Bbc: People Earning £100,000 Struggle To Buy An Average House In London

[waitingscot]

...yet still make excuses why this is a reasonable state of affairs. When are people going to WAKE UP that this is just crazy!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11382591

Indeed, the cost of living in some parts of the country means that the sum is barely enough to fund a loan to purchase a family home. According the Rightmove House Price Index for September 2010, the average home in London costs almost four times this high-rolling salary - £399,019. Of course, for dual-income families where one partner is on £100k the housing market starts to look less daunting.

[waitingscot]

Also this comment:

But what is it actually like to earn such an amount - generous beyond the imagination of most Britons, more than sufficient to guarantee a comfortable lifestyle, yet scarcely enough on which to fund an early retirement?

I think I could manage a fairly early retirement after a few years on £100,000!

[xux42]

...yet still make excuses why this is a reasonable state of affairs. When are people going to WAKE UP that this is just crazy!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11382591

Yes Houseprices are crazy, but this is also tosh.

There are plenty of not too rough. not too special London locations where a family house (3bed semi, not 4bed with detached garage/workshop) can be bought for £300k.

These articles by pamapered people with tunnel vision are a sideshow.

[the flying pig]

A disgraceful state of affairs - we need to get the banks lending!

No, I mean, let's call a £100k salary £60k after tax, it's not too difficult to buy a decent property even in London on that kind of money because a family [without luxuries like private schooling, swish cars, and so on] can very comfortably live on £3k a month [that figure including rent or mortgage on a decent flat], i.e. £36k a year, enabling you to save £25k a year, a few years of that sort of saving will enable you to buy something pretty good in time.

Of course what you can buy is pretty pathetic - people in today's top 2% can count themselves reasonably lucky to own a 19th century worker [i.e. very likely bottom 50%]'s cottage in a prime location.

I say 'in time'. obviously it's not possible to have a 40-year career on [inflation adjusted] £100k plus because, firstly, it takes a fair few years of experience to get there [other than in the city] and, secondly, it takes an awful lot out of you.

Edited September 22, 2010 by the flying pig

[The Ayatollah Buggeri]

There are plenty of not too rough. not too special London locations where a family house (3bed semi, not 4bed with detached garage/workshop) can be bought for £300k.

So an ordinary family house within commuting distance of the capital can be bought for 12 times the national average salary, and on which the monthly mortgage payment would significantly exceed the take-home pay of someone on such a salary. That makes everything alright, then.

IMO the reason for this is the vast spread of the welfare state. If you take the entire population of Greater London earning the national average salary or below and establish the percentage who have not owned their home since before the property bubble started to inflate, do not receive any form of state benefits whatsoever and are their household's largest wage earner, I wouldn't be surprised if it is below 1% and would be very surprised if it's over 5%.

[leicestersq]

Of course, for dual-income families where one partner is on £100k the housing market starts to look less daunting.

No S**t Sherlock.

[goldbug9999]

100k+ is no stroll in the park. One has to finance sport cars, girlfriends, whores, stock market flutters, and a few bars of bullion of course.

But what is it actually like to earn such an amount -

I dunno, its ages since I earnt a mere 100k.

Edited September 22, 2010 by goldbug9999

[WageslaveX14]

What a sh1te article.

I don't understand why anyone thinks that, just because you earn a lot of money, you have to acquire a stupidly expensive lifestyle. Gilded cage my @rse. You don't have to spend that much - it's your choice.

"I'd rather earn £25,000 and send my kids to the local school." No ones stopping you doing that on your massive salary.

Re: buying a family house in London for £400,000 - you would have to live in a slum in London to afford a family house within London. You could commute to somewhere cheaper, yes, but you couldn't find a decent family house within a part of London where I would be happy raising kids for under £400k. By the way, I grew up in Dundee, so my standards aren't high!

[maxdiver]

But everyone in London earns about 100k+.

Well, the 3 million or so people who work in the City (Financial Centre).

The average wage is probably near a Million - and that's not including bonuses.

There are some "key-workers" and immigrants who gratefully are kept in slave box ghettos.

There's plenty of tourists who see the really impressive sights of London - Fester Square, F*ckingham Palace and The Thames, while the indigenous population are allowed to roam free with their JSA/on the Sick funds in their ancestoral lands.

Edited September 22, 2010 by maxdiver

[Goat]

But everyone in London earns about 100k+.

Well, the 3 million or so people who work in the City.

The average wage is probably near a Million - and that's not including bonuses.

B0llocks.

There's probably a few tens of thousands who earn £100k+

There's probably a few thousand who earn anywhere near £1m

That leaves many millions earning nowhere near that.

[maxdiver]

B0llocks.

There's probably a few tens of thousands who earn £100k+

There's probably a few thousand who earn anywhere near £1m

That leaves many millions earning nowhere near that.

I take it you only read those first 3 lines?

[LJAR]

I take it you only read those first 3 lines?

your estimate of salaries was still way off the mark. There are only 2 million people in the whole of Britain on more than £100k, look it up on the ONS website.

According to the BBC the avg detached house in greater london costs £800K - how in hell does that work?

[maxdiver]

your estimate of salaries was still way off the mark. There are only 2 million people in the whole of Britain on more than £100k, look it up on the ONS website.

According to the BBC the avg detached house in greater london costs £800K - how in hell does that work?

and 3 million people work in the City?

(the financial City - not London Town)

Edited September 22, 2010 by maxdiver

[ccc]

and 3 million people work in the City?

(the financial City - not London Town)

I got it.

[LJAR]

and 3 million people work in the City?

(the financial City - not London Town)

OK

2M earning more than £100k in the UK

Not all of them will be in the city.

3M in the city.

Therefore not everyone in the city is on more than £100k.

Makes sense?

So your original statement:

But everyone in London earns about 100k+.

Well, the 3 million or so people who work in the City.

The average wage is probably near a Million - and that's not including bonuses.

is not compatible with the established facts.

[ken_ichikawa]

Also this comment:

I think I could manage a fairly early retirement after a few years on £100,000!

Thing is people think £100K, but £100K after tax is not 100K

6475 is tax free,

The next £37,400 gets a 33% chunk taken out of it (NIC + income tax) -> £12342

The next £56400 gets £23124 (can't be bothered with the NIC) taken out of it

So out of £100K you are lft with £64534

[200p]

London is still cheaper than Hong Kong and Moscow, and probably New York, Tokyo. Ergo in the order of rankings of financial centres of the world, London is a bargain

[MonkeyNuts]

100K was a good salary in london 10 years ago (although i was earning more than that as an IT contractor back then).

After the hyper inflation in house prices 250K is considered good now.

100K is only a bit over 5K a month after tax. Families on benefits claim over 2500 a month these days.

So you only twice as well off as an unemployed family on benefits.

Still, 100K will get you a 3 or 4 bed 500K detached house in the outer suburbs, if you can save 100K deposit and strech to a 400K mortgage that is.

Edited September 22, 2010 by MonkeyNuts

[Fairies Wear Boots]

OK

2M earning more than £100k in the UK

Not all of them will be in the city.

3M in the city.

Therefore not everyone in the city is on more than £100k.

Makes sense?

So your original statement:

is not compatible with the established facts.

Fcking hell. His original post was so dripping with sarcasm, that you should have spotted it.

[mightytharg]

Someone on 100K a year in London pays 40K tax, lives frugally on, say, 20K. Leaving 40K.

London house prices triple over ten years from 200K to 600K. So careful Londoner working hard for ten years is no better off (still 200K away from that house).

Waste-of-air council house scrounger makes the same amount in hand-outs and "right"-to-buy.

Yet you commies have the temerity to criticise the bankers. Disgusting.

[Fairies Wear Boots]

Is offering 40% off realistic in London yet?

Someone on 100K a year in London pays 40K tax, lives frugally on, say, 20K. Leaving 40K.

London house prices triple over ten years from 200K to 600K. So careful Londoner working hard for ten years is no better off (still 200K away from that house).

Waste-of-air council house scrounger makes the same amount in hand-outs and "right"-to-buy.

Yet you commies have the temerity to criticise the bankers. Disgusting.

You hear of people "making" 100K from buying a house, living in it and selling it a year later. For this to happen, on a regular basis, someone else has to be in a lot of debt.

[maxdiver]

You hear of people "making" 100K from buying a house, living in it and selling it a year later. For this to happen, on a regular basis, someone else has to be in a lot of debt.

We in Ireland call this a game of "Paddy Last"

Everyone makes money until the last Paddy - except now the whole country is Paddy last.

[200p]

or left carrying the baby.

[Hannover88]

Fcking hell. His original post was so dripping with sarcasm, that you should have spotted it.

"is not compatible with the established facts" - as well as making an utter balls of things as he did there fairly spectacularly, who the buck speaks like that?

Imagine someone speaking to you like that in a pub FFS!

[Fairies Wear Boots]

"is not compatible with the established facts" - as well as making an utter balls of things as he did there fairly spectacularly, who the buck speaks like that?

Imagine someone speaking to you like that in a pub FFS!

I didn't understand that at all.