London = Awesome / Rest of UK = Rubbish... Discuss...

[Some Gump]

Ali,

There was indeed significant lefty bias. The presenter couodn't get interviews with estate agents. He called them and pretty much accused them of stting on families syetematically. It was almost like watching a court film, the way his questions pre assumed the answer in a negative way. No wonder noone wanted an interview.

Don't get me wrong, i hate dislike agents at least as much as the next man. However, it's not estate agents that are the problem (they're just doing their job). If anyone is to blame, it's the govermnent / council tax schemes. If buying property to leave empty as an investment was properly taxed, it wouodn't be attractive and wouldn't happen.

[Ali G]

I'd like to see someone drafing tax legislation which would render 'second houses' being a prohibitive tax burden!

For those that have the money already...



However, I'm not unconvinced that with significant monies from rich/very rich overseas investors/campers being pumped into London property (which is an assumption) property values will increase beyond that which those on mediocre London wages can hope to afford.

Which may not be a problem, since from a certain perspective, all those roles on mediocre London wages have been already outsourced to Mumbabwe, so no longer exist - and it's a mystery why the people originally filling those roles are still here!

Although scorn may be poured upon estate agents who maybe earning a buck or million out of this trade, I'll generally hold my powder dry for the politicians, the solicitors and the accountants of this world.

Oops - I forgot the fund managers and city traders!

(Think I got 'em all...)

[Moonhawk]

Ali G said:

I'd like to see someone drafing tax legislation which would render 'second houses' being a prohibitive tax burden!

I'd like to see tax legislation that makes moving house as a consequence of your job relocating - much cheaper. The abolition of stamp duty would be a big help. Some people can't afford to up sticks and move every time their job changes - and in many cases - buying a second property to use as a base for your job is comparable to or even cheaper than renting.

Personally I believe first homes should not be exempt from capital gains. How can it be right that you can buy a house at the bottom of the market - sit on it for 30 years - then cash in at the top of a property boom and take the profit completely tax free and downsize to a property that is below the stamp duty threshold. Yet the people buying the house at a hugely inflated price have to pay a whack of tax on top of their mortgage, solicitor fees etc. It seems backwards to me.

[kingston12]

XJ Flyer said:

Which is nothing new.During my first 7 years during the late 1950's/early 60's I lived in what is now the Cambridge high rise estate before it was on the drawing board.My parents were compulsory purchased out and offered a ( very ) reasonable settlement with which they then used to move to Chessington.Big mistake.Being that it had already been turned into a low rise version of yet more housing for Londoners some years previously.Ironically they finally,but much too late in the day,decided to sell up and move further out into the county where we belong.

Where we now find that nothing has really changed in Surrey's development policies in still seeing the green belt as a potential future development resource and garden grabbing and general further urbanisation continuing at outrageous levels.The obvious inference being that Surrey faces the fate of Middlesex in the long term unless our local authorities finally wake up and tell London that the border means what it says on the tin and we're tearing up all existing and future government inspired development quotas for the county.IE enough is enough no more and no further.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 11th July 20:48

That is interesting. The Cambridge Estate was a disaster from start to finish (like most planning around here), but the ironic thing about it is that the houses ripped down are the type that are now selling for silly money elsewhere in the borough. If they has stayed in place, that would have become one of the better areas of the borough rather than the worst. I am sure someone would have popped up to call it a 'village'.

I do think that today's developments are much more disingenuous, though. The Cambridge Estate was a mistake, but at least it was done with the expressed intention of housing social tenants. These new ones are built as something else altogether and then change very quickly.

[XJ Flyer]

kingston12 said:

XJ Flyer said:

Which is nothing new.During my first 7 years during the late 1950's/early 60's I lived in what is now the Cambridge high rise estate before it was on the drawing board.My parents were compulsory purchased out and offered a ( very ) reasonable settlement with which they then used to move to Chessington.Big mistake.Being that it had already been turned into a low rise version of yet more housing for Londoners some years previously.Ironically they finally,but much too late in the day,decided to sell up and move further out into the county where we belong.

Where we now find that nothing has really changed in Surrey's development policies in still seeing the green belt as a potential future development resource and garden grabbing and general further urbanisation continuing at outrageous levels.The obvious inference being that Surrey faces the fate of Middlesex in the long term unless our local authorities finally wake up and tell London that the border means what it says on the tin and we're tearing up all existing and future government inspired development quotas for the county.IE enough is enough no more and no further.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Friday 11th July 20:48

That is interesting. The Cambridge Estate was a disaster from start to finish (like most planning around here), but the ironic thing about it is that the houses ripped down are the type that are now selling for silly money elsewhere in the borough. If they has stayed in place, that would have become one of the better areas of the borough rather than the worst. I am sure someone would have popped up to call it a 'village'.

I do think that today's developments are much more disingenuous, though. The Cambridge Estate was a mistake, but at least it was done with the expressed intention of housing social tenants. These new ones are built as something else altogether and then change very quickly.

The real point being that it was an obvious piece of inner city design and development imposed on what was still at the time Surrey as part of an agenda to expand the City outward.

To be fair the suburban type development of Chessington was ( slightly ) better than most of Kingston even before such monstrosities as the Cambridge estate were imposed on it.However the fact is in all cases,like the Cambridge Estate in Kingston,Chessington,Hook and Tolworth amongst others,were a case of wiping out huge swathes of Surrey's character and countryside with over development and sledgehammer type urbanisation to meet the demands of Londoners.With the borders of the two then re drawn to prove it.The frightening and sad thing being that SCC and it's remaining boroughs seem to have learn't nothing by it in terms of ongoing and/or it's future development policy.

[gibbon]

Moonhawk said:

Personally I believe first homes should not be exempt from capital gains. How can it be right that you can buy a house at the bottom of the market - sit on it for 30 years - then cash in at the top of a property boom and take the profit completely tax free and downsize to a property that is below the stamp duty threshold. Yet the people buying the house at a hugely inflated price have to pay a whack of tax on top of their mortgage, solicitor fees etc. It seems backwards to me.

What an utterly ridiculous proposal. It would mean people are stuck in their property or never sell it and rent it out and buy elsewhere if they wish to move.

Think about it, you buy a house for 200k, ten years later you want to sell it and move to a similar sized house, your house and similar are now 400k. So you have to pay 40% or whatever your rate is on 200k. You have to move for whatever reason so you sell and can now only afford to buy a house for 320k. Anyone sane would not do that, you would end up remortgaging property one, renting it out and taking the untaxed capital out to buy property two. Or if you were not solvent enough to do this, you would simply but trapped in home one.

Great idea.

[Bill]

Yep. It'd cause the collapse of the housing market, and therefore the economy.

[sugerbear]

gibbon said:

Moonhawk said:

Personally I believe first homes should not be exempt from capital gains. How can it be right that you can buy a house at the bottom of the market - sit on it for 30 years - then cash in at the top of a property boom and take the profit completely tax free and downsize to a property that is below the stamp duty threshold. Yet the people buying the house at a hugely inflated price have to pay a whack of tax on top of their mortgage, solicitor fees etc. It seems backwards to me.

What an utterly ridiculous proposal. It would mean people are stuck in their property or never sell it and rent it out and buy elsewhere if they wish to move.

Think about it, you buy a house for 200k, ten years later you want to sell it and move to a similar sized house, your house and similar are now 400k. So you have to pay 40% or whatever your rate is on 200k. You have to move for whatever reason so you sell and can now only afford to buy a house for 320k. Anyone sane would not do that, you would end up remortgaging property one, renting it out and taking the untaxed capital out to buy property two. Or if you were not solvent enough to do this, you would simply but trapped in home one.

Great idea.

I think anything that takes the investment potential out of residential property is a good thing. Prices can't keep rising without them eventually destroying the very economy they are intended to support.

[XJ Flyer]

sugerbear said:

gibbon said:

Moonhawk said:

Personally I believe first homes should not be exempt from capital gains. How can it be right that you can buy a house at the bottom of the market - sit on it for 30 years - then cash in at the top of a property boom and take the profit completely tax free and downsize to a property that is below the stamp duty threshold. Yet the people buying the house at a hugely inflated price have to pay a whack of tax on top of their mortgage, solicitor fees etc. It seems backwards to me.

What an utterly ridiculous proposal. It would mean people are stuck in their property or never sell it and rent it out and buy elsewhere if they wish to move.

Think about it, you buy a house for 200k, ten years later you want to sell it and move to a similar sized house, your house and similar are now 400k. So you have to pay 40% or whatever your rate is on 200k. You have to move for whatever reason so you sell and can now only afford to buy a house for 320k. Anyone sane would not do that, you would end up remortgaging property one, renting it out and taking the untaxed capital out to buy property two. Or if you were not solvent enough to do this, you would simply but trapped in home one.

Great idea.

I think anything that takes the investment potential out of residential property is a good thing. Prices can't keep rising without them eventually destroying the very economy they are intended to support.

It's manufacturing industry and employment run on Fordist principles that makes a modern developed economy.The idea of trying to base an economy on service industries,retail and ever increasing house price inflation,paid for with borrowed and printed money,won't work.

[Sump]

London = Cesspit with weirdos who can't drive

[Moonhawk]

gibbon said:

What an utterly ridiculous proposal. It would mean people are stuck in their property or never sell it and rent it out and buy elsewhere if they wish to move.

Think about it, you buy a house for 200k, ten years later you want to sell it and move to a similar sized house, your house and similar are now 400k. So you have to pay 40% or whatever your rate is on 200k. You have to move for whatever reason so you sell and can now only afford to buy a house for 320k. Anyone sane would not do that, you would end up remortgaging property one, renting it out and taking the untaxed capital out to buy property two. Or if you were not solvent enough to do this, you would simply but trapped in home one.

Great idea.

You would of course get a "first home discount" - it wouldn't be at the full rate of capital gains like a second property is.

I just don't see the logic in a tax on the purchase price of a house whilst the profit on the house being sold attracts zero tax. Even in your example - moving house and buying a 400K home would attract £12,000 of stamp duty.

Basing tax on profit rather than purchase price would make moving home frequently much easier. If you move house every few years with your job - the chances are you will have made relatively little profit - and so would pay very little tax. It would also close a loophole whereby developers buy a plot of land - build a house - live in it for a few years as their "primary residence" then sell at a profit paying no tax - only to move onto the next development.

The current model means that even if you made no profit on your previous home (or have even made a loss) - you still have to pay a potentially huge sum of money just to move to a different house. This can make relocating with a job prohibitive.

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 12th July 19:53

Edited by Moonhawk on Saturday 12th July 19:55

[nogginthenog]

WreckedGecko said:

Well exactly.

I may be in the minority here but I love London. I live just outside Richmond and work in Putney. It's great.

I have the home counties an hour away and the west end about 20 minutes away. Whats wrong with that?

Sure if you hang around in a ste area it will be ste and yes the beers / houses are not cheap. But you also have acess to the entire world's cuisine and some of the best bars, clubs, art & culture and shopping globally.

If,should you so wish, on a tuesday night to dress up as a superhero and go drink in a leather clad replica of a cows' udder, I am sure somebody somewhere will be hosting a superheroes and udders night at a club.

If art galleries and opera are more your thing, then we have you covered there too.

If you want open space, try hampstead heath, richmond park or even hyde park! Its not the north york moors, but they are plenty big enough.

I spend far too much of my time in Paris. If you want to see how dirty and ste a european capital can be, try working there.

To sumise, if you want to do almost anything you can imagine, chances are you can do it in London. You probably won't even get stabbed.

I would like to add to this - I live in Tooting. Not exactly a 'posh' area ( but getting there ) and can cycle to Wimbledon and around Richmond Park for some lovely countryside, or occasionally take a quick train journey down to Dorking for some really lovely countryside ( I often do a 5 hour walk, and rarely see more than a dozen other people ) . But equally, I can take the tube or cycle into 'central' London in less than 1/2 hour. The schools here are very good. My neighbours come from every corner of the globe ( though some may not see this as a plus-point, I do ) . Though I love many other parts of the UK, I sometimes think that London haters have only ever been to the really terrible bits of the city - Madame Tussauds, Buck Palace, Oxford Street etc. The reality of living here in an average not-quite-suberb ( depending on your definition of urb V's suberb ) is vastly different from this. This is not meant in anyway as an attack on areas outside of London ( I grew-up in the North West myself, and can see the validity of small town England ) but merely a way of hopefully convincing the unconvinced that there is life in London beyond Trafalgar Sq. On the downside - it is stupidly expensive to buy a property here - though if you do somehow manage to get on the ladder here, you will probably find yourself with bags of positive equity in a few years. And driving is a total PITA.

[XJ Flyer]

nogginthenog said:

WreckedGecko said:

Well exactly.

I may be in the minority here but I love London. I live just outside Richmond and work in Putney. It's great.

I have the home counties an hour away and the west end about 20 minutes away. Whats wrong with that?

Sure if you hang around in a ste area it will be ste and yes the beers / houses are not cheap. But you also have acess to the entire world's cuisine and some of the best bars, clubs, art & culture and shopping globally.

If,should you so wish, on a tuesday night to dress up as a superhero and go drink in a leather clad replica of a cows' udder, I am sure somebody somewhere will be hosting a superheroes and udders night at a club.

If art galleries and opera are more your thing, then we have you covered there too.

If you want open space, try hampstead heath, richmond park or even hyde park! Its not the north york moors, but they are plenty big enough.

I spend far too much of my time in Paris. If you want to see how dirty and ste a european capital can be, try working there.

To sumise, if you want to do almost anything you can imagine, chances are you can do it in London. You probably won't even get stabbed.

I would like to add to this - I live in Tooting. Not exactly a 'posh' area ( but getting there ) and can cycle to Wimbledon and around Richmond Park for some lovely countryside, or occasionally take a quick train journey down to Dorking for some really lovely countryside ( I often do a 5 hour walk, and rarely see more than a dozen other people ) . But equally, I can take the tube or cycle into 'central' London in less than 1/2 hour. The schools here are very good. My neighbours come from every corner of the globe ( though some may not see this as a plus-point, I do ) . Though I love many other parts of the UK, I sometimes think that London haters have only ever been to the really terrible bits of the city - Madame Tussauds, Buck Palace, Oxford Street etc. The reality of living here in an average not-quite-suberb ( depending on your definition of urb V's suberb ) is vastly different from this. This is not meant in anyway as an attack on areas outside of London ( I grew-up in the North West myself, and can see the validity of small town England ) but merely a way of hopefully convincing the unconvinced that there is life in London beyond Trafalgar Sq. On the downside - it is stupidly expensive to buy a property here - though if you do somehow manage to get on the ladder here, you will probably find yourself with bags of positive equity in a few years. And driving is a total PITA.

Or yet more confirmation of the ideas of wannabee Londoners.In that the only way they can justify living in the urban dump,is by taking in and/or referring to the remaining non urban inner city aspects of what was and/or still is actually Surrey not London.

The fact is 'London' proper is and always was nothing but an over developed urban hell in which reference to the 'beyond' is actually all about taking in it's surrounding counties.IE you either like the reality of London being nothing but an urban sprawl or you don't.The idea of trying to justify the reality,of what is by definition,nothing more than an over developed urban sprawl,with a quality of life to match,by 'also' including what remains of the rural character of what was/is the surrounding counties like Surrey,such as Richmond Park,Bushey Park or the remaining Green Belt and AONB areas etc etc,is a contradiction.

IE a liking for big City life in a place like 'London' is mutually exclusive to a liking for the rural/semi rural aspects,of what remains of,the character of the surrounding counties like Surrey etc.In which case your comparison won't look so good 'if' that erroneous inclusion is removed from the equation.Being that such areas,being seen as a convenient get out clause,for those 'claiming' to like City life,is as bad as them also being seen as a land resource for London's further expansion.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 12th July 21:01

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 12th July 21:08

[Justayellowbadge]

XJ Flyer said:

Or yet more confirmation of the ideas of wannabee Londoners.In that the only way they can justify living in the urban dump,is by taking in and/or referring to the remaining non urban inner city aspects of what was and/or still is actually Surrey not London.

The fact is 'London' proper is and always was nothing but an over developed urban hell in which reference to the 'beyond' is actually all about taking in it's surrounding counties.IE you either like the reality of London being nothing but an urban sprawl or you don't.The idea of trying to justify the reality,of what is by definition,nothing more than an over developed urban sprawl,with a quality of life to match,by 'also' including what remains of the rural character of the surrounding counties like Surrey,such as Richmond Park,Bushey Park or the remaining Green Belt and AONB areas etc etc,is a contradiction.

IE a liking for big City life in a place like 'London' is mutually exclusive to a liking for the rural/semi rural aspects,of what remains of,the character of the surrounding counties like Surrey etc.In which case your comparison won't look so good 'if' that erroneous inclusion is removed from the equation.Being that such areas,being seen as a convenient get out clause,for those 'claiming' to like City life,is as bad as them also being seen as a land resource for London's further expansion.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 12th July 21:01

My god, I had thought you a little strange, but you're quite, quite, mental.

[XJ Flyer]

Justayellowbadge said:

XJ Flyer said:

Or yet more confirmation of the ideas of wannabee Londoners.In that the only way they can justify living in the urban dump,is by taking in and/or referring to the remaining non urban inner city aspects of what was and/or still is actually Surrey not London.

The fact is 'London' proper is and always was nothing but an over developed urban hell in which reference to the 'beyond' is actually all about taking in it's surrounding counties.IE you either like the reality of London being nothing but an urban sprawl or you don't.The idea of trying to justify the reality,of what is by definition,nothing more than an over developed urban sprawl,with a quality of life to match,by 'also' including what remains of the rural character of the surrounding counties like Surrey,such as Richmond Park,Bushey Park or the remaining Green Belt and AONB areas etc etc,is a contradiction.

IE a liking for big City life in a place like 'London' is mutually exclusive to a liking for the rural/semi rural aspects,of what remains of,the character of the surrounding counties like Surrey etc.In which case your comparison won't look so good 'if' that erroneous inclusion is removed from the equation.Being that such areas,being seen as a convenient get out clause,for those 'claiming' to like City life,is as bad as them also being seen as a land resource for London's further expansion.

Edited by XJ Flyer on Saturday 12th July 21:01

My god, I had thought you a little strange, but you're quite, quite, mental.

Or just stating facts from experience depending on point of view.

If it wasn't for the very high probability of getting banned for daring to disagree with you I'd argue the point further.

[Bill]

If it helps, I think you're mental too.

[anonymous-user]

XJ Flyer said:

Or yet more confirmation of the...

That makes sense, it's because the London transport infrastructure is so heavily subsidised that enables the outer fringes of the capital to be tethered to what is known as London, if it wasn't so they'd not have become amalgamated and the impetus wouldn't have been there to develop every bit of land between that further assimilated them.

[gpo746]

The original question is flawed
That's it discussed

[anonymous-user]

gpo746 said:

The original question is flawed
That's it discussed

Premise is wrong!

Yeah because London does well in some poll or whatever that means everywhere else in the UK is rubbish? Come on OP what about the polls that suggest the happiest places in the UK are outside London (top place somewhere.in North Yorks I think) or the travel organisation's poll that placed Yorkshire highly amongst international deatinations or the most positive reaction to the TDF opening stages in Yorkshire?

Edited by anonymous-user on Saturday 12th July 22:14

[XJ Flyer]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

In general the 'assimilation' in question has historically gone along the lines of London looking outside it's borders for more development space to satisfy it's unsustainable demands for population growth .The government then imposes 'quotas' on the local authorities of the surrounding counties to 'approve' the levels/type of development in question.Then when it's all been carried out the areas in question get 'transferred' into being yet more London boroughs.

The only way to break that continuing cycle is firstly to stop regarding areas outside of London's existing administrative borders as being the 'outer fringes of London',as opposed to being just another part of the counties surrounding the place.That process at present having now starting all over again since firstly the old LCC borders,to the existing Greater London boroughs borders,to now with references to the M25 often being ( erroneously ) used to define London's borders.In which case the whole process starts again from that next point.Assuming that self fulfilling prophecy,of yet more expansion of the place,into the surrounding counties,is allowed to take place yet again by our local authorities.Judging by the seeming total lack of resistance to the ongoing issues of garden grabbing,out of character high density development and possible acceptance of potential future erosion of the green belt within those counties,the signs don't look good in that regard.