Senor Chevalier

Huguenot - I'm not rejecting progressive income tax per se, but I felt that the asset tax would provide the progressive element as that would deal with the people that are most able to pay. We could keep income tax progresive as well and the whole thing needs to be calibrated, but overall I think it is desirable to keep things as simple as possible and my main idea is to tax wealth rather than income. Calibration could also set the thresholds and income tax and asset tax rate in order to achieve tax take breakeven (or improvement). Double taxation - seems illogical. To an extent I agree. But there again is it a problem other than for philosophers? Imagine one system where we tax income only. Now imagine one where we only tax wealth. Now a third that is a hybrid taxing both income and wealth at a lower level. The third one taxes us twice, but at a lower rate. If we assume all 3 systems are calibrated to achieve the same tax take, then really what this boils down to is which system causes the fairest distribution of tax payment amongst individuals. In fact there are 3 ways of taxing us: What we earn (Income Tax, Capital Gains) What we have (Council Tax, Inheritance Tax) What we spend (VAT) All I am saying is that the balance needs to be shifted from the curent income heavy approach. Only a pure system (e.g. VAT only) avoids double taxation, but I don't see avoiding double taxation as an important aim in and of itself. People spending their income on perishable goods. Not sure I buy this argument. Yes maybe a bit more spending incentivised, but better that it is earning spent in this way rather than cheap credit which we have relied upon to date. Maybe this spending is the shot in the arm the retail sector needs. A wealthy investor should be aiming for a return in excess of the 2% drag in terms of the proposed asset tax. For people with the big bucks there are only so many baskets of fruit and veg that they would buy before they consider that any further spend in perishable goods is 100% wastage. They would surely rather invest in an asset that will only erode at 2% year on year but could also appreciate. Perhaps here's where the progressive bit should come in with the asset tax rate tapering upwards to limit to the extent possible disincentives to invest.

If you tax people on their assets (including property) over a certain threshold then this will provide a downwards pressure on house prices. People in large houses end up forced to sell up as they can't meet the asset tax. It's a bit like big executive cars that have huge servicing and running costs. After 5 years they have depreciated by 70% as there is no market for them. People's mentality would change from property being an asset to accumulate as it is a no-brainer, to considering property as something of a burden with careful consideration required as to affordability before deciding to indulge in the luxury of an expensive house. If we are setting thresholds for such an asset tax, then we might find that after introduction, the heat is taken out of house prices and so the tax stops raising as much. I would suggest we brought it in at a high level and then gradually reduced the threshold if need be over time.

I'm still on taxing "asset value" rather than land value. In particular, the issue raised by Undisputedtruth of people taxed people based on their land / property and trapped by high mortgages would be avoided. If we are taxing "assets" or "net assets" to be precise, then we are taxing people's net worth and so people who are debt free are taxed more than people with mortgages and can afford to pay it as they are more wealthy. Everyone taxed on what they are worth. The most wealthy people pay the most and tax paid does not change if one person has decided to buy a large house on a small plt in an expensive area or a small house on a large plot in a cheap area or whatever. I still can't see what's wrong with this system. Could someone blow this idea out of the water please as it is really bugging me.

Goodness only knows what the process is for this, but there is no reason to expect it to be any faster than other Council processes which in my experience have overrun. Add to this that it is the month of August and people are on holiday and you are not looking at a recipe for a rapid response. My suggestion is to go ahead and make the offer that works for you and then put it out of your mind and keep looking for other things. If they get back to you with an acceptance before you've found somewhere else then great, certainly don't bank on it. If you like you could give them a "time limited" offer, but I doubt it would change their behaviour. You say you're on a tight schedule but, with all the will in the world, it will still take you ages to find another place and work through the process so you may as well whack your offer in on the Southwark house and get the clock ticking on that.

Might be easier to go the other way and designate "Able and Unencumbered Spaces" away from the entrance and label all the other spaces as "Needy or Greedy" spaces and see what happens.

Yeah, all well and good him being chipper in a promotional DVD but have you seen the stealth footage of him totally losing it when he once got to Sainsbos and found that someone with arms and legs had taken the last NANL space?

come again...?

It needed saying

Student Loans Company

Now I like a good discussion on condiments as much as the next man, but to get back on topic for a moment, did anyone see these City Knitting pictures today? http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/gallery/2011/aug/17/urban-knitting-craft

DC - I agree land is the easier one to get a grip on. As a principle I'd go for assets overall so as not to prejudice land owners, or more to the point so as not to let people with their wealth tied up in yachts and other investments off the hook. Implementation may lead us to land as a fall back option. Loz - liquidity is a hassle I agree but doesn't have to be a deal breaker. It is dealt with for inheritance as you say and if this was general taxation then it would be far easier to predict and people could plan their finances accordingly. 1) Pensioner should start packing their bags and move on - there will be anomolies with any system but in the scheme of things downsizing from a large gaff as a pensioner doesn't sicken me to the core. Alternatively some sort of government scheme where the percentage ownership of the house starts to transfer to the government so that the accumulated tax is deducted post mortem from the estate. Im sure various financial institutions could actually administer this and have fun packaging the receviables. 2) Struggling Business - owner needs to find a partner or sell up and do something else. To be honest though, this tax would be like any other operating cost of the business and so, as for all other costs, the business keeps paying it or becomes insolvent, save that when the business value falls beneath a threshold these tax costs are switched off unlike any other operating cost. I don't have a particular issue with that. 3) I think anyone dabbling in commodities and derivatives markets should take it on the chin. To be honest the swing in the 2% (above a threshold) of their net worth is the least of their worries - it is the other 98% that will really hurt them. They know the rules of the game and should manage their risk appropriately. Frankly there is no excuse for not liquidating 2% of their portfolio at the tax point date to hedge out this risk (though we may want to stagger tax dates for individuals as market moves could be interesting).

Another vote for Scoop ED. Small scoop of choc in a cup with an espresso poured over is superb.

Yeah but if they had been subject to lower income taxes on the way up then they'd have more money to pay the tax when they got there. They could I suppose think of one wing of their house as their tax fund or more responsibly keep a portion of their asset base outside of property if they prefer to eliminate the risk of having to downsize to a measly ?2m home at some point.

...in the designated areas.

Yeah. Sometimes I think bold decisions are called for. I wouldn't tax savings per se, but would try to tax "assets" be they stocks, savings, property, art or whatever. Clearly implementation hasn't been thought through, but first of all as a principle wouldn't it be better? Tax people who already have it rather than those that are accumulating. So let's use some arbitrary numbers just for a laugh. Anyone with "assets" over ?2m incurs a 2% annual charge on the increment over the ?2m threshold. Meanwhile drop income tax to a flat 30% for all on all income over ?10k. No idea whether in aggregate this would increase or decrease the tax take so would all need to be calibrated. But would give people a chance to change their station in life rather than the current rich stay rich, poor stay poor system. Don't worry about not hitting people with high incomes hard enough - you can hit them once they've got a big enough pile. If people can explain the problem with my suggestion, perhaps I and others can have a go at finding a solution. If it all ends up being too hard to implement then we should can it and go back to my IHT plan.

Here?s how I see it. -Sainsburys own the car park -They chose to provide it -They can administer it however they like (subject to any planning restrictions) -They have designated certain spaces as mother and baby or whatever, and as users of their carpark we should follow their rules -We can vote with our feet if we don?t like it or write to them to protest I think the OP was upset by people flouting the rules and I agree such flouters are being inconsiderate both to the intended users and to Sainsburys. Polite people (that hold open doors even if they have no children or car) would probably tut at the lack of consideration being extended by such flouters. However, I think the reason for the longevity of this thread is that it has moved on to a wider issue (please let there be a point to all this) being that of entitlement and courtesy. When M?n?B spaces were first introduced I?m sure mothers struggling with shopping and pushchair were very pleased and though ?what a good and helpful idea?. The reference point was no special treatment and the M?n?B spaces were an improvement and a reason to be grateful However now M?n?B spaces are now just part of the deal. They are assumed. A given. Nobody thinks about how lucky they are to have the facility and when they are removed rage ensues. How did something so helpful that was a benefit become such an entitlement leading to such rage? Let?s take the case of the terrible Organix tent blocking 3 M?n?B spaces. So Sainsburys are still providing (I assume) an upside to mothers with babies, just slightly less of it than before. Would stepping back and thinking about how lucky we are (as suggested in one of DH?s essays) rather than taking the status quo for granted be such a bad idea? I wonder what the reaction would have been if the response to the Organix saga had been more along the lines of: ?How disappointing that Sainsburys chose to block off3 spaces with an Organix tent. The M?n?B spaces are a real help for me and it is ever so much more difficult when we don?t have them. Just goes to show it is just marketing for Sainsbos and was only worth doing until they found an even better marketing opportunity? I think that overall people who are shown a courtesy should show gratitude, whether in car park, street or caf? and those that don?t are rude and arrogant. I?m sure most people on here are polite and do show their gratitude and nobody has any truck with them. It is ONLY those that don?t that wind people up. So which camp are you in? Camp 1 - nice considerate people that childless folk will happily indulge; or Camp 2 - arseholes that think the world revolves around them. Clearly this is broader than children and applies to courtesy generally. It just cropped up on this thread and I guess as a cohort, people with young children are pretty well represented in ED and on this forum, frequently indulged and whilst they often are they do not always seem grateful. I think we should collectively concoct a voluntary code of ethics for the M?n?B spaces. My thoughts to kick off the discussion: -Mother or Father should have baby with them at time of use -Those without baby should not show hostility to those using M?n?B spaces -Those using the spaces should beam at others in a grateful but not smug way -Children above 5 don?t count unless they have special needs -Those that disagree on principle to the provision of M?n?B spaces should take this up with Sainsburys and abide by the rules pending any change in policy Edited twice before anyone read it due to a tricky sentence.

It should of course be lower still (whilst offset by a tax on wealth rather than income as I have posted before). http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,544384,548845#msg-548845 Right off to earn a crust, I'll pick this up later.

OK, I'll admit it, I've come over with a touch of the Frank-itis the last two days. Takes one to know one. Anyway I simply had to work the phrase "piss on the lady's thread" into the discussion on knitting...

Yeah that's fair. I guess I saw it as joint enterprise. Anyway PGC makes nice chutney.

You would have to argue that set or suite applied to sanitary ware for example but not tiles. I suppose it also comes down to what constitutes "parts of the building". If they take this to an extreme they could fix a crack in a wall and only replace the individual tiles that straddle the crack rather than the entire wall. This would seem quite unreasonable. However, if they will cover the repair to the whole of the damaged walls but are drawing the line at additional undamaged walls then this seems to be broadly in the spirit of the clause (whilst obviously irritating). Sounds more like a case of you having insurance that is less good than you hoped than a case of them trying to shirk their responsibility under the terms of the insurance to me (not a lawyer). What do the tiles look like, can you find something close?

Fair enough. Given your knowledge in these matters and that you know who to speak to, why don't you moot this to the Peckham art workshop and see if they want to chip in? I should think your experience will be invaluable in positioning a "knitting circle for 'deprived' kids" in a manner that is less patronising than the conventional surprise Yarn-Bomb. ;) I can't help my argumentative nature sometimes, but please don't let that put you off asking them...

Seems to be support for the grammar school from a broad base. Any contrary views? I wish it had been an option for me. All that was available in my area was a means tested assisted place to a private school. It was a good school and I'm gratefull an all, but can't help but think there'd've been fewer tosspots in a grammar school. Edited to correct the spelling of "grammer" (sic) - oh the shame.

HonaloochieB Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Couldn't we partition Richard? How do you know he's called Richard? His name could just as well be Brad Charrich

I have to say, RH and PGC, your comments did really wind me up this morning. Did you really need to go and piss on the poor lady's thread? I mean between people rioting, people who don't give a shit and the people too apathetic to do anything, the last thing we need is for the remaining good-intentioned folk to get lost in either introspection on the relative worth of their respective causes to the point of inaction or belittling others until they give up. On a more positive note, I got a flat tyre on the way home (wait for it) which was torn straight through inner tube and tyre so repair kit no good. On the remaining 2 mile walk home through edge of Peckham and down Bellenden Road with a useless hunk of metal in tow: *I saw 5 girls who had pedalled Barclays bikes to Peckham so they could stand under "I [heart] London" umbrellas and have their photos taken; *Lots of shop keepers smiled at me (admittedly perhaps smirking at my outfit); and *Two separate people stopped me and asked if I needed a hand or to borrow a puncture repair kit Maybe there's hope for us.

All initiatives should be critically appraised on their merits by a self appointed panel of experts. Only those deemed to be most worthy should be followed. All others must be cancelled forthwith.