the kind of people who vote Tory and higher up the ladder own the Tories, so the chance of any change is zero.
My three-pronged solution:
Lower taxes so people can save more of their own income to enable them to get more of a deposit/have more disposable income for affordability.
More and easier construction to lower house prices.
Higher inflation to allow house prices to earnings ratios to deflate without people going into negative equity.
I do appreciate you proposing a solution! Question - how does it work? I've just looked at Wembley Park, where they have built a dozen new apartment blocks with thousands of apartments available (for rent). A fucking studio with room to break your cat's neck when swung costs £1,600 a month.
So lets assume that space exists for "more and easier construction" in and around that London. They're about to build at Old Oak Common, so how much do you need to lower taxes on people earning £26k a year for them to be able to afford the mortgage on a reduced cost £250k apartment?
Wages are completely disconnected from property prices and you aren't going to cut taxes or find places to build homes in to close off the gap in the private sector.
The only possible solution is the public sector. If that vast Wembley Park development had been done by Brent council (stop sniggering at the back) and rents were being offered for the cat decapitating studio apartments at affordable prices, then maybe you'd be onto something. That would collapse private sector prices though which is why it won't be done.
If the places you build are selling for that much then the bottleneck is almost definitely finding land you're allowed to build on and how high you're allowed to build on it, so it won't make much difference whether Brent Council builds it or some private developer builds it.
Tokyo has the cheat codes for this, just legalize building things and people will build things.
Yes the Japanese system works.
Of course in Japan they build individual homes rather than developments as you can simply get on with building if you have the land.
But that threatens people's unearned wealth by dropping house prices so its politically unpalatable with NIMBYs.
The average property in Tokyo costs $16,322 per square meter to buy, still pretty expensive and Tokyo has far more skyscrapers and highrise buildings than London and certainly no parks on the scale of Hyde Park for example so less greenspace than London too. https://moneyinc.com/the-20-most-expensive-cities-to-buy-a-home-in-the-world/
I'm scratching my head at that number but in any case they think it's half the cost they give for London, which is a big deal. Add to that that you can typically build higher on the same piece of land, so the impact on the amount of floor space you get per dollar is pretty drastic.
As far as the parks go it's true that London has some very big ones, but although I'm not advocating selling Hyde Park off to developers I'm not sure it's a great use of the space. Tokyo has a few biggish parks but also loads and loads of little teensy community ones with little playing areas for kids. I haven't lived in London but I think these are friendlier. Then if you want to get away from the bustle you can jump on a train, an hour and a half out of Shinjuku plus a 25 minute walk and there will be more bears around you than people.
London does have, in addition to the major parks, quite a lot of smaller green spaces.
Look at Manhattan, look at Paris - then look at London.
There is loads of room in London. But the planning laws/rules are f**ed.
Fascinating as the "Small" / "Further Away" Father Ted debate is between the Essicks Massiv and the World Expert, do either of them propose any solution to London/SE property prices once they finish their stats death battle?
It doesn't matter whether the prices are the average or below average or whatever - as the people needing to live in them are paid double digit multiples less than the mortgage (my example was a mortgage 13.8x average salary) they won't be buying them anyway.
All the potential solutions threaten the property prices mainly held by the kind of people who vote Tory and higher up the ladder own the Tories, so the chance of any change is zero.
My three-pronged solution:
Lower taxes so people can save more of their own income to enable them to get more of a deposit/have more disposable income for affordability.
More and easier construction to lower house prices.
Higher inflation to allow house prices to earnings ratios to deflate without people going into negative equity.
I do appreciate you proposing a solution! Question - how does it work? I've just looked at Wembley Park, where they have built a dozen new apartment blocks with thousands of apartments available (for rent). A fucking studio with room to break your cat's neck when swung costs £1,600 a month.
So lets assume that space exists for "more and easier construction" in and around that London. They're about to build at Old Oak Common, so how much do you need to lower taxes on people earning £26k a year for them to be able to afford the mortgage on a reduced cost £250k apartment?
Wages are completely disconnected from property prices and you aren't going to cut taxes or find places to build homes in to close off the gap in the private sector.
The only possible solution is the public sector. If that vast Wembley Park development had been done by Brent council (stop sniggering at the back) and rents were being offered for the cat decapitating studio apartments at affordable prices, then maybe you'd be onto something. That would collapse private sector prices though which is why it won't be done.
If the places you build are selling for that much then the bottleneck is almost definitely finding land you're allowed to build on and how high you're allowed to build on it, so it won't make much difference whether Brent Council builds it or some private developer builds it.
Tokyo has the cheat codes for this, just legalize building things and people will build things.
They're selling for that - to big developers - because there are huge numbers who have no option but to pay rents to a private owner like the big developers.
If that was the root of the problem then what it would imply would be that the big developers were making massive profits, and anyone could also set up as a small developer and also make (marginally less but still) massive profits, by selling to customers for slightly less. You don't need Brent Council to be the new competition, literally any creditworthy business could also show up and do it and also make vast sums of money.
I'm not an expert on this market but I suspect it doesn't work like that. More likely it's the same problem that's occurring in every popular city in the world that bans people from building things, and isn't occurring in cities that don't ban people from building things.
Yes - in places where you can build practically at will, the absurdly high housing costs don't occur.
We have a population growing much faster than the rate of construction of new homes. The idea that it is strange, weird, or even unusual that house prices then escalate ridiculously is itself somewhat funny.
Attempts at price controls have been trialled around the world, many times. They simply create a sub-class of the fortunate and actually make things worse for everyone else.
The high house prices are a symptom of the shortage.
I nearly bought some agricultural land in Marden in Kent a couple of years ago. £6,500 an acre for prime land. 1 hour from Charing Cross station....
The reason? - I was doing sums on how many £500k houses I could cram onto an acre....
The solution to all this is to end the shortage.
- Build a lot of new homes in the South East/West - Move alot of people around the country - Reduce the population
Which options do you like?
There is only 1 solution - build homes...
NIMBY may well be an overused term, but if you've spent just five minutes involved in the planning system and the excuses people will use to try to prevent anything, literally anything, from getting built, it's impossible to not know that NIMBYs do exist and they are powerful.
The planning system needs a massive overhaul. If an application goes through to committee at district council in my area, it is totally arbitrary: no proper procedure or process is applied, it is just opinion of the councillors that make up the committee. It is a complete disgrace.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
No it isn't, because if those on average incomes in London cannot afford the average property in London or even the average price paid by first time buyers for property in London then by definition most of them won't be able to find enough property they can afford to buy in London. Even if there are a few properties a minority of them might be able to afford in the least desirable parts of the city. That is my point
Fascinating as the "Small" / "Further Away" Father Ted debate is between the Essicks Massiv and the World Expert, do either of them propose any solution to London/SE property prices once they finish their stats death battle?
It doesn't matter whether the prices are the average or below average or whatever - as the people needing to live in them are paid double digit multiples less than the mortgage (my example was a mortgage 13.8x average salary) they won't be buying them anyway.
All the potential solutions threaten the property prices mainly held by the kind of people who vote Tory and higher up the ladder own the Tories, so the chance of any change is zero.
My three-pronged solution:
Lower taxes so people can save more of their own income to enable them to get more of a deposit/have more disposable income for affordability.
More and easier construction to lower house prices.
Higher inflation to allow house prices to earnings ratios to deflate without people going into negative equity.
I do appreciate you proposing a solution! Question - how does it work? I've just looked at Wembley Park, where they have built a dozen new apartment blocks with thousands of apartments available (for rent). A fucking studio with room to break your cat's neck when swung costs £1,600 a month.
So lets assume that space exists for "more and easier construction" in and around that London. They're about to build at Old Oak Common, so how much do you need to lower taxes on people earning £26k a year for them to be able to afford the mortgage on a reduced cost £250k apartment?
Wages are completely disconnected from property prices and you aren't going to cut taxes or find places to build homes in to close off the gap in the private sector.
The only possible solution is the public sector. If that vast Wembley Park development had been done by Brent council (stop sniggering at the back) and rents were being offered for the cat decapitating studio apartments at affordable prices, then maybe you'd be onto something. That would collapse private sector prices though which is why it won't be done.
If the places you build are selling for that much then the bottleneck is almost definitely finding land you're allowed to build on and how high you're allowed to build on it, so it won't make much difference whether Brent Council builds it or some private developer builds it.
Tokyo has the cheat codes for this, just legalize building things and people will build things.
Yes the Japanese system works.
Of course in Japan they build individual homes rather than developments as you can simply get on with building if you have the land.
But that threatens people's unearned wealth by dropping house prices so its politically unpalatable with NIMBYs.
The average property in Tokyo costs $16,322 per square meter to buy, still pretty expensive and Tokyo has far more skyscrapers and highrise buildings than London and certainly no parks on the scale of Hyde Park for example so less greenspace than London too. https://moneyinc.com/the-20-most-expensive-cities-to-buy-a-home-in-the-world/
I'm scratching my head at that number but in any case they think it's half the cost they give for London, which is a big deal. Add to that that you can typically build higher on the same piece of land, so the impact on the amount of floor space you get per dollar is pretty drastic.
As far as the parks go it's true that London has some very big ones, but although I'm not advocating selling Hyde Park off to developers I'm not sure it's a great use of the space. Tokyo has a few biggish parks but also loads and loads of little teensy community ones with little playing areas for kids. I haven't lived in London but I think these are friendlier. Then if you want to get away from the bustle you can jump on a train, an hour and a half out of Shinjuku plus a 25 minute walk and there will be more bears around you than people.
London does have, in addition to the major parks, quite a lot of smaller green spaces.
Fascinating as the "Small" / "Further Away" Father Ted debate is between the Essicks Massiv and the World Expert, do either of them propose any solution to London/SE property prices once they finish their stats death battle?
It doesn't matter whether the prices are the average or below average or whatever - as the people needing to live in them are paid double digit multiples less than the mortgage (my example was a mortgage 13.8x average salary) they won't be buying them anyway.
All the potential solutions threaten the property prices mainly held by the kind of people who vote Tory and higher up the ladder own the Tories, so the chance of any change is zero.
My three-pronged solution:
Lower taxes so people can save more of their own income to enable them to get more of a deposit/have more disposable income for affordability.
More and easier construction to lower house prices.
Higher inflation to allow house prices to earnings ratios to deflate without people going into negative equity.
I do appreciate you proposing a solution! Question - how does it work? I've just looked at Wembley Park, where they have built a dozen new apartment blocks with thousands of apartments available (for rent). A fucking studio with room to break your cat's neck when swung costs £1,600 a month.
So lets assume that space exists for "more and easier construction" in and around that London. They're about to build at Old Oak Common, so how much do you need to lower taxes on people earning £26k a year for them to be able to afford the mortgage on a reduced cost £250k apartment?
Wages are completely disconnected from property prices and you aren't going to cut taxes or find places to build homes in to close off the gap in the private sector.
The only possible solution is the public sector. If that vast Wembley Park development had been done by Brent council (stop sniggering at the back) and rents were being offered for the cat decapitating studio apartments at affordable prices, then maybe you'd be onto something. That would collapse private sector prices though which is why it won't be done.
If the places you build are selling for that much then the bottleneck is almost definitely finding land you're allowed to build on and how high you're allowed to build on it, so it won't make much difference whether Brent Council builds it or some private developer builds it.
Tokyo has the cheat codes for this, just legalize building things and people will build things.
Yes the Japanese system works.
Of course in Japan they build individual homes rather than developments as you can simply get on with building if you have the land.
But that threatens people's unearned wealth by dropping house prices so its politically unpalatable with NIMBYs.
The average property in Tokyo costs $16,322 per square meter to buy, still pretty expensive and Tokyo has far more skyscrapers and highrise buildings than London and certainly no parks on the scale of Hyde Park for example so less greenspace than London too. https://moneyinc.com/the-20-most-expensive-cities-to-buy-a-home-in-the-world/
I'm scratching my head at that number but in any case they think it's half the cost they give for London, which is a big deal. Add to that that you can typically build higher on the same piece of land, so the impact on the amount of floor space you get per dollar is pretty drastic.
As far as the parks go it's true that London has some very big ones, but although I'm not advocating selling Hyde Park off to developers I'm not sure it's a great use of the space. Tokyo has a few biggish parks but also loads and loads of little teensy community ones with little playing areas for kids. I haven't lived in London but I think these are friendlier. Then if you want to get away from the bustle you can jump on a train, an hour and a half out of Shinjuku plus a 25 minute walk and there will be more bears around you than people.
London does have, in addition to the major parks, quite a lot of smaller green spaces.
Look at Manhattan, look at Paris - then look at London.
There is loads of room in London. But the planning laws/rules are f**ed.
There is also more greenspace in and around London and more parks and room to breathe than in Manhattan or Paris, not that it is much easier for the average New Yorker or Parisian to move from renting to buying in Manhattan or Paris either, they are also both expensive
Fascinating as the "Small" / "Further Away" Father Ted debate is between the Essicks Massiv and the World Expert, do either of them propose any solution to London/SE property prices once they finish their stats death battle?
It doesn't matter whether the prices are the average or below average or whatever - as the people needing to live in them are paid double digit multiples less than the mortgage (my example was a mortgage 13.8x average salary) they won't be buying them anyway.
All the potential solutions threaten the property prices mainly held by the kind of people who vote Tory and higher up the ladder own the Tories, so the chance of any change is zero.
My three-pronged solution:
Lower taxes so people can save more of their own income to enable them to get more of a deposit/have more disposable income for affordability.
More and easier construction to lower house prices.
Higher inflation to allow house prices to earnings ratios to deflate without people going into negative equity.
I do appreciate you proposing a solution! Question - how does it work? I've just looked at Wembley Park, where they have built a dozen new apartment blocks with thousands of apartments available (for rent). A fucking studio with room to break your cat's neck when swung costs £1,600 a month.
So lets assume that space exists for "more and easier construction" in and around that London. They're about to build at Old Oak Common, so how much do you need to lower taxes on people earning £26k a year for them to be able to afford the mortgage on a reduced cost £250k apartment?
Wages are completely disconnected from property prices and you aren't going to cut taxes or find places to build homes in to close off the gap in the private sector.
The only possible solution is the public sector. If that vast Wembley Park development had been done by Brent council (stop sniggering at the back) and rents were being offered for the cat decapitating studio apartments at affordable prices, then maybe you'd be onto something. That would collapse private sector prices though which is why it won't be done.
If the places you build are selling for that much then the bottleneck is almost definitely finding land you're allowed to build on and how high you're allowed to build on it, so it won't make much difference whether Brent Council builds it or some private developer builds it.
Tokyo has the cheat codes for this, just legalize building things and people will build things.
Yes the Japanese system works.
Of course in Japan they build individual homes rather than developments as you can simply get on with building if you have the land.
But that threatens people's unearned wealth by dropping house prices so its politically unpalatable with NIMBYs.
The average property in Tokyo costs $16,322 per square meter to buy, still pretty expensive and Tokyo has far more skyscrapers and highrise buildings than London and certainly no parks on the scale of Hyde Park for example so less greenspace than London too. https://moneyinc.com/the-20-most-expensive-cities-to-buy-a-home-in-the-world/
I'm scratching my head at that number but in any case they think it's half the cost they give for London, which is a big deal. Add to that that you can typically build higher on the same piece of land, so the impact on the amount of floor space you get per dollar is pretty drastic.
As far as the parks go it's true that London has some very big ones, but although I'm not advocating selling Hyde Park off to developers I'm not sure it's a great use of the space. Tokyo has a few biggish parks but also loads and loads of little teensy community ones with little playing areas for kids. I haven't lived in London but I think these are friendlier. Then if you want to get away from the bustle you can jump on a train, an hour and a half out of Shinjuku plus a 25 minute walk and there will be more bears around you than people.
London does have, in addition to the major parks, quite a lot of smaller green spaces.
Don't forget the golf courses.
I live close to Zone 1. My house, and all the houses around me are three story (with the lower story a half-submerged basement level).
Fascinating as the "Small" / "Further Away" Father Ted debate is between the Essicks Massiv and the World Expert, do either of them propose any solution to London/SE property prices once they finish their stats death battle?
It doesn't matter whether the prices are the average or below average or whatever - as the people needing to live in them are paid double digit multiples less than the mortgage (my example was a mortgage 13.8x average salary) they won't be buying them anyway.
All the potential solutions threaten the property prices mainly held by the kind of people who vote Tory and higher up the ladder own the Tories, so the chance of any change is zero.
My three-pronged solution:
Lower taxes so people can save more of their own income to enable them to get more of a deposit/have more disposable income for affordability.
More and easier construction to lower house prices.
Higher inflation to allow house prices to earnings ratios to deflate without people going into negative equity.
I do appreciate you proposing a solution! Question - how does it work? I've just looked at Wembley Park, where they have built a dozen new apartment blocks with thousands of apartments available (for rent). A fucking studio with room to break your cat's neck when swung costs £1,600 a month.
So lets assume that space exists for "more and easier construction" in and around that London. They're about to build at Old Oak Common, so how much do you need to lower taxes on people earning £26k a year for them to be able to afford the mortgage on a reduced cost £250k apartment?
Wages are completely disconnected from property prices and you aren't going to cut taxes or find places to build homes in to close off the gap in the private sector.
The only possible solution is the public sector. If that vast Wembley Park development had been done by Brent council (stop sniggering at the back) and rents were being offered for the cat decapitating studio apartments at affordable prices, then maybe you'd be onto something. That would collapse private sector prices though which is why it won't be done.
If the places you build are selling for that much then the bottleneck is almost definitely finding land you're allowed to build on and how high you're allowed to build on it, so it won't make much difference whether Brent Council builds it or some private developer builds it.
Tokyo has the cheat codes for this, just legalize building things and people will build things.
Yes the Japanese system works.
Of course in Japan they build individual homes rather than developments as you can simply get on with building if you have the land.
But that threatens people's unearned wealth by dropping house prices so its politically unpalatable with NIMBYs.
The average property in Tokyo costs $16,322 per square meter to buy, still pretty expensive and Tokyo has far more skyscrapers and highrise buildings than London and certainly no parks on the scale of Hyde Park for example so less greenspace than London too. https://moneyinc.com/the-20-most-expensive-cities-to-buy-a-home-in-the-world/
I'm scratching my head at that number but in any case they think it's half the cost they give for London, which is a big deal. Add to that that you can typically build higher on the same piece of land, so the impact on the amount of floor space you get per dollar is pretty drastic.
As far as the parks go it's true that London has some very big ones, but although I'm not advocating selling Hyde Park off to developers I'm not sure it's a great use of the space. Tokyo has a few biggish parks but also loads and loads of little teensy community ones with little playing areas for kids. I haven't lived in London but I think these are friendlier. Then if you want to get away from the bustle you can jump on a train, an hour and a half out of Shinjuku plus a 25 minute walk and there will be more bears around you than people.
As well as fewer big parks and more high rise to follow Tokyo London would also have to restrict immigration from and purchase of property by higher net worth foreigners and immigrants. Tokyo is a much less multicultural city than London with tight immigration laws and also has only 30 billionaires compared to 63 in London
I don't know about billionnaires but there's a lot of Chinese money buying up luxury flats for status/investment/security in a few choice areas. However like London I doubt it's making a big difference except at the top end.
On immigration foreigners don't particularly need bigger places than natives so it doesn't matter whether the extra population is coming from Latvia or Aomori.
Really, the economics here aren't complicated. If you ban people from making something, and lots of people want the something, the price will go up. If you don't ban people from making the thing, the higher price will encourage people to make more of the thing, and that will stop it going up any more.
How dare you Big G, my grandmother worked hard every day of her life, including during WW2 when she worked for MI5, protecting this country from the Nazis.
I am incredibly fortunate to have inherited money from her when she passed away and I wish others had the same fortune that I did. I did not boast in any way about this money and I totally resent the implication that I did - which you have now repeated as has another poster.
I am going to leave this site for a while because otherwise I am going to say something that will get me banned. I apologise again for anyone who might have been offended by my language but I do feel in this case it was warranted.
I wouldn't worry about your language; no-one ever seems particularly bothered by mine, and if they are, well fuck 'em!
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
Most homes are sold for below average but you still think average is the lowest you can go?
How thick are you? Do you think that zero homes are sold above average? Since when was average the lowest you can go?
First time buyer homes are sold for below average yes and as I have shown you even the average home bought by first time buyers in London is still priced at a value those on an average London wage cannot afford.
You can rant and be as rude as you like but clearly you do not understand that in London most Londoners on an average wage cannot afford to buy.
It doesn't matter what the average is, since the majority of sales are below average. It matters what is available. Repeatedly saying "average", "average", "average" is irrelevant when literally over half of all sales are for below average.
I've show you literally thousands of homes available well below the average.
Most can't afford to buy due to ruinous rent and taxes, meaning they can't get a deposit together without help. If taxes were lower, it'd be possible to save more and get a deposit together.
There are 8 million people in London, about 4 million of whom + now rent.
For goodness sake you have not found 4 million homes available for them to affordable buy have you? You have found a handful of cheaper properties in the worst areas of London!!
That's absolutely irrelevant, there aren't 4 million people looking to buy right now.
Those who are able to get a deposit together and get a mortgage are able to find a property. The issue is that today most people can't get a deposit together without help - but that's not a fact of life that has to be true.
There are over 4 million people in London who rent now and would ideally like to buy. Even if not all of them are imminent first time buyers there are also far more first time buyers in London than the handful of properties in the worst parts of London you found that could be affordable to them even with a deposit
No there aren't. There isn't a town or city anywhere in the world where the properties currently available on the market would match the quantity of renters.
That's not how the market works.
The simple fact is, even in London, if you can get a deposit and you can get a mortgage then you can get a property. And many people do that every year. But its nigh-on impossible as it stands to accrue a deposit using your own savings as costs and taxes are so high - and that is what should be getting fixed, not rely upon windfalls from inheritance as the solution for a very few people.
A few do, the majority don't and cannot on an average London income even with a deposit. Hence London has the highest percentage of renters in the UK
What evidence do you have that people can't afford a property on an average London income even with a deposit? As opposed to being unable to afford to save the deposit.
And for the love of everything please do not quote an average price again when most sales are literally below-average since that's how mean averages work.
By the same token, quoting the mean salary is also "wrong" - the two should more-or-less cancel out though.
Anyway:
Median house price in London is about £500k. Median salary in London is about £40k pa. So, a couple, both on median salaries can get a mortgage up £400k, although whether they can afford the repayments is another question entirely. So, they still need another £100k deposit on top. Even if they put £10k a year from their combined net salary of around £60k, it'd still take them 10 years to save. By which time of course, prices have gone up another x% in excess of wage inflation.
They don't cancel each other out, because people climb up the property ladder.
A couple on a median income who has repaid fifteen years of their mortgage on their existing property and is now looking to move may be able afford much higher than the median average house price.
A couple on a median income who has scrimped and saved to get a deposit and is looking to buy for the first time will not.
They also climb up the career ladder.
Your analysis would be correct if our housing market was functional. The problem is (and you seem to be pointing this out in many of your other posts, so I'm confused why you haven't joined the dots?) that the market isn't functional, and there are millions of families trapped renting long after the point where they would ideally have bought.
Couples on starter incomes can't afford starter houses. Couples on median incomes can't afford median houses, and can't use starter houses because they aren't big enough. So how are they supposed to get onto the ladder?
That's a fair point on the career ladder.
I don't agree that people can't use starter homes if they're on median incomes but yes I'm not claiming the property market is perfect - far from it, it needs major root and branch reform.
PS Malan out 5 runs from 33 balls. That could be good for both England and India.
On the bolded bit, I mean because by that point they might be trying to fit themselves and two kids into a 1.5 bed flat, not because it's beneath them to live in a place that doesn't befit their status as "average" earners.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
Most homes are sold for below average but you still think average is the lowest you can go?
How thick are you? Do you think that zero homes are sold above average? Since when was average the lowest you can go?
First time buyer homes are sold for below average yes and as I have shown you even the average home bought by first time buyers in London is still priced at a value those on an average London wage cannot afford.
You can rant and be as rude as you like but clearly you do not understand that in London most Londoners on an average wage cannot afford to buy.
It doesn't matter what the average is, since the majority of sales are below average. It matters what is available. Repeatedly saying "average", "average", "average" is irrelevant when literally over half of all sales are for below average.
I've show you literally thousands of homes available well below the average.
Most can't afford to buy due to ruinous rent and taxes, meaning they can't get a deposit together without help. If taxes were lower, it'd be possible to save more and get a deposit together.
There are 8 million people in London, about 4 million of whom + now rent.
For goodness sake you have not found 4 million homes available for them to affordable buy have you? You have found a handful of cheaper properties in the worst areas of London!!
That's absolutely irrelevant, there aren't 4 million people looking to buy right now.
Those who are able to get a deposit together and get a mortgage are able to find a property. The issue is that today most people can't get a deposit together without help - but that's not a fact of life that has to be true.
There are over 4 million people in London who rent now and would ideally like to buy. Even if not all of them are imminent first time buyers there are also far more first time buyers in London than the handful of properties in the worst parts of London you found that could be affordable to them even with a deposit
No there aren't. There isn't a town or city anywhere in the world where the properties currently available on the market would match the quantity of renters.
That's not how the market works.
The simple fact is, even in London, if you can get a deposit and you can get a mortgage then you can get a property. And many people do that every year. But its nigh-on impossible as it stands to accrue a deposit using your own savings as costs and taxes are so high - and that is what should be getting fixed, not rely upon windfalls from inheritance as the solution for a very few people.
A few do, the majority don't and cannot on an average London income even with a deposit. Hence London has the highest percentage of renters in the UK
What evidence do you have that people can't afford a property on an average London income even with a deposit? As opposed to being unable to afford to save the deposit.
And for the love of everything please do not quote an average price again when most sales are literally below-average since that's how mean averages work.
By the same token, quoting the mean salary is also "wrong" - the two should more-or-less cancel out though.
Anyway:
Median house price in London is about £500k. Median salary in London is about £40k pa. So, a couple, both on median salaries can get a mortgage up £400k, although whether they can afford the repayments is another question entirely. So, they still need another £100k deposit on top. Even if they put £10k a year from their combined net salary of around £60k, it'd still take them 10 years to save. By which time of course, prices have gone up another x% in excess of wage inflation.
They don't cancel each other out, because people climb up the property ladder.
A couple on a median income who has repaid fifteen years of their mortgage on their existing property and is now looking to move may be able afford much higher than the median average house price.
A couple on a median income who has scrimped and saved to get a deposit and is looking to buy for the first time will not.
They also climb up the career ladder.
Your analysis would be correct if our housing market was functional. The problem is (and you seem to be pointing this out in many of your other posts, so I'm confused why you haven't joined the dots?) that the market isn't functional, and there are millions of families trapped renting long after the point where they would ideally have bought.
Couples on starter incomes can't afford starter houses. Couples on median incomes can't afford median houses, and can't use starter houses because they aren't big enough. So how are they supposed to get onto the ladder?
That's a fair point on the career ladder.
I don't agree that people can't use starter homes if they're on median incomes but yes I'm not claiming the property market is perfect - far from it, it needs major root and branch reform.
PS Malan out 5 runs from 33 balls. That could be good for both England and India.
On the bolded bit, I mean because by that point they might be trying to fit themselves and two kids into a 1.5 bed flat, not because it's beneath them to live in a place that doesn't befit their status as "average" earners.
Oh I fully understood that.
But not all below-average house price houses will be 1.5 bed flats. Indeed as I showed earlier, there's plenty of below average 3-bed houses on Rightmove right now.
Averages distort facts and can be misleading. Doesn't mean there aren't real problems of course.
'A cap on care costs which makes sure people do not see their life savings wiped out is important'
And then has absolutely no response as to how to raise the money
Perhaps cancel some of Boris’s pet projects, like the Royal Yacht that the royals don’t want.
250 million v 20 billion
It's up to 500m now. It's a one off design of type of vessel that hasn't been built in the UK for 50 years so, once all of the security systems have been added, I'd be amazed if it isn't a 1bn quid flegship by the time it's in the water.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
No it isn't, because if those on average incomes in London cannot afford the average property in London or even the average price paid by first time buyers for property in London then by definition most of them won't be able to find enough property they can afford to buy in London. Even if there are a few properties a minority of them might be able to afford in the least desirable parts of the city
No I'm stopping. It has been explained to you over and over again about averages on a skewed samples which this is and you don't get it. I don't know why. It is difficult to believe someone can be that innumerate.
The best counter argument was from @dixiedean who pointed out salaries were also skewed around the average.
And you still don't get that I might agree with you on the houses not being affordable in London, after all it is a well documented problem. I don't know how many times I have to say it and why you think I think differently.
If you want to prove @Philip_Thompson wrong you have to come up with a valid argument. They are out there.
Mr. Battery, hope to see you back soon, and for a rather calmer atmosphere to prevail.
However, this also has a political dimension. It's incredibly easy for this to become fraught and bitter because of the nature of the discussion. As such, bad moves can make a serious political impact.
Labour wishing for money from thin air is pathetic. But it also won't offend/antagonise voters the same way a concrete proposal that *gasp!* has some people paying more and other less will.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
The best thing that could happen in this country is a complete and utter collapse of house prices and a wipeout of housing "wealth". It distorts everything.
Houses are somewhere to live, not a goldmine.
Better to introduce an annual property tax, at a low almost token rate to begin with, but signalling the intention to ramp it up (hence progressively making property as an investment less attractive), get rid of stamp duty (which is a tax on mobility, not property) and in an ideal world begin to reduce tax on incomes.
Root has scored more runs in 9 balls than Malan got out for in 33.
This is what we need.
Nah, we need to play for the draw. India will bowl us out if we play aggressively to win.
Bat for the draw and we'll be bowled out too. Once one side gives up the other side gets a massive psychological advantage. Plus a massive tactical one too since they can bowl aggressively instead of defensively.
We need to at least be aggressive enough for India to keep defence in mind while they're bowling.
I note that those left-of-centre commentators who were so critical of Johnson and the London govt and laudatory of the administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff for their respective Covid responses have gone quiet of late.
Much as I am loathed to defend the divisive Ms. Sturgeon, the policy to allow a free for all in travel to India from these islands was largely driven by Mr Johnson, allegedly so that he could cultivate a trade deal with India. Ms Sturgeon, it could be argued, has clearly been pretty crap at managing the fallout from that.
Shocking as it is public health disasters don't care who is in power. Why have numbers spiked in rural Scotland? Especially places like Highland which escaped largely unscathed before? Because tourism. Because NC500. Because "staycations".
The start in the spike in these places is indeed before Scottish schools went back. Broadly in line with when English schools broke up...
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
No it isn't, because if those on average incomes in London cannot afford the average property in London or even the average price paid by first time buyers for property in London then by definition most of them won't be able to find enough property they can afford to buy in London. Even if there are a few properties a minority of them might be able to afford in the least desirable parts of the city
Root has scored more runs in 9 balls than Malan got out for in 33.
This is what we need.
Nah, we need to play for the draw. India will bowl us out if we play aggressively to win.
In 30 years of watching England play cricket, I think I can count the number of successful "play for the draw" attempts on the fingers of one hand. Usually it makes us too defensive and we wind up with 8 close catchers in, whereas a few aggressive shots would've sent half of them back towards the boundary.
Put simply, that batting lineup is much more likely to get out if we play for the draw.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
The best thing that could happen in this country is a complete and utter collapse of house prices and a wipeout of housing "wealth". It distorts everything.
Houses are somewhere to live, not a goldmine.
Better to introduce an annual property tax, at a low almost token rate to begin with, but signalling the intention to ramp it up (hence progressively making property as an investment less attractive), get rid of stamp duty (which is a tax on mobility, not property) and in an ideal world begin to reduce tax on incomes.
Why wouldn't everyone set up a company to hold the property? Particularly the rich?
Root has scored more runs in 9 balls than Malan got out for in 33.
This is what we need.
Nah, we need to play for the draw. India will bowl us out if we play aggressively to win.
In 30 years of watching England play cricket, I think I can count the number of successful "play for the draw" attempts on the fingers of one hand. Usually it makes us too defensive and we wind up with 8 close catchers in, whereas a few aggressive shots would've sent half of them back towards the boundary.
Put simply, that batting lineup is much more likely to get out if we play for the draw.
That was my point too, but you put it better.
Get enough fielders at the boundary and it becomes easier to rotate the strike too. Which then keeps the runs ticking over and makes it harder for the fielders to get wickets.
We might still only end up with a draw, but we've a much better chance of getting a draw by seeking to keep a win alive.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
No it isn't, because if those on average incomes in London cannot afford the average property in London or even the average price paid by first time buyers for property in London then by definition most of them won't be able to find enough property they can afford to buy in London. Even if there are a few properties a minority of them might be able to afford in the least desirable parts of the city
No I'm stopping. It has been explained to you over and over again about averages on a skewed samples which this is and you don't get it. I don't know why. It is difficult to believe someone can be that innumerate.
The best counter argument was from @dixiedean who pointed out salaries were also skewed around the average.
And you still don't get that I might agree with you on the houses not being affordable in London, after all it is a well documented problem. I don't know how many times I have to say it and why you think I think differently.
If you want to prove @Philip_Thompson wrong you have to come up with a valid argument. They are out there.
The valid argument I have already provided, the average London property price, even paid by first time buyers, is unaffordable to those on the average London wage.
The only way you can counter that is to find 3-4 million homes in London affordable to buy for the 4 million+ Londoners currently renting and earning an average London wage and yes there will be some earning more and less than that but that does not change the fact it is the average Londoner we are talking about. You and Philip Thompson have not been able to do that other than find a few homes in the least desirable parts of London which only a minority of them could afford to buy
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
No it isn't, because if those on average incomes in London cannot afford the average property in London or even the average price paid by first time buyers for property in London then by definition most of them won't be able to find enough property they can afford to buy in London. Even if there are a few properties a minority of them might be able to afford in the least desirable parts of the city
The best counter argument was from dixiedean
A rarity indeed. But I'll take it with thanks.
Credit where credit is due. Or it could be that I have to be magnanimous because I missed it.
Root has scored more runs in 9 balls than Malan got out for in 33.
This is what we need.
Nah, we need to play for the draw. India will bowl us out if we play aggressively to win.
3.76 an over isn't much more than normal test scoring these days. More important is not to stupidly run folk out on quick singles. Otherwise, play as normal. 6 or 7 wickets left at Tea, then re-assess. It ought to be obvious whether it is on or not.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
No it isn't, because if those on average incomes in London cannot afford the average property in London or even the average price paid by first time buyers for property in London then by definition most of them won't be able to find enough property they can afford to buy in London. Even if there are a few properties a minority of them might be able to afford in the least desirable parts of the city
No I'm stopping. It has been explained to you over and over again about averages on a skewed samples which this is and you don't get it. I don't know why. It is difficult to believe someone can be that innumerate.
The best counter argument was from @dixiedean who pointed out salaries were also skewed around the average.
And you still don't get that I might agree with you on the houses not being affordable in London, after all it is a well documented problem. I don't know how many times I have to say it and why you think I think differently.
If you want to prove @Philip_Thompson wrong you have to come up with a valid argument. They are out there.
The valid argument I have already provided, the average London property price, even paid by first time buyers, is unaffordable to those on the average London wage.
The only way you can counter that is to find 3-4 million homes in London affordable to buy for the 4 million+ Londoners currently renting and earning an average London wage. You and Philip Thompson have not been able to do that other than find a few homes in the least desirable parts of London which only a minority of them could afford to buy
Never sustainably in history, even when people could afford to buy, would you have had millions of homes available simultaneously. That's not how the market works.
Some fascinating hypothetical polling on the French Presidential election this morning. A run off between Macron and Pecresse (with Le Pen eliminated) ends 50-50.
To the more immediate and Norway votes in one week. The latest Kantar poll:
Changes from 2017 Storting election:
Labour: 23.4% (-4) Conservatives: 20.5% (-4.5) Centre Party: 14.0% (+3.7) Progress Party: 10.0% (-5.2) Socialist Left: 9.4% (+3.4) Red Party: 5.4% (+3) Liberal Party: 4.6% (+0.2) Greens: 4.3% (+1.1) Christian People's Party: 3.6% (-0.6) Democrats for Norway: 1.6% (+0.9)
In terms of the voting blocs, the centre-left Red bloc (Labour, Centre, Socialist Left, Red) have 52.2% and the centre-right Blue bloc (Conservative, Progress, Liberal, Christian People's Party) 38.7% so that's a significant advantage for the centre-left unless the two blocs re-align post-election. In 2017, the Blues were on 48.8 and the Reds on 46.1 so that's about an 8% swing to the centre-left.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
No it isn't, because if those on average incomes in London cannot afford the average property in London or even the average price paid by first time buyers for property in London then by definition most of them won't be able to find enough property they can afford to buy in London. Even if there are a few properties a minority of them might be able to afford in the least desirable parts of the city
No I'm stopping. It has been explained to you over and over again about averages on a skewed samples which this is and you don't get it. I don't know why. It is difficult to believe someone can be that innumerate.
The best counter argument was from @dixiedean who pointed out salaries were also skewed around the average.
And you still don't get that I might agree with you on the houses not being affordable in London, after all it is a well documented problem. I don't know how many times I have to say it and why you think I think differently.
If you want to prove @Philip_Thompson wrong you have to come up with a valid argument. They are out there.
The valid argument I have already provided, the average London property price, even paid by first time buyers, is unaffordable to those on the average London wage.
The only way you can counter that is to find 3-4 million homes in London affordable to buy for the 4 million+ Londoners currently renting and earning an average London wage. You and Philip Thompson have not been able to do that other than find a few homes in the least desirable parts of London which only a minority of them could afford to buy
Is there an emoji for banging your head against a brick wall anyone?
a) Again I probably agree with you re affordability so I am not going to provide an example proving you wrong am I?
b) You have not proved Philip wrong because your maths is wrong.
The best thing that could happen in this country is a complete and utter collapse of house prices and a wipeout of housing "wealth". It distorts everything.
Houses are somewhere to live, not a goldmine.
Better to introduce an annual property tax, at a low almost token rate to begin with, but signalling the intention to ramp it up (hence progressively making property as an investment less attractive), get rid of stamp duty (which is a tax on mobility, not property) and in an ideal world begin to reduce tax on incomes.
Why wouldn't everyone set up a company to hold the property? Particularly the rich?
Because the company will still need to pay the annual property tax - the ownership method shouldn't change the tax you pay on an asset.
Personally I believe assets of the same class should be taxed in the exact same way, so all residential property should be subject to Council tax and there should be no interest relief on any mortgages on residential property regardless of the ownership type.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes, but just as there are many properties on offer for less than the average, there are also lots of people on less than average income hunting for a home. So a range meets a range, and for once HY might actually have a point.
I note that those left-of-centre commentators who were so critical of Johnson and the London govt and laudatory of the administrations in Edinburgh and Cardiff for their respective Covid responses have gone quiet of late.
And it is worth mentioning one more thing. There is one administration that it is out of kilter.
The Tories have agreed that there should be an inquiry into the handling of COVID (England, and I suppose, UK-wide matters). And the SNP have agreed that there should be an inquiry into the handling of COVID in Scotland. OK, not much has happened, but the need for an inquiry has at least been conceded.
Labour have decided there should NOT be an inquiry into the handling of COVID in Wales.
The best thing that could happen in this country is a complete and utter collapse of house prices and a wipeout of housing "wealth". It distorts everything.
Houses are somewhere to live, not a goldmine.
Better to introduce an annual property tax, at a low almost token rate to begin with, but signalling the intention to ramp it up (hence progressively making property as an investment less attractive), get rid of stamp duty (which is a tax on mobility, not property) and in an ideal world begin to reduce tax on incomes.
Why wouldn't everyone set up a company to hold the property? Particularly the rich?
Because the company will still need to pay the annual property tax - the ownership method shouldn't change the tax you pay on an asset.
Personally I believe assets of the same class should be taxed in the exact same way, so all residential property should be subject to Council tax and there should be no interest relief on any mortgages on residential property regardless of the ownership type.
I'd simplify it. Ensure Council Tax is paid by the owner not the occupier - with a 100% surcharge for any homes that are not the owner's primary residence. Which would include a 100% surcharge for all homes owned by corporations etc.
Tube coverage for 4G/5G by the end of 2024, finally
You are such a pleb.
Last few times I’ve been in London and used Uber Luxury.
Really nice cars from LWB Merc series 6 to a Rolls Royce, all the vehicles had their own Wi-fi for us to use.
I even get the bus sometimes. I love London, we just rub along together.
Walk. Fresh air and exercise.
I haven't got a taxi in years, Getting a taxi generally means you've failed to plan your journey properly. There are very few journeys which can be done more efficiently by taxi than by public transport. Granted, I live in Greater Manchester where public transport is plentiful. The picture may be different in, say, the Peak District, after dark.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Wouldn't be surprised if it was 80% 20 years ago.
There is also the fact that many home are owned by people who've had them since before the crazy house price inflation of the last few decades.
Not far from where I live, there is a nice square of big houses - a cheap one there would be 5-8 million.
Half the cars are old bangers. The other half are the cars you'd expect for people who own a £5m property.
A couple of decades ago, the area was a bit run down and not especially desirable. The historic transaction prices show this.
The house my Mum lives in cost my parents £7,000 in 1970. It's now worth well in excess of £1.5 million.
More pertinent, I think, is that my wife and I bought our first place in 1990: a two bedroom, garden flat in Archway. It cost £60,000. Between us we were earning something like £40,000 a year. She as a primary school teacher just starting out, me as a copy editor in B2B publishing. Fast forward 30 years or so and the joint salaries for those two jobs would probably be around £60,000. The flat would cost well over £500,000. There's the problem, right there.
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes, but just as there are many properties on offer for less than the average, there are also lots of people on less than average income hunting for a home. So a range meets a range, and for once HY might actually have a point.
@dixiedean has already pointed this out but @HYUFD failed to grasp the opportunity and continues to post nonsense instead grasping defeat from the jaws of victory.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
No it isn't, because if those on average incomes in London cannot afford the average property in London or even the average price paid by first time buyers for property in London then by definition most of them won't be able to find enough property they can afford to buy in London. Even if there are a few properties a minority of them might be able to afford in the least desirable parts of the city
No I'm stopping. It has been explained to you over and over again about averages on a skewed samples which this is and you don't get it. I don't know why. It is difficult to believe someone can be that innumerate.
The best counter argument was from @dixiedean who pointed out salaries were also skewed around the average.
And you still don't get that I might agree with you on the houses not being affordable in London, after all it is a well documented problem. I don't know how many times I have to say it and why you think I think differently.
If you want to prove @Philip_Thompson wrong you have to come up with a valid argument. They are out there.
The valid argument I have already provided, the average London property price, even paid by first time buyers, is unaffordable to those on the average London wage.
The only way you can counter that is to find 3-4 million homes in London affordable to buy for the 4 million+ Londoners currently renting and earning an average London wage. You and Philip Thompson have not been able to do that other than find a few homes in the least desirable parts of London which only a minority of them could afford to buy
Is there an emoji for banging your head against a brick wall anyone?
a) Again I probably agree with you re affordability so I am not going to provide an example proving you wrong am I?
b) You have not proved Philip wrong because your maths is wrong.
The best thing that could happen in this country is a complete and utter collapse of house prices and a wipeout of housing "wealth". It distorts everything.
Houses are somewhere to live, not a goldmine.
Better to introduce an annual property tax, at a low almost token rate to begin with, but signalling the intention to ramp it up (hence progressively making property as an investment less attractive), get rid of stamp duty (which is a tax on mobility, not property) and in an ideal world begin to reduce tax on incomes.
Why wouldn't everyone set up a company to hold the property? Particularly the rich?
Because the company will still need to pay the annual property tax - the ownership method shouldn't change the tax you pay on an asset.
Personally I believe assets of the same class should be taxed in the exact same way, so all residential property should be subject to Council tax and there should be no interest relief on any mortgages on residential property regardless of the ownership type.
If companies are subject to the property tax does that cover all land and buildings?
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
And by the way I qualified my support if you read my post properly
G, you are too polite , he is a greedy grasping two faced arsehole. Fact you paid in for 50 years has escaped his pea brain and as you say , happy to get free lolly himself, bloody hypocrite. It is great pensioners don't have to be soaked yet another time to suit these whining lazy gits.
I did not read CHB's statement of his personal circumstances as a boast.
He was just being derogatory to BigG as he is a pensioner, who has paid his way all his life. Yet is perfectly happy to be given a shedload as a freebie but thinks he can then malign people who had to work all their lives and do it themselves. Hypocritical to me. I have also worked all my life , my only ever inheritance was £6K , everything I have is through 50 years of hard work and I don't take kindly to arseholes who have been lucky to have been working a few years pontificating about how well pensioners have done whilst rolling in free money themselves. I was being polite about him previously.
The best thing that could happen in this country is a complete and utter collapse of house prices and a wipeout of housing "wealth". It distorts everything.
Houses are somewhere to live, not a goldmine.
A Better to introduce an annual property tax, at a low almost token rate to begin with, but signalling the intention to ramp it up (hence progressively making property as an investment less attractive), get rid of stamp duty (which is a tax on mobility, not property) and in an ideal world begin to reduce tax on incomes.
Why wouldn't everyone set up a company to hold the property? Particularly the rich?
If they want their company to pay the tax, so be it
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Wouldn't be surprised if it was 80% 20 years ago.
There is also the fact that many home are owned by people who've had them since before the crazy house price inflation of the last few decades.
Not far from where I live, there is a nice square of big houses - a cheap one there would be 5-8 million.
Half the cars are old bangers. The other half are the cars you'd expect for people who own a £5m property.
A couple of decades ago, the area was a bit run down and not especially desirable. The historic transaction prices show this.
The house my Mum lives in cost my parents £7,000 in 1970. It's now worth well in excess of £1.5 million.
More pertinent, I think, is that my wife and I bought our first place in 1990: a two bedroom, garden flat in Archway. It cost £60,000. Between us we were earning something like £40,000 a year. She as a primary school teacher just starting out, me as a coy editor in B2B publishing. Fast forward 30 years or so and the joint salaries for those two jobs would probably be around £60,000. The flat would cost well over £500,000. There's the problem, right there.
Yup. It is very common that people who do own homes in the South East (especially London), could not afford to buy their property from scratch.
Maybe we should bring in a law saying no-one can own more than one property. That would free up a lot of housing.
Banning things? That's not very liberal.
Well, when I suggested there should be a hefty tax, every LibDem second home owner on pb.com had a massive fit.
In the end, I was told that second homers are needed to keep pretty places like Southwold or Tenby or the Lake District pretty .... and we should be grateful to them.
Maybe we should bring in a law saying no-one can own more than one property. That would free up a lot of housing.
Banning things? That's not very liberal.
It would also rater stymie the rental market, as well as the holiday let market.
The majority (I would say) of family holidays are reliant on the fact that in the holiday destination of choice there is a house which someone owns but does not live in.
UK is about to extend "grace periods" for NI Protocol that has caused so much difficulty since #Brexit -- EU side will not object -- so that talks on UK Command Paper can continue
Just to demonstrate to @HYUFD that his repeated maths averages don't mean what he thinks they are, look at the figures for Surrey.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000 The average house price in Guildford is £550,000 69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
Yes because Guildford is a commuter belt town and many of the owner occupiers there will be Londoners who cannot afford to buy in London and rent in the capital so move to Guildford for cheaper housing where they can afford to buy.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
Well how to completely misunderstand a post. That is not what Philip is telling you. He is pointing out to you that your maths is crap.
He posted a figure for the average salary of workers in Guildford, ignoring the fact that plenty of residents of Guildford don't work in Guildford but commute to London where they would earn the average London wage of £41,000 (and in many cases more in the City) not the average Guildford wage of only £32,000.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
That wasn't the point he was making. He was pointing out your mistake in the use of averages.
There was no mistake, even if you ignore the ratio of the average home to the average wage or even the average home affordable by first time buyers and just focus on a few exceptions which would be affordable to the average earner, there are vast numbers of average or below average earners who would make up the demand for them. Far more than the available supply
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
No it isn't, because if those on average incomes in London cannot afford the average property in London or even the average price paid by first time buyers for property in London then by definition most of them won't be able to find enough property they can afford to buy in London. Even if there are a few properties a minority of them might be able to afford in the least desirable parts of the city
No I'm stopping. It has been explained to you over and over again about averages on a skewed samples which this is and you don't get it. I don't know why. It is difficult to believe someone can be that innumerate.
The best counter argument was from @dixiedean who pointed out salaries were also skewed around the average.
And you still don't get that I might agree with you on the houses not being affordable in London, after all it is a well documented problem. I don't know how many times I have to say it and why you think I think differently.
If you want to prove @Philip_Thompson wrong you have to come up with a valid argument. They are out there.
The valid argument I have already provided, the average London property price, even paid by first time buyers, is unaffordable to those on the average London wage.
The only way you can counter that is to find 3-4 million homes in London affordable to buy for the 4 million+ Londoners currently renting and earning an average London wage and yes there will be some earning more and less than that but that does not change the fact it is the average Londoner we are talking about. You and Philip Thompson have not been able to do that other than find a few homes in the least desirable parts of London which only a minority of them could afford to buy
No sympathy for them , poor government policy encouraging so much centralising of jobs in London and too many idiots going there to work for crap wages thinking the pavement are covered in gold. They have option to move to places where they could afford to live and if they don't want to , then get a better paid job or shut up and get on with it.
One of the lesser discussed controversies of the NI rise to pay for care is that carers on minimum wage would be among those paying for the care of their sometimes wealthy residents. One care home manager just told me that’s hardly a thanks for all they’ve done during Covid.
One of the lesser discussed controversies of the NI rise to pay for care is that carers on minimum wage would be among those paying for the care of their sometimes wealthy residents. One care home manager just told me that’s hardly a thanks for all they’ve done during Covid.
How dare you Big G, my grandmother worked hard every day of her life, including during WW2 when she worked for MI5, protecting this country from the Nazis.
I am incredibly fortunate to have inherited money from her when she passed away and I wish others had the same fortune that I did. I did not boast in any way about this money and I totally resent the implication that I did - which you have now repeated as has another poster.
I am going to leave this site for a while because otherwise I am going to say something that will get me banned. I apologise again for anyone who might have been offended by my language but I do feel in this case it was warranted.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
A collapse in house prices is needed dahn sarf to make any of them affordable. Even "affordable" houses are bonkers compared to salaries.
A slow deflation of house prices down south is exactly what we need - not a collapse.
Whether this is a cash plateau whilst inflation degrades it, or something a little sharper, depends on how it is done.
You believe the NI insurance increase is right Big G because conveniently you won't have to pay anything. Yet the young will.
You should pay, pay your own way
I have paid my way all my life and will continue to do so
I will pay the care costs of my wife and I if they become necessary, remember that if you have a continual need for nhs care it is free, and only if you go into health care usually because of dementia you risk losing your home
And you boast how you are buying a house in London from an inheritance which does seem odd that you do not want others to have the benefit you are receiving
Buying a house should be affordable from wages, not inheritance.
If we didn't have such high tax rates, it could be.
Not in London and the South East it wouldn't be.
In London the average house price is now over £600,000 and in the South East over £400,000 even the full time average London wage before tax is only £41,000. Combined for a couple that makes £82,000 and 4.5 times that is only £369,000.
You do realise don't you that the majority of homes are sold for less than the average house price? 🤦♂️
Even if you use median averages half of homes are sold for less than that, but for mean averages then multimillion pound homes drag the average up by more than dilapidated homes drop it by.
London's not cheap but its possible to buy a home for less than £369k even there. I've just put in Rightmove a search for London, 3 beds, with a filter for excluding shared ownership and it literally found hundreds of properties at the price you said.
Saving for the deposit can be the hardest part of getting a loan and if taxes weren't so high so people had more disposable income they'd be able to save up more via work and not rely upon an inheritance.
EDIT: Change it to 2 beds and there's thousands of homes available to get on the ladder at that price.
Not in London and the South East. You managed to find one borough of London, one ie Barking and Dagenham on the outer reaches of London and one of the poorest and most deprived in the country with an average house price of less than £369,000 and given there are 8 million people in London most of them on an average London wage are not going to all be able to buy the few 2 to 3 beds in London you found for less than the average price are they!!
So as I said the average earner in London and the South East cannot buy a property without an inheritance or gift in most parts of London and the South East even if taxes were 0
No I found one borough of London (and stopped looking at that point) where the average was below your quoted figure.
But the majority of homes sold are below average and almost all First Time Buyers will go for a below average home not an above average one.
Besides try looking on Rightmove. There's literally thousands of homes available for 2 beds and hundreds for 3 beds at that price.
As for your claim that millions can't buy the homes listed now, well of course not but why should they? Many of those millions either will currently already own one or don't want to own one. The ones listed on Rightmove are only those available today and will only ever be a small proportion of houses - in twelve months time there will be different homes available as these will be gone but others will be listed. That's the way the property market works.
According to Rightmove across London as a whole however the average London flat sold for on average £543,812. Terraced properties in London sold for an average price of £735,704, while semi-detached properties fetched £713,886 in the capital.
The majority of property sales are BELOW AVERAGE not average.
Are you seriously incapable of understanding what the words below average mean? It applies to the majority of sales.
So even when I produce the average price first time buyers have to pay to buy in London ie below the overall average let alone the average price it is STILL above the price those on an average wage in London could afford to pay for a property ie £369,000 only.
So my point buying property in London is unaffordable in most areas for most Londoners on an average wage stands absolutely.
No your point does not stand since averages are meaningless. Literally thousands of homes are available below that price.
PS your maths were wrong anyway since the £369k is for the mortgage element of the property and excludes the deposit. If someone has saved a 10% deposit then that puts the property value affordable at over £400k.
No averages are not meaningless, an average buyer will be seeking to buy an average property, a first time buyer will be seeking to buy the same type of property as an average first time buyer.
The fact you can find a handful of exceptions below that price in the worst parts of outer London does not change that, there are simply not enough of those to provide homes to own for all the first time buyers in London even if they were all prepared to move there.
You live in the North where property is far cheaper to buy even relative to income, you do not have a clue how hard it is to buy property in London for the average Londoner on the average London wage.
Even a 10% deposit at £369k added to the mortgage would still be only £405,900, still well below the £489,000 needed to buy even a first time buyer London home on average
Well obviously it depends upon what type of average you are using, conceivably and likely there are more houses under the average price than above (you can do averages can't you?) so the majority will be buying houses below the average price.
Even on the average London price paid by first time buyers (the lowest you can go) average prices are still beyond the range of those on the average London wage as I showed
No it is not. You might be right but you haven't shown it. Can you not do even the simplest of maths. The average 1st time buyer home cost more than most of the 1st time buyer homes. Do you understand that and why? It is an arithmetic average of an uneven sample.
Please find me then several million homes affordable to those who rent in London and who want to buy their first home, based on 4.5 times the average London wage and a 10% deposit as you are so confident they exist?
You don't read the posts do you? My second sentence said you might be right. Go on read it again. I have no idea who is right between you and Philip, BUT the assumption you made from the stats you produced as usual is utter crap. You must be the worst at maths on this site because you never get the mistakes you make and you make them over and over again.
Oh go on then do your usual extremely tedious 'I am so brilliant at Maths unlike you act' to distract from the fact you still have not been able to provide any evidence that most Londoners who rent could afford to buy in the city if they want to as I have. The simple fact is there are not enough homes to buy in London affordable to the average Londoner on the average wage, even if they got a mortgage and saved a deposit, as Endillion has also correctly shown
Oh for goodness sake you really don't read what I say do you? I actually think you might be right so of course I am not going to provide a statistic to prove you wrong. I have said this multiple times. YOU MIGHT BE RIGHT.
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
No it isn't, because if those on average incomes in London cannot afford the average property in London or even the average price paid by first time buyers for property in London then by definition most of them won't be able to find enough property they can afford to buy in London. Even if there are a few properties a minority of them might be able to afford in the least desirable parts of the city
No I'm stopping. It has been explained to you over and over again about averages on a skewed samples which this is and you don't get it. I don't know why. It is difficult to believe someone can be that innumerate.
The best counter argument was from @dixiedean who pointed out salaries were also skewed around the average.
And you still don't get that I might agree with you on the houses not being affordable in London, after all it is a well documented problem. I don't know how many times I have to say it and why you think I think differently.
If you want to prove @Philip_Thompson wrong you have to come up with a valid argument. They are out there.
The valid argument I have already provided, the average London property price, even paid by first time buyers, is unaffordable to those on the average London wage.
The only way you can counter that is to find 3-4 million homes in London affordable to buy for the 4 million+ Londoners currently renting and earning an average London wage. You and Philip Thompson have not been able to do that other than find a few homes in the least desirable parts of London which only a minority of them could afford to buy
Is there an emoji for banging your head against a brick wall anyone?
a) Again I probably agree with you re affordability so I am not going to provide an example proving you wrong am I?
b) You have not proved Philip wrong because your maths is wrong.
You aren't because you can't so my point stands
What? Of course I am not going to try and prove you wrong if I might agree with you. Are you bonkers?
But if you put an argument and your maths is wrong you haven't proved your point. You still haven't.
If a scientist comes up with an idea and presents his proof and someone points out his proof is flawed it is not acceptable for him to go 'well I'm right anyway' even if he his because he just might not be.
Just how do you not understand averages. I mean really.
Comments
It's an interesting phrase - "suitable for development". The land itself was near the town, well drained, moderately sheltered from prevailing wind, close to an existing road etc etc. In the Goode Olde days, someone would have been building there already, probably.
Yes, of course it means "the planners might well give it the thumbs up" - but it is interesting to consider the alternate meanings in the phrase.
The housing crisis has been carefully constructed and planned. It is as artificial as Donald Trumps skin colour.
1. Planning risk
2. Low interest rates
3. London-as-investment
4. Actual demand (ie popn growth etc)
Actual construction cost is not really relevant.
'A cap on care costs which makes sure people do not see their life savings wiped out is important'
And then has absolutely no response as to how to raise the money
I was simply pointing out endlessly and tediously as have others that your bloody maths is wrong.
And no I am not trying to say I am brilliant at maths cos it is bloody averages which you should have done at school but don't seem to understand.
I don't agree that people can't use starter homes if they're on median incomes but yes I'm not claiming the property market is perfect - far from it, it needs major root and branch reform.
PS Malan out 5 runs from 33 balls. That could be good for both England and India.
I am incredibly fortunate to have inherited money from her when she passed away and I wish others had the same fortune that I did. I did not boast in any way about this money and I totally resent the implication that I did - which you have now repeated as has another poster.
I am going to leave this site for a while because otherwise I am going to say something that will get me banned. I apologise again for anyone who might have been offended by my language but I do feel in this case it was warranted.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/live/cricket/55023936
There is loads of room in London.
But the planning laws/rules are f**ed.
Probably quite easy to find.
Go figure.
The solution is not to trim at the edges, it's to actually deal with the problem directly.
The average salary in Guildford is £32,000
The average house price in Guildford is £550,000
69% of Guildford is owner-occupied.
Averages don't mean what you think they mean. Because they average away inconsistencies.
On immigration foreigners don't particularly need bigger places than natives so it doesn't matter whether the extra population is coming from Latvia or Aomori.
Really, the economics here aren't complicated. If you ban people from making something, and lots of people want the something, the price will go up. If you don't ban people from making the thing, the higher price will encourage people to make more of the thing, and that will stop it going up any more.
But I am reacting to the idea from Big G that suddenly the problem is Labour’s fault.
In any case, who says anyone should pay more for it? We need to be running a fiscal stimulus policy at the moment.
But not all below-average house price houses will be 1.5 bed flats. Indeed as I showed earlier, there's plenty of below average 3-bed houses on Rightmove right now.
Averages distort facts and can be misleading. Doesn't mean there aren't real problems of course.
Clearly there should have been a comma between LWB Merc and Series 6.
This is what we need.
The best counter argument was from @dixiedean who pointed out salaries were also skewed around the average.
And you still don't get that I might agree with you on the houses not being affordable in London, after all it is a well documented problem. I don't know how many times I have to say it and why you think I think differently.
If you want to prove @Philip_Thompson wrong you have to come up with a valid argument. They are out there.
But take any two of those figures in isolation while excluding the other and you'd get a completely misleading picture.
However, this also has a political dimension. It's incredibly easy for this to become fraught and bitter because of the nature of the discussion. As such, bad moves can make a serious political impact.
Labour wishing for money from thin air is pathetic. But it also won't offend/antagonise voters the same way a concrete proposal that *gasp!* has some people paying more and other less will.
However that will become increasingly a problem for those who work in Guildford on a lower salary than the average London wage as they cannot afford to buy as incomers from London push up property prices in their home town
We need to at least be aggressive enough for India to keep defence in mind while they're bowling.
The start in the spike in these places is indeed before Scottish schools went back. Broadly in line with when English schools broke up...
But I'll take it with thanks.
Put simply, that batting lineup is much more likely to get out if we play for the draw.
Not far from where I live, there is a nice square of big houses - a cheap one there would be 5-8 million.
Half the cars are old bangers. The other half are the cars you'd expect for people who own a £5m property.
A couple of decades ago, the area was a bit run down and not especially desirable. The historic transaction prices show this.
Get enough fielders at the boundary and it becomes easier to rotate the strike too. Which then keeps the runs ticking over and makes it harder for the fielders to get wickets.
We might still only end up with a draw, but we've a much better chance of getting a draw by seeking to keep a win alive.
The only way you can counter that is to find 3-4 million homes in London affordable to buy for the 4 million+ Londoners currently renting and earning an average London wage and yes there will be some earning more and less than that but that does not change the fact it is the average Londoner we are talking about. You and Philip Thompson have not been able to do that other than find a few homes in the least desirable parts of London which only a minority of them could afford to buy
Prior to the plague reading/listening to books on the train was my only opportunity to read/listen to books.
Just they say they want people's life savings protected but do not put forward any solution
At least the NI increase has put the subject front and centre
And as I have made clear I only support it if all working pensioners are included and preferably with an IHT increase
More important is not to stupidly run folk out on quick singles.
Otherwise, play as normal. 6 or 7 wickets left at Tea, then re-assess. It ought to be obvious whether it is on or not.
https://twitter.com/LukeSmithF1/status/1434845507378089989
Some fascinating hypothetical polling on the French Presidential election this morning. A run off between Macron and Pecresse (with Le Pen eliminated) ends 50-50.
To the more immediate and Norway votes in one week. The latest Kantar poll:
Changes from 2017 Storting election:
Labour: 23.4% (-4)
Conservatives: 20.5% (-4.5)
Centre Party: 14.0% (+3.7)
Progress Party: 10.0% (-5.2)
Socialist Left: 9.4% (+3.4)
Red Party: 5.4% (+3)
Liberal Party: 4.6% (+0.2)
Greens: 4.3% (+1.1)
Christian People's Party: 3.6% (-0.6)
Democrats for Norway: 1.6% (+0.9)
In terms of the voting blocs, the centre-left Red bloc (Labour, Centre, Socialist Left, Red) have 52.2% and the centre-right Blue bloc (Conservative, Progress, Liberal, Christian People's Party) 38.7% so that's a significant advantage for the centre-left unless the two blocs re-align post-election. In 2017, the Blues were on 48.8 and the Reds on 46.1 so that's about an 8% swing to the centre-left.
a) Again I probably agree with you re affordability so I am not going to provide an example proving you wrong am I?
b) You have not proved Philip wrong because your maths is wrong.
Hopefully it will be one of Romain Grosjean, Pastor Maldonado, or Luca Badoer.
Personally I believe assets of the same class should be taxed in the exact same way, so all residential property should be subject to Council tax and there should be no interest relief on any mortgages on residential property regardless of the ownership type.
So for Guildford locals who live and work in Guildford there would be a shortage of housing they could afford too
Brexit is done.
But Brexit really is done, though.
Brexit really, really, really, really is done.
UK set to extend Northern Ireland ‘grace periods’ for third time https://on.ft.com/3zStXYK
The Tories have agreed that there should be an inquiry into the handling of COVID (England, and I suppose, UK-wide matters). And the SNP have agreed that there should be an inquiry into the handling of COVID in Scotland. OK, not much has happened, but the need for an inquiry has at least been conceded.
Labour have decided there should NOT be an inquiry into the handling of COVID in Wales.
Granted, I live in Greater Manchester where public transport is plentiful. The picture may be different in, say, the Peak District, after dark.
More pertinent, I think, is that my wife and I bought our first place in 1990: a two bedroom, garden flat in Archway. It cost £60,000. Between us we were earning something like £40,000 a year. She as a primary school teacher just starting out, me as a copy editor in B2B publishing. Fast forward 30 years or so and the joint salaries for those two jobs would probably be around £60,000. The flat would cost well over £500,000. There's the problem, right there.
(runs for cover.)
The UK could extend NI 'grace periods' for a hundred years if we chose to do so.
As an independent state the UK is free to operate however it chooses to do so. If Brexit wasn't done, we couldn't do that.
In the end, I was told that second homers are needed to keep pretty places like Southwold or Tenby or the Lake District pretty .... and we should be grateful to them.
The majority (I would say) of family holidays are reliant on the fact that in the holiday destination of choice there is a house which someone owns but does not live in.
EU won’t sign deal until protocol is implemented
EU won’t ratify deal until protocol is implemented
EU to punish us for extending grace periods
https://twitter.com/pmdfoster/status/1434850463346741249
UK is about to extend "grace periods" for NI Protocol that has caused so much difficulty since #Brexit -- EU side will not object -- so that talks on UK Command Paper can continue
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1434840098009403402?s=20
A close look at the dynamic between No 10 and No 11, by the brilliant @NewsAnnabelle with input from the whole team
https://twitter.com/NewsAnnabelle/status/1434791140105072641
It was put to me that jostling for position has been made worse by a sense of drift now after the crisis management mode of the pandemic.
Cabinet Office source: “We're run into the ground, done. Which is ironic considering we haven't delivered half of the fucking manifesto"
https://twitter.com/estwebber/status/1434838729059930117
Whether this is a cash plateau whilst inflation degrades it, or something a little sharper, depends on how it is done.
But if you put an argument and your maths is wrong you haven't proved your point. You still haven't.
If a scientist comes up with an idea and presents his proof and someone points out his proof is flawed it is not acceptable for him to go 'well I'm right anyway' even if he his because he just might not be.
Just how do you not understand averages. I mean really.