Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum

Capital Keith

New Members
  • Content Count

    88
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Capital Keith

  • Rank
    HPC Poster
  1. More green space, better schools, more space for your money the list is endless (including having a smaller place in London too to reduce travel). Also, a journey from somewhere attractive like Highgate to the City is 40 minutes on a tube, so why not sit on a train for an hour and a bit, read the paper and so on - you can walk from London Bridge Station to the City in minutes - and get more for your money. You can get travel to work data from ONS - it comes on CD-ROM so can't give you a link (contrasting place of residence with place of work), but give them a call, they'll send you one for free. But broadly - and I don't like to sound like I'm stating the obvious - people pay a premuim to live somewhere nice, and more so if they can continue to earn London wages while living outside. To be flippant, you can live in safety and in greater space and not worry about little Timmy getting gunned down at the ice rink. Folk reckon that's worth paying for. Or you can use ASHE again and contrast pay by place of residence and place of work to get a feel for whether money is earned locally or not. EDIT to add the ASHE bit. Now off to the supermarket to measure inflation in my basket of goods.
  2. Sorry, forgot about this bit. The link was in a post from a few minutes before. This is the source: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=13101 You'll need to go to ASHE 2006 - then table 7 for place of work by local authority or one of the others for Government Office region (table 5?, occupations at table 2 is interesting too). The South East does not include London, which is a seperate region. If you live in the commuter belt you will have to consider City salaries though - they have to live somewhere and that has an effect on the housing market as you have found with your £300,000 2 bedders.
  3. Agree that take home pay is a bit less - I make it £3275, before pension as you say - but that hardly weakens the argument, you are left with £1733 per month. So again, if that isn't affording it comfortably, I don't know what is. (You could save that and live off the girlfriend's earning without hardship). Even with the figures you provide - leaves you with £1300 per month. You could overpay by £500 per month and be mortgage free on place witha £300,000 mortgage at 6 per cent 107 months early. You must have high standards if you think the only decent places are £300,000 - even if you live in Windsor - one of only a very few boroughs in the SE where average flat prices are over £300,000. I think I was right saying you need to get better at searching for property! But, I think we are agreed in saying places to live cost too much! All the best Keith.
  4. Again using ASHE - If you are in the top 1 per cent of earners in the South East, you must be earning well over £57,000 - 10 per cent of males working full-time in the South East earn over £57,000. Either you are earning less than you thought, or you need to get better at searching for property. If you borrowed 3.5 x salary at £57,000 (and you claim to earn more) - you could raise £200,000. Even at 8% (£1542 per month repayment) that would leave you £2000 per month to spend - how comfortable do you need to be? EDITED for grammar
  5. Just some thoughts... The average salary quoted much higher is £24,000 pa. This includes full and part time salaries. If you only take full time salaries it is £29,331. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=13101. Not unreasonable to assume those taking out mortgages work full-time? Only 70 per cent of UK properties are owner occupied - http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.as...=2&Rank=224 - what proportion of the population live in the other 30 per cent - do we need to exclude their salaries from the analysis - SOC 7,8,9 for example - what does that do to the averages? Those buying houses will be mainly drawn from SOCs 1,2 and 3. Average full time salaries being: £48,000, £37,000 and £29,000 respectively. (wtih 25 per cent of full time salaries being below: £22,000, £27,000 or £21,000 respectively). If the average first time buyer is now 34(!) - no link to hand, but an oft-used figure - then why assume they do not have well-established careers? So, although a schoolboy error, it may in fact a more useful assumption than you have given it credit for. It may be more sensible to use medians rather than means. A few big salaries and a few expensive houses have a big effect and may not be equal.
  6. Development rights are nationalised. Planning permission simply means that particular land has development rights granted for a particular land use. So having planning permission simply means that an area of land can be developed in a particular fashion. There is no compulsion for development to take place once planning permission has been granted. It is possible that this piece of land had planning permission granted and that the residents of the houses in the background bought it to stop the permission being implemented. Or it has been landbanked - which is a bit more scandalous in human terms, but it's capitalism innit? Anyway, this is a post in defence of the public sector - I assumed they are the 'they' of your post. The lack of development will be due to private individuals and I doubt the case for compulsory purchase is all that strong in this instance. Go planners!
  7. Really interesting. Important to note that your ONS figure is for those working full-time as you would expect FTBs to be. Using the national average does of course you include everyone, it might not be unreasonable to remove those employed in elementary occupations (about 10 per cent of the workforce) from the analysis as this group are often in social housing and with their median salary of £16,000 dampen the national stats. You could also probably exclude SOC 6 too to remove another 1.5 million. Interestingly, your analysis shows that median salaries are equivalent to those for full time employees at SOCs 1 and 2 - managers and professionals (which accounts for a third of the population working full-time), and is well ahead of the median annual pay of every other occupational group. That certainly seems to reflect reality with nurses (at SOC 3 as associate professionals) being the classic priced out example in the press. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/the...006/tab2_7a.xls Excellent work - quite livened up my tea break! Thanks.
  8. Thanks for these comments and I am in sympathy with those views, but the state level analysis (p. 18) shows only five states showing negative growth on the previous quarter and only three showing year on year falls.
  9. Not sure you'll find many, but his report is less gloomy. More robust data and gives a better appreciation of geography. Doesn't exactly present a rosy picture. www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/1q07hpi.pdf Significant HPI Findings: Highest and Lowest Appreciation: 1. The states with the greatest rates of appreciation between the first quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007 were: Utah (17.0%), Idaho (12.3%), Montana (11.7%), Wyoming (11.7%), and Washington (11.6%). The states with the lowest rates of appreciation for the same period were: Michigan (-0.7%), Massachusetts (-0.6%), Nevada (0.6%), Ohio (0.8%), and New Hampshire (1.1%). 2. The Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) with the greatest rates of appreciation between the first quarter of 2006 and the first quarter of 2007 were: Wenatchee, Washington (25.6%), Provo-Orem, Utah (19.7%), and Salt Lake City, Utah (19.1%). The MSAs with the lowest rates of appreciation for the same period were: Punta Gorda, Florida (-4.6%), Sacramento-Arden- Arcade-Roseville, California (-4.4%), and Modesto, California (-4.4%). 3. Of the 285 cities on OFHEO’s list of “ranked” MSAs, 237 had positive fourquarter appreciation, 46 had price declines, and prices were unchanged in two cities. The complete list of state appreciation rates can be found on pages 18 and 19. The complete list of city (MSA) appreciation rates is available on pages 31-51.
  10. But private sector employment has only grown by 1.2 million over the last ten years, so what you're saying is that jobs in the private sector not delivering services to government have contracted by 1.8 million. Interesting thesis. You should alert the Audit Commission. It does sound feasible that the receptionist at my Civic Centre has convinced the Finance Department to pay her salary and that of the subcontractor who does her job while she watches Homes Under the Hammer though, I'll give you that. There are good points to be made about inefficiency in public services - perhaps you could find a subcontact poster to make one for you!
  11. http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=1292 We are not actually. But it is half a million. Although levels are currently falling (and have been since Q3 2005). http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=407 Audit Commission agrees some Councils are underperforming. Public sector employment much higher under Thatcher.
  12. The best headline state level figures are given by OFHEO at the link below. To September 2006 California was showing 10 per cent gains year on year. Q4 2006 is released on May 31st. Here is the link: www.ofheo.gov/media/pdf/3q06hpi.pdf Edit: A failed attempt to make the link clicky. [Moderator: fixed.]
  13. What are annual property taxes? Is there a UK equivalent? If you set that at zero, then your scenario changes markedly!
×
×
  • Create New...

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.