Puffer

There is clearly scope to make a tidy profit (potentially tax-free) by 'flipping' houses bought, lived in and refurbished, before selling and repeating the exercise. A person with sufficient skill (or good contacts) can do or manage the refurb himself, possibly full-time, and thus derive a fair income whilst having a place to live in rent-free - but not free of other outgoings. And the cost and disruption of buying/selling/moving every year or so is quite daunting and not to be undertaken lightly. It is certainly not something I would wish to do - and I've lived in my current house for 26 years, steadily improving it where necessary. In theory, it is my 'forever' home, but my wife and I will probably have to downsize at some point - something I dread. As to never realising the enhanced value of both impovements and inflation - in my case around 400% in all - that is academic whilst we still have the security of a comfortable home. When the second of us dies, our five sons will inherit a tidy windfall - assuming that the government has not taxed it out of existence. As to the ongoing cost of a second home, such as that I bought in 2011 and refurbed steadily over the next four years, the outgoings (council tax, insurance, utlities, minor repairs and (not to be overlooked), interest on capital), the total represents the 'rent' for the use and enjoyment of that second home - around £8,500 ($11,300) p.a. Not a small sum and one which some would not consider worthwhile, even if the property was used regularly. As we have made less use of ours in the last few years - particularly as our sons and their families are now living further away - and maintenance has become more of a chore, we decided to sell, although are currently letting it. We don't need the capital that would arise on sale, but our sons will benefit at a time when they have a need to move to larger homes with their growing families.

From what you now say, the US tax position is very similar to that of the UK: (i) no tax on any profit on the sale of a primary residence; (ii) capital gains tax on any profit on the sale of any other property, after deducting all acquisition, improvement and sale expenses. You are, with respect, deluding yourself if you ignore the cost of the capital invested in a property bought for refurbishment and resale, whether you borrow the money or use your own accumulated funds. To take a simple example: you buy a 'doer-upper' for $100,000, spend $36,000 more evenly over the next year ($3,000 at the start of each month) in refurbishment and sell it at the end of the year for $200,000. Your apparent profit is $200,000 - $100,000 - $36,000 = $64,000. But, if you borrowed the money at (say) 6% interest, you would have had to pay out a further $7,170 to cover the borrowing: $6000 on the initial $100,000 and $1,170 on the progressive refurb costs. So, your true profit is really $64,000 - $7,170 = $62,830. Alternatively, if you funded everything from your savings (as indeed you prefer), which would have earned you 5% per annum if left invested, you are worse off as you have 'lost' interest income of some $5,975, so your true profit would then be $64,000 - $5,975 = $58,025. There could well be a situation where a longer than expected period of ownership arose (because the refurb took much longer or the property would not sell quickly) and the extra interest cost (notional or actual) took a big chunk out of the profit or even eliminated it.

I'm not sure I understand any of that, given that the US tax system is very different in some respects to that of the UK. We cannot deduct the repair/improvement costs relating to our own (principal) residence from our taxable income, but we are not (yet!) taxed on any profit made when that residence is sold. Any other property we own is subject to tax on any resultant capital gain when disposed of - the gain being (broadly) the difference between selling price (less sale expenses) and total purchase price, i.e. original cost of land/buildings plus acquisition costs plus all improvement costs (but not simple repair/maintenance costs as arising). And of course any income from letting is taxable, after deducting most outgoings, including periodic repairs. One should be mindful too of the effective cost of the capital invested in a property, i.e. the interest paid on any mortgage loan or that which would have been earned otherwise if the property was bought for cash. In my own example I quoted earlier, I did not allow for 'lost interest' on the capital I invested, which would have been in the region of £20,000 during the period of reconstruction, so does make a fair dent in the notional profit if the property is sold. I agree that the cost of some almost invisible, but usually essential, work (such as electrics and plumbing) may not be apparent in the finished property. And the same applies to other remedial work relating to the fabric, such as wood/damp treatment. I question however how one could spend as much as $50,000 (£38,000) on even a full re-wire of a large house - four or five times what I would expect. But maybe CrushedVamp was including appliances and lighting etc, although those would scarcely be unnoticed.

I agree - although we call it 'maths'! I spent almost 600 days over 4.5 years, with very little outside help, rebuilding a derelict flat (above a shop) to use as a holiday home for family and a few friends. The property has been for sale (although is currently let) and, if sold, I would expect the 'profit' to be in the region of £120,000 (before tax), which gives me a 'wage' of around £200 per day, which is roughly in line with what most tradesmen have been charging. The work itself, involving almost all trades - carpentry, plastering, electrics, plumbing, gas heating, decorating, etc - was enjoyable enough and ultimately fulfilling, but I'm not sure that (my increasing age and declining fitness aside!) I would want to do it again.

I was out and about in the London area on Wednesday, with much travelling by train and underground. Although the predominant footwear for both sexes seemed to be the usual trainers/sneakers/plimsolls, there were a fair mumber of women in high-heeled boots of various styles - most often with a cuban or block heel of around 3" height, but higher and slimmer heels were also in evidence, including a few 4" stiletto boots. I was briefly in a large shopping mall in West London at lunchtime and the mix among the shoppers was much the same. Alas, there was little of real interest to see in the shoe shop windows, although dressy shoes and sandals with 4" stilettos were still in evidence. I ended up at 5.30pm in the City of London (the principal finance/insurance business area for those unaquainted) for an Institute carol service at one of the very old City churches. Women working in the City have traditionally been more smartly (if usually conservatively) dressed and it was refreshing to note that a fair number of those enjoying an after-work drink outside the busy open bars around Leadenhall Market, or simply making their way homewards, were in high heels - typically courts or boots with a 3 - 4" slimmish or sometimes stiletto heel. And several attending the carol service were similarly shod, with one woman in her 30s completely at ease in patent courts with a near-stiletto 4" heel and another in suede knee-boots with a true 4" stiletto.

Shyheels is right. Very many men, of all ages, wear shorts in England (and the rest of the UK) for much or all of the May - September period whenever the weather allows - and often when it doesn't! I am in shorts and sandals as a matter of course during that period unless my activity requires otherwise. Twenty or thirty years ago, few men above school age would be seen in shorts unless for a sporting/recreational activity, and open sandals, especially if worn barefoot, were rarely seen except at the pool or beach - being considered too girly by many. What does surprise me is the huge popularity among men of trainers/sneakers/plimsolls in almost all modes of actvity, including with a suit or jacket/trousers in otherwise formal or semi-formal settings. Comfortable they may be - although in my view far from ideal when the weather is hot or very cold - but smart they are not. Here is Tim Davie, the recently-resigned Director-General of the BBC, in what appears to be his usual 'business' outfit of suit plus plimsolls. Hardly impressive.

I hope that all was rectified without further cost or inconvenience to you. It's hard to imagine that much would go wrong in a normal boat electrical installation. Are you using an inverter to provide 230v AC from 12v batteries, or solar power, or both? And do you have a facility to connect to the AC mains when moored in a suitable place?

There are no Deichmann branches near me and I rarely visit, but my impression is that it does (or did) have a limited range of women's footwear up to UK10. Maybe no longer. That said, most of the styles on offer (regardless of size) have always seemed to be pretty uninspiring, with few heels of any significance.

Perhaps so, but one still hears accounts of petty job demarcation and restrictive practices that interrupt progress, or worse. I should have added to my last note that, although the tradesmen working at my stepson's house seem competent and generally efficient, there are many such people offering their services who carry out shoddy, over-priced and sometimes dangerous work, especially for naiive householders. My wife may complain about me being a slow and maybe fussy worker, but at least I get a decent job done at minimal cost.

I have no real idea of the corresponding 'union' position in the UK, but doubtless it will impede work and increase costs and time on a major construction project. Fortunately, a great deal of new-build and renovation work is done by non-union businesses and individual tradesmen, who are usually fairly adaptable and often multi-skilled. I can fairly claim to be too, in my 'amateur' way - and am currently doing some work (alas, unpaid!) on my middle stepson's rebuilt and extended house, alongside 'professional' builders, plasterers, plumbers and sparkies - none of whom seem to upset the others or object to my input - which has necessarily included some reworking of what they have done, e.g. moving a wrongly-placed socket outlet and altering skirting boards to accommodate fitted wardrobes. So much for my retirement ...!

In the UK, the size increment is supposedly a 'barleycorn' (= 1/3") but it is the last rather than the shoe that is designated, with men's and women's sizes being theoretically the same. The last is intended to be longer than the foot by 'around' 1/2", but there is no clear agreement as to foot length; a UK11 shoe being variously said to fit a foot almost anywhere between 11" and 12" long! It is my understanding that US sizes also have 'barleycorn' increments; the sizing formula being quoted thus: 'Today in America, the sizing generally adheres relatively closely to a formula of 3 times the length of the foot in inches (the barleycorn length), less a constant (22 for men and 21 for women)'. So, a foot measuring 11" would equate to a size of USM11 or USW12, which I find odd as perceived wisdom suggests that a number difference of two (not one) between male and female sizes is generally the case. Or is that 'plus one' a purely theoretical difference, as in most cases the shape and fit of the female shoe requires 'plus two' in sizing? (I know that my feet - equivalent to USM12 or 12.5 - require a full USW14 if to fit properly. You quote USW9 as being 9 7/8" (although 1/3" increments would suggest 9 2/3" or 10"). And the 'formula' would suggest USW9 = 10". I'm sure that neither of us would quibble over these tiny theoretical differences, but taking actual measurements in millimetres to identify sizes (as the Eu system does) is less controversial. That is how I got the Eu38:40 ratio of 95%. I may have misunderstood your application of the percentage, in that I was suggesting that the steepness of an Eu38 4" heel is the same as that of an Eu40 4.25", obtained by dividing 4 by 0.94. But we are both agreed that (obviously) the apparent steepness of a given heel height decreases with increasing foot length and in the same proportions.

Interesting, and forgive me if I rework your calculations (with no criticism intended). I'm assuming that you are taking Eu38 as the benchmark for heel measuring? I think you meant 'divide by 94%' to convert a size Eu40 heel into its Eu38 equivalent, i.e. 100/0.94 = 10.64 or 4.2" (10.7?). I have a table quoting the length of Eu38 as 237mm and Eu40 as 250mm, so the ratio 237/240 is 0.948 - in round fgures 95% (rather than your 94%). On that basis, a 100mm heel in 40 would be 105mm in 38 to be in proportion. I accept of course that tables do vary and so do manufacturing tolerances, so differences of two or three millimetres is of no real consequence (except to a statistician - and we all know that there are 'lies, damn lies, and statistics'!). I can certainly agree that a 'high' heel is 4" or more, so the difference between that and its metric equivalent (102mm), or when considering the proportions on either side of a 'standard Eu38', is pretty trivial. For the record, I would consider a true 5" (127mm) heel as being the start of the 'very high' range - or 'stripper territory' when combined with a big platform as Shyheels opines - so 120mm is a tad on the low side. As higherheels says, a 130 or 140mm stiletto (with little or no plarform) can look very elegant and remain wearable, albeit not by everyone. And a 120mm heel with, say, a 30mm platform can look both ungainly and ugly.

Exactly (as I stated in the 'other' thread). UK timber is invariably sold in length increments of 300mm, which is close to the imperial foot that used to be the increment. 2.4m (7.87 feet) is a very common length and still often referred to as an '8 foot' - but don't complain if it isn't quite that long when making something! UK Practice does vary. It seems that '4 x 2' is very commonly used (and I favour that), but some chippies and most timber merchants would refer to or list it as '2 x 4'. The latter is logical in that a whole range of timber used for rafters, joists, studwork etc is a nominal 2" thick but varies in width from a nominal 2" to 8" or more, so typically listed as '2 x 4, 2 x 5, 2 x 6' etc (or nowadays by the metric equivalents: 47 x 96 etc). But any builder or carpenter will know what is meant by a '2 x 4' (or a '4 x 2'!) even if he never worked in imperial measurements. 'Plasterboard' is the usual term for the generic product (as we have at least three major UK manufacturers) but some older folk call it 'Gyproc', which is the trade name used (though not now very prominently) by the oldest supplier - British Gypsum. You will sometimes hear the installers called 'dry wallers', but that is not really correct as plasterboard was originally introduced as a means of boarding ceilings - walls came later! It is more usual to call the installer a 'plasterer' (if he also skims the boards) but plasterboard is often installed by general builders or carpenters; it is not really a skilled task. Boards often have tapered edges (filled with plaster filler over paper or mesh tape - another relatively unskilled task) rather than square (flush) edges which need tape and a full skim-over, which is where the proper plastering skills come in.

I think that the posts from mlrose and at9 are responding in the wrong thread - see

UK anachronisms also include: milk bought in either pints or litres (according to the seller); beer on draught in pints but when in cans or bottles it is metric (330, 440 or 500 ml etc). Timber sold in length increments of 300mm (the 'metric foot') and plasterboard which was 8' x 4' now 'shrunk' to 2400 x 1200mm, but most other sheet material (e.g. MDF, plywood) still 2440 x 1220mm (equivalent to 8' x 4')! And model railways, for example, are commonly built to a scale of 4mm:1 foot (UK) or 3.5mm:1 foot (US and Europe), both using a track gauge of 16.5mm (which is therefore too narrow to represent standard gauge of 4' 8.5" in the UK but almost spot-on for US/Europe models). You need your wits about you when doing construction work or model-making, but we are used to the mixture. I still 'think better' in imperial when doing joinery or plumbing etc but will often use millimetres when dealing with small measurements, as working in, say, 64ths of an inch is rather tiresome.