mikeb

Now Hugo and I had have our disagreements but maybe here he does have a couple of points. New Economics Foundation - I'm sure not everything it says / reports is wrong or biased, but I don't think 'nef' should be viewed as an objective organisation independent of political connections - in fact, isn't that the whole point of it? I do wonder if it will receive less income from "local, regional and national governments" (p4 of its 2010 annual report) after the 2010 election. So I'm happy to read its reports but keeping in mind the objectives of the Foundation, much as I would something published by Rowntree or the Adam Smith Institute. P30 and p34 of the 2009 report are the relevant pages. It's a nice attempt but the result is largely determined by three key and questionable asumptions: (a) cost of financial crisis measured in lost output from 2008 to 2014 (incorporates persistent forecasting bias and assumes 2008 levels were sustainable) (b) cost / benefit is a point-in-time calculation e.g. you could include much of the bubble-led growth in 2004-2008 as a benefit from banking © tax 'saved' through planning is tax that 'should' have been paid. I'm sure we can all agree that generally the tax advice / avoidance industry is a massive waste of time and resources on all sides. Being a tax adviser is quite well-paid by City standards but extremely dull. We have a crap corporate tax system, though maybe not quite as bad as the US. It is overengineered by both the Government for 'incentives' and HMRC for 'anti-avoidance'. As a result, each year there is another 500+ pages of Finance Bill which interacts with the other 1,000s of pages of primary legislation plus case law. All of this presents difficulties for compliance and opportunities for planning. A simpler tax system would benefit the govt in terms of monitoring and focusing on real abuse, companies in terms of admin and speed, and probably (in the long run) tax advisers who would be forced to consider more interesting / socially useful forms of employment. But given the tax system, you need to spend money on tax advisers. As a company, you are obliged to maximise shareholder returns. This doesn't mean you leave the country (e.g. GSK is still based here despite the UK being a v small part of its profits). Just for fun, what are the arguments for taxing companies at all? Companies are artificial constructs that eventually belong to someone. Why tax a legal construct - why not tax the owners instead? (and if they're overseas, then how about some withholding tax?)

Plenty of digging going on at the moment in this area for the gas mains - might reveal something interesting about the history of the terrain http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,757322,757322#msg-757322

This guy might have a view - his handwritten map seems to show Earl's Sluice draining the area north of the Effra valley. http://www.martindknight.co.uk/MKsResearch.html Seems to suggest this fed the canal. Wonder if this also explains the shape of Grove Vale?

Two more sources dating the name "Oak of Honour" back to 1608 and 1612. 1608 doc might be available at Kew http://www.archive.org/stream/storyofonetreehi00nisbrich#page/10/mode/2up http://www.archive.org/stream/proceedingsoflew02lewi#page/118/mode/2up

Odd that the map doesn't include Lambeth Bridge but plenty of other roads after the first bridge was built. Is there nothing in Nicholas Barton's book that helps?

Suggest you contact Steve Grindlay - he seems to have a few other sources on this as well http://www.se23.com/forum-archive/messages/9/1041.html [message 2 Mar 2007 9:40am] Much more here: http://sydenhamforesthillhistory.blogspot.com/

Actually, perhaps it was 1 May 1602. Mr Chamberlain's letter here. http://www.archive.org/stream/chamberlainlette00camduoft#page/132/mode/2up There is another reference here, not sure what the primary reference is (search down for "Sydmondscourt") http://sydenham.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?p=5168 [edit] maybe someone can work out if this is helpful for sourcing. http://www.archive.org/stream/elizabethanstage04chamuoft#page/114/mode/2up

Not sure about the 1 May but a week later Bess seems to have been in the neighbourhood: http://www.archive.org/stream/progressespublic03nichuoft#page/576/mode/2up Seems like Mr Chamberlain is your man.

I was told once that the Victorians often had four houses feeding (downhill) into one that then linked to the mains sewers. This was the case for my old house (c.1870 semi) but not for my current place (c.1900 semi) - this shares the sewer just with next door. Inspection holes should be in the front garden / outside the front of the house - walk down the street and try to find them (sometimes they can be hidden under plants or even concreted over). I'm presuming KidKruger is taking the p!ss ...

I think Emmanuel Church was completed in 1877 Stanford's map of c. 1862 might help: http://www.motco.com/map/81006/19.asp?page=19 Seems like the view is uphill i.e. facing south east. Could it be something to do with the cemetry or maybe Friern Manor? What are the poles / structures in the centre? Mike

No gain, no tax. Hard to see how that is a 'punishment'. And yes, I do view tax breaks as subsidies. For the past 15 years, a sizeable group of society has benefited as they have traded up every few years to use the leveraged gains in property prices as a deposit for somewhere bigger. I saw this with many, many friends and colleagues. As inflation has now moderated, I hope this process may now be over (though interesting to see prices in London more or less at the same levels as in 2007). But that leaves prices too high and a big transfer of wealth to those who owned a property in say 1990 or 2000. If it helps, I'd be happpy to see capital losses carried recognised.

I'm with DJKQ on headphones, in moderation. Although to be fair, today's episode of the Archers almost had me under a bus through sheer boredom.

Perhaps I'm being obtuse at the end of a long week but I don't follow your sarcasm. Please feel free to elaborate and then we can discuss.

To be clear, I agree a mansion tax will be difficult practically - as Adam Smith pointed out "Every tax ought to be levied at the time, or in the manner, in which it is most likely to be convenient for the contributor to pay it." Sending someone a ?20,000 tax bill when they don't have the cash to hand is going to be unpopular and transferring a share to the state as someone suggested will just complicate matters (eg would they need to consent to works on the house?) But house prices should not be further subsidised by the taxpayer and gains need to be taxed, just like elsewhere. I should add that I am not motivated by envy and I am a homeowner myself. Although it would be nice if those mansions in the Village became a bit more affordable ... David - not sure where you can pick up a house for ?300k - South Bermondsey?

Capital gains do not generally arise on a property that has negative equity.

Stamp duty is indeed a tax on moving house (more accurately on buying a house), but it is unrelated to capital gains made on house values. CGT is not a tax on moving house but a tax on capital gains - no capital gains, no tax. The fact that stamp duty was in recent years paid from realisation of capital gains is coincidental (and also points to looming problems with stamp duty in future years when the well of new capital gains runs dry). CGT does not in any way interfere with geographical mobility. A situation where housing is affordable at a stable price benefits everyone, even (especially?) homeowners. Instead in the UK we view the roof over our head as an investment, even as "a pension". Madness. And that's before we get onto how easy it is to avoid CGT on investment property (by "living" there for a little while). It may be a vote-loser, although we won't know until it's tried. It probably depends on relative willingness to vote on this issue between homeowners and renters. Currently about half of households are found in the private rented sector(http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14708841) and I wonder how many of these households are made up of more than one potential property owner. I'm sure you know that many renters feel very strongly about this. The same argument would have been suggested about the abolition of MIRAS but not many people under 30 are even aware of this past tax break. While we're at it, we should grant tenants proper security of tenure - it's OK when you're 25 but how can you bring up a family (at school) with a property where you have only two months' notice before having to move on?

To put this in context, consider a 3 bedroom terraced house in East Dulwich for about ?535,000, like the one recently sold on Friern Road. HSBC's website tells me that a c. ?160,000 deposit and an annual salary of c. ?85,000 is required to get a mortgage to buy this. Prima facie it would not be possible for a primary school headteacher to afford this house. We all know that the size of the deposit and / or salary required means that most buyers either have a large deposit built up from past house price inflation (or from parents) or are employed in the city in some way. In the interests of pragmatism and fairness, we need to tax unearned increases in house values, defined as gains on sale / death less material and documented improvement spend and maybe the movement in CPI (not RPI).

I pity the poor guy who takes away my kid's nappies after two weeks. Might be ok in winter but I hope he's potty-trained by the summer

I think there is probably another side to this - what is the rent proposed to be used for? That would enable a clearer assessment of the relative merits of helping / subsidising the local groups that currently use the centre.

I'd welcome some more suggestions for front-mounted bike seats for my 2-year old (tagalong means rear-mounted won't fit) I've tried a Leco - and never again. The build quality was terrible and so far as I could see the safety of it depended entirely on how tightly you could clamp it to the cross bar. I also suspect it's not got the proper safety certificates as the packaging including no safety information. The Wee Ride looks good, though maybe a little bulky. Any other suggestions? A trawl through the web suggests: * OK Baby Orion - looks better build quality and it seems like the child's legs are further forward and out of your way. But its fixing mechanism again looks like it depends entirely on clamping to the tubes * Rabbit - looks too close to the rider to be comfortable and also seems to require bikes with narrow tubes * i-bert safe-t-seat - looks very odd, moves with the steering wheel? Small back rest Anything else I should try? thanks Mike

St Thomas More has a booklet from the 1970s on local Catholic history - have you seen this? I can't remember if it will satisfy your penchant for historical cartography but it has a good history of how they organised the early Dulwich mission around Bassano St

Great overlay - I think the accuracy of the map is pretty good for its time. (incidentally, I thought the 1820 map didn't extend this far south - was that a typo? http://users.bathspa.ac.uk/greenwood/map_i7m.html) Looking closely, the field boundary cutting across Marsden and Muschamp Roads reminds me of this discussion about Marsden Road and subsidence: http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?5,28744,29112#msg-29112 A shame Macroban isn't still around - she would have enjoyed this. [edited twice to include correct link to the old thread]

John K - on drainage north of Grove Vale: Greenwood's map of 1830 seems to show a stream running along what is now Bellenden Rd - see here http://www.motco.com/map/81003/ Zooming in, it seems to show a number of bridges e.g. with what is probably Maxted Rd http://www.motco.com/map/81003/SeriesSearchPlatesFulla.asp?mode=query&artist=385&other=753&x=11&y=11 and http://www.motco.com/map/81003/SeriesSearchPlatesFullb.asp?mode=query&artist=385&other=752&x=11&y=11

Stanford 1862 -1871? London Maps

John I think you're probably well-ahead of me, but have you seen the LONDON SOUTH OF THE THAMES by Sir Walter Besant? [http://www.archive.org/stream/surveyoflondon09besauoft/surveyoflondon09besauoft_djvu.txt]. This dates from 1912 and includes the following passage on Peckham Rye and the houses. ========== Homestall Farm is surrounded by the Rye Park, and though still tenanted and used as a farm the ground belongs to the London County Council. This property and the houses standing to the west cost ?51,000, and their leases still have a few years to run. In making this property into a park, which was opened to the public in 1894, stabling, cottages, and an old pottery were removed, and the grounds laid out with tennis-courts, a cricket-ground, and a playground for children. The farm-house on this property is over two hundred years old, and with its weather-boarded sides and quaint windows looks very picturesque in comparison with the new keeper's lodge alongside. ========== The other reference I can see refers to Charlton House being pulled down in the 1920s but is unsourced: http://www.southwark.gov.uk/info/461/a_to_z_of_parks/662/peckham_rye_park_and_common/1 Mike