mikeb

Bus London app is a godsend - no more waiting for hours in the rain for the 37!

[edit]

* Stamp duty doesn't capture the substantial gains made on housing by the generation which has benefited (particularly if they are downsizing) * As for gains on investing - yes, it is possible that residential property is an 'investment' e.g. providing a rental income or development gain. But by far the most money has been made on property has been as a result of capital gains, driven by excess liquidity and restrictions on new-build. If this were simply an fiat investment like gold, I wouldn't care - but people need to live in houses. * most other investments are captured by CGT - the principal private residence relief is one of the drivers of housing demand (one which is directly in the govt control)

H - do you feel the same if the threshold is ?2m as proposed? Still possible that someone could find themselves in this boat (the ?4m house for sale in Dulwich Village is probably a case in point). But somehow less clear cut that this person is not "rich" ...

@H - eventually everyone has to downsize... the good news is that most of the house price gains will be needed to pay healthcare bills

No, there is no stamp duty on a purchase of a property SPV (OK, there is stamp duty reserve tax but at 0.5% not 5%). It doesn't make much sense for me and you to do this as we'd then have to pay CGT on the value of the property company, as it would not qualify for principal private residence relieft from CGT (I think). But if you're non-resident then you don't need to pay CGT on off-shore gains, so just put the SPV in Jersey and pay minimal rent (to a SPV you wholly own). Maybe there is lots of tax to pay in Russia or Saudia Arabia but let's not hold our breath ... I also have heard of some quite odd schemes involving Sharia financings which apparently are also exempt from stamp duty. I don't know how these work.

The other angle to the mansion tax is to somehow address the presence of non-domiciled property owners who pay no inheritance tax, stamp duty or capital gains tax on their [2nd / 3rd / 4th ...] home due to it being held by an offshore SPV. Yes I know there are plenty of benefits to accommodating overseas entrepreneurs (spin-off services, direct and indirect employment). The same arguments apply to accommodating Colombian drug dealers or Russian mafia but I don't want them living in my street. Our existing tax system leads to large parts of the West End becoming ghettos for the overseas rich, the knock-on effects of which change the nature of the whole capital. Still not sure a mansion tax is the best way to address the unfairness in tax burden - better to the change non-dom and property SPV rules.

It's not another debate to me - it's about whether the income was "earned" or "unearned". House price gains are the epitome of unearned and socially divisive income - transferring wealth from non-homeowners to homeowners (usually intergenerational as well). If the mansion tax isn't about this then it is just a tax on wealth (and an inefficient one at that). We may as well be discussing a tax on expensive artwork or sports cars.

Capital gains on houses could be taxed on sale, like every other asset. If this sounds revolutionary then consider how until relatively recently you could deduct the interest on your mortgage against your income for tax purposes. It now sounds bizarre that housing should have been given such an explicit subsidy. I didn't buy a house to make money - in fact house price inflation impoverishes everyone except those who will never buy again or who are now looking to downsize.

Most rational endgame: Germany (plus one or two others) leaves the Eurozone. It then recapitalises its banks which will have suffered massive losses on their EUR exposures. But this is more acceptable to German taxpayers than recapitalising Italian and Spanish banks / governments. Most likely outcome: chaotic Greek default and (though not necessarily) exit from the Eurozone. Not the end of the world: after a few years, Iceland is now investment grade again and able to borrow on decent terms. Much easier to rebalance Greek economy with a devaluation than a never-ending depression. Expect Portugal to come under similar pressure and outlandish statements from that fool Barrosso.

Better / more cycle parking. From most of the more scattered parts of ED, it's quicker to cycle to the station than get the bus or drive.

Fazer71 - I remember north peckham in the 1990s and frankly it's unrecognisable now. Every year another corner gets redeveloped with sensibly designed housing and civic space. If the internal quality of the homes matches the external, I think it will mature into an attractive place to live, just live the area between Surrey Quays and the river.

footballs, tennis balls, trainers, plants, and the poo. Fantastic Mr Fox he ain't.

Parts of the highway code are legally enforcable - also in legislation. E.g. ============= 242 You MUST NOT leave your vehicle or trailer in a dangerous position or where it causes any unnecessary obstruction of the road. [Laws RTA 1988, sect 22 & CUR reg 103] ============ That would seem to me to be perfectly reasonable.

H - what you say on trials is logically true but I'm afraid the council's attitude during this consultation mean that I wouldn't trust it to implement a CPZ on a temporary basis unless it automatically expired. On the other point, surely the solution to badly-enforced rules is not more rules but more enforcement. Unless there is some doubt about whether the "unsafe" parking really is that unsafe - in which case I would question the need for more road markings.

A true trial process would automatically expire unless explicitly renewed (with some sort of democratic control e.g. further consultation). Also, it would be helpful to disaggregate the impact of (a) CPZ and (b) reduction in legal parking from further lines etc. There are already plenty of laws to control unsafe / dangerous / obstructive parking so I would be interested in the justification for the reduction in legal parking.

Has someone confirmed it is actually urine? Can't be too hard to do that - if I passed it daily I wouldn't be able to stop myself, so to speak ...

Sort of visible here in this map here, though I think Booth has got things slightly out of alignment eg Chesterfield Grove lines up with the back gardens of Glengarry Road on his map, but not on Google http://booth.lse.ac.uk/cgi-bin/do.pl?sub=view_booth_and_barth&args=533700,174900,1,large,0

Field boundaries clearly visible in this map http://www.mappalondon.com/london/south-east/peckham-rye.jpg

No-one can credibly argue that the consultation is satisfactory, even if you think it should be limited to just the streets that are proposed to be in the zone (which I think is mistaken): * no evidence for the assertions that the CPZ will make parking easier within the zone - evidence unearthed since then actually suggests it will reduce spaces below the number of residents * biased in its presentation of the CPZ as perfect and no balanced presentation of problems for those within the zone (let alone those outside). I don't recognise this from my experiences of living within CPZs * incomplete in its explanation of costs and use of proceeds - why ?125? are the permits gilt-edged? * no explanation for the shape of the zone - why were Oglander / Ondine etc really excluded? * limited publication of the consultation - it seems to have passed by a number of residents within the zone Much as I'm enjoying this thread, it is no subsitute for a properly consulted and implemented attempt to resolve parking problems that some (and only some) believe exist. This is not a trial proposal. There is zero realistic chance of a CPZ ever being reversed. It will spread to a wider zone. It will not solve the underlying issue (too many residents with too many cars) which is getting worse each year. If Southwark want to permanently change the nature of our area (within and outside the propsoed CPZ) with more regulation and cost then they should produce the evidence that what they're proposing will actually make a positive difference and then consult amongst affected parties. And yes Huguenot, I would be interested to know whether a CPZ has made the lives of HH residents better, although I would be more interested in more definitive evidence for ED of commuter parking (who? from where? why? how often? how long?) and basic data on spaces before and after. MikeB

Muschamps Quellots - link to the old Muschamp family. But Quellots? http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=PicAAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA148&lpg=PA148&dq=%22sir+matthew+muschamp%22&source=bl&ots=dVIAyN1Gu_&sig=RSWd07Fzs8woBEAZazGdvhkZJvE&hl=en&ei=jy3CTtrMC6Xt0gH4hMDhDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=%22sir%20matthew%20muschamp%22&f=false

From my experience of living in both a CPZ and then in ED, I can't believe that parking enforcement could get any more draconian ...

Is there a sanction for the creators of 'consultation' that is tendentious, partisan and perhaps even misleading?

The consultation pack is quite clearly biased in favour of a CPZ: there is a page detailing purported benefits of a CPZ and nothing on the obvious potential downsides. The briefing pack also makes clear that once a CPZ is introduced, it is often required to be extended (see last page "what if we don't have a problem parking in our street?"). The main causes behind parking problems are more flats from houses, more car ownership by residents and more >1 car households. The only way a CPZ can mitigate these is by reducing the number of cars that residents can park (and therefore give incentive not to buy one). I cycle most places and for years didn't own a car. But once you get kids, frankly it's virtually a necessity...

Main problems are (a) more flats from houses and (b) more incidence of >1 car / household - which is why it's so much worse say in Clapham than round here. Commuter traffic is at most only a contributory factor. Net basis, CPZ will not increase parking availability for residents only increase costs from annual fees, visitors / tradesmen and the occasional accidental fine. And also will generate more bureaucracy at the council.