118er Getting Roasted on Mumsnet...

[Riedquat]

2 hours ago, PropertyMania said:

Fly in the daytime and you'll see it's 90% fields and forests

Only 90%?. That's a a depressingly low number. Fields and forests that are very infrequently that far from quite a few large developments. The view at night makes that clear. I've lived in rural Cumbria and in rural Befordshire. Both of those are largely fields and forests but the latter is certainly a hell of a lot more crowded (unless the bit of Cumbria is the Lakes in high tourist season).

[Ah-so]

4 hours ago, PropertyMania said:

In absolute terms, yes, probably is uniquely high. But as a % increase definitely not. Yes, we have the same amount of land as in the past, but far more of the population is concentrated in cities and highrise apartments now, ie smaller impact on actual space needed 

As noted above, looking at the percentage increase is spurious and misleading. Even though the population becomes more concentrated in urban areas, resources come under more pressure. Not just schools and hospitals, but also roads and other transport means.

An increased population also needs feeding that requires greater food imports, which again puts increased pressure on transport etc so the impact of an increased population is not just felt in urban areas. 

[Ah-so]

3 hours ago, spyguy said:

Tesco an the water companies are pretty on the ball in terms of adapting and checking population.

The UKGOV figures are based o nthe a guesstimate pre 2005 and tax credits.

 

Can you provide a link to the Tesco and water companies' estimates? As far as I can see there is no real evidence for it:

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jamieross/how-one-old-news-story-convinced-conspiracy-theorists-tesco?utm_term=.qgrZ7amlV#.wrxbXkWYa

 

[Funn3r]

3 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

a) we had to invest extra money that was not needed

b) the platforms took years to be built - and for those who traveled during that time it was really horrible.

I can see b) but not a)

Why was the extra investment for longer platforms not needed? If the number of customers goes up then a business usually does have to invest in the infrastructure to support those customers. If more people buy Vodafone mobile phones then Vodafone has to build more transmitters, etc. etc.

Obviously such investment has a cost to the business, but in return they can service more paying customers. This is surely what business  is about.  In your example surely longer platforms mean more passengers buying more tickets?

[iamnumerate]

17 minutes ago, Funn3r said:

I can see b) but not a)

Why was the extra investment for longer platforms not needed? If the number of customers goes up then a business usually does have to invest in the infrastructure to support those customers. If more people buy Vodafone mobile phones then Vodafone has to build more transmitters, etc. etc.

Obviously such investment has a cost to the business, but in return they can service more paying customers. This is surely what business  is about.  In your example surely longer platforms mean more passengers buying more tickets?

Sorry I meant the longer platforms were not needed before. 

Of course some places in London (Victoria station) it seems very hard to increase the capacity and overcrowding has resulted so people have to travel earlier or later.

Edited May 10, 2018 by iamnumerate

[PropertyMania]

3 hours ago, iamnumerate said:

Sorry I meant the longer platforms were not needed before. 

Of course some places in London (Victoria station) it seems very hard to increase the capacity and overcrowding has resulted so people have to travel earlier or later.

I suggest you move to Norfolk - the platforms are really short there

[bear.getting.old]

Somebody posted there , " This tax change was tried in Ireland and rents went up 50 per cent. "

Rents have gone up in Ireland but in cities there are rent controls

Edited May 12, 2018 by bear.getting.old

[Houdini]

It didn't go up in Ireland - like everything else that statement is based on dodgy statistics.

[Ah-so]

23 minutes ago, bear.getting.old said:

Somebody posted there , " This tax change was tried in Ireland and rents went up 50 per cent. "

Rents have gone up in Ireland but in cities there are rent controls

The 118ers keep flogging the Ireland rent story but it is untrue.

[bear.getting.old]

9 minutes ago, Houdini said:

It didn't go up in Ireland - like everything else that statement is based on dodgy statistics.

Rents are up in Ireland that is a fact. But they were so low for so long after the property crash and downturn.

[Houdini]

5 minutes ago, bear.getting.old said:

Rents are up in Ireland that is a fact. But they were so low for so long after the property crash and downturn.

But Rents didn't increase at the time the tax change was implemented - which is the important bit.

And you can see the same thing in London, rents haven't exactly increased in the last year.

[Neverwhere]

Rents continued to go down in Ireland after their tax changes were brought in in April 2009, and only got back to where they had been previously after their tax changes started to be phased out in January 2017:

The RTB Rent Index Quarter 3 2017

Quote

Section 97(2) Taxes Consolidation Act 1997 Deductibility of loan interest in computing rental income Part 4, Chapter 8, Tax and Duty Manual

2. Restriction of interest relief for rented residential premises

Where a loan has been used to purchase, improve or repair a rented residential premises and interest on the loan accrues on or after 7 April 2009 and up to 31 December 2020, the interest on the loan is restricted as a rental expense deduction. For the purposes of the percentage restriction, the interest is treated as accruing on a daily basis. The date the loan is taken out is not relevant.

Section 97(2J) (inserted by section 5 Finance Act 2009) imposes a cap of 75% on the amount of interest that can be deducted where the interest accrues on or after 7 April 2009 and up to and including 31 December 2016. In respect of interest accrued on or after 1 January 2017 and up to and including 31 December 2017 the interest deduction is capped at 80% of the interest amount otherwise deductible. The interest cap for subsequent years is as follows:

•  -interest accrued between 1 January 2018 and 31 January 2018: 85%;
•  -interest accrued between 1 January 2019 and 31 December 2019: 90%;
•  -interest accrued between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020: 95%.

The interest restriction does not apply to loans taken out in respect of nonresidential property, where the full amount of interest continues to be deductible. In the case of mixed residential and non-residential premises interest should be apportioned on a just and reasonable basis before the restriction, where appropriate, is applied to the residential part of the interest.

See paragraph 8 below for the effect of the percentage interest restriction on fees for interest rate caps and cancellation fines.

However, section 97(2K) (inserted by section 15 Finance Act 2015) provides for the reinstatement of the 100% deduction where residential premises is let to tenants in receipt of certain social housing supports – see paragraph 11 below for details.

Desperate BTL landlords talk a lot of desperate self-serving nonsense, basically.

[PopGun]

15 hours ago, Neverwhere said:

Rents continued to go down in Ireland after their tax changes were brought in in April 2009, and only got back to where they had been previously after their tax changes started to be phased out in January 2017:

The RTB Rent Index Quarter 3 2017

Desperate BTL landlords talk a lot of desperate self-serving nonsense, basically.

Brilliant 

[bear.getting.old]

20 hours ago, Houdini said:

But Rents didn't increase at the time the tax change was implemented - which is the important bit.

And you can see the same thing in London, rents haven't exactly increased in the last year.

Re. the relationship to the tax change, yes fair enough.