to ask if its usual to pay 47% of net income for a private rental?

[lemonade30]

I read this statistic today in my MILs daily mirror and I'm quite willing to believe that its nothing more than propaganda.
It seems like an extortionate percentage when you consider that all bills/groceries/clothing/school meals and trips/holidays/birthdays and Christmas must be paid for by the remaining 53%.

We rent privately and our rental payments are 19.5% of our net income which is manageable.
We'd be living on bread and water if we had to fork out almost half of our income to a landlord. I'm not even employing the slightest element of hyperbole when I say that.

This statistic is supposedly true for those in the 20-39 age bracket, dubbed generation rent by the daily mirror

so over to you.
Are the mirror talking out of their arse or this truly the state of the private rental sector/salary in 2015?

We're in the northwest, 2 working parents, 2 children, small amount of tax credits and child benefit included in income. Rent is about 35%.

Yorkshire here. When I was last renting (3 years ago), take home was 1500, rent £650.
So just over 40%.

OP, you must have been living in a bubble. Yes it's hard, but people cope.
Even now we've bought, the mortgage is around 35%.

I'm in the north west where £900 pcm gets you a five bed semi in a desirable post code. - have ever considered that their are a fair number of people who's take home pay is 1000-1300 each month?

When me and DH first lived together, at 18, we only had my wage. Our rent was 52% of our income. That was a 2bed flat in a relatively cheap area of Shropshire.

Now we are in north west, 24yrs old and have 2 young children and DH is the only worker (I'm sahm) our mortgage is 35% of our total income, it was 40% when we first moved here. Ironically if we were to rent a flat on the same housing development, it would be 40-45% of our income and a house our size well over 50% of our income.

There have definitely been times in my life when that has been true, though the 50%ish was of an annual income somewhat below the average.

It's possible to live on piddling amounts leftover from rent but it's not fun at all.

is have thought 35% wast the upper end of average around here mandatory.

For example we're on the wirral. rent is 650 for a large three bed semi. ok area, not desirable but not rough.
Our income is 2950 net.
We have an averagely nice lifestyle.
nothing fancy.

Ft wage = £1900 a month. Rent = £950. So yeah.

53% of 28,000 which is approximately the national average salary is £1236 gross.

Just wondering whether this is an issue of comparing apples and oranges... Presumably the people pulling the national average salary up, from the top end of the scale, usually own their property. While people who rent are overwhelmingly more likely to be on the low end of the scale. Perhaps.

yep hilly I'll agree I must have judging by this thread.

bloody hell though I'm in awe at how some of you manage although I am admittedly shite with money

FT wage = £2,000 per month
Monthly rent of 2 bed in London = £1250.

So more than 50% here. I'm so used to being broke its just life now.

OP, I'm also surprised that you are surprised. But it looks like your net income is very good which makes a difference.

in London, mortgage = 40% of income and that's from buying years ago! 20% for rent is an "in your dreams" figure. When I rented alone, it was half my salary. (I got sick of flat sharing). That was for a one bed flat in Zone 4 and it was ages ago, so 47% now seems right. I actually thought in London, it would be 50%.

Ours is about 40% but we're in the South east where 1 bed flats in fairly safe areas start at £575 per month.

25% of our income for us. But, although we live in London, we're still living in a one bed, 45min away from work and we also pay some rent in advance so our landlord gives us a bit of a discount.

Quite a few of our friends are paying around 35-40% of their income on rent. And many are still flatsharing (which is getting very tiring in your 30s, even worse if you're a couple sharing a flat with others). However, they are also the ones living within 15-20 min of work so you could say they are making a choice to pay more for a nice commute.

22% of our income. We're in the North West, in a very cheap area. We could stretch to an additional 10% but anything more than that would be very hard.

Agree with RealityCheque. It's impossible to compare. People paying 60% of their income might be (and probably ARE) much wealthier than people paying 20%...

yes wheelie but irrespective of the extremes 47% is supposedly an average figure for proportionality of rent in relation to salary.

28K is an approximately average salary.

and I'd always argue that higher than average earners are less likely to be renting as they have the means to save for a deposit and secure a mortgage, surely?

I have never paid less than 50% of net income in rent or latterly mortgage for the past 26 years and often much more. (London and then South East).

Rent on a standard 3 bed terraced house (including ex council) here is around £1500 - 2000 and mortgage payments around that too (even with a hefty 25% deposit)- most families are finding it pretty tough.

I'm just under 20% for my rent
Having said that I've had no rent increase in 6 years so I expect it really should be more

private yes and then some housing association no there is a 50% increase between private rents and housing association here

There are around 6 million households in the UK who are claiming housing benefit/local housing allowance. I know the sums are complicated, but basically you won't get it unless your rent is 60% of your income including tax credits and child benefit. So that's a lot of people. Even taking out the 1.66 million unemployed, not all of whom will constitute a 'household' and therefore not claim it (I'm thinking of young people who live with their parents/people whose partners are working/people who own their homes etc and therefore are not eligible for hb/lha) and the 2 million on ESA who may well have partners in work and therefore not be eligible for hb/lha or who own their own homes and therefore are not eligible for hb/lha - even if - and as you can see it's a big 'if' - even if you factor all of those people out of the equation then there are at least 2.4 million households, who are working, and who are paying more than 60% of their entire income - including wages and tax credits and child benefit - in rent.

So an average of 47% sounds about right. We are in a housing crisis.

About 40% here. 2 bed house in the south east.
Pre DD and DP, I was paying about 50% for tiny one bed flat in central London.
Area dependent I think.

If we were to buy the place we are renting now we'll be paying much more every month on the mortgage. In some areas it is cheaper to rent than to buy.

Mine is 33% and that is HA rent. I have not included TC or CB in my net income. If I did it would be 27.5%

We pay spot on 47% private rent in kent