LondonMix

I don't no anyone who has kids in the 20s (on purpose). Not a single person. Getting married before 30 made me a child bride amongst my friends!

WoD- is your friend too thin? My sister was overweight and had to shed to pounds before she tried (she wasn't obliged to but was told she would have a much better shot if she did). Otta, yes, it is all about the trusts. Obviously, every community wants every treatment possible. I wonder how the trusts go about determining the best use of their budget to best satisfy the communities they serve. Is there any official community engagement? It's good that they can react to specific health needs and adjust spending according to local needs but on the non-life threatening expenditure I wonder how priorities are set.

I think the problem that people have LB is that the point your making isn't that noteworthy. If someone is well known, their name will form part of any news headline (if they are the victim / the accused criminal / the hero etc) of the a story. It has nothing to do with dignity or celebrity culture as such. For me at least, this is not any more controversial than a headline reading:"7 Year Old Girl Rescues Puppy!" Also, not being named is not something that only happens to victims in headlines. Can anyone remember the name of the man who tried to kill Ronald Reagan? Does anyone remember the actress he was obssessed with that he claimed made him do it? Some of the reporting has been tactless but not naming Reeva, especially initially, in my view is not at all a controversial issue.

Insurance wasn't mentioned in this thread as such but in general regarding local thefts. I get that the OP was having a bit of a rant but I tend to cut recent victims of crime a bit of slack when they want to let off steam. Some of the responses on the thread have been overy harsh. I think the warning was helpful, I think the moan the OP was having is a natural response, and I think we should try to put pressure on Sainsbury to increase security in the parking lot for all of our benefit.

Thanks for the warning. Perhaps, if enough people say something to Sainsbury as a result of this thread, they will consider it?s in their interest to install CCTV to keep customers happy. Every business wants their customers to feel safe and secure including when arriving and leaving the shop even if they don't have a specific legal obligation to do so. This, crap happens, get insurance attitude bothers me. It's totally understandable to be outraged when someone steals your stuff and we as a community should avtively work on measures to keep the area as safe as possible.

Yeah, my friend's wife was told that she wouldn't be eligible for treatment because she was older than 35 a few years back. But from what I understand, each area can go below the minimum guidelines laid out by the NHS. It turns out she just needed a simple operation and now they have a lovely boy but she was outraged at the time. When I looked it up, to qualify for IVF, they say you have to have been trying to get pregnant for 3 years. How on earth are you supposed to prove that? Another friend, when she had fertility issues trying to concieve her second, was told by the NHS in her area that because she already had a baby she didn't qualify for treatment of any kind, which also surprised me. The entire system seems so opaque. Still, its better than in the US where my sister had to go into crazy debt to have a twins...

It odd that it's not better know how men's age affects genetic disorders. There is a great deal of evidence coming forward suggesting men's age is also very important. Reren, do you have a link to the new guidelines? How many rounds of IVF will the NHS typically pay for?

Ah, so it was near Honor Oak. Glad the police got there quickly enough to catch them. How upsetting for those involved. I have to say the idea of being robbed scares me much more than break-ins. That they weren't intimidated by a couple is all the more worrying.

It's a tough one to call. This brings back memories of my youth and the OJ trial back home...

What time of night was this and how were they caught?

Well no need for a trial then Jah Lush! I have to say, the story is fascinating. I don't consider myself a celebrity watcher (don't read any of the celebrity gossip magazines etc) but when such a revered athlete is involved in something so torrid, it does grab my attention. Surely, anyone can understand why this story is so noteworthy. Whether or not the press should have included her name in the headline isn't always clear cut. Unless someone's name is already well known, it is almost never included in the headline but rather in the body of the story. Your much more likely to read "Local man kills family" than "John Smith kills Jane Smith, Bobby Smith and Jill Smith". The names only go in a headline when the person involved is one of the unusual elements of the story. Reeva Steenkamp, until her tragic death, was completely unknown to the vast majority of people in this country.

Well done!

From the online etymology dictionary: municipal (adj.) 1540s, from Middle French municipal, from Latin municipalis "of a citizen of a free town, of a free town," also "of a petty town, provincial," from municipium "free town, city whose citizens have the privileges of Roman citizens but are governed by their own laws," from municeps "citizen, inhabitant of a free town." Second element is root of capere "assume, take" (see capable). First element is from munus (plural munia) "service performed for the community, duty, work," also "public spectacle paid for by the magistrate, (gladiatorial) entertainment, gift," from Old Latin moenus "service, duty, burden," from PIE *moi-n-es-, generally taken as a suffixed form of root *mei- "to change, go, move" (Watkins; see mutable); but Tucker says "more probably" from the other PIE root *mei- meaning "bind," so that munia = "obligations" and communis = "bound together."

Yes, agree with all of that but I don't want people to get the impression that its harder than it is just because its unfamiliar. If you are on the cusp and want to work out where you stand, it shouldn't take you more than 5 minutes to do the math unless you have a very unique and complicated set-up. If you know how many childcare vouchers you want to buy via salary sacrifice and you know how much you want to contribute to your pension etc, it really is very simple to work out.

That's true and perhaps its because I have to do US taxes (which are complicated) and already have to file a UK tax return , it doesn't strike me the way it does you. HMRC always present information as "if you make X you pay Y etc". When you sign a salary sacrifice form etc, it makes it rather clear that for all purposes your income is not considered what it was by HMRC. My only point is, this isn't unique to child benefit. This is just how HMRC always calculate taxes and liabilities of all sorts. They didn't highlight this nuance because its standard. The complication is that people who don't normally have to file tax returns and have all of this done for them through PAYE are having to think about it for the first time if you see what I mean. A lot of people are now being dragged into the tax return system without much background. The good news is that UK taxes are relatively quite simple (though HMRC can be a total nightmare to deal with if anything goes wrong).

Yes, for tax purposes your taxable income is always what's used. Anything that reduces you taxable income (ie anything you that you've been told comes with tax benefits) is taken into account. For most people, this will be pension contributions, salary sacrifice schemes for (cyclescheme / child care vouchers) and charitable contributions. However, if you tick the box saying that you are giving the charity your tax relief, then it you need to gross up. Unless you are involved in something crazy it should be quite straight-forward (at least compared to doing US taxes...).

Sorry, January, I stand corrected. The net income rule isn't that complicated. It's how all taxes are calcuated, though if you've never had to do a tax return before, I can see you'll need to think about it.

If you or your partner make over 50k, you won't be entitled to all of it anymore. It will need to be given back (in full or in part depending on how much you earn) to the government when the higher-earner does their tax-return. If either of you make more than 60k, it would be simplier to just opt out. The new rules start in April I think.

I agree with Bouncy and also get where WM is coming from. Neither my husband nor I are religious at all but we celebrate Christmas, etc. Where is the line drawn between a cultural norm and being a religious hypocrite? Certain rituals are part of the cultural heritage of being raised in historically Judeo-Christian society. The whole hypocrite thing is a tough one. At some point, no matter how much you love and respect your friends, you are going to disagree with some choice they've made. I think its too high a standard to think you can only be friends with people who you agree on absolutely every contentious issue. I don't think it makes you a hypocrite for still actively supporting them and participating in their lives. With that said, I wouldn't ever be cruel about it. I might make light-hearted fun with my husband (does that even count?) but I wouldn't ridicule their choices to mutual friends. So much of that sort of thing is tone though isn't it, especially amongst a close knit group of friends.

Yes, it does. Though it's easier to come to make a go of it renting (even if its expensive) than if the barrier to entry into London is buying a home. The uncomfortable fact is that London is amazing and lots of people want to live here. Those with the most money (or those willing to sacrifice more of their disposable income) buy a place in either the rental market or the housing market at the expense of those who can't. It's unfair that those who make the most are the ones who get to enjoy the city. To prevent London becoming a rich ghetto, that's why social housing has to be part of the general plan (even though allocating a portion of London's limited housing stock to social housing actually pushes up private rents and house prices). Key workers also need to have a place. We can try to carve out space for other groups we think are essential for the growth and dynamism of the city but every home we allocate to such purposes will have long waiting lists and will actually drive up private rents and house prices as it will reduce supply of both. Like I said, it's not easy and I don't have any easy solutions. My family and I give up a huge amount of quality of life to remain in London but for us, like many people, its totally worth it and that's the crux of the problem.

The private rental market only represents 20% of the total London housing market. About 27% is social housing and the balance of 53% is owner occupied. There are 75,000 empty homes in London which represents 2.3% of the housing stock (the Mayor's office goal is to get this below 1%). Private rental figures are much higher in prime central London than in London in general (close to 40% in prime areas). Nationally buy to let mortgages account for 13% of all outstanding mortgages (though there are landlords who don't have any debt). If you try to get rid of buy to let landlords in London and also restrict how many properties a single landlord can own, the result will be too small a private rental market for a dynamic city like London. There are clearly forced renters so the balance between owner-occupiers and renters could be better but what you suggest seems far too dramatic. On a national level, the balance of owner occupiers vs. private renters vs. social renters hasn't changed that dramatically over the last 10 years so I am not sure that buy-to-let has had the impact you suggest. In 1999, in England 69.9% of households were owner-occupied, 20.2% was socially rented, and 9.9% was privately rented. In 2009, the statics for England were 67.9% owner-occupied, 17.8% social housing, and 14.2% for private housing. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6695/1750765.pdf How much rental property does London need? It's a very young, international city. I'd be concerned about anything that would change the availability of rental properties dramatically.

I don't think anyone wants to see a collapse! The truth is we want housing to be cheaper for both renters and people who want to buy and that's tough. Empty homes should be addressed (taxes on vacant homes in the private sector, the state better using social housing etc). More building to help meet demand and making other parts of the UK more attractive to divert demand away from the capital. The truth is London is amazing and people are willing to pay whatever they can to stay here. The danger off course is the London just becomes a rich ghetto which would be terrible. I value diversity in London so want to make sure a certain amount of social housing is always part of the housing stock. Key workers also need to be accomodated. Beyond that though, I have no answers or solutions. It's an extremely difficult issue.

Well, there were two ideas H put forward. If interest stops being deductible as a business expense, only a landlord who owns his or her property with close 100% equity would be able to rent property without making a significant loss. For most buy to let properties, the rent just about covers the interest, management fees and maintenance costs. If you had to pay tax on the rent without being able to deduct the interest you as a landlord would be making a significant loss every year. This change would result in house prices falling as landlords with debt sold to owner occupiers. No new landlords would want to buy the homes unless they had the capital to buy with close to 100% equity (substantially reducing the number of landlords in the market). If you also limited the number of homes a single landlord could own, this would also reduce the number of rental properties. The balance between properties owned by their residents and properties available for rent would be skewed very dramatically. House prices would fall, which is good, but rents would probably increase due to the reduced supply of properties available for rent. This would make London for too inflexible. A city like London needs a lot of rental properties so that the young, talented and creative young people can come and give it a go. Edited to Add: House prices going down would allow more people who are renting to buy reducing demand for rental properties but renting is also about a stage of life and the reduced cost of housing wouldn't totally reduce rental demand if you see what I mean.

The problem with some of H's ideas is that they would spell the end of the rental market. House prices would be lower, no doubt but renting would be impossible unless it was carried out by the government. I'm not sure that a city as dynamic as London really could manage without rental housing.

Yeah, they've done it that way for a few reasons. Technically, there is no such thing as joint-tax assessments in the UK. More importantly though, if they had made the test 50k household income, it would have affected too many people (as it stand only 15% of families are estimated to be affected by the proposal as is). If they had made the test 100k per household it would affect far too few people to save the government any money. I can understand why it might leave a bitter taste in the mouth though for single parents who are caught up in this earning 60k.