*Bob*

What's with all the boo-hooing about having nowhere to park your car? Every attempt to increase provision for cars (made over the last 50 years) has simply ended-up in sucking-up more vehicles, of which there seems to be an endlessly increasing supply. So what could the answer be? Hey.. I've got and idea.. why don't we attempt to increase provision for cars, although it'll probably suck-up more vehicles, of which there seems to be an endlessly increasing supply. But then we could attempt to increase provision for cars, although, er..

I'm hoping for an unashamedly populist programme on BBC1: irate taxpayers effin' and blindin', ticketed pensioners (who once fought in a war), hidden cam footage of sneaky parking attendants, local talking heads (Jenny Eclair etc) Anything requiring extra brain-power on the part of the viewer should go on BBC4 as only 103 people will want to watch it.

err.. excuse me.. no chatting between individuals on threads Is Keef really only 18? Ahhh.. bless!

Excellent news. I shall aim to spam the forum (under various false names) when I get back from the pub then.

Mockney.. have you been promoted to the lofty status of part-time admin?

Give it a rest, Jenny

david_carnell Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Is there a fruit and veg shop that is cheaper than > Pretty Traditional and the organic place opposite > Barclays? I think Pretty Traditional is reasonably priced and the quality is good. If we bought all our fruit and veg in SMBS we'd need a second mortgage. So it's PT for most things and SMBS for the speciality stuff we can't get in PT.

Alachan - yes indeed. Perhaps instead of spending zillions of pounds every year printing useless glossy 'advice' sheets (in 22 languages) for things that make no difference to your life, her Maj's government could provide a few genuinely useful tips such as to how to avoid hundreds of thousands of quid going to the taxman. Oh yeah.. maybe not.

We already have a property tax.. stamp duty. And what about people who own a house but who don't have much cash?

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I suppose *Bob* is a pseudonym as well Of course. First name that popped into my head.

An added confusion is that, with regards to the structural state of your property, two surveyors might give you a completely different picture, and both of their opinions might be different to the opinion of a structural engineer - this is important if you've got a house which looks dodgy but there are no docs or info regarding underpinning. We cacked our pants about the house we bought (especially as we were moving from an area where subsidence was uncommon). Our survey said *ur-urrr* - the house must have been underpinned and if it hasn't then we ought to walk away. I tracked down the previous surveyor who said *ding* - there was a bit of movement and cracking but nothing out of order for a property of that age. I spoke to our surveyor again, who rubbished the other guy. Some time later a little bit of cracking developed in an outside wall. Fearing the worst we got a structural surveyor round, who told us that *double-ding* the house was absolutely fine and was actually in a very good state and provided us with a letter to that effect. We were most pleased, but a bit pissed-off as well with all the previous farting about.

I was under the impression that an existing insurer was obliged to continue cover in the event a subsidence claim (though obviously the premium would reflect this). The bit I'm not sure about it whether they're obliged to offer cover if the property changes hand - but a quick call to the relevant insurer would answer this. The other thing to check is whether the property has actually 'subsided' or whether there has just been 'structural movement'. Eg, the house we bought has moved (a lot!) but there hasn't actually been a subsidence claim or any underpinning etc, so as far as any insurer was concerned, the house 'has not suffered from subsidence' and the premium was the same as a house that hadn't moved at all.

I'm always up for dipping my toes into the open waters of online stuff, but at the same time I'm also aware that it does allow for snooping on a most intimate scale, if one so desired. Forums like this one, MySpace, Friends Reunited, Facebook.. the list will no doubt continue to expand.. and the more stuff you're 'on', the more personal info you put into the public domain. I haven't been to any of the forum meet-ups, but I already know what a dozen or so of the regulars look like. It's a strange feeling walking past someone you've never actually met - yet you've seen their wedding photos. It's downright pervy.

The difficulty with the council tax is that, from what I can see, it can't make its mind up. Is it a tax on property or a tax on people? It seems to be a bit of both, which is why I can understand anomalies like the second home thing. You can't be in two places at the same time, so it would be unfair to tax equally on both properties seeing as council tax 'pays for the use of local services', even if the way the tax is worked-out is based on property. I realise second homeowners are a dirty word in this thread, but it's not like they don't get clobbered with tax anyway (ie stamp duty). At least you knew what the poll tax was for and why you were paying it (or, er, refusing to pay it as the case may have been ha ha). It's the lack of clarity which makes things difficult. Personally, if you believe in a system where the better-off contribute more (which I do) then I think the LibDems local income tax idea is probably the fairest system on offer, though I might be less enthusiastic if/when the bill arrived.

I haven't got a bloody clue what you're all going on about. Is it too early to go to the pub?

The poor believe themselves to be the most generous because they haven't got much.. so if they put 10p in a tin they're a saint. The rich believe themselves to be the most generous because without their grand donations to charity and higher tax contributions the country would be on its knees. The middle classes worry and debate endlessly about whether they're generous enough with their cash or not - and err on on the of caution by just keeping as much of it as they possibly can (like everyone else).

Probably, ED.. Reading a few threads here and there I was just struck by how the less well-off generally like to see themselves as being uber-generous, whereas they are in fact just as stingy as everyone else. I feel better now.

Freaks!

Marmora Man Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- Can't understand why it's not sold more often in cafes fro breakfast. Because the smell of it would make %50 of the diners retch?

I think (except for a small number of noble exceptions) human nature is to look after number one and get away with as much as possible - regardless of how much you have. A spot of tax evasion here, a bit of cash-in-hand there. 'The Poor' always say it's because they aint got naaffin' and life is 'ard. But when any of them 'make it' they retire to enormous new-builds in Surrey, realise that their tax burden is actually now around %50 of their income and immediately hire a clever accountant to give away as little as possible - cos they bleedin' earned it, didn't they?

Shamefully, I posted from Australia a few months back. I held-out for a good three weeks though, mind.. before finally succumbing - in an orgy of pointless shop-related tittle-tattle.

If you'll throw-in a quick knee-trembler at the 363 stop it's a deal.

Buried in the bowels of a few recent threads (all class-obsessed, naturally) there's some indirect chat about which 'class' (financial and/or social) is the meanest. Are the poor more generous than the well-off?

Obviously if it were true "Mrs" *Bob* and I would be down the local reg. office for a cheap-n-cheerful I do quick-smart.

Doesn't Michael just mean that if you're in a couple (married or not!) you pay half the bill each so it's 'kind-of' a 50% reduction? At least compared to lone-dwellers, who only get 25% off or whatever it is?