Young people are increasingly locked out of the property market due to rising prices.
Young people are increasingly locked out of the property market and it takes a person in their 20s seven years to get the money to put down on a house, a report out today warns.
On average across England, a person in their 20s wanting to purchase the average first time buyer home (£175,265) will have to save a deposit of £35,053.
Even saving 33% of their net income it would take them nearly seven years – 83 months – to get the money.
For potential first time buyers in their twenties saving half of their net income it will take on average across England more than 10 years to put together a deposit for their first home, and in London an 24 years.
In 2002, it would have taken 2.5 years, the report by the Home Builders Federation found.
The percentage of income required for a deposit has also gone up.
For those aged between 22 and 29 across England, the average deposit is 229% of net annual salary; and in London it is 300%. For thirty-somethings the average deposit is 176% of net annual salary – in London that figure rises to 232%
London mayor Boris Johnson was criticised last year after figures showed a massive 70 per cent drop in the number of affordable houses built compared to 2011.
38 Responses to “Young people locked out of property market”
Newsbot9
Yes, LB, I’m sure you object to the accurate criticism, and keep talking up your disregard for facts, people and logic. Your emotional war on pensions is notable.
Newsbot9
Yes, you’ve answered yourself. You don’t intend to pay, you’re creating the risk. You’re determined not to pay, in fact. And yes, it’s you – and your determination to kill the poor.
Newsbot9
Yes, I’m sure cheap horse meat in the food supply is a great idea in your view. And no, you’re just responsible for the attempted murder of a million or more, by denying them care.
And keep talking up your fraud and conflating it with the state’s.
LB
Well, you raise the other countries. Can we compete in then “killing patients games”.
So come on, what’s the comparison? Pre or post the Stafford numbers?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2274690/3-000-patients-died-needlessly-NHS-hospitals-past-years.html
At least 600 per hospital from this 5.
Officials would not confirm which other hospitals face inspections, but over the past year a total of 20 trusts have been found to have high death rates. They include Wye Valley, Aintree University Hospitals, Mid Cheshire Hospitals, Northern Lincolnshire and Goole and Hull and East Yorkshire.
20 trusts (some with multiple hospitals).
600 * 20 = 12,000 deaths.
LB
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/uk-hospital-has-40-per-cent-death-rate-after-abdominal-ops-8160924.html
Professor Grocott said doctors at the hospital with the highest death rate would be aware of their poor performance and should be examining the reasons for it. But of even greater concern are hospitals that had not participated. The audit, to be presented to the annual congress of the Association of Anaesthetists today, was conducted among 1,800 patients at 35 hospitals who volunteered to submit data – leaving around 200 which did not.
“What’s happening in the 200 hospitals that were not interested in collecting their data? One could speculate there may be some who are performing even worse,” Professor Grocott said.
The 30-day mortality rate following abdominal surgery ranged from 3.6 per cent in the best performing hospital to 41.7 per cent in the worst. The audit was carried out at the request of surgeons and anaesthetists who said there was little data to drive improvement. Professor Grocott said it was possible the worst performing hospital treated older, sicker patients but “the magnitude of the difference is unlikely to be explained by these factors alone”.
===============
11-12 times the death rate.
Just why would you want to go into a hospital with a 40% chance of dying, when in the NHS, you could run a 3.6% chance?
So why is the willy waving, are we better or worse than Mali an issue? Ah yes, its to distract from the UK. The NHS isn’t responsible for the deaths in Mali, or any other country. It carries the can, or it should, for needless deaths in the UK