motorbird83

A mortgage of 1,750 a month sounds tight on take home pay post tax of circa 8k a month? Why?

A couple of points-- the new London overground line does go to Canada Water which is a 5 min change to Canary Wharf- not the City- but it does go to Shoredich. I know several people who use it to commute to both areas. Second, if you want to know how much 3 bed houses are actually selling for look on right move--they have a sold price section http://www.rightmove.co.uk/house-prices.html. You can sort by flats, detached houses, terraced houses and look at trends even on a specific street. They have floor plans, pictures and map locations of the sold properties so you can understand variations in quality. I have been following the market as we are trying to decide if its time to sell our flat in ED and buy a house here-- we don't need the space yet but don't want to be priced out if there is a big jump in family home prices. The gap between asking prices and selling prices is about 5%. 575k for a mid terraced house with 1,100 sft within a 10 min walk of ED station on a quiet street is about right when the loft can still be converted. Large houses, those with big gardens and those closer to the station sell for 10%-20% more. Smaller houses, those on busy streets and those farther from the station still sell for less (sometimes substantially less). Those needing work sell for significantly less and stay on the market for a long time. The housing market in London is extrememly transparent so you can see very clearly what's going on. Within the sold houses section of rightmove you can also generate a market trend report for any post code and by property type (flat, terraced house, semi, detached). It can be deceptive though as the quality of the property and location make such a big difference that the composition of what is coming to market really distorts the trend. More than prices increasing dramatically, people who moved here in the mid- 2000s when the first big wave of gentrification hit who could afford to really modernise their houses are now able to sell as the market has recovered which means on avg. nicer properties are coming to market in my opinion. A newly developed 3 bed property on Carthew was on sale for 550k back in 2007 when we were first looking. A similar property just sold for 575k. Check out sold prices for the streets you are looking at and consider moving further from the station or buying a place that needs some TLC. A two bed house that can be converted to a 3-bed via a loft conversion is also still good value for money (450k-475k for a two bed, 40k for the loft conversion). You don't have to pay 600k to live in ED if that's out of your budget. Good luck and I hope this helps! Edited for multiple typos!!

I think this would be a great idea and very well used. The idea of showing kid films during the day is a great one. Independent and foreign films would definitely be the right niche with some blockbusters thrown in. The police station on Whateley Road might be sold off a least partially. I think there are certain issues regarding public service use but it might be worth exploring with the authorities.

Sorry, first mate, I don't understand your point on the car wash-- not being a wise-ass-- can you explain a bit more? I can sympathise with your concerns on the time of deliveries but this can be objected to separately, no? We have to agree to disagree that people will drive to M&S Simply Food. In fact, people are more likely to drive to Iceland as bulk shopping there is more standard. If people aren't generally using all the spaces right now, the pressure created by removing them can't be that severe. The flats is the toughest bit for me. I don't know whether I should oppose it or not. It might put pressure on parking but London desperately needs more housing so in general I am in favour of housing development. Its balancing priorities... first mate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > London Mix said > "The impact of losing the car parking spaces > should be considered carefully as part of the > planning application but given that several people > have reported back to the forum that they have not > seen the parking full (neither during the week nor > on the weekend), the impact of losing what is a > nominal amount of spaces shouldn't be overstated. > Also, those who seem to be claiming people will be > driving for miles to buy convenience food to load > into their cars seem to be misunderstanding the > concept of the store". > > LM: The main issues for those living close by > are: > > the loss of all parking space > > the addition of 8 residents who will need to park > > more car wash clients parking out on street (the > car wash also likes to mend cars on street) > > An increase in deliveries to proposed new shop (as > detailed in plans) inlcuding very early in > morning. There will be no change in size of > articulated lorries which have very loud parking > and reversing sensors (BEEP' BEEP, BEEP- all at > 5am). > > The use of these lorries has long been a bone of > contention between residents and Iceland. Resident > property and cars have all been damaged by the > lorries. Bollards that protect the sides of the > current entrance to Iceland car park are clearly > damaged. The plans propose to make this overall > space smaller. That is more lorries delivering and > moving around in a much smaller space. > > The massive delivery vehicles, of which it is > proposed there will be more throughout the day, > frequently block the street. The street is also > blocked by car wash clients. > > More residents to the street but a big reduction > in parking- and the application says it is > eco-friendly. > > On top of all that, yes, M&S/Waitrose/any shop > that attracts more customers than Iceland, may > also want to park.

dd

Does anyone know what the current plan is for the police station on Whateley Road and Lordship Lane? Thanks, motorbird

I work for a fund. We get the statutory for the first 6 weeks and then following that we get 65% of pay for another 9 months instead. It was only recently improved though. Before it was just the legal min after the higher paid 6 week period. Good luck!

Just wondering if this problem has gone away and what approach worked for you guys in the end?

We live on Mundania and power was out for 2.5 hours. I just came back 5 minutes ago...

The mansion tax is meant to be a trade off for further reducing the top rate of income tax (its going down from 50% to 45% this year and in 2013 back to 40%) and the current proposal is to set the mansion tax at ?2m. Analysis has shown a tax at that level won't actually raise that much money and that to be worth implementing should apply to homes that are well below that level and quite frankly are not mansions. This would impose a hardship on many people who have seen the value of the primary residences increase but who in fact are not wealthy (which is why politicians won't do it). As the proposed mansion tax is not fit for purpose people here have been trying to justify why it should be implemented for a thousand other reasons-- taxing good fortune, reducing house prices / increasing access to housing for those who can't get on the property ladder etc. A mansion tax isn't very good at doing any of those things either... So now the debate has turned to how else you can tax home owners to reduce house prices. However, all of this misses the point that the population and the number of households in London as well as the number of jobs created by London is growing faster than the housing stock. There are a lot of other contributing factors but if you really care about access to housing this is what you should focus on (and the gov't are in fact launching initiatives on this front). Taxing people for owning things strikes me as a step too far. In my opinion, it would be fairer just to keep the upper tax rate at 45% rather than reducing it back to 40% in 2013 as is currently the plan. However, it was always introduced as a temporary measure.

Mikeb-- when I said investing I just meant that a home owner takes on the risk that his or her home (primary residence) could either go up or down in value. I wasn't making any specific point about the buy to let market. Taxing capital gains on a primary residences is not unheard of-- its done in the US for gains above a certain threshold. Not sure what the pros and cons of the policy are-- clear con is it would restrict peoples' ability to make lateral moves (ie. someone with a new job in East London who would like to buy a house for the same value as their current place in ED but in Blackheath couldn't do so without suffering a financial penalty). The pros are clearly that the government would have more money and family homes might become more affordable as people would have less capital to put towards deposits after selling their first starter home / flat. Interested to hear other pros and cons. In the end I can't see how it would have a significant impact on access to housing and affordability which seems to be what most people are advocating for. New government policy aimed at helping those with small deposits and incentivizing the construction of new builds seems more effective( see article below): http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4dd544e0-6c31-11e1-b00f-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/personal-finance_property-mortgages/feed//product#axzz1pfgzH69L Huguenot- interested to hear more about your thoughts on the buy to let market. I have friends who are still renting (in Chelsea and Wimbledon) and both have said rents are shooting through the roof as the demand for good rental properties outstrips supply -people who would have traditionally bought a few years ago haven't been able to due to high deposit requirements. I had the impression that there is a shortage of both homes to buy and rental properties as more and more people want to live in London and foreigners buy up west-end properties and leave them as a second home (i.e. don?t rent them). You allude to a more complex situation though, and I would like to hear more. I'm not a landlord before anyone asks!

The word carrying is correct as it concerns high earners. High earners benefit no more than anyone one else from the services provided by the state and contribute significantly more (both in absolute and percentage terms) to the running of the country. If everyone earned the average UK salary the average person would have to pay a much higher marginal rate of tax. Without high earners, middle and low-income earners would have to pay a lot more in taxes to keep the same level of services in the country as high earners effectively subsidize them. With that said, I believe in a progressive tax system which by its definition is redistributive. I think those with the ability to pay more should contribute disproportionately (within limits) to help create the best possible society. Still higher earners are undeniably carrying a disproportionate share of the cost of running the country. Regarding the main point of the post, taxing wealth or house prices is a philosophical question and there is no right or wrong answer (though implementation and unintended consequences would certainly be a concern). Once someone has paid income tax and invested in something (whatever that might be) does society have a right, regardless of how rich they are, to tax them on the things they enjoy or invest in. Consumption / house buying is already taxed (VAT / stamp duty) as are gains on investing (capital gains / inheritance tax). Taxing people just for owning something strikes me as a step too far. The tone of a lot of people posting on this has a clear undertone of, "no matter how hard someone has worked to achieve what they have, they should not be able to accumulate / enjoy more than a certain amount of the fruits of their labor". If you want to gripe about unearned wealth then talk about inheritance tax, not a wealth tax. The idea of taxing good fortune is even more bizarre. We all take a risk when we buy a home. Lot's of people have had the value of their homes collapse on them in certain parts of the country. Are we supposed to equalize their results? Why stop at property. Why not equalize the investment returns everyone earns when the start a new business, invest in the stock market, or really make any decision that has consequences and unknown outcomes. If you want to make housing more affordable a property tax on mansions won't achieve that. Why not advocate for policies that will allow more affordable housing to be built or one that prevents foreigners from acquiring property as house prices are a function of supply and demand. Only policies that work on these elements can have a meaningful impact on access to housing for those now entering the market.

uncleglen,if you were really told the things you claim this is very worrying. As you mentioned, parental attitudes towards education are powerful and can overcome disadvantages that normally are strong predictors of academic achievement (such as poverty). However, teachers' prejudices are also significant. If a teacher comes into a classroom with preconceived ideas regarding pupils based on race or cultural background, that teacher is doing a huge disservice to the students. The subtle bigotry of low expectations (even if those low expectations spring from an assumption that the student's parents don't care about their education) has a real and measurable impact on student performance, all things being equal. Newly qualified teachers should be required to read "Pygmalion in the classroom: teacher expectations and pupils' intellectual development". Below is a link discussing recent research on the topic. http://www.ntlf.com/html/pi/9902/pygm_1.htm BB100-- the issue about Cameron is tough. I agree that the fact that a strong family focus on education and achievement can overcome certain disadvantages such as poverty, doesn't mean that its a level playing field for poor children. The disadvantages posed by poverty are still obstacles to be overcome and therefore still need to be addressed. Cameron's point though that if someone wants to be successful then they can in England despite certain social disadvantages has some truth. The question then is how do you get children caught in a pattern of generational underachievement to want to be successful, particularly if their parents don't instil them with those values and teachers have low expectations of them. One of my friends is a teacher out in Essex and she tells me that students as young as 14 are planning to have children to get council housing. Its the only ambition they have for their lives and they don't even contemplate that there could be more as its all they know... I find this incredibly sad and such a waste of talent. Its our responsibility as a society to figure out how to break these kinds of patterns but the solutions are not simple. Its a combination of tackling low-expectations students have for themselves as well as institutional expectations of them. Recent studies in the US also show that the variety of cultural and social experiences affluent children are exposed to from infancy have a positive impact on their cognitive development.

I know what you mean uncleglen and I there is research to suggest you are right. That's a very tough issue to address though. The only thing I can think of is developing mentoring networks targeting the poor but I wonder if people wouldn't find that offensive... Regarding the rich poor gap there is a very controversial book out at the moment in the US that essentially encourages the affluent to reconnect with the less well-off and essentially teach working class people "good values". As you can imagine, suggesting that the poor are poor because they have bad values is really offensive to a lot of people. Still, somehow, setting up an alternative model for young people via a mentoring program should be a good idea based on the research... I am actually looking into that specifically at the moment.

Really, that's interesting given how much it appears teacher's expectations can influence children's achievement. Hopefully, things are somewhat better than when you were in school but there are recent reports that suggest that is not the case.

Thanks! I'll have a look

Apologies for the long posts... HAL9000, I think we are talking at cross purposes. First, I am not an academic researcher so sorry if I gave the impression that I am. I am just interested in the topic and want to learn more about the academic research. Second, I agree that there is strong heritability to IQ and have never said otherwise. There is a lot of academic controversy surrounding the implications of environmental factors (i.e. familiarity with tackling certain types of critical / abstract thinking exercises, like taxonomy, test taking itself etc) on IQ. One of Rushton and Jenson?s most recent arguments (2010) against the mathematical likelihood that the Flynn effect could potentially narrow the race gap was the fact that the achievement gap was stable (actual school achievement implicitly in their view being most correlated with g or pure intelligence) and that secular gains illustrated of the Flynn effect were not heritable or predictive of academic attainment (which was only g). Very recent data in the US has now suggested that the racial achievement gap has narrowed significantly, which to some extent brings into question certain elements of that hypothesis. Recent studies have also suggested that socioeconomic background is the greatest predictor of academic attainment in the US (even more than the quality of schooling). Now another reason socioeconomics has been dismissed as an explanation of the race gap is that even when controlling for socio-economic background the achievement gap still persists in the US. However, the study we discussed earlier that shows that amongst the working class in Britain, white boys are the worst performers again brings this into question outside of the US. The racial achievement gap has shrunk in the US across all socioeconomic backgrounds further complicating the picture. You can find the names of the studies if you wish to read them in the NY Times article link below. Many have argued that IQ is a strong measure for intelligence due to its high correlation with academic attainment. The debate is clearly politically charged regarding what exactly constitutes IQ and more importantly, its implications for the potential academic success of certain groups. Each side of the debate accuses the other of poor methodology. However, recent evidence does seem to suggest that the picture is much more dynamic than some researchers previously contended. If what we are really concerned with is attainment and success, doing analysis adjusting for IQ is complicated. Studies like the Pygmalion in the Classroom cannot be easily dismissed nor can the widening achievement gap between rich and poor (unless we think the intelligence of the poor or that of the rich is experiencing significant shifts as well). http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/10/education/education-gap-grows-between-rich-and-poor-studies-show.html?pagewanted=print Third, my point about criminality was twofold. First, I am not aware of a major school of thought that suggests that certain races have a genetic predisposition to street crime or violence though perhaps I am just not aware of it (I have heard the low IQ argument regarding street crime). It had not occurred to me to find any studies or data to prove or disprove this in anyway. My emphatic statement was to clarify my position as it?s easy for misunderstandings when communicating via a forum. My second point was that I wasn?t sure your suggested methodology of cross country analysis was appropriate anyhow given there would be so many variables to try and control for.

HAL9000-- thanks for the link. I am not really trying to see if increased criminality is inherent in certain races genetically as I don't believe it is (that's my personal conviction). I think cross country analysis when the socio-economic profile and culture of the countries are so different can also lead to false conclusions. For example, Jamaica is crime ridden but there are several other black west-Indian islands that have very little crime. Also, Jamaica wasn't always so violent. Race hardly seems to explain the phenomenal increase in violence and crime in that country over the last 30 years. However, immigration from countries steeped in a culture of violence is an interesting element of the picture we are all trying to put together. The academic response to the Bell Curve (Intelligence: Knowns and Unknowns) seems to suggest additional research is needed. IQ is always a tricky one. For years, average IQ scores were increasing suggesting the average human being was becoming rapidly more intelligent. However, many analysts believe that the test in part measures a specific type of modernity which is as an inherent bias in the test. Now the test has to be reset accordingly ever so often to adjust the mean score as the average person becomes more "modern". The test itself is imperfect and what the race gap might be more broadly indicative of I don't know. It could just be a lag in the Flynn effect between the two groups that will tale off over time. If the gap has been steady over the years (I don't know), as the Flynn effect tales off for one group (as it has done for certain nations after a certain point) and continues for another group, whatever bias there is in what IQ is measuring will taper off. From what I understand, the gap has already started to narrow which to me suggests it can't be measuring any true / permanent genetic differential. In the UK, as another poster pointed out, working class black boys outperform working class white boys which to me suggests that we should not build any kind of policy around some idea of genetic inferiority. Nashoi-- that study is really interesting. There was a study commissioned last year that reported that black middle class parents routinely express concerns that teachers have lower expectations of their children which would tie in quite interestingly to what you are saying. http://www.ioe.ac.uk/Study_Departments/CeCeps_The_Education_Strategies_Summary.pdf The question of immigration is a tough one as well. In the US at least, the children of immigrants from Africa and the West Indies tend to do significantly better in school / life outcomes than their African American counterparts. Patterns of immigration (specific countries, educational background of immigrants prior to moving ect) seems to be relevant. As we all know, certain ethnic minorities more than outperform and how much of this can be explained by patterns of immigration would be interesting to know (the UK specifically recruited Indian professionals after World War II, whereas in the West Indies the recruitment drive was for bus drivers-- no joke-- and blue collar workers). It really raises the question if poverty, institutional expectations, or family expectations is the most significant factor in determining if someone lives up to their potential. There are certainly cases of poor minorities including immigrants being very successful. There are a lot of contributing factors but within the matrix of variables there must be a few that are the most influential. The complexities of the issues involved demand much deeper analysis than the really superficial analysis and programs that are currently being carried out. I believe that as difficult as these issues are to tackle, we can as a society make progress but only if we really understand what is going on. Identifying what backgrounds (socio-economics, immigration pattern, etc) are most at risk and creating targeted programs is key. For instance if family and institutional expectations seem to be the most important, creating strong mentor programs might be much more effective than other approaches. Like you gamerr, I have no idea what the crime statistics mean or any research that has been done to really try to explain / tackle them. The only arguments I hear are that they are indicative of institutional racism from the police and while that might explain some of it, it doesn't feel to me like a full explanation of the over-representation. Unfortunately, I have been looking for detailed data on which regression analysis could theoretically be performed but like one of the reports I posted bemoaned, discrete data in sufficient detail hasn't been collected to really get at root causes. Very interesting comments from everyone.

That's interesting Undisputedtruth. What exactly about his background do you think contributed to him not living up to his potential. I'm just curious what made you feel that way. Gamerr- if you are asking that I acknowledge that there are significant social issues in the US, I readily do so. What exactly though do you think the statistics you quoted me are indicative of? I'm not being snide, I want to understand your point better. The Met's percentage of street crime suspects that are caught shows a similarly skewed patter (12% of London's population is black vs. 54% of the caught suspects). The national UK prison population follows a similar pattern: 14% of the prison population vs. 2.0% of the general UK population.

That is not what I am saying. I don't think researchers are idiots or racists. I think a lot of research assumes that discrimination or ethnic minorities "sub-culture" are potentially more important than non-racial variables in determining life outcomes. This is a big assumption that should be tested so that the best research and public policy can be put in place.

Thank you ????-- I have been trying to find the original study you mentioned but I am struggling. I do know now that the government committed to target working class white boys and give them additional support following the release of the report. Some have also argued that previous targeted support for certain ethnic minorities was successful and is responsible for the relative change in performance within the working class. Government policies like this are what worry me. If anyone has taken the time to study the most important non-racial factors, a better targeted approach could be adopted. For instance, I am sure there is significant heterogeneity even within the working class. For example, if being in care, being a recent immigrant, etc are the most significant factors, the government?s racially targeted programs don?t appear to be the most effective use of tax revenue to improve outcomes. For me this is really a public policy issue and I can?t see that appropriate research adjusted for race has been carried out. If anyone else knows of anything, that would be great. The right research would allow us to properly identify the most important factors and specifically target those most at risk of not achieving their potential. If poverty as many speculate is the most predictive variable, my other concern is why are certain ethnic minorities disproportionately in poverty (it might be historical issues such as a greater portion of low-skilled migrants which has is now entrenched by a lack of social mobility but that is pure speculation). Whatever the underlying reason is, in Britain it appears based on report by the OECD that social mobility is harder achieve for all groups in this country relative to other developed countries. Even education is not enough (http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/2/7/45002641.pdf). Research on the underlying causes of poverty and a lack of social mobility and how/ if they disproportionately impact certain groups in my view would lead to better policies than the existing approaches such as the government policy at the link below http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/aio/10114284 Unfortunately, I am not sure anything like this exists yet but was hoping someone on the forum could point me in the right direction.

Huhuenot, I am certainly not suggesting that aptitude or criminality have anything inherent to do with skin color. I believe the exact opposite of that. There is a lot of monitoring of life outcomes and crime based on race (particularly in the US but also here) to asses and quantify progress in various achievement gaps etc. that have historically existed as well as a host of theories about why such gaps exist. My question is how significant is race when economic factors are controlled for statistically and does anyone know of a study. If the over-representation of certain minorities among the poor completely explains the phenomena then the focus of debate should shift to understanding why certain groups are over-represented amongst the poor and start defining policy strategies to address social mobility rather than focusing on race so much. Often times (including on this forum) "black culture" itself has been blamed which I have always felt instinctively was nonsense. Even if as a group certain ethnic minorities have an achievement gap for instance, if those gaps don't exist at all for the middle class members of that group vis-a-vis the white middle class, then I think it really re-frames the debate... Part of the reason I am asking is because I grew up in America where there is a significant and growing black middle class (despite the country's legacy of racial discrimination etc), and I am really shocked by how small the black middle class is in London, where I was expecting it to be thriving given the generally greater tolerance and openness I believe exist here. I don't want to jump to conclusions about the differences between the two countries or even that the hypothesis above is correct which is why I am hoping to hear other views and if possible be directed to any hard studies on the matter that exist. Thanks!

Sure, here is the link. http://jastoy.plus.com/pdf/minority_ethnic_attainment.pdf

I was reading a study recently from the UK Dept of Education and Skills that asserted that it appears that much of the achievement gap between certain ethnic minorities and the white British population was attributable to socio-economic background. However, due to a lack of discrete data on race, economic background and achievement, it was impossible for the study to verify this statistically. Given the recent data coming out of the US regarding the narrowing of the black-white achievement gap, the simultaneous widening of the income achievement gap, and the growing size of the black middle class (estimated to be circa 50% of the black American population now) made me curious if anyone is aware of any studies that have been carried out that adjust life outcomes for minorities for socioeconomic background either in the US or the UK? I wonder if race would still be statistically significant once socioeconomic background was taken into consideration? So much of the discourse on achievement in school, crime etc. centers on race when it is possible that the most significant determinant might actually be poverty. For me, it then raises the question why certain minorities are over-represented among the poor and what the best strategies are to increase social mobility for all people in the lowest socioeconomic bracket.

I never said East Dulwich is perfect. My husband and I are currently deciding where we want to buy our family home when we sell our flat. We aren't planning to sell for a while but since we've been in ED on for quite some time now, we want to get to know other areas a bit better that offer things that ED doesn't (better transport links to the West End, a bit safer,though I think its pretty safe). However,ED, even taking into consideration what it lacks, still offers good value for money in my view compared to some of the places we are considering where we can only get a 3 bed "cottage" for the same price as a 4 bed house with a big garden here. Loz, I agree with you entirely. If the house is priced in line with market prices for similar properties in the area, the seller isn't greedy. Plus, buyers often have no idea what the current owner has done to improve the property (extension, loft conversion, full refurb etc). Market prices are a function of supply and demand intermediated by interest rates. Demonizing sellers is silly.