LondonMix

There are plenty of young families in houses around here. They themselves often have moved to ED from more expensive areas. As others have said, there are lots of teenagers about-- enough that a new secondary school is opening. If most of the people you know with kids the same age as your children live in flats, then there is a greater chance they won't be in the area for the long haul. However, London in general is transitory. More people leave in their 30s than at any other point statistically so its these years that everyone feels the disruption the most.

Yes, sqm is just floor area. Cubic meters is volume (i.e. floor and height) kristymac1 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > yeknomyeknom Wrote: > We since learnt > > that when working out how many children are > > allowed in a space it's done by square metre. > So > > bizarrely includes ceiling height. Heber has > high > > ceilings so it's sq metre size is large and > more > > children are allowed. > > Isn't Sq metre the floor footprint? If it included > ceiling height it'd be cubic metre? > As I said in my post the nursery is quite small > which I did have reservations about at first, my > son is very active but the space works really well > for him, other than at drop off when parents go in > with the children to hang up coats etc it doesn't > feel overcrowded at all and they spend a lot of > time playing outside (weather permitting, which > even this year has been quite a lot surprisingly). > The nursery space is well set up with different > activities each day. At 3 and 4yr old , the > children are quite small and what may seem a small > space to us big folk is probably quite generous to > wee ones...

No one shopped at ED Deli and the customer service was terrible. The closure was a long time coming

Totally depends on the characteristics of her hair! There is so much variation in types. The Kinky Curly range do a great leave in (called Knot Today) and a botanical gel that's helps with curl formation / hold. I'd say Shea moisture curling smoothie works for a lot of different types of Afro-mixed curly hair so that's a good product to try. A personal favourite in our house is Oyin Dew but you can only get it in the U.S. It's incredible though! I second not over washing her hair unless it's very fine and naturally oily. Curly hair tends to be naturally dry. Use a moisturising shampoo and a rich conditioner as that will help loads with moisture. A leave in and some kind of oil (coconut or jojoba are both good) will keep her hair well conditioned and moisturized. However her hair still might be frizzy, which is totally fine. Most people with really curly hair (mixed or otherwise) need gel and other styling products to combat frizz. Frizz doesn't mean her hair isn't healthy.

http://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?29,1661072 You might find this recent thread useful. It really depends on how small it is and what else is around it. I have friends with north facing courtyard gardens that can be blazing hot at the height of summer because its fairly open. If the garden really is in shadow all the time, then all things being equal I'd say you get much more use out of a South facing garden-- ours is quite a bit warmer in Spring and Autumn than other exposures which means we use it more. There are plenty of flowers that can grow in shade though-- clematis grandiflora, star jasmine, various climbing roses so it doesn't have to be dreary at all. If you need the extra space that the house with the north facing garden offers then I'd go for it. Especially if both gardens are small, there is only so much you'll be able to do in them.

Apparently there are enough people that don't agree with you that they have been able to survive and open in multiple locations. People have different priorities regarding what they spend money on. That's life.

steveo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I've met a lot of ex pat Londoners down in Kent. > They cash in and flee the smoke for the rural > idyll and within months have shagged the neighbour > and become divorced alcoholics. That made me laugh out loud. I can't imagine why anyone would want to live that way but I guess that's why I live in a terraced house in zone 2

The fallacy about the 8.5B is that Switzerland et al have to pay for access to the free trade market. If the UK want to maintain free trade with the EU, a substantial portion of that 8.5b will still be sent to the EU. However 8.5B is about 0.3% of UK GDP. Such a major political issue shouldn't really be made on such marginal sums. At the end of the day, this is really a vote about political identity. Does the UK see its future with Europe or on its own and why? I've not met anyone on either side of the issue who seems likely to be persuaded purely by the numbers being tossed around on both sides.

I don't know Mick Mac. Intentionally not declaring 3 sources of pension income is illegal and blatant tax evasion. I'm not sure Corbyn is a criminal and it would have been wildly reckless to attack the PM so strongly if he was knowingly evading taxes. With that said, its a hard mistake to understand. Forgetting to declare significant sources of regular income on your tax returns isn't easily explained. If he really is that incompetent (which I'd argue is less competent than my husband's 90 year old nan), he's wildly unfit for office. His refusal to make full disclosure though does raise suspicion particularly after demanding as much from the government. He's more naive than Cameron if he thinks he can simply ignore the requests for disclosure.

The ONS has done official analysis and in the standard way. Th IFS obviously have done separate work in an unconventional way.

Yes, I get that Jeremy. Its structured well to exclude basic items and that's a good thing. My question was who was questioning the calculations showing its impact rather than how people hoped it would work.

I would

Okay and my point is that there is not a lot of debate. Economists do not as standard look at this issue that way and that the IFS's position is not widely held. The IFS make some good points but the problem with their argument is that it only makes sense over a lifetime not at a specific point in time because of the way debt and savings impact expenditure. Perhaps we can now move on...

No, I have always said that determining whether a tax is flat, regressive or progressive is based on its relative impact on income as standard (the text book definition). The paper you linked to suggested changing that by measuring it by expenditure for VAT. Their argument was that expenditure was a better measure than income of who is rich or poor. -- (Their argument not mine!) Rich and poor matter because the point of assessing if a tax is progressive, flat or regressive is to determine its impact on different social groups. I have said, that while the paper makes some valid points, I (and most economists) believe that the conventional income method remains the most appropriate and accurate measure. I'm really not sure how else to say all of this. Loz have you read the IFS's position? Why do you agree with them?

Income is the standard measure Loz. Its not my opinion. I was presenting what the IFS's reasoning is for using an unconventional metric and acknowledging the parts of their argument have some validity. However, changing from the standard metric using income to what they are doing with expenditure is in my opinion (and many others) unjustified by their arguments. However, I think you already know that's what I was saying... I'm trying to be reasonable rather than simply trying to win the argument by actually talking about the ideas behind the paper. I've not said one thing that actually contradicts myself on this topic.

Though there are some real bankers here too though not many in my experience.

Yeah, I agree with all of that. There are still lots of a**holes but more Margin Call than Wall St for sure.

Okay, my intention wasn't to get your back up. If you said that to me and I wasn't clearly living and paying taxes in the UK (for over 10 years), I'd personally find it a perfectly normal statement. An American in the US trying to comment on British tax could get a lot wrong. Tax is complicated. Unless you are very familiar with the rules, trying to draw simple conclusions about a country's tax system is nearly impossible. For the US this is doubly true as it has one of the most complicated personal tax systems in the world.

Loz-- no one, not even the IFS is debating what progressive or regressive means. The debate is how to measure who is rich or poor. The IFS's position is that how much someone earns isn't the best measure of how rich or poor they are, particularly how rich or poor they will be over their lifetime. That's the core of their argument for using expenditure rather than income, which is the normal way of looking at this. They use the examples of rich retirees and poor students who are smoothing their lifetime consumption. I can completely understand how people on zero income for a while who are otherwise not poor and have savings may distort the analysis when solely looking at income. On this, I think the IFS have a valid point. However, the conventional method for measuring how regressive or progressive a tax is is income based. Pick up an economics text book rather than Google and you'll see. The IFS's approach is in fact so unconventional there isn't sufficient data to do full analysis as that is not how the ONS (or anyone) typically makes the assessment. And I quote from the report: "In the following sections, whilst it would be preferable to use expenditure deciles (as we believe these more accurately capture living standards), data limitations force us to use income deciles." When using the much more conventional income measure, no one can argue that VAT is not regressive. Unlike the IFS and you, I believe that using the conventional income measurement method is the best. I can go into the reasons why I (and most economists) do but it might be simpler to agree to disagree at this point. I'm not looking to argue just for the sake of it.

Blah, blah, all I said was "As an American, I can tell you that the tax system is incredibly complex and influences how people invest and you shouldn't draw simplistic conclusions." For some reason I guess you thought I was trying to silence you rather than simply stating a fact. Regarding taxes, all I am saying is that direct taxes should make up a greater share of government revenue that they currently do vis-a-vis indirect taxes because indirect taxes are regressive. I'm aware of the fact that tax collection falls once the marginal rate exceeds certain thresholds and I don't believe its positive to have an excessively high top rate of tax. As I've said before, to maintain services (if that's the goal) everyone will need to pay more tax, not just high rate tax payers but again, that's a separate point.

Loz, the reason why the standard way to examine if a tax is regressive or progressive relies on income is because its designed to assess how much of each group's income is being contributed to the running of the country. Consumption taxes are almost always regressive. I'm not suggesting to change the way tax is applied-- the UK does a good job of exempting basic items to help reduce the impact on the poor. I'm saying that VAT should be lowered and income tax increased so a greater proportion of government revenue would be derived from progressive taxes. Without tax transfers back to the poorest, the bottom 20% of earners would be contributing a greater share of their income to run the country than any other group.

Blah, Americans are taxed on their world wide income regardless of where the money is held or earned. Therefore, Americans using offshore vehicles are much more likely to be involved in illegal evasion rather than legal avoidance. That is why transparency made a difference. Its easy to draw simplistic conclusions. I was simply trying to say that the US system is so different from over here that you cannot make parallel assessments. Money I put in an ISA in the UK is taxed in the US despite the fact that I work and am resident in the UK. But please, continue on saying whatever you like about America's tax affairs. Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LM I will make comparisons to America if I like. > The fact remains that they had negotiated a more > transparent agreement with Panama and the result > is less American nationals used those ofshore > accounts. It was simply an illustration of levels > of secrecy playing a part. > > And no-one is arguing for the wealthy to pay more > tax, just to stop avoiding the tax they would > normally pay if they kept their wealth onshore. > > The issue with VAT has been the addition of VAT on > essentials like untilities which were formerly > exempt. I still remember the scandal when the last > Conservative government introduced that when they > said they wouldn't (Major's government I think). > VAT on those things is regressive. And then there > is of course the other Tory invention, council > tax. Can't get more regressive than that one.

Loz, its not actually progressive based on that paper. The IFS determine that VAT when measured as a percentage of income is clearly regressive. It can only be described as progressive using the rather unconventional metric of measuring it as a percentage of household expenditure rather than income. Page 197 shows how regressive VAT tax is based on its take of income. The only thing that is being debated in everything I've seen is if the taxes impact should be assessed based on the conventional income metric or on expenditure. The text book definition of progressive, flat and regressive taxes is based on income and by that measure there isn't any data that shows that VAT isn't highly regressive. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/progressivetax.asp http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/regressive-tax.html

I'm not sure the general public understand what an investment bank is well enough to understand the differences. I think in general though they mean the traders, capital market teams and M&A staff. Maybe also the risk teams? Most people who work for an Investment bank wouldn't be considered investment bankers within the bank. That term is largely reserved for the M&A / advisory team

Never mind the BBC explained it to me. Basically, the treasury fudged the analysis for Osborne by not looking at the impact of VAT as a percentage of income when claiming it was not regressive. Of course, methodologically that's utter nonsense. Economists never judge at tax that way. You have to look at the total tax as a percentage of income not as an absolute number to determine how heavy the burden is on each group. That percentage burden is the actual definition of regressive, progressive and flat. These are technically defined concepts. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12111507 ETA: http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/10/progressive-tax-vat-poorest