Senor Chevalier

Thought I might start to get abuse from the other side. My aim here is to basically make a nuanced point in order to invoke maximum abuse from all sides of the argument. Those 3m people are contributing all the tax that others benefit from though, so without them there would be a major issue. If carrying is above your sense of humour threshold SJ then perhaps another word is needed. Maybe indulging? Though they don't really get much choice. I think carrying is the right word actually, though their ability to bear the weight does vary I agree. The assertion that they do not even notice or care on the other hand - now that is funny.

Muddling high earners with wealthy again and putting them in one pot called "rich". The topic of MT cropped up in recent weeks in the context of dropping the 50% tax rate. The whole point of this proposal is to unburden earners a little and allocate some of their pain elsewhere, to a Mansion Tax. So MM, when you say to back off as the rich are already bearing their fair share, I say, I agree that high earners are bearing a preposterous share and it needs to be reduced. Roll back up to my Sept 5th comment on page 2 and I was using a similar stat to illustrate that a few earners are carrying the entire country - 3m people put into the pot and the rest of the country either breakeven or represent a net cost. And whenever there is a shortage the "go to" strategy is to add to the burden on these few earners rather than spread it around more fairly. Can we agree the following: 1) Conceptually there is a [clear?] point when income tax is too high (and whilst we can argue about whether we are there yet it is indisputable [or should be] that at a certain level income tax is too high from both a fairness and a pragmatic / effectiveness perspective). So where do we go once we've reached this limit? 2) To the extent possible you can try to reduce government spending but this has consequences and there are limitations. 3) If more tax is needed another source is required and so a more equitable way of distributing the pain needs to be found. Now given tax can only be raised from those who have cash, once income tax is at or above its limit the only other place to go is to tax wealth. This is the same point I've been making for months. I genuinely can't see any hole in the logic. Is this really envy talking or just stating the bloody obvious? Edited for clarity - not that it'll make any difference....

Wowzers must look into the whole non Dom thing

Christ surely they still pay stamp?

Yeah I originally banged on about taxing wealth rather than houses and everyone said too hard. So now falling back to houses, people say unfair as could have spent on art or whatever. Counterarguments flit between points of principle and points of implementation which is all rather difficult, but I guess that's life and this is a forum not a taxation think tank... I agree with mikeb though it is the unearned bit that is the bit that is most objectionable (and also conveniently the bit that Marmora Man can't make an arguably irrelevant double taxation point about). I would imagine that if you look at the overwhelming majority of mansion owners there would be a significant unearned portion, but there may be other more scientific ways of dealing with this rather than the blunt instrument of a mansion tax.

OK Loz, let's deal with the personal stuff first. For sake of argument let's say the Mansion Tax kicks in at a level that is twice the value of your house. Let us also also suppose that this level is also higher than the value of my house (which it may or may not be). Now can we dispassionately discuss the principle? So why should A who has a house worth XXX the value of which may have come from a variety of sources, earnings, inheritance, capital gain, gift, lottery etc not be taxed. Meanwhile B earns XXX but because the value happened to be earned in the preceding year, a massive chunk goes to the taxman. Does there ever come a point where applying higher and higher tax to B without allocating any to A is unfair and one way of reducing the burden of tax on B would be to spread it partly to A.

Loz, I suggested self assesment for the house valuation problem a while back which as with all self assesment is open to abuse. To make the enforcement effective I sugested that people declare their house value each year and the state has a right to buy at a 20% premium to the declared rate. A few expropriations and people will get the message and start being honest. There could also be a scheme set up where risk averse people pay a small amount to get a government approved valuation.

Every year on Jan 31st the state forcibly takes a large chunk of my assets. Each year without fail. As a consequence my mortgage is much larger than it would be if they didn't. What's the difference? On the whole I think most people would find a way to pay the tax without being forced sellers. In a small minority of marginal cases the introduction of this tax may lead to a requirement to downsize. Yes, I think this would on the whole be tolerable.

They could take it in deferred consideration or through a shared ownership arrangement to address the monetization issue, though it would be better to keep it simple and force a few sales.

Sounds a bit like Wolf in Shadow by David Gemmell. He was always mad for a bit of the old honey in has various books though I thought it was maggots rather than cobwebs. Worth a reread I think as it's been 20 odd years.

We're in danger of going back over old ground but seeing as not much else has captured my imagination... Many taxes are progressive including income tax. Those that can afford to pay most are hit harder even though they consume an equivalent amount of public goods or often less. Those that have less contribute less or are net recipients. You say this has never worked successfully. By that token we wouldn't have a welfare state. I don't think you can be so absolute. All I'm questioning is whether we have the right definition of the haves and the have nots. I am not suggesting to deprive people of what they have earned to give feckless youth money to piss up the wall. However, I am saying that there is an element of windfall to many who have property wealth and that prices have moved beyond the grasp of many. If the windfall could be taxed in some way then the imbalance may be reduced slightly, so that the next generation might have a similar opportunity to achieve equivalent outcomes to the previous one (if prepared to work equally hard). That's the crux of my argument: someone performing certain actions today should be entitled to an equivalent level of prosperity to someone who did the same a generation before. Failing that they should at least not be taxed through the nose to pay their winter fuel allowance. Anyway, anything else interesting going on?

Sounds kinda sensible. How long I wonder until we hear the phrase "asset stripping pensioners" again? *starts stopwatch*

So seems this is doing the rounds again.

So when are you coming? Not everyone reads this forum, but I'm sure with a bit of notice one of the arty guys on here could knock up a couple of posters to spread the word.

If southwark have granted planning then ask for a copy of the permission letter and approved drawings from the seller. WoD is right there is a time limit (usually 3 years) though if time is up it is still a good indicator (but not a guarantee) that a new similar application is likely to be permissible. To be honest though you should be able to easily find the previous application and permission online on the Southwark planning portal and download the approval and drawings. This will take 5 minutes - all you need is the address.

You could explore this with the seller, but if I was selling, I wouldn't feck about for months getting planning with someone, or if I did and a proper buyer came along in the meantime with a no strings offer then it'd be a no brainer unless you were offering a serious premium. If it is a house then there are permitted development rights so you should be OK though flats more difficult. The Southwark planning portal is very easily searchable and seeing what has been permitted in the street will give you a very good idea of what you can do. You refer to being "absolutely certain". Well life ain't like that I'm afraid, but if others in the vicinity have done things similar then you need to crack on and as long as you are open minded and flexible then trust you will find a way through with planners and neighbours. PM me the street and I'll give you a more informed view.

I haven't got one of these so I can't recommend it as such (so why am I posting?) but I do like the look of this: http://www.made.com/beds/sofa-beds/yoko-sofa-bed-willow-grey I have ordered other things from Made and they were good, but took a long time to arrive though I knew this when I placed the order.

There is a survey about what to do with the old Dulwich hospital site on East Dulwich Grove http://svy.mk/zZ1DX7 Retirement village, medical centre, primary school etc. Primary School would seem sensible given the baby boom that seems to be underway. I'd be delighted if there was a decent Co-Ed secular school round here.

Indeed. Rather aggressive of you Taper. The short summary is that the whole "whoooh single jabs dangerous MMR safe" might be a good way of eliciting sensible behaviour from a crowd of dumb fecks that can't read an argument and understand nuance. However, if you can be bothered to digest the detail, then it appears that the principal downsides of the single jabs are that you have to have more jabs and you might forget so as long as you have a good memory and are responsible then you can make your own mind up.

Hello HS Sorry about the vibes there. It was meant to be light hearted. Guess it may have seemed slightly terse implicitly saying Oh FFS not another thread on this topic, why don't people do a search before starting a thread on a given topic. I wasn't. I think it would be good if the forum was a more parsimonious place sometimes, but I am as guilty as others and there is something rather charming abut the higgeldy piggeldy nature of it all. As with all threads they often tend to drift into more than a simple answer to the simple question. Indeed the best ones always do otherwise they are only 2 posts long. Others will look at this as a general thread on the topic. And we now have people on here making unsupported assertions like the combined jab gives better protection. So whilst I agree the back link was not a direct answer to the OP question as interpreted most narrowly, I thought it might be useful to some. Oh dear, that wasn't any less terse now was it. (whatever)!!!

Here we go again: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,549067,page=1

Am building a house at present and looked into all this. Short summary is that the "cool" eco technologies generally didn't stack up whereas the "boring" ones did, i.e. insulation. Ground Source Heat Pump GSHP Waste of time when I looked at it. Coefficient of performance of 3-4x. This means for evey unit of enery used driving the pump you get 3-4 units worth of heat back. So far so good. However, driven by electricity and transmission losses between generation (power station) and point of use approach 75% so net net you have not really gained anything when compared to an efficient gas boiler. Gas - no transmission losses, decent condensing boiler c.95% efficient. I think it could be justifiable if you were using PV solar panels to drive the pump, but this only stacks up if you are a net generator of energy, i.e. you can power all your other kit and kaboodle and there is a surplus for the GSHP. GSHP does make sense in remote locations off the gas network where the alternative is electric central heating. In this limited case you benefit from the 3-4x COP compared to electric heaters. i.e. it allows you to recover to being as efficient as gas... Solar Panels and Feed in Tariffs Complete nonsense in this country IMHO. The embodied energy in producing and installing these things can outweigh the carbon saving from electricity generation. The environmental argument is certainly thin. The economic argument is easier with the feed in tariff but this is questionable from a social perspective. Basically energy companies are allowed by the regulator to operate at a certain profit level. If customers install solar panels then the energy company pays them for the energy they generate (even if they use it and don't export any energy back to the grid) and so they get to charge the other customers a higher rate so that they make the same overall profit. So you are basically stealing from your neighbours and generally cash rich people can afford the panels whereas poorer people don't have the option. Anti social behaviour total green washing without any substance behind it. Save the planet and the hassle by just stealing things from your neighbours. Insulation and Passivhaus Genuinely very good idea and makes sense. Super insulate your house (e.g. timber frame with 300mm insulation. Tape and seal the whole house so it is totally air tight. Triple glazing with special coated glazing. Eliminate thermal bridging. Exhaust air heat exchange so all air changes in the house go through a heat recovery system rather than trickle vents on doors and windows. All seems to stack up. As mentioned above, hard to retro fit. Best designed in up front. Thermal Solar Panels Basically hot water in black sacks on the roof. Next best thing to spend money on after insulation. Seemed to stack up. Downsides are too much hot water in summer and not enough in winter but still probably worthwhile. Comes into its own if you have a pool as you need a heat sink to dump excess hot in and this heats the pool in Summer when you want it most. Good Luck, sounds like an ace project. Building in London absolutely sucks.

A poll would have the advantage of producing a wad of data for people to analyse and cut in different ways to construct purportedly evidence-based arguments. That then brings the stats geeks into play with their oneupmanship and forensic analysis of eachother's views and then we won't be talking a mere 29 pages, we'll be heading towards 40 especially if diagrams and charts are deployed.... ETA: there, done it.

Worst thing I ever saw. If you haven't seen it don't.

Yeah if it's free then fill your boots. Otherwise I'd just whack the full app in. It gets you a chance to meet the planning officer on site and discuss the application (and what they don't like about it). You can withdraw your app and resubmit changes within the same fee if I'm not mistaken...