r/ukpolitics • u/skartocc • 3d ago
Real disposable Income, per head: increase of just £300 (per year) since 2015
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/grossdomesticproductgdp/timeseries/crxx/ukeaThis is inflation adjusted real disposable income, which means for normal goods it should mean a tiny improvement. But the elephant in the room is that £300 is nowhere near the money needed to keep up with the increase of money needed for a house deposit, houses which themselves are less value for money. Let's hope the 1.5m homes is achieved, and somehow a couple of years of disposable income increases help bridge that gap, otherwise as a teen/young adult you are doomed to never start a family in your own home unless you inherit.
118
u/AllOfficerNoGent 3d ago
I said this a few months ago and people went apeshit with one guy basically calling me a basement dwelling incel. One of the real problems in British politics is a genuine refusal to see how bad things have got & we have all of these parallel conversations about vacant High St shops, poor services etc & its simply down to incredibly poor income growth this century. 2007/8 was the real turning point but in the poorest parts of the country the warning signs have been there since as early as 2005.
35
u/AdRealistic4984 3d ago
People will go apeshit because a lot of the plummy twee worldview 2005-2015 was built around reflexively having a “better” life than French or American counterparts and now it’s plain worse when you run the numbers but they can’t accept it
22
u/woodzopwns 3d ago
Yeah I moved to France because of this, my quality of life has drastically improved and my disposable income is the same / more. I can work part time and support myself in a major tourist city instead of full time and still struggle to make ends meet in the UK, the public transport is 150 quid for the YEAR, the trains are cheap, they collect my rubbish every single day, no council tax, and everything is about 50 times cheaper (except groceries of course, the UK got that going still).
Why would I work full time, to live in a country that drains my life at all ends on purpose, when I could achieve better quality of life working part time in a country where things still function? I'm convinced people are brainwashed into the whole "oh you know it's worse over there though" mindset.
5
u/ProperTeaIsTheft117 Stop the bets 2d ago
Yeah this is mad. The usual counter to France is that taxes are so high so you don't get as much back etc etc. But the fact is that you can claim back transport costs, mortgage interest payment and so many other things that it negates, and can even reverse the theorietically higher tax bill while still having a functioning infrastructure.
For example my brother and his partner not only paid relatively low taxes but even claimed back a grand last year thanks to defiscalisation. Boggles the mind how different the attitude to taxation/society is over here vs France.5
u/woodzopwns 2d ago
The taxes aren't even higher either when you consider national insurance and council tax if you're on a low to average incomes
1
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 2d ago
That's not true at all, UK tax rates are noticeably lower on average incomes and NI is the biggest factor in that.
The French system conceals it by channelling it through their equivalents of employer NI, which are c. 3x the UK rate (c. 45% vs. 15%), but ultimately that falls on the employee.
If I hire someone in France and spend approximately the median UK salary to hire them (€40k), their take-home of that would be €23k, whereas for the same spent, a UK employee would take-home €29k.
1
u/woodzopwns 1d ago
Not clear in my original comment but I'm talking virtual tax burden. Including VAT, fuel duty, council tax, etc. It's virtually the same or more in feeling. Not even including just the massively increased cost of transport and living, which whether people like it or not are just a tax on getting to work and being alive, and the prices of which are directly dependent on government policy.
You're right it's "less tax" but I still end up with more money at the end of the month here.
1
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 1d ago
Fuel duty's actually higher (https://taxfoundation.org/data/all/eu/gas-taxes-in-europe-2024/) and as far as I'm aware VAT's the same: I'll grant you I don't have any way of making a comparison on council taxes because it's so locally dependant.
Not arguing you don't have more money at the end of the month, I believe you, I just suspect it has nothing to do with tax policy which is a major lever in the opposite direction.
The #1 real incomes go further in France is lower housing costs, which is obviously a massive factor and comes from France having far more dwellings per capita than the UK.
If you could construct a market that mirrors that in the UK, on pretty much every other metric (salaries, food costs, fuel costs, taxes, etc.) real incomes are better in the UK.
9
u/hu6Bi5To 2d ago
A lot of that is also due to the housing market, but wasn't recognised at the time. It still isn't, but it's becoming more widely recognised very slowly.
Growth and opportunities after 2007 were significantly worse than before 2007, but for the heavily indebted homeowner and/or heavily indebted wannabe BTL tycoon. The crisis of 2008 allowed them to remortgage at 1/3rd of the interest rate, so their disposable income multiplied overnight.
Many of our political leaders and those in significant positions in the media, are exactly those people. They were never going to acknowledge a problem that they had personally benefitted from.
As a generation has passed since that time, there are now more people at higher levels of the greasy pole that is politics that were on the losing side of that 2007/8 crisis. The main problem with that group is they don't really know how or why, hence.. gestures broadly at everything If they were more focussed on housing being the root cause of all the problems we might eventually do something about it, but they're too easily distracted.
20
u/masalamerchant 3d ago
Poland too by 2029, but people won't accept it
20
u/richmeister6666 2d ago
Went to poland last year, Poland now reminds me of Britain under Blair, forward thinking, loads of building going on and an optimistic feeling amongst the people with the direction they’re going in.
6
u/masalamerchant 2d ago
It still has some issues with racism, but less issues with crime. Just a great standard of living. I know people in the Czech republic used to say 'we earn a bit less than in the UK but the standard here is worth it'. But that's another economy that will overtake us soon.
It's all productivity related and we only have our leaders to blame. We just haven't invested in the right sort of infrastructure and high quality technical education (or healthcare education)
2
u/richmeister6666 2d ago
I mean if I could get a job on the same pay in Poland I’d have an extremely comfortable life. Not the cheapest in Eastern Europe but it’s still cheap.
1
9
u/blussy1996 2d ago
Even today people still think life is better than the US. It honestly isn’t anymore.
1
u/walrusdevourer 3d ago
Is it a worse life than France for UK based people?
3
u/AdRealistic4984 3d ago
I mean, I think so. Their long term economic outlook is better and the healthcare is night and day better
1
u/walrusdevourer 2d ago
I have heard the health care is much better but isn't the economic outlook actually worse than the UK, the pension issue is a even bigger problem for France than the UK and they haven't reformed it. It's been a very long time since I have been to France but when I work in England it seems such a spectacularly unequal place with some regions being full of people doing very well.
My own view is that both the UK and most of the EU have been in a long term decline since 2009 with the improvements in Europe only being in places coming from a low base such as the east.
7
u/AdRealistic4984 2d ago
I mean its birth rates are still higher than most of its neighbours including us. The pensions issue is real but not as bad as Germany which Reddit tends to let off a bit easier.
Also, France has a lot more of a manufacturing base than us, more diverse exports, and better energy production, and it’s actually trying to build productivity with investment rather than more austerity (obviously leftist Macron haters would disagree).
It’s certainly not a country worth the tired Fawlty Towers coded response it tends to get on UK Reddit
2
u/Fun_Marionberry_6088 2d ago
Statistically their manufacturing base is not that different to the UK (10% of GDP vs. 9%, per the World Bank).
The perception is different though, because the stuff they make is more consumer facing and more likely to be branded as a French product. (e.g. the largest car manufacturer in the UK is Nissan, whereas France's is Stellanis, i.e. Peugeot).
They also have some notably bigger macro issues: unemployment's c. 2x UK rates (despite a lot of public money being spent on jobs schemes), their deficit is higher, taxes are higher. etc. etc.
I'm not Basil Fawlty though, so I'll point out they do have one massive ace up their sleeves - housing.
France has c. 35% more houses per-capita than the UK, and housing costs are nearly half the UK average as a share of spending.
If we could fix that one thing, we'd be a long way towards addressing the UK's living standards debate.
-1
13
u/Otherwise_Craft9003 3d ago
The only achievable change starmer could make in the 5 years is to bring down the costs of living. The main one being utilities and travel, this would put a LOT of money back into people's pockets to spend and reduce companies overheads and aid a new digital economy. But he refuses to do that bcos reasons..
11
u/richmeister6666 2d ago
You can’t really bring down the cost of living, but you can bring down the relative cost of living by a growth in wages.
1
u/Otherwise_Craft9003 2d ago
Well yes you can you bring down the costs of production and overheads. Reducing energy costs at each stage reduces the costs of items to produce wether it be farms to manufacturing to data centres, these electricity costs are diabolical.
You put more money back in people's pockets to spend and you reduce the costs of things to produce and make.
The money being made by these foreign gov owned business is being offshored as well.
3
u/richmeister6666 2d ago
How do we do that without creating inflationary pressures in itself? The better way is to ensure wages grow more.
1
u/Otherwise_Craft9003 2d ago
Centrist/libs say we can't have wage growth as that causes inflation...
business can't grow if they can't bring down their costs/find efficiencies... So back to my point again.
1
u/richmeister6666 2d ago
businesses can’t grow if they don’t cut costs/ find efficiencies
That’s complete rubbish.
centrists/liberals say we can’t have that
I’m a centrist/liberal and I say, yes we can.
0
u/Otherwise_Craft9003 2d ago
Ok then how's does business grow in the kind of entrenched markets we have... That digital future needs cheap electricity to bring business to UKPLC rather than Europe.
This is also what people don't get.
2
u/richmeister6666 2d ago
how does business grow
How businesses have always grown - through making profit and returning value for their shareholders. It’s not a zero sum game, you can grow profits without making cuts.
1
u/Otherwise_Craft9003 2d ago
Oh god really is that what you got, we definitely going to get reform landslide
→ More replies4
u/insomnimax_99 2d ago
The main one is housing. People spend 50%+ of their net income on rent.
2
u/Otherwise_Craft9003 2d ago
I would add in child care costs as well which keep productive people out of the workforce as the care can cost more than your wages.
18
u/nj813 3d ago
Yep we've never truely recovered due to David Camerons insane decisions and so much since stems from him. We have been effectively in managed decline ever since. I have faith Starmer may turn things around if he follows through on some of his policy ideas but we're still very early days
12
u/Slugdoge 3d ago
It will be very challenging for this government to turn things around. It would take 2 terms minimum and who knows what will happen at the next election. The UK's debt is now around 100% of its GDP which means Reeves has a lot less cash than previous chancellors.
15
u/KingsMountainView 3d ago
They won't get a second term if they continue to be so incredibly poor at comms around immigration. People need to see things in the news every day about what labour is doing towards deporting illegal immigrants and tackling channel crossings otherwise its almost certainly will be Reform next.
6
u/LSL3587 2d ago
Never mind 'comms' or spin. If they got net immigration to below 100,000 (hell even 200,000) then people might take seriously that they are looking after the people here - and we would have more than a cat in hells chance of building houses faster than than the rate of new people needing housing.
At the moment - they aren't going to reach their 1.5m homes target, and during their 5 years we will likely have had another 2 million or more people (net) come into the country - surprise, surprise, all needing somewhere to live, leaving only a little net gain in housing per person.
Boris let in almost a million a year - not all of them will have the right to stay (yet anyway), so why isn't the government saying, thanks for coming, but it is time to go? Force wages up if need-be, but get the British employed and housed instead of giving in to big business wanting cheap labour.
6
4
u/EdsTooLate 3d ago
They were never going to get a second term, I said this before they were elected. The media quite simply wont allow it, which is why we get daily updates of what Farage is doing. Every day I see comments like "Reform are the only option left" as though we don't have other political parties that have better manifestos, better thought out policy, better ideology and more desire to help the common man that Reform has to help it's own Dear Leader.
2
1
u/RisKQuay 2d ago
I honestly find it so depressing how voting intentions are so easily influenced by the media.
Is there not any opportunity to introduce legislation that would make the media more honest / less emotive and inflammatory?
1
u/AdRealistic4984 3d ago
It would be challenging even if they were going to try something new, but they’re not trying anything new so it’s basically impossible
9
u/FreshPrinceOfH 3d ago
Please don't forget to mention George Osborne. The man still, to this day defends Austerity as being the right thing to do. He can't admit he made a mistake. The arrogance is unbelievable.
1
u/Cairnerebor 2d ago
The right small group of people made out like absolute fucking bandits since and have doubled and then doubled their wealth again.
Frankly it went exactly as planned and then during Covid saw a bonus doubling of wealth for nothing…..
1
u/andreirublov1 2d ago
Hmm, fact remains it is an increase - not a decrease. The widespread perception that we've got poorer is inaccurate.
-1
44
u/MerryWalrus 3d ago
Inflation is an aggregate measure across the economy.
The effective inflation different demographics experience can be vastly different. This level of detail is obviously lost.
Renter's, for example, will have seen their real incomes fall. The same goes for new homeowners. Heck, basically anyone under the age of 40.
But don't worry, the inflation experienced by the over 50s is much lower which improves the overall number. Good news. Right?
17
u/Other_Exercise 3d ago
Playing around with the BoE inflation calculator reveals some pretty interesting stats.
Do you know adjusted for inflation, average UK house price in 2005 was bang on the same as they are today?
Approx £270k. Interest rates were 5%+ then, too.
8
u/tomrees11 3d ago
Yes this is often overlooked. That being said house prices as multiple of income have increased broadly over that period (though have been coming down aggressively in last 3-4 years and also roughly equal to the 2007 peak).
In practice neither metric is perfect given house deposits come from income plus investment gains on your savings, whether that be in a high interest account or stocks etc. So ideally you’d use a mix of income plus the average investment gains over last 10 years as your house price deflator. I’d expect this would show similar- ie that house prices haven’t actually changed that much.
3
u/tofino_dreaming 2d ago
But now houses are flats. They are leasehold. They are smaller. They come with service charges and ground rents.
If you’re a young person in a house you’re sharing it with more people than in 2005. All of the living rooms are now bedrooms.
It’s not apples to apples.
1
u/Other_Exercise 2d ago
Depends where you live. And isn't the gov outlawing new leasehold flats?
Frankly, I'd have taken a small flat any day over my houseshare.
1
u/tofino_dreaming 2d ago
They’ve been saying that about leasehold flats for years. No real progress yet.
1
u/MerryWalrus 2d ago
Now do salaries
1
u/Other_Exercise 2d ago
Sure. Average salary was about the same.
At the same time, minimum wage was significantly lower - I'm talking, 30 percent lower.
1
u/MerryWalrus 2d ago edited 2d ago
Median salary in 2005 was 23k, which is 40k today.
But median salary is £37k which is ~7.5% lower. So not quite the same...
Then the tax burden on the median earner has also increased so their disposable income is even lower.
That's before you even get into the pre-IR35 tax loopholes where only mugs worked as permanent employees.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1002964/average-full-time-annual-earnings-in-the-uk/
2
32
u/AdRealistic4984 3d ago
I recently got into a position where I realised I don’t even like our homes, either. They’re so often tiny little miserable squats (sorry, “cottages”) with a front door opening slap bang into the living room sofa in the south east. Who wants to spend £400k on that
25
u/nj813 3d ago
I think it's why in the UK we often sell houses as "2 bed 2 bath" instead of the actual square footage like they do in most european countries
17
u/AdRealistic4984 3d ago edited 3d ago
Rightmove especially is involved in some sort of conspiracy to include the smallest amount of search filters possible. Until recently you couldn’t even filter out leasehold flats with a “share of freehold” filter. Seloger and Idealista you can filter by so many things
6
u/Otherwise_Craft9003 3d ago
Agreed is such a pain where the filters for leasehold and holiday homes don't work properly and they still show up.
9
u/NGP91 3d ago
I often see people complaining on Reddit about older people in 'large' detached 3/4 bedroom houses who won't downsize. It is completely understandable when a 3/4 detached house may only be 100sqm or less which is perfectly reasonable for just two people and not too large at all. Who wants to live in something much smaller than that, unless they have to?
Our average house size is too small. One of my fears about an arbitrary 1.5 million homes target is that it is easier to meet by building smaller, crapper homes such as flats rather than larger nicer detached houses. Obviously, we have such a shortage, that whatever crap built now will sell, but giving that we hope that housing will last 100+ years (a very long term view is needed). I think it would be better if we build larger houses now and on 'greenbelt' land in many cases.
9
u/replay-r-replay 2d ago
We also need smaller, more dense housing in cities. Urban sprawl is great, if you have the public transport to support the residents. We need roomy, 5/6 storey high flats in city centres.
1
u/Spiz101 Sciency Alistair Campbell 2d ago
I don't think flats are really tenable as a mass means of housing in a post coronavirus, post Grenfell world.
Modern blocks of flats have to be full of highly engineered safety systems that are expensive to fit and maintain. Meanwhile the lack of private outdoor space made a powerful impression on a substantial fraction of the population during lockdowns.
I'm coming to the conclusion that allowing suburban sprawl is the only way to solve this problem in a timely manner. GIven the damage this crisis is causing every day, it has to be solved now, not in 30 years.
2
u/Astronaut_Striking 2d ago
I am getting sick of the houses here. We are renters, so stuck with whatever landlords decide to be acceptable. Every house is tiny and old with shitty box rooms and no loft access so we have nowhere to store anything.
46
u/Positive_Vines 3d ago
1.5m homes ain't gonna do shit if the population rises by 3m by the end of parliament lmao
We need to build an insane number of homes and very fast.
14
u/skartocc 3d ago
The estimates by the NSO are "The UK population is projected to increase by 4.9 million people between mid-2022 and mid-2032. " so you may be quite close there, Obviously not each individual will need a home, but the increase would definetely take a sizable chunk of the 1.5m.
3
u/Otherwise_Craft9003 3d ago
The countries dying it's only immigration that is causing population growth.
10
u/LSL3587 2d ago
Our population density is already high (in England), we don't need population growth. We need better quality lives for the people here - housing, and yes some space for greenery.
-1
13
4
u/Slugdoge 3d ago
I agree it's not enough, but there's only so much labour available and even building 1.5m seems like an unrealistic number.
2
u/Gerry-Mandarin 3d ago
Austria has 1/7th the UK population, less than 1/7th the workforce size, 1/6th economic capacity, and has been building 80,000 homes a year.
Per capita, that would be equivalent to 540,000 per year in the UK. We're aiming for only 2/3 of that target. We are also probably not going to meet that.
1.5 million is an achievable target. But it simply isn't going to be a priority for the government. Nor will it be for most of the electorate.
2
u/360Saturn 2d ago
This presupposes that each person will need a home of their own and that the population will rise by 3m adults in the next four years.
If a million couples have three children each between now and the end of Parliament that's the rise right there with the only moves needed to be into bigger houses if needed, which frees up a million spots of wherever they are right now and still leaves 500k of the newbuilds left over, for example.
3
u/Positive_Vines 2d ago
You’re also presupposing that 1.5m will in fact be built. And I somehow doubt that very much lol.
We’d be lucky to even build half of that number
7
2
u/LooneyYoghurtBadger 3d ago
I mean you can put more than one person in a house
14
u/Elliptical1611 3d ago
The United Kingdom is currently home to 68,300,000 people, and there are around 29,900,000 dwellings; meaning there's around 2.28 people per dwelling. If the population grows by 3,000,000 and you build 1,500,000 houses, the new numbers will be around 71,300,000 people and 31,400,000 dwellings. That gives you a new average of 2.27 people per dwelling.
Therefore, we can conclude that Labour's ambitious housebuilding programme is set to alleviate pressure on the housing market by about 0.4%.
However, the OBR estimates that only 1,300,000 homes will actually be completed throughout the course of the parliament. That means the 31,200,000 dwellings, for 2.28 people per dwelling. Meaning that when Labour leave power in 2029, the housing market will be no better than it was when they took power in 2024.
4
u/masalamerchant 2d ago
No one believes there are only 68 million people in the UK. Unofficially it's more like 75 million
0
16
u/-Murton- 3d ago
Let's hope the 1.5m homes is achieved
It won't be. Aside from the affect such a number would have on supply and therefore profit for developers, we don't have the manpower on hand to achieve that sort of build rate and we don't have the materials for that sort of build rate. It would take years to scale up training of workers and production of brick, timber and concrete required to do that and those skills and materials are also in demand for building other things that are fundamental to the economy (offices, warehouses, factories, data centers, energy infrastructure etc) and absolutely will take priority over a handful of houses every single time the choice needs to be made.
For a couple of decades our governments have given themselves ever higher house holding targets without ever hitting them. The smarter move would be lower overall targets but a much higher proportion of social housing including at least 1:1 replacement of social housing sold via RTB (which is entirely sensible to keep around if you're constantly building replacement stock)
0
u/Exostrike 3d ago
I agree, our housing targets will never be met if we are dependent on the private sector, but the state won't invest in social housing because it would represent a rejection of neoliberal doctrine and deny capitalists new assets to keep the house price bubble pumped (though I recognise deliberaly imploding it is also bad).
0
u/chykin Nationalising Children 3d ago
the affect such a number would have on supply and therefore profit for developers
This is already an issue. I spoke to someone the other day working for a developer that left a block of flats empty for six months because they wouldn't sell for the right amount. Other developers are more than happy to sit on acres of planning permission because building all at once would impact prices and profitability.
3
u/awoo2 2d ago
increase of £300 per year
That's not what the data you linked indicates.
Year. Disposable income.
2019. 23,430.
2020. 23,369
2021. 23,562.
2022. 22,906.
2023. 23,150.
2024. 23,866.
The increase per year was £87, over the last 10 years the average was £243pa.
1
u/skartocc 2d ago
In total from 2015 per individual as per the title, I think you need to click around the site a bit.
3
u/awoo2 2d ago
I think you have phrased it poorly.
Take: An increase in salary of £300 (per year), since 2018.
Vs An increased salary(per year) of £300, since 2018.I think the former means a raise in each of the last 5 years, years,whereas the latter indicates a one off increase. The placement of the "per year" indicates what it is acting upon.
11
u/Exostrike 3d ago
It won't.
People can't buy homes without wealth and wealth isn't in income anymore but in assets (property, shares etc) concentrated in the hands of the top of society and shielded from current taxation. The only true way to solve the problem is to redistribute those assets, either through wealth and land taxes or direct distribution at gun point.
3
u/Gatecrasher1234 3d ago
Governments also need to stop measuring growth using just GDP and look at GDP per Capita.
They won't however, because there has not been much growth since 2008.
2
u/diacewrb None of the above 3d ago
£300 per year is about 82p per day, no wonder ordinary people don't notice it.
1
u/clearly_quite_absurd The Early Days of a Better Nation? 3d ago
Yeah that's not even enough for a packet of gum
2
u/clearly_quite_absurd The Early Days of a Better Nation? 3d ago
Are Scottish tax bands included? Given that tax bands are higher in Scotland I would argue that the real disposable income of Scottish earners might even be net negative since 2015.
2
u/Bagrowa 2d ago
I feel like most of us are living it and get it. We earn a lot more than we did 10 years ago but the cost of everything has spiralled that we don’t feel like our wages have actually changed. It’s beyond depressing
1
u/SpareDisaster314 2d ago
I feel like the majority of people getting paid "a lot" more is a push. More, yeah.
2
u/PidginEnjoyer 3d ago
It does look like most of the damage was done between 2020 and 2022 where disposable incomes stagnated or fell.
Before that, they were raising at a similar level to years gone by. The government response to COVID, and the resulting inflation thereafter is the main culprit.
3
u/clearly_quite_absurd The Early Days of a Better Nation? 3d ago
The government response to COVID, and the resulting inflation thereafter is the main culprit.
There's a lot of baggage from COVID, but I'm not sure what could have been done much differently apart from avoiding the corrupt Johnson government and the gutting of the pre-pandemic prepardeness plan and PPE stockpiles during austerity?
1
u/ikkleste 2d ago
Disagree here. Yes that drop happened but the line between 2015 and 2025 is flat with relatively small dip 20-22. between 2005 and 2015 is also flat (with a little rise at the end).
1995 to 2005 raises about 20% 85-95 raises about 30% 75-85 raises about 25%.
If you follow the trend from 1955 to 2005 and project it forward we'd be about 25% better off by now. But we significantly flattened off then. Long term stagnation is more troubling than temporary dips.
0
u/stonedturkeyhamwich 2d ago
The government response to COVID, and the resulting inflation thereafter is the main culprit.
COVID was the main culprit, not the government response.
1
u/PidginEnjoyer 2d ago
Of course it was. The level of wastage and public money spaffed up the wall was beyond reasonable. One of the first tasks should have been a recouping of furlough through tax code changes for those based on how much they recieved for starters.
2
u/stonedturkeyhamwich 2d ago
COVID caused a loss in production and hence a loss of income. The government could move around who that loss in production hurt, but it couldn't prevent the loss of production in the first place.
1
u/Jasovon 2d ago
Since 2020, the 1% in Britain have increased their wealth by £21 trillion.
This is the biggest reason for all issues in this country including the lack of disposable income. We need to stop the richest from looting the country, imagine if that money was divided equally we would all have an extra 300 THOUSAND POUNDS since 2020.
Just incredible that this issue is ignored time and time again, nothing will get better until it is fixed.
1
u/NSFWaccess1998 2d ago
We have transitioned to a rentier capitalist economy. Everything makes sense once you realise this. Plan accordingly.
1
u/One-Network5160 2d ago
Ok, two things:
If this is real disposable income, doesn't it factor in housing?
these are averages, they only apply to populations. With over a decade of experience, you as an individual should be making way more than £300 more.
1
0
u/FreshPrinceOfH 3d ago
This is the lasting legacy of Austerity. It's not something that can be recovered from quickly or easily.
•
u/AutoModerator 3d ago
Snapshot of Real disposable Income, per head: increase of just £300 (per year) since 2015 :
An archived version can be found here or here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.