LondonMix

I thought that side of ED road was SE15 rahrahrah? Maybe not everywhere but the block of flats on ED rd near the intersection with Peckham Rye rd is definitely SE15.

Okay, but I'm still not sure how you are connecting this general idea (that MPs due to wealth are disconnected from the troubles of ordinary people) with the supposed scandal at hand. Are you simply moving on and talking about something else now? Also, as you acknowledge most MPs are wealthy so if this is a problem its in no way unique to Cameron. I simply don't get the argument about why what's happened is a scandal. I get that some voters don't agree with Cameron's policies and might think his background influences the policies they don't like but that was almost certainly the way they felt before learning his father left him an offshore vehicle in his will that he liquidated without obtaining any tax benefits. People making a meal of this look disingenuous at best. Calls for resignation for having been left something in a will (but not doing anything wrong) are preposterous. Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Here's another example of the abstraction of > wealth. The average salary is ?27.5k but 70% of > the workforce don't earn it and 50% earn nowhere > near it. So when government put average figures on > starter homes, they take the average salary as > proof that people will be able to afford these > homes. They completely ignore that most people > don't earn that wage. In every area outside of > London and the home counties, the real average > salary is around a third less. It DOES matter that > we have MPs who have no concept of living on an > ordinary wage when there are so many of them. It's > why we end up with ideological models that don't > work from Osborne and Cameron. They ignore the > advice of on the ground experts, which is why many > of their bills (poorly thought out and formed > without any impact research) are being clobbered > by the House of Lords.

You should have morning sun unless there is something blocking light getting into the house. If the rear of the house has been extended and there are skylights / velux windows, you'll have light all day. Good luck with your purchase.

Wait, so now the problem is simply that Cameron was born wealthy? Is that new news? Does that automatically disqualify people from either party from developing social policy. If you don't agree with Cameron's policies just debate the merits of the policies. If you are right, that argument should be good enough.

It completely depends on the size of the garden and what's around it. Even a south facing garden will be dark if its surrounded by tall structures and is small. Sounds like you should get sun in the morning at the front of the garden and the back should be sunny in the evenings. That can be quite nice as kids can play in the shade near the house and the patio at the height of summer will be cool for when you want to eat etc without needing an umbrella. I definitely wouldn't make that a deal breaker.

Yeah, but Cameron hasn't evaded or avoided any taxes. I'm not even a Tory voter but he hasn't actually done anything wrong. If you get something in a will and then liquidate it without obtaining any tax advantage what exactly is the scandal? I'm asking this as a genuine question. I get he didn't handle to question about it well- is that the story . scandal? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The fact is that Cameron rallied against tax > avoidance. He called it immoral and he called for > transparency in people's tax affairs whilst being > rather evasive about his own. He has been hoist by > his own petard.

Sorry to feed your irrational rage... I'm glad you can at least see its irrational.

Yep, all of this Seabag Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Well I think as wealth increases it 'can' become > less important what something costs > > A vest for cycling/running/yoga for ?45 or ?75 > really isn't judged by the actual cost, it's > wether you want it or not, and if you do you'll > 'afford' it > > And so, once your wealth has been acquired, the > way you spend it or not might be different than > what you imagined before. Plus you do gain time, > in that you stop shopping around and just buy the > things you actually want, from the group of shops > you've become accustomed to shopping in > > It works both ways - why look in Waitrose when > your budget is Iceland. A waste of time, is a > waste of time

This brand is definitely upmarket Louisa. Just by judging where they are in London makes that abundantly clear. Nothing wrong with that but just own the fact you like a posh chain.

Are people saying he should resign because he wasn't immediately forthcoming or because he inherited an offshore fund even though he himself didn't avoid any taxes and liquidated it 6 years ago?

Dulwich Park already has a running club and I think they welcome all levels. Of course ED could start its own :)

I agree a single straight forward answer would have been better. That was a political misjudgment. If he'd said, I inherited an offshore vehicle as part of my inheritance but never used it to avoid any taxes myself and no longer own it, he'd have been much better off. He may not wanted to have thrown his father under the bus or simply been daft enough to think it would blow over without full disclosure. You are right they have done a lot more to crack down evasion. My brother in-law works for HMRC. Also, they have reduced some legal means of avoidance such as dramatically shrinking pension tax relief for higher earnings. rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > To be fair, this government has done more to crack > down on avoidance than New Labour ever did. I > don't think the Blairmore thing would have been > much of a story had Cameron not (a) been so vocal > on the ills of tax avoidance and (b) just given a > single, straight forward statement on it all in > the first place.

Me too. Also, I contribute into my pension and am again avoiding tax. As I've said before, aggressive avoidance is legally the same as evasion in many jurisdictions so its important not to conflate the two ideas. ed_pete Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Be clear about Avoidance and Evasion. I have an > ISA therefore I am avoiding but not evading tax. > > http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-27372841

??? I get that some people see avoidance as immoral and David Cameron from his previous statements positioned himself as one of them. But has David Cameron avoided tax? From what I've read, his inheritance was below the inheritance tax threshold and the capital gain he made when he sold out of it was also below the capital gain threshold. If he is being honest and doesn't hold any investments in offshore structures now or never has besides what he got in his fathers will which he subsequently liquidated, I'm not sure he can be accused of anything. Can you explain what you think he did wrong? Is it that he didn't sell his inheritance vehicle immediately even though not doing so made no difference to how much tax was owed? Or is it that his father may have been avoiding tax so he can't claim to find tax avoidance bad? rahrahrah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Cameron was very vocal on Jimmy Carr's tax > avoidance. I believe he called it 'immoral'. He?s > been exulting everyone not to avoid tax and yet he > himself has held shares in a company which seems > to have been set up with the purpose of doing > exactly this. > @Londonmix - I think it's obvious why some feel > that using off shore companies to hide income and > avoid tax (opportunities which are certainly not > open to all) is at odds with the notion of > everyone being in 'it' (deficit reduction) > together.

Why can't he say we are all in this together? I'm not saying I believe that but nothing that's happened specifically makes that statement unless plausible now than it was last month. Blah Blah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > lol yeah and you get the feeling that's not all > there is. The problem is that never again can he > claim we are all in it together, and that he is > for hard working families and all the other BS he > comes out with. > > Of course he's been asked about this in the past, > esp in relations to that viscount who's a family > relative. > > And then there's this little gem from 2013 :D > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8qjBec3fpBI

I really wouldn't want a pret in ED. I'm not sure why but the idea makes me cringe. We know you love Space NK Louisa. That's fine you feel its okay to indulge in expensive toiletries. I just wish you'd understand other people want to indulge in expensive [fill in the blank] and their preferences aren't any better or worse than yours.

Hmmm. I'm not sure I'll be able to watch the dystopian horror that's about to unfold!

You got me! The places I named are all on the other side of Crystal Palace road where the street changes-- obviously 30 seconds walk from the name changeover but still, not technically there. DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Ah, there is a couple of news agents, a > > hairdresser, a cafe and the Great Exhibition > Pub. > > I'm not sure how many more shops a side street > > needs. > > > > > > DulwichFox Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > There are no shops on Whateley Road.. The > Chip > > > shop closed years ago.. So did the Jeans > shop.. > > > > > And the Tyre shop has long gone... > > > > > > Oh I forgot about Bells.. on Lordship Lane.. > > with > > > the side entrance on Whateley.. > > > > > > > > > DulwichFox > > They are are on Underhill Road. Sorry to be > pedantic.. BUT ???? was making an issue that > Louisa was Trolling. > And I have been critised for not getting my facts > right.. > > Foxy

Ah, there is a couple of news agents, a hairdresser, a cafe and the Great Exhibition Pub. I'm not sure how many more shops a side street needs. DulwichFox Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > There are no shops on Whateley Road.. The Chip > shop closed years ago.. So did the Jeans shop.. > And the Tyre shop has long gone... > > Oh I forgot about Bells.. on Lordship Lane.. with > the side entrance on Whateley.. > > > DulwichFox

Ah, ED Deli has terrible customer service. Given it had a concession in Harrods, it didn't fail because it wasn't posh enough. This unit and Foxton's are the only places large enough for a chain on LL that doesn't already have one that I can think of. I agree the shops around here will increasingly get posher though, which is what it is. I was in Crystal Palace the other day and it reminded me of ED 10 years ago and it was a nice feeling. Ah well, what's past is past. Louisa Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > LondonMix Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Don't forget the locksmiths, the vets, dry > > cleaners, laundrymat, two DIY stores, > opticians, > > etc. > > > > Its ridiculous to say this shop is robbing ED of > a > > useful shop. ED Deli who was there before was > > barely used, which is why it closed and there > are > > many other places selling similar stuff in the > > area. > > LM the problem is small independents are being > replaced by small chains. It's the classic outcome > of this process. This unit started off as a second > hand shop, then 'pioneer' gentrifiers came in and > opened a delicatessen which was very popular in > the early years then started to drop off the radar > as the process picked up and wealthier folk moved > in. And now we are at the stage where the chain > boutique takes over. Yes we have plenty of > indepedents still, but for how much longer? Do we > really want to end up like Notting Hill in 20 > years time? Nowhere to buy a loaf of bread because > every commercial unit is a boutique! > > Louisa.

Don't forget the locksmiths, the vets, dry cleaners, laundrymat, two DIY stores, opticians, etc. Its ridiculous to say this shop is robbing ED of a useful shop. ED Deli who was there before was barely used, which is why it closed and there are many other places selling similar stuff in the area.

Small boutiques can obviously replace small independents. The space argument concerns large chains, which despite all the hang ringing has not materialised in the area. The units that are large enough for them have chains and the little shops don't. Its always been clear that as the area become richer the small independent shops and boutiques here would likely change to reflect that. Burro e Salvia replacing Speedo Pizza is a perfect example. Anyway, no one shopped ad ED Deli (which had a concession in Harrods anyhow). I've enjoyed the pop-ups but now that its leased, I hope the new store does well.

Yes, private GP cover would be amazing given how long it can take to get an NHS GP appointment sometimes. I have Vitality which is Pru's new name. I find their customer support fairly useless but the level of coverage my company has paid for is quite good.

I've had a slip disc. I went to my gp for a referral to physio. She initially tried to dissuade me but once I informed her I had private health insurance she quickly changed tune and wrote me a referral both for an MRI scan and physio treatment. I was shocked by the abrupt about face as it was like, 'oh okay great, here you go'. Clearly GPs recommended treatment is influenced by if you have insurance or not.

Also, similar to ISA's the tax break on dividends serves a purpose which is to encourage investment. A small business owner who also operates their business is just as entitled to that tax incentive as any other person who invests in a business. That's why I think its equivalent to an ISA. People using that tax break for their small companies are doing exactly what they are supposed it. To me, its worlds away from not declaring income to HMRC.