Poll: The Budget

[rossk26]

But there already is a higher wage attached to those working around London, especially in the public sector. Teachers alone get a higher wage to cover the cost of commuting and living.

But at the end of the day people choose to live in London as that is their choice, I always get the impression that you all moan about how expensive it is to live there. Well if this is the case why doesn't one move?

I live up North as this is where my family and friends are, yes the houses are cheaper, but this is purely due to value of land! Put my parents 4 bedroom detached house with a double garage in London and it would be worth circa £1m, put it in a rural town in the North East of England and it's worth £300k.

But other costs of living do not change if you live up here or down south. That Ford Focus is still going to cost me the same, the petrol prices are the same give or take a few pence, and food is generally the same too. Water, gas and electricity will be similar too. The only difference is house prices, and if you decide to live near London then you sacrifice having a large home, whereas those who decide to live in more rural areas are rewarded with large house sizes...

 

[Irish_Tom]

Very good post.

Some things actually cost more outside of London than they do in the city.

For instance Cornwall, one of the poorest counties in the country, has the most expensive water costs.

 

[rossk26]

Some things actually cost more outside of London than they do in the city.

For instance Cornwall, one of the poorest counties in the country, has the most expensive water costs.

This I didn't know, but adds to the fuel that housing cost alone should not dictate high wages for public sector workers. I would also add that travelling costs in most cases is cheaper in London too, the average underground travel card is £50 a week, whereas someone living in a rural area would have to travel further to their place of work, in some cases public transport not even being an option, so that £50 a week wouldn't get you very far...

 

[Mercenary Keyboard Warrior]

This I didn't know, but adds to the fuel that housing cost alone should not dictate high wages for public sector workers. I would also add that travelling costs in most cases is cheaper in London too, the average underground travel card is £50 a week, whereas someone living in a rural area would have to travel further to their place of work, in some cases public transport not even being an option, so that £50 a week wouldn't get you very far...

Commute from outside by train and your talking thousands.

Not everyone who works in London can use a £50 travel card. Living in a rural area is becoming a luxury to be honest with fuel becoming more and more expensive its very much becoming a lifestyle choice. Property where I live is cheaper outside town, it comes with added costs of commuting, its always been the same, its just becoming more and more noticeable with fising fuel costs.

I suspect the weightings for London working are the same as the private sector companies I have worked for in that they do not really cover the true extra costs of living in London on a similar basis. Take your example of £300k vs £1m house, do they cover that? I highly doubt it.

There is a difference in food actually, its not massive but it is there. Utils are the same, why wouldnt they cost the same? Cornwall was bad for water due to low population density... hows it ever going to be any different unless its a national business forced to not price based on costs. Why do lots of rural places not have gas? Same issue, its uneconomical to run it there so they don't. Water has been run there, doesn't stop it costing more to support it though e.g how many meters of pipe per person in cornwall compared to ANY city in the UK not just London.

This is the problem with the public sector, what a person doing the same job earns 200 miles away bears no relation to a fair market rate for the job in your area.

I looked up a senior nurse, NHS says From £19,585 to £24,455
They get £3333 if they work in inner London, plus a 4% cost of living.
So top wack inner london nurse is £28766 vs the outside london of £24455, after tax and NI.. a diff of £2500, a fraction over £200 per month. Thats really not much at all, you yourself point out how vast the difference in housing is, live anywhere where you can use a £50 travel card and in no way is £200 going to cover the increased housing cost. That £200 would cover less than half my commuting cost and I am less than an hour by car from London. I mean commuting cost by public transport not driving.

Its not hard to get a decent benchmark on jobs, what sort of jobs should a decent senior nurse earn a similar salary to? I bet the comparable jobs in the private sector get lower when you compare the same nurse in inner London to say Leeds.

Dont get me wrong I am not saying I think public sector are overpaid, I havent looked into it, but I am saying they should pay similar amounts to comparable jobs in the local jobs market and not nationally.

 

[do_ron_ron]

The key is though that such flexibility doesn't seek to depress the wages in deprived or "cheaper" areas.

The trouble with the area concept is that it will be based on say the North East. In that area there are people living in rural areas with a high cost of living and should if it was done fairly be given a pay rise.

The highest costs of living are found in the Islands around Britain due to lack of housing(therefore very expensive), low pay and high costs to get goods.

 

[feedtheram]

The only difference is house prices

Never ordered a drink in London have you.

Seriously though it's not just up North that things get cheaper. It's the same down South. A round of drinks that would cost you £15 in Portsmouth or Newcastle will cost you £30 in London. Nursery fees are another good example. Hell i am pleasantly surprised by the price when i buy a sandwich in Tesco when i travel to Crewe.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

The only difference is house prices, and if you decide to live near London then you sacrifice having a large home, whereas those who decide to live in more rural areas are rewarded with large house sizes...

And food, petrol, transport in general, hair cuts, vet bills, beer....

 

[Djwayne]

Is it just me or can anyone else see whats going on here?

The government are making these claims regarding public sector pay regionalisation and everyone is using london as an example.

Where i live in wales public sector pay is 10% above private sector rates because private sector rates are rubbish. Companies pay less in these areas because they believe they can.

There are vast private sector salary differences between say Cardiff and London and I am not talking a couple of k.

What would happen is if the governent could get away with paying someone in wales 13k where as someone in london in the same role costs 20k they will soon be shipping jobs down the M4 to save money.

Looks to me they are trying to ship non-essential public services out of London.

There needs to be more emphasis from the government to move companies out of London to redistribute employment and to balance wages and opportunities outside of the south east as that will ease the situation.

 

[elmarko]

The 50p tax rate costs the public purse money.

Proof please.

 

[elmarko]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8911390/50p-tax-band-will-cost-Britain-1bn-a-year.html

Higher taxes on salary encourage the rich to either leave or move to more tax efficient ways of payment.

"The tax is pushing Britain’s wealth creators beyond a “psychological threshold” - Demand creates wealth, not people.

If the concern is the increase in creative tax methods then would not the logical solution be to close those loopholes which enable "efficient ways of pavement".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laffer_curve

I grow tired of this terrible argument coming back again & again, when in reality the studies show otherwise.

 

[rossk26]

And food, petrol, transport in general, hair cuts, vet bills, beer....

Food is the same if you were to shop at tesco, asda etc..

I have just checked the fuel prices are found that there is a petrol station in Kent 2p cheaper than what I pay up here!

The London Underground is on par if not cheaper than the metro service we have up here.

Can't comment on a hair cut nor a vet bill. Having a beer is something I rarely do, but believe me there are still expensive places up here for a pint

 

[Robi]

Am I the only one that doesn't get the hype and attraction around London? Yes, it's a world capital. But it has terrible crime, overpriced houses and awful areas such as Croydon/Peckham etc.

I would rather live in Lancaster. Cheap compared to the south, very pretty, next to the Lake District, next to no crime and also less arrogant southerners. With regards to housing, you have your standard terraced 3 bedroom properties right up to the 10 bedroom millionaire pads.

/troll

 

[MacRS4]

London is a little odd really - if you come a visitor I can understand why people think it's just busy, dirty, hard to get around, awful traffic etc.....

...but if you live here you get a different experience. I love it - it's a beautiful cosmopolitan city full of everything I could ever want or wish for. Sure, it's got bad bits - hasn't everywhere?

I've lived/worked all over the world, always end up back in London. Not saying it's right for everyone of course - I can imagine if you're on a budget it could be a bitch of a place to live.

Arrogant southerners? Same way you think all Londoners think northerners are stupid and unwashed? It's just one of those things that seems to stick and yet nobody really thinks. I don't find southerners arrogant. What you will find in London though is that people are less friendly - not because they are 'less friendly' it's just because it's impossible to be friendly with so many people about

Stopping in busy streets in the middle, stopping at the top of escalators on the tube, standing on the wrong side of the escalators on the tube, not being used to the driving environment etc. all add up to the Londoners looking fed up at life, whereas the truth is just continuing with your day and pushing through such things is the way it has to be

I don't have any more problem with southerners than I do from people from any other part of the country. Idiots are idiots, but on pure maths you'll get more idiots in a metropolitan area of 13 million people then you will in Leicester or Nottingham.

[EDIT] Sorry, didn't realise that was classed as swearing, changed it now.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Because its not about disposable income its about pay. Fox kind of led people off course a bit with his disposable income comments, it will of course partly affect them but its not the aim to balance disposable income.

Its not the aim but it is the end result.

Consider two totally made up non-real-world examples simply to illustrate my point:

Leafy riverside suburb A: Average living costs £1500 a month. Average salary £2000 a month. £500 disposable

Faded former industrial powerhouse city B: Average living costs £1000 a month. Average salary £2000 a month. £1000 disposable.

If we reduce the salary to take into account the fact its cheaper to live in Area B than it is to live in Area A, which is the figure that sees the most noticeable change? You've got to pay for living costs wherever you live - it's your descretional spending that changes depending on your salary v living costs ratio.

Ok, sure, this avoids the fact you can increase or decrease living costs depending on the standard of living you want but thats surely part of the same thing, right?

In the example there is effectively a £400 a month hit in disposable income as a result of living in 'Leafy Riverside suburb' instead of 'Faded former industrial powerhouse city'. Most people would be quite happy with the concept that they exchange £400 of disposable income for a better area to live in.

I'm not sure what the answer is really - thats just the thing I think about when I look at the pay of services which do not have a comparable private sector equivilent. There are no private sector firemen or really many private sector teachers (I'm sure those at Eton don't do worse than those at comprehensives ). They are also a group of people we want evenly spread around the country.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Food is the same if you were to shop at tesco, asda etc..

But in general (green grocers, restaurants, cafes), it costs a lot more.

I have just checked the fuel prices are found that there is a petrol station in Kent 2p cheaper than what I pay up here!

On average, fuel is more expensive in London than out. To say otherwise is stupid.

The London Underground is on par if not cheaper than the metro service we have up here.

That depends on the zones you cross, and Londoners need to use the underground more frequently than your metro (per capita).

Can't comment on a hair cut nor a vet bill. Having a beer is something I rarely do, but believe me there are still expensive places up here for a pint

Still not as expensive and London, and you're still wrong

 

[Hatter The Mad]

Am I the only one that doesn't get the hype and attraction around London? Yes, it's a world capital. But it has terrible crime, overpriced houses and awful areas such as Croydon/Peckham etc.

Then don't live in those areas.

 

[jas72]

We all know what this is really about. It's the old divide and conquer rule. Tories fear unions and unions power to get fair wages. To divide wage negotations from 1 block to tens (possbily) 100s of smaller negotiations means that it will never be national news and that any strikes will only be in the poorest areas. How regional are we talking here? Shall different London boroughs recieve different levels of teatchers pay?

 

[[TW]Fox]

On average, fuel is more expensive in London than out. To say otherwise is stupid.

It's not really - filling stations in and around Westminster are obviously quite expensive but once you get more than a few miles from Tower Bridge it's pretty competitive. A quick look on Petrolprices.com reveals that even the really nice London suburbs like St Albans have access to fuel thats amongst the cheapest in the country.

 

[Robi]

Its not the aim but it is the end result.

Consider two totally made up non-real-world examples simply to illustrate my point:

Leafy riverside suburb A: Average living costs £1500 a month. Average salary £2000 a month. £500 disposable

Faded former industrial powerhouse city B: Average living costs £1000 a month. Average salary £2000 a month. £1000 disposable.

If we reduce the salary to take into account the fact its cheaper to live in Area B than it is to live in Area A, which is the figure that sees the most noticeable change? You've got to pay for living costs wherever you live - it's your descretional spending that changes depending on your salary v living costs ratio.

Ok, sure, this avoids the fact you can increase or decrease living costs depending on the standard of living you want but thats surely part of the same thing, right?

In the example there is effectively a £400 a month hit in disposable income as a result of living in 'Leafy Riverside suburb' instead of 'Faded former industrial powerhouse city'. Most people would be quite happy with the concept that they exchange £400 of disposable income for a better area to live in.

I'm not sure what the answer is really - thats just the thing I think about when I look at the pay of services which do not have a comparable private sector equivilent. There are no private sector firemen or really many private sector teachers (I'm sure those at Eton don't do worse than those at comprehensives ). They are also a group of people we want evenly spread around the country.

Better area? What?

The Lake District, namely Windermere is on a whole different beauty scale in comparison to London. Less crime, REAL buildings and proper countryside. To even say otherwise is daft.

EDIT: On the assumption that 'Faded former industrial powerhouse city' refers to London and 'Faded former industrial powerhouse city' somewhere in the north.

 

[[TW]Fox]

Better area? What?

The Lake District, namely Windermere is on a whole different beauty scale in comparison to London. Less crime, REAL buildings and proper countryside. To even say otherwise is daft.

Seriously? It was a made up example. I didn't mention the Lake District. Last time I checked you'll find the cost of living in somewhere like Kendal isn't exactly cheaper either - everywhere is quite far away, fuel is expensive, etc. So I'm not really sure what your point is.

Generally, the cost of living/property is roughly related to how nice somewhere is/how attractive it is to live.

Living in beautiful rural areas is not cheap either.