Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Smyth

New Members
  • Content Count

    348
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Smyth

  • Rank
    HPC Regular
  1. Someone joining a graduate scheme in London after university should be on £50-70k/year by the age of 30 easily, unless theyve done something horribly wrong. Most people buy houses as a couple. £60k/year * 2 people * 4x mortgage multiplier = £480k. Throw in a small deposit and half a million is a reasonable price range for most middle class graduates buying their first property (most people I knew in London were buying around that range). Servicing a £480k mortgage is around £1800/month which is about what you'd pay to rent a 2 bed flat. Obviously the woman will need to keep working full time after kids unless the guy can step up his game and break the £100k/year mark but then thats london innit. If you dont have a reasonably paying job then you probably shouldnt be in London, and certainly not in a 'luxury' apartment complex. But yeah, £500k is fairly affordable for middle class graduates.
  2. Ok fine, I think it should cost £0.01 to give someone a home. If its a 7 bed detached house in Mayfair then i think it should cost £2.17. I also think it should cost £3.48 to give everyone a yacht and a pony. Unfortunately in the real world in which we live, there are costs and allocation problems associated with the provision of non-scare goods, and someone has to pay for these. Any realistic answer to the question has to be framed as "what is the minimum amount we could pay", not "how much could we pay in fantasy land where nothing costs anything and we can wave a magic wand to make houses appear out of the ground". That answer obviously needs to take into account the cost of providing the goods, which includes all material/labour costs (including the land), along with the opportunity and funding/borrowing costs.
  3. The topic is "how much does it cost to give someone a home". Opportunity cost is a real cost, and needs to be included. DItto for the cost of land, since (at least in majori cities) that costs a substantial amount of the house. This is wrong, because some plots of land will always be inherently more valuable than others. A square mile in the centre of London will always cost a lot more than a square mile in the North of Scotland. Waving your magic fairy-land wand does not change that..You can already live in the UK and pay a very low rent, by relocating to Skegness. Its very cheap up there, you can get a 3 bed detached house for less than £700 a month. So if you are annoyed about paying a high rent, why do you not move there instead? Probably because you dont want to live in Skegness. Guess what - neither does anyone else. Thats why its cheap there, and more expensive in more desirable places. Not everyone can live in Mayfair.
  4. Rents are higher in London because land costs more. If you want to reduce house prices/rents then the best solution is to lower the cost of land. The best way to do that is either scrapping green belts, or allowing more high density development.
  5. No, I mean items used to calculate the inflation basket are weighted based on what the typical household spends on them. Not everything in the basket has an equal weight; obviously camera lenses do not have the same weight as food. Can you please at least try to understand how the world works before you put forward inane conspiracy theories based on ignorance? (the numbers in your post are also misleading because after tax and reduction in means-tested benefits, the person on £30k getting a 5% rise isnt going to be much better off than the person on 15% getting a 5% rise, but thats for a different thread because inflation calculations have nothing to do with salary rises)
  6. (as a serious reply though, the bulk of people who have to use food banks and other emergency sources of food arent 'poor' as such, they are people undergoing short term problems, typically changes to benefits, and homelessness. These are the people who the welfare system should be helping. People who 'live in poverty' - ie long term benefit recipients and low-wage workers - do not suffer from food shortage because they are getting a huge amount of assistance in government benefits, typically to the tune of £10-20k tax free. The benefit system should be reformed to give more short term assistance to those in emergency situations, and this should be funded by drastic and wide-ranging cuts to the amount of long-term assistance people are given)
  7. poor people are disproportionately obese anyway (especially women, where those in the bottom 20% are twice as likely to be fatties as those in the top 20%). Maybe if we cut the handouts we could make aesthetic improvements to the country.
  8. Yeah this is true; people tend to select which measure of inflation (RPI vs CPI) they use based on the conclusions they want to draw.
  9. The things in your list are all items that people buy. For what its worth, I think my household has bought 5 of them in the last month, 6 if you can count a McDonalds milkshake as flavoured milk. Obviously people spend a lot less on them that they do on (eg) food, which is why they have a lower weight in the basket. The point of the inflation is to capture average patterns of consumption. Most people do not spend 100% of their salary on bills, food, and rent.
  10. 'everyone'? Only 18% of the country rents privately, and of them, a substantial amount have their rent paid by the government through housing benefits. For people who own their homes (which is still 65% of the population - ie the majority) housing costs have decreased over the last 4 years due to the low interest rates. Also RPI includes housing costs, CPI doesnt.
  11. the methodology used to determine the inflation rate doesnt change much year on year, and the government doesnt choose the inflation basket. Please get a basic understanding of how the world works before you start believing in lunatic fringe conspiracy theories - when you have reached the stage where you assume that independent official figures are a lie that serve some shadowy elite, that should be grounds for suspecting you have made a wrong turn somewhere. http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/guide-method/user-guidance/prices/cpi-and-rpi/cpi-and-rpi-basket-of-goods-and-services/cpi-and-rpi-2013-basket-of-goods-and-services.pdf For reference (looking at the things you quote) a) Most people do not live in London, and most people living in London do not pay private rent. Rents elsewhere in the country are not up 15%. Most families do not pay high child-care costs, they typically only apply during the very early years of each child's life, and even then only if they dont have relatives etc nearby c) Most people do not use trains much, only London commuters d) Energy bills are only a small part of consumption, and are given an appropriate weight in the basket etc etc etc Inflation is based on a 'typical' consumption basket, not targetted at your own consumption specifically.
  12. No, that isnt how money works. Short term interest rates are low now, but you need to borrow over the life-span the house, so you need to use the interest rate which would be charged on a 100 year loan, not the short term interest rate. Now, there's no such thing as a 100 year gilt, but for reference the current yield on a 2 year gilt is 0.66% while the current yield on a 30 year gilt is 3.44%, so as you can see, it goes up sharply. A 100 year gilt (if it existed) would be substantially higher than the 30-year, probably around 5% if we do a crude adjustment. But even ignoring that, the opportunity cost argument is still relevant, because even if borrowing was low cost, the government could still be borrowing that money for other purposes.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.