Jeremy

Vik Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > people seemed to be acting like it was some huge state secret. I think relucance to give out somebody's address on a public forum is understandable

Blackcurrant Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't see any moral problem in taxing unearned > windfalls that have happened as a result of > government policy. Please explain this "windfall". How does somebody living in a property - which has significantly gained in value - benefit from that increase? Unless they sell up and downsize.

The wealth tax idea is equally hair-brained as the CGT on all sales. Morally wrong to tax somebody for something they've worked hard most of their life for. And whatever ppl say, WOULD force owners out of their homes. The people droving up prices are the buyers, not those who have lived there for ages. You can't tax people out of jealousy.

amydown Wrote: ---------------------- > I have also suggested two alternative solutions to > the landlord regarding the carpet stain and also > offered to pay a contribution towards the cost of > new carpet in the future Sounds very reasonable to me. Good luck.

Was reading today about Paul Weller's kids: Dylan, John-Paul, and Bowie.

Some people love to demonstrate their superiority by accusing everyone else of being petty curtain-twitchers...

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > What's the incentive for house-builders to build > hundreds of thousands of houses that are needed? Why can't the government take responsibility for such an initiative? If they can intervene in the financial markets, I'm sure they can intervene in the housing market.

DC, I think there's a fundamental flaw in your point. Any "profit" you make on your sale will probably disappear when you move (assuming wherever you move to has also been subject to the same growth). There's no real profit to be made at all unless you intentionally downgrade and cash in. How often does that happen? The real aims should be: - making property investment less attractive - ensuring there are enough properties to satisfy demand (specifically for owner-occupiers) - figure out how to make the country less London-centric Trying to arrest house prices by taxing people (even further) for daring to move house is just a fudge... crudely punishing regular people instead of addressing the real problems.

Yeah I already agreed that the OP shouldn't need to pay anywhere near that. "you shouldn't just damage stuff and get away scot free" was in response to "asking for any money from previous tenant is just pure greed". A large stain is above and beyond expected wear-and-tear. Anyway don't want to get into this debate... good luck to the OP, I hope you manage to agree on a reasonable amount.

Trying to buy something while it is still within reach is not really the same as "investing", is it? TBH this mini-debate has become a bit farcical. If you really believe that most people buy a house to make a profit (the definition of "invest"), then fine. I do not agree with you. Nothing to back up either side of the argument apart from personal experience/beliefs.

I dunno... you shouldn't just damage stuff and get away scot free. Not saying that's what's happening here, but in principle the security deposit is there for a reason. I guess it depends whether the damage really has shortened the useable life of the carpet or not.

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm not invited again. No great loss, by the sounds of it. I'd question whether the average person really does have that mentality... but if they do then it's a bit stupid as most of us don't win out. Either it remains unrealised, or it gets swallowed up when you move somewhere else.

Is that what happens at the dinner parties you go to, DC?!

To clarify SJ... of course BTL is an investment and should be taxed accordingly! mikeb suggested that people treat their own homes as investments, so should therefore be subject to capital gains tax. I am disagreeing with this particular point.

A sofa's different... you can pick up a second hand one for ?100 or whatever. Especially if it was already old and battered. Saying that, you should be able to carpet a large room for maybe ?400, so a contribution of half that (if it was already a few years old and won't be replaced for another year or two) would seem reasonable to me.

SJ I think it's a bit cynical to suggest that people view their property as their pension. I think I made a comment the other day about people wanting to own their house because of pension uncertainties - but I just meant that it's important to get yourself into a position where you're not paying rent or mortgage repayments after retirement. I didn't mean that everyone is waiting to cash out. I notice that sophiesofa on the previous page said that she wants to sell up, move further out and reduce their mortgage. But I don't believe that this is particularly common. > I'm surprised you haven't said as much If you mean that as it sounds, then I kind of resent it. I'm not intending to leave London any time soon so I'm not personally going to gain from the ridiculous property prices. In fact I'd much rather prices were stuck at 2002 levels.

Who's treating their house as an investment, mike? Most people just want a place to live...

PokerTime Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I'm very impressed with Japan! As ianr pointed out, that particular image is from Germany. Japan does indeed have many automated/robotic car parks, but they're not usually quite so glamorous... usually anonymous concrete towers.

Reading the post again, it sounds like the flat is unfurnished. Therefore the fact that the stain is under where you had your bed is not really relevant to the landlord. I can understand the landlord not wanting the carpet cut away and patched up. If I was the landlord, depending on the condition of the carpet, I might look for a contribution towards a replacement.

To charge for a whole new carpet sounds very excessive if the area is not usually visible, but I would imagine the landlord is within his rights.

Lots of us moved here because it was, at the time, relatively cheap. I would guess that most ED residents wouldn't be able to get close to the kind of prices being asked these days!

Indeed it does.

EP, New York style stacked car parking is so retro. What we need is a Japanese-style automated parking system. We'd pull up into a discrete garage door on the corner of Frogley Rd, and our cars would be whisked into a vast underground cavern.

Where would they build it?

StraferJack Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > are we waiting for that to happen before we come > to an agreement that the situation isn't just > f**ked up but needs addressing? Nope I already agree it needs addressing... just don't think exaggeration/half truths are necessarily helpful > I would argue it's a useful metric Specific examples can be of interest, of course. But the general case of being "priced out of your home town" is totally meaningless because it says nothing about how the cost of the specific area has changed and what sort of career you've chosen (if indeed you've been fortunate enough to choose a specific career)