Loz

Ani Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Which was the first?!! Waitrose.

I'm glad it worked out for you Ashley, but I wouldn't touch that website with a VERY long bargepole. No address, no contact details... just give them money and download a remote access program and they have open access to your computer.

I am often vary wary... on people who use the trite phrase 'the thin edge of the wedge'.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Stock up on arnica- one of my kids did this and came home with horrible bruises! Yeah - wear VERY loose clothing...!

Only that the price includes a number of paintballs far less than you will actually use in the time allotted and you pay for any more you use, so expect the total bill to be quite a bit higher.

binary_star Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > +1 for wordpress...which you can find lots of free > responsive themes for should you wish to (this > forum is not responsive but it is quite cumbersome > to use on smartphones and there have been threads > asking for a mobile friendly version/EDF app). Wordpress is very good for blog/news type pages (for which it was made). For other types of websites it feels more like using the wrong tool. Joomla is better for non-blog websites (but not so good for blog/news type stuff), but far more complex to set up. There are lots of lighter CMS's out there. I've had a play with Silver Stripe which rather nice, but lacks much in the way of third-party development.

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > but if we imagine a scenario where "all"* of the > homes which supposedly need building are built - > who sells them and how much would they be? I think a better question is where would they be? There is no shortage of available housing in the outer suburbs of Manchester and Liverpool, but no one really wants to live there. On the other hand, London seems to be the place most people want to live, but where can we build the necessary number of houses there? Maybe a better approach is to work out how we can people to want to live in the places we actually have spare housing capacity? i.e. jobs.

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Your initial point was that assets have no value and are worthless. I think you've realised that > was nonsensical as you've repositioned and are now saying assets do have value but that value is hard > to specify exactly until point of sale. When I say assets have 'no value' I mean that they cannot be correctly given a value, not that that are worthless. What is a painting by, say, Monet worth? We can guess, but we do not know and we could be out by a long, long way. How do you tax that? Shares with a paper 'worth' of ?10k today might have been 'worth' ?20k yesterday. The only time you can know the correct and accurate value is when it is sold. Anything else is a just a guess, nothing more. And it may be a very bad guess. > Fine. But it can be estimated easily and accurately enough to make taxation practical. Even on eBay I can > establish market value of any common item by selecting completed sales and looking at > comparables. Houses are valued the same way. It's even easier to value shares or other financial > assets including cash (which is also an asset). You have a strange idea of the word 'practicable'. You want to tax people based on a guess? And a guess of every single major item of every person's wealth? A guess that might be out by a long way (cough, *Foxtons^) or, even if reasonably accurate, might be very wrong within a very short time of it being made (e.g. shares)? I sold my car last year as I was going away. The Parker's guide told me it was 'worth' ?7500. I ended up selling it for ?6000. Parker's 'valuation' of my car was, therefore, wrong. It wasn't the value at all, was it? It was wrong by 25%. I only knew the value of my car by selling it. > In any case your point that property, being a worthless asset, can't be taxed is pretty > obviously untrue as various countries already do collect wealth taxes based on property, including > the UK, which uses residential property values to calculate council tax. You can justifiably quibble > about how efficient or fair the valuation process is, but that's very different from arguing that > the value is nil, which I think you've got muddled about. Look back at my post - I never said it 'can't be taxed'. It is, however, a stupid idea and can't be done with any accuracy. Council tax is a great example of the monumental issues of trying to tax assets anywhere near accurately. It works on valuations made 23 years ago and even then only to put properties into rough bands. And 23 years later, people are still putting in appeals on the valuations made. Every time it suggested that a revaluation is made it is quickly thrown into the 'Too Hard' basket by politicians, and for good reason. Can you imagine trying to do it every year? And yet you want to extend this hard-to-do guesstimate to wealth in general, with tax to be paid on every asset's guessed value at a specific time, re-guessed by the taxman at least every year? That's your idea of a practicable solution? And we've not even got to the issues and problems around taxing illiquid assets. Taxing wealth is just a bad idea and usually impossible to do accurately. It can sometimes be done in very, very small ways (and usually done badly, like council tax), but it is just not practical on a larger scale.

grace3 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > So what is the difference between Peckham and East Dulwich? Rightly or wrongly, less people are scared to live in East Dulwich.

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > > But that 'value' is irrelevant until, as I said, you actually sell it and realise that price. Until > > then it has no value. As Northern Rock shareholders found - they could have been taxed on > > the 'value' of their shares only to discover they actually were worthless. > > So if I have ?20 in my pocket, it's actually worthless until I spend it and realise it's true > value, because who's to say there won't be a plunge in the value of sterling tomorrow. We're talking assets, not cash. This is not a terribly difficult concept! 10% of ?20 is still ?2, whatever the value of the pound. 10% of the value of a house is not definable until it is sold. It can be estimated based on an approximate value IF you sold it right now, but not defined until you actually do.

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Loz Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > No, no, no. The problem with this is that assets (generally) have intrinsically no value. How much > > is a picture worth? How much is a car worth? How much is 10000 shares in a company worth? How much > > is a house worth? The answer to all of those is nothing... until the point they are sold. Only > > then can the value be understood. > > This clearly isn't true. I can look up share prices from one second to the next and if I sell > shares, I will get the current price. The value of houses is easy to determine to within 5% of the > actual sale price. But that 'value' is irrelevant until, as I said, you actually sell it and realise that price. Until then it has no value. As Northern Rock shareholders found - they could have been taxed on the 'value' of their shares only to discover they actually were worthless.

Zebedee Tring Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Below is an extract from today's "Grauniad" comment page: > > "... there are 30m-40m actual or potential bedrooms nationwide not slept in every night ... > The tiny fraction of these found in council housing are being aggressively pursued through the > bedroom tax; public policy takes no responsibility - and shows no interest - in what happens with the > rest". > > I couldn't have put it better myself. Why? What I do with my spare bedroom is my business and the taxpayer is not paying me for it. In fact, I arguably pay extra council tax because of it.

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > More of the tax burden should fall on wealth rather than income. No, no, no. The problem with this is that assets (generally) have intrinsically no value. How much is a picture worth? How much is a car worth? How much is 10000 shares in a company worth? How much is a house worth? The answer to all of those is nothing... until the point they are sold. Only then can the value be understood. Also, taxing wealth means that the money must either be found from an alternative source, or the asset liquidated to pay the tax. Taxing income and capital gains is a much more sensible approach. Which is why governments do it.

Pink Panther Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > By contrast the new owners appear to have qualities such as > competence, efficiency, and adherence to proper business principles. I has a small suspicion that this comment may come back to haunt you.

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The buy-to-let market has also tended to target former LA homes (which is > why 40% of all homes sold under right to buy are now in the hands of private landlords). So it's > part of the problem imo that has lead to the erosion of social housing. It should never have > been introduced as a product. Hmmm. Bit cart before the horse there, PT. The erosion of social housing was caused by the government selling them, not any particular type of buyer buying them.

tomdhu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Ordinary folks could buy houses if Govt. > discontinued tax relief on Buy-to-Let borrowing. > > It's a silly subsidy that keeps on inflating the > house price bubble. But that's just an ideological problem you have at not wanting to see renting houses as a business. Every other business is entitled to deduct costs (such as interest on borrowing) from incoming revenue.

Yeah, but there a bot dropping constants ads for kitchens (or, rather, k i t c h e n s) at the moment, so I can't blame admin for making it a naughty word.

There is a very good reason why the three main political parties are all squeezed into a narrow political band - that's where the votes are. It's kind of how democracy works.

I imagine salt and vinegar crisps would be special kind of hell for you.

Jah Lush Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > People who say Yay! I don't some much dislike that, as those (mainly women) that accompany it by clapping like a demented four year old.

Pink Panther Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As a Hamlet supporter I'm delighted that this > cowboy operation has finally been closed down. > Not before time too. So you are happy these hard-working guys lost their jobs because you go ever-so-slightly sprayed once every second Saturday? Nice.

uncleglen Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Zowie Bowie- I think he changed his name to Duncan.... Changed his name to Duncan Jones and became a film director. Directed the rather good "Moon" a few years ago.

cazfay Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > 'stop you're using the Stilton knife on the stinking bishop!' ... said the smelly Actress.

Who bit you? :)

As soon as I made an offer on the house I bought a couple of years ago, I told the agent that it had to be taken off the market. And I kept checking Rightmove (and, at the time, Globrix). Unfortunately, the vendor has listed it through two agents, but the agents I bought it off were actually very good at hassling the other agent to remove it. It took about a week, but it did get delisted. I'm not sure why anyone would let an agent keep a property up on Rightmove that you had an offer on. It's just begging to be gazumped.