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?

At its worst 65% (plus commute to London at £360 per month). Now 36%.

At the time we couldn't afford to move as we had no money for fees, deposit, or even to hire a van!

Its barking mad and so many people have no idea. The people who are housed are the lucky ones, its worse if you claim HB and need to move. NO DSS appears on nearly every advert (idiots, DSS doesn't even exist anymore). Most houses are priced well over them allowance that HB pays anyway.

what? lots of people aged 20-39 wonthave children?!?
so I suppose that lots of people aged forty plus will?

my experience necessitates that supposition as incongruent.

The average age of first motherhood in the UK is a little under thirty.

My last rental was 29% of me and DP joint income (48k). Our current mortgage on a much larger property... 13%

This is purely rent/mortgage payment. Not including council tax/bills etc. We are in Buckinghamshire.

Lulu, how many years of Labour? They are responsible for this too.

I think the biggest issue is what you earn
Aren't CEO salaries now averaging 36 times that of the admin staff?

you imagine CEO'S to be renting achieve?

lemon, I think we're talking cross purposes.

I said lots won't have children. Not that it's unusual to have children.

You've got to remember, lots of people stay childless their whole lives - average age of motherhood (or indeed fatherhood) is not relevant for them.

There are a large number of people renting at that age, who don't have children, while others have them and are raising them.

By contrast, if we were looking at the rental market for 60-80 year olds, a vanishingly tiny number will have dependent children, so it won't be an issue that skews the data.

No lemonade. I'm saying that while regular people's salaries haven't changed, the rich are getting richer. The CEO probably owns a couple of BTLs as investments on top of their own home. and as long as the market dictates rent, they can keep putting it up. And as long as BTL is a good investment prices will go up because the rich use property to park their money there.

Sorry if that was an oblique thing but I am interested in this and the same issues crop up so I probably thought it was obvious went it wasn't. But rent will be that proportion of income when it keeps getting higher while salaries remain at the levels they were twenty years ago, CEOs and their strata being the opposite because their salaries have skyrocketed.

I'm not anti rich people by the way, just saying that things have gone wrong and we need adjustment. Berlin has introduced a measure of rent control, capping percentage raises etc.

Jeanne I'd say the proportions of childless vs parents are at least proportionate. especially when considering those in rented accommodation.

its disingenuous to purport that most 20-39 year old renters are childless.

35% in a London house share. Can't buy because no deposit.

You've misread me.

I haven't said most 20-39 year old renters are childless and that's not at all what I'm arguing.

My point is, this is an age at which it matters whether or not you have children, financially.

The issue is, someone like me, who is 30 and childless, can afford to spend much more or rent, because I'm not paying for children. I also need less space, for the same reason.

If we looked at your average 70 year old (to take my previous example), it would be very unlikely it matters a jot whether or not he or she has children - because in virtually all cases, those children are now adults, no longer living at home and no longer financially dependent. The pension (or income, possibly) isn't paying for the children any more.

Does that make more sense?

The issue is that with the age range stated in the OP, it's very hard to make general statements, because having children will cause such a huge variation in terms of what rental costs actually mean for people.

Lemonade, Jeanne didn't say "most".

fair enough Jeanne.

where I'm from lots of 20-39 year old are definitely not childless/single.
I guess I'm routinely stunned when I stumble on to MN and many apparently are.

Well ... actually, yes, lots of us are childless.

The ONS claims that around one in five women is childless by age 45.

www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/fertility-analysis/cohort-fertility--england-and-wales/2012/sty-cohert-fertility.html

Being childless is not the same thing as being single. Many childless women have partners. Some will have been trying for years to have babies, and can't.

I don't really follow why you are 'stunned' by this very common knowledge? Or why you felt the need to claim that on MN, some of us 'apparently' are childless? I'm not even sure what you're implying with that term.

Thanks, ego.

I'm not implying anything.
I'm stating that it's not within my remit of experience that lots of thirty year old people are childless.

around here they simply aren't.

I'm aware that were I living in London/ SE I'd be excused for my London-centric views.
my views are informed by my experience and yes, at times they appear to be wholly incongruent with a fair swathe of MN.

For example I know exactly one childless forty five year old. I know five childless thirty year olds and before you jump on me; this is amongst mainly professional people, not the lower socioeconomic contingent

I'll concede this may be due tot a north/south divide but maintain its disingenuous/naive to suppose that lots I'd 20-39 year olds are childless.

its dependent upon geography at least and untrue in many areas.

we calve earlier oop north cos we all expire earlier from poverty and vulgarity I spose

Monthly family income £2200, rent is £750.

In London where most of my friends are people who moved to London as young adults, most don't start having kids until mid to late thirties. I was late thirties by the time any of my friends had kids. Obviously that is a very particular demographic - degree-holding professionals in London. There are plenty of people in london who have kids younger than that.

The advice used to be that you don't spend more than a third of your income on rent but that's not possible for many people I know.

41% of monthly income is rent, I'm on a salary above national average but below higher tax threshold. North Yorks.

And I'm childless in my mid-40s too, if that helps.

As a matter of interest for those renting privately how often does your rent increase and by how much