EDLove

Thank God you joined this thread! Completely agree. XIX Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I genuinely don't understand why one of the > solutions being suggested here is to raise taxes > and penalise property-owners, by extending CGT to > cover primary residences. > > How is that going to tackle high property prices? > > > Has anyone thought of the effect that it would > have? It would make people reluctant to move (the > combined costs of selling and buying - CGT and > stamp duty, let alone solicitors fees etc - would > be excessive), and hence supply of houses on the > market would drop. Which is exactly counter to > what those suggesting this measure want - ie > increased supply of houses on the market. Property > is one of the ways in which normal people have > been able to generate wealth and better their lot > in life (and before I'm pounced on by the > left-side of the debate, I don't think there is > anything wrong with that), and I don't think we > should try to prevent people from doing so (within > reason of course - I agree that secondary > properties, unoccupied homes etc should be taxed > accordingly). > > Whilst penalising the wealthier may make some > people on the left-side of the political divide > feel warm and fuzzy for a while, it stops a long > way short of actually solving anything. And please > lets not fool ourselves into thinking that > increased money in the Government's tax-coffers > would translate directly into whatever you think > it is they will do with the money to solve the > problem. We all know it doesn't work like that. > The allocation of money will change according to > the subject of public interest of the moment, or > with changing Governments. > > I think increasing a tax like this would be little > more than a reactionary knee-jerk measure which > re-assures some people that the less fortunate in > life are being looked after. But of course it > doesn't do anything for them directly at all. > > and as for "recovering misallocated wealth" > ?????????????????? This sounds utterly orwellian. > > > its not 'misallocated'. its generally people's > hard-earned money, which they have put in to > property, which has appreciated over time. > contrary to the seeming popular belief for a lot > of people on here, I don't think most people were > born in to or inherited great wealth. Most people > are normal, and work hard for years to buy a home > to live in. > > The focus should be on the Government ensuring > there is enough supply of cheaper housing at the > bottom end of the market for people to buy, not > just hoiking up taxes for property-owners. > Counter-productive nonsense.

LadyDeliah Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > No, unlikely as I've got a big dog and I doubt it. What if they stole your dog? :p

Very true - ?80k after tax is about ?53k. So, yes, saving ?40k out of this would probably lead to a very solitary existence! But it's not impossible, especially as it is more than people earn on minimum wage.

miga Wrote: > If you were earning 80k and saving 40k after tax a > year you should have a TV show called "world's > best saver"! Why? Not everyone lives to their means - it's possible that people can comfortably live on half their salary (especially if that salary is ?80k). I'd watch that TV show though! :)

minder Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Just read your link EDLove. Thanks for that. > Always thought Shaun Bailey was ok but now I've > read this piece I've changed my mind! > > By the way who decides which areas suddenly become > the place everybody wants to live? The estate > agents no doubt. > > Why should 'poorer' people as you put it be forced > out of their homes that they've lived in for > years? > > Agree with Pokertime about the Heygate Estate, > just near the Elephant and Castle. People were > moved from their homes of many years and were > promised alternatives. This never happened and of > course the builders moved in and created 'luxury' > flats. > > Are you trying to say that every working class > person should be forced out of London just because > the government didn't replace housing stock lost > to the 'Right to Buy' policy? Hi Minder I'm not sure what factors go into decide which places become desirable. Yes, perhaps estate agents fuel the fire. As more people come in to London, and less housing is available, it is natural that the central areas become more sought after and, therefore, more expensive. Which, unfortunately, means that more and more people (whether low or middle income) can't afford to live there. This seems to be happening to a wide section of the London population, not just 'poorer' people. The use of the term 'poorer' people (or the poor) originated in the article and flowed from there. It doesn't sit too well with me either. I also noted the problem with the breakdown of communities but, in light of the housing shortage, it appears that community is something that, sadly, might not be so easy to retain. I didn't say that this breakdown was something I thought was right, just that there may be more immediate priorities, namely finding people places to live (which may be made easier if expensive accomodation is sold off to fund the purchase of more properties for the same value). You're absolutely right that failing to find alternative homes is not acceptable. I'm not sure how you jumped from some brief thoughts/queries about poorer people living in the 'expensive' parts (though the perameters of 'expensive' is still not entirely clear) of London (which is something that most low and middle earners cannot ever hope to do) to the rather extreme statement that all working class people should be forced out of London, which certainly is not my view.

Hi PokerTime To be clear, I didn't make any comment on the article I posted, it was merely an interesting read on two different views, both of which have some valid points. However, you state: 'Yes the poor do EDLove. Because it's the poor that do the jobs that most people don't want to do. We are not suggesting that traditionally wealthy areas suddenly have social homes thrust upon them. But areas that have long standing poorer communities and accomodation to house them should stay'. As the article was in relation to poor people living in 'expensive' areas, can you confirm which expensive areas of London currently have long-standing poorer communities? I'm genuinely interested in your view here. Whilst I agree that it's the poor that do the jobs that most people don't want to do (to a degree), can you explain why this would necessitate that they live in these expensive areas? I have to commute to work and so do thousands of other workers, every day. The fact is, a bus across London is less than ?2, so why would a poorer person not also expect to commute? Further to this, it could be argued that a lot of the accomodation currently inhabited by poorer people in expensive areas would be far better utilised if sold and the funds used to purchase several homes in less expensive parts of London. Of course, I am not oblivious to the arguments that this breaks up communities, but can we really reasonably expect 'community' to be fully retained when thousands of people need housing, and areas continue to evolve? Unfortunately, something may have to give. I am playing devil's advocate here, but surely you can appreciate why many would become slightly frustrated that poorer groups are able to live in expensive central London locations whilst the 'squeezed middle' who might not qualify for social housing but are still on low/medium salaries have to work long hours in similarly hellish jobs without this perk? In terms of the issues with housing in London, surely the focus in the long-run should not necessarily be on building more and more houses to keep up with a seemingly never-ending demand, but to encourage people to live in other parts of the UK by promoting businesses/employment elsewhere?

Not recent, but still clearly being debated... 'Do the poor have the right to live in expensive areas?' http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-11674864

Otta Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDLove Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Those who take risks with their finances can > fall > > in to both categories. Just as many people will > > get mortgaged to the max to live in a nice > area, > > others will mortgage to the max for a bigger > place > > in a worse area. > > > And some will mortgage to the max just to get > anything anywhere. Fo sho! :)

miga Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDLove Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Jeremy Wrote: > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > ----- > > > danrees Wrote: > > > > > > -------------------------------------------------- > > > > > > ----- > > > > Same house in East Dulwich would be ?800k > > today. > > > Is it really worth it? > > > > > > You might as well say "why pay 2 million for > a > > > house in Chelsea when Wandsworth is half the > > > price"? > > > > > > Of course ED is not Chelsea... but when > > comparing > > > an area to another which is a bit more > central, > > > smarter, more shops/restaurants/bars, etc, > > there's > > > always going to be a large price difference. > > Some > > > people would rather compromise location for > > more > > > space, others would rather stay in a flat and > > live > > > in their preferred area. Horses for courses. > > > > > > Totally agree with you Jeremy. A lot of people > > would rather pay more to live in a nice area, > even > > if it means less living space. > > And often even if it means getting mortgaged to > the max, and leaving little wiggle room for > interest rises. It's very important to some folks > that they live in the right area. Sorry if not clear from my comment but I meant pay 'more' per square footage. The comparison would be two people with the same amount of money but opting to go for different things - one, a smaller house in a more desirable area, and the other, a more spacious house in a less desirable area. Those who take risks with their finances can fall in to both categories. Just as many people will get mortgaged to the max to live in a nice area, others will mortgage to the max for a bigger place in a worse area.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > danrees Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Same house in East Dulwich would be ?800k today. > Is it really worth it? > > You might as well say "why pay 2 million for a > house in Chelsea when Wandsworth is half the > price"? > > Of course ED is not Chelsea... but when comparing > an area to another which is a bit more central, > smarter, more shops/restaurants/bars, etc, there's > always going to be a large price difference. Some > people would rather compromise location for more > space, others would rather stay in a flat and live > in their preferred area. Horses for courses. Totally agree with you Jeremy. A lot of people would rather pay more to live in a nice area, even if it means less living space.

unlurked Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > EDLove Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > Additionally, the ticket > > office can't top up an oyster card (which > raises > > the separate query as to whether it is really > > needed). > > How absolutely wonderful of you. Lets make more > people unemployed. > Why don't you just plan ahead and buy your > ticket/top up in advance and then you won't have > to suffer such tiresome inconvenience. Haha! You're absolutely right unlurked. It makes complete sense to carry on employing people, even if they have very little to do... I have nothing against employing people in the ticket-office if they are providing a service that is needed. The train companies have provided (presumably with the money generated from our steep train fares) machines to enable people to top up their oyster cards. Just because they have also provided an online system - which not everyone can access or wishes to access - does not mean that it is acceptable for one of these machines (which is the preferred option for many) to be out of order on a regular basis. Even those who can access the online system will, on occasion, not realise how much is left on their oyster or not top up before coming to ED station because, of course, there are two machines (but never a ticket-office employee) there to help with this... If commuters are precluded from voicing frustration at the fact certain services/machines do not work, then where does it stop? Should others be banned from venting at the fact a train is delayed or a bus route only has one bus per hour? Afterall, there are alternatives to both of these too. James, thank you for your help here. Much appreciated. :)

Hi James Apologies if this issue has already been raised but I wondered if you would be able to confirm how would we go about getting an additional ticket machine at ED station? There are only two, which may ordinarily be enough, but one of them is regularly out of action. Additionally, the ticket office can't top up an oyster card (which raises the separate query as to whether it is really needed). The frequent result is a long queue for one machine and frustrated commuters missing their trains in the morning. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks in advance!

DaveR Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > BTW, has anybody actually paid ?1 million yet for > a 'normal' ED house? Not sure what you mean by 'normal' but, having had a look on Mouseprice, it would seem that over ?1million was paid for a house on Rodwell Road (SE22) in December (4/5 bedroom) and a few on Underhill Road have also breached ?1million.

I can fully relate to most people preferring to spend their time and their money on the interior of their house (or other more interesting/important things), rather than the exterior. However, a lot of the issues with people's front gardens wouldn't actually take much time or money to remedy. Mostly, just picking up the litter, getting the council to collect your old sofa, and giving a quick lick of white paint to the steps would make a noticeble difference. The reason for this should'nt just be because it preferable to walk past (and buy) a pretty house on a well-kept road, but because a maintained enviroment could prevent an area becoming a hot-bed for vandalism and other crime. That being said, the vast majority of ED is presented well and has clear signs that people are prepared to invest time and/or money, so I can't agree with the OP's description. In fact, I think the opposite is true - the area is becoming prettier and tidier the more the house prices go up. Perhaps the OP should have a wander into some other less gentrified parts of London and compare?

When will they give up?! I can't believe something so barbaric is still on the agenda.

Saw this article and thought of some of the earlier comments in this thread... http://www.standard.co.uk/lifestyle/london-life/mind-the-bap-since-when-did-chowing-a-chinese-on-the-tube-become-acceptable-9201613.html

Robert Poste's Child Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > > That's fine if > > you live on an island, but most of us don't. > > Erm... Ha! I noticed this too. I'm certainly living on an island!

drewd Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I use the buses every day, travelling between East > Dulwich and central London. I think Chattyman's > complaints about the eating and the litter on the > bus, not to mention the oversized buggies they > travel two stops, are totally reasonable and I > empathise completely (even though this thread > started by being about Peckham Rye Station). > > Complaining about the buggies is not the same > thing as complaining about wheelchair users. There > is a big difference. I have seen unpleasant > situations where parents with buggies have had to > be asked to make room for wheelchair users. > > And we don't have to accept noise and dirt and > litter on buses as all part of the deal of living > in a large, vibrant, diverse city. I have visited > many large, diverse, vibrant cities and they > don't have buses that are in the state that so > many London buses are in. Having a tough life > doesn't make it okay to use buses as your dumping > ground which is something that happens more and > more - especially on south London buses. Having a > tough life doesn't make it okay to feed your kids > McDonalds on the bus and leaving behind the > rubbish instead of feeding them at home. > > We are too accepting of inconsiderate behaviour in > public spaces in London. It doesn't make anyone > that points this out an intolerant Daily Mail > reader. People in other cities don't put up with > what we put up with in London. Totally agree with this. And it's not a class issue either - I would hope that people (no matter what their age, class, race), would try to be considerate of others. It does not become more acceptable to leave litter, barge past people, shout down your phone on a busy train, fail to say thank you when someone has opened the door for you etc just because your wage is lower/higher or because you are from a certain background. I think we're far too willing to keep quiet and/or make excuses for certain behaviour which, actually, is making someone else's life less pleasant. Whilst I can appreciate that London is a big city with a lot of hustle and bustle etc etc, when I first moved here a few years ago, I was incredibly taken aback at the rudeness and lack of consideration shown by so may people (from all walks of life) on a daily basis. I don't think it's right to excuse this as being the inevitable result of living in a city; it's the result of too many people getting away with it. On a separate note, it is becoming increasingly annoying that certain individuals feel that it is ok to make sweeping, negative generalisations about the 'middle-class', people with posh accents, people who can afford to buy in East Dulwich. Out of interest, how are these classes being defined? Income? Family background? Accent? Value of house?

Hi Lucy We're looking to have similar work done - did you find someone who could help? What sort of quotes were you given? Any tips would be appreciated! :)

Hi Otta - Yes, sorry, you did say 'idiots' :p We bought a one-bed flat. It's compact, but we felt it was right (for us) to sacrifice space in order to live in ED. I'm sure that a lot of people in their twenties will want to live somewhere with lots of nightlife etc but we were looking for somewhere that was pretty, had good pubs/cafes/shops and green spaces - I absolutely love it here :D Do you live in ED? LondonMix's comment about comparable areas is true. As it is, similar desirable areas to ED are demanding much higher prices. Ann is right - not only would we struggle to afford the same flat in ED now, we are also likely to have difficulty moving up the ladder to a 2-bed flat in ED. But we really hope we can :) Bluesuperted - apologies, to confirm - I certainly don't think Forest Hill is sh*t. I was referring to some other areas we saw. Though, in comparison to ED, I do find it shabby (I realise that ED might not be a fair comparator). This is just my opinion and I can appreciate that you view the area differently - it certainly has many nice spots :) Ratty - why?

Me and my boyfriend (both in our twenties) bought our first home in ED less than 2 years ago. Yes, we had to push our deposit to the max to afford it but, having spent months looking in a variety of other places across London (including Peckham and Forest Hill), we felt (and still feel) that it was worth it. Whilst we could have bought a bigger place in other areas, these areas were predominantly shabby, had less to offer in terms of shops/cafes and felt less safe. Ok, we might have missed out on increasing value in some 'up and coming' areas but I really couldn't stand the thought of having to live there whilst they became less sh*t. And, in any event, the value in ED has continued to rise. When you compare ED with other 'desirable' areas of London, like Clapham etc, I think there is a lot more value for money here. IMHO, I certainly don't think someone who chooses to pay that bit extra to live in ED is 'stupid'. Far from it.

red devil Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Judging by the increase in the population of the > urban fox, hunger isn't an issue. Is there actually an increase in the population though? 'Dr Phil Baker, an expert on urban foxes at the University of Reading states:- "There are currently no data to suggest that the numbers of foxes in areas where they have been present for decades have increased significantly at a national level," he says. In fact according to Baker, the only major change that has occurred in urban fox populations over the past 30 years has been down to an outbreak of sarcoptic mange, a common disease of mammals, which severely reduced fox numbers in some cities.' I think they're perhaps just becoming a bit braver, so we're more likely to see them.

Agree with Dulwichfox on this one, save for the part about people in the countryside killing anything that moves. I'm a country girl (and so is a large portion of my family) and completely against fox-hunting, badger culling etc. The majority of London foxes I have seen are quite lean (certaintly not over-eating), keep themselves to themselves and are entitled to remain. They do a great job of keeping the rat population down too. My issue is not with the foxes, but a small portion of neighbours who decide to leave their bin-bags out on the street/hanging out of their wheelie-bins with very little thought for the mess it makes when a fox, quite rightly, wants to have a rummage.

So this is how it will look... http://www.constructure.co.uk/crawthew-grove/

The fig and pomegranate reed diffuser from Roullier White is heaven.