It's hardly proper security when the fence is about 4 ft high.

Have a friend who livesaboard. I thought very much the same as you, but with a combination of heaters and de-humidifiers he is fine. Amazed we have never ended up in the water, the amount of times we have stumbled back to his boat p1ssed as farts.

I remember staying on my dad's canal cruiser with a few lads from the college RL team back in the early 90s. We'd moored up in Lancaster and hit the town, stumbling back to the cruiser about 3am, wasted. This was early February, freezing.

Unfortunately a storm had blown up while we'd been out and the cruiser was being smashed against the canal walls. After a while we panicked and decided to move it across the canal, about 50 metres up, under a couple of bridges where it was more sheltered.

So with yours truly at the helm, wasted, wearing boxers and a big woolly jumper, we started to move. Bloody thing wouldn't shift against the wind so I had to gun the engine - forgetting that my mate still wasn't on board. He took a running jump and ended up hanging with his legs in the water, clinging on to the rails from the prow, being dragged through the canal, in only his boxer shorts, which were progressively being dragged down his legs. All I could do was thrash the engine and get us across to the sheltered area and he eventually got aboard.

Guess you had to be there but it was fookin hilarious.

I wonder how many people on this thread, pontificating about taxation of assets, actually have any assets.

The Sin Bin "tax someone else to pay for my ideals" in evidence, as ever.

Most people have assets out here in the real world.

Having owned my own business for 29 years, I certainly do.

I'm just so pleased that I haven't turned into the selfish "look at me but fook you" bas'tad business owner model that many fall into.

I thought you'd gone?

One could go further. I wonder how many people, in general, who opine on tax policy, actually make any net income tax contribution to UK PLC?

There is an article in the Sunday Times today. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has been doing some number crunching. I believe this to be a politically independent body, so no-one can claim it to be a mouthpiece of the Conservative Party.

The top 1% pay 25% of all tax in the UK. (From reading previous articles, I seem to recall that the top 5% pay 50% of all tax.)

If you take into account tax credits, but NOT housing benefit, a family with one earner and 2 children have to earn £22,000 before they make any net contribution to the UK's exchequer. If both parents earn, that figure becomes £25,000. To put this in perspective: the median UK salary is £26,000.

I am not an analyst or economist, but these figures suggest that a significant proportion of the UK's workforce make no net contribution through their income tax to the cost of running the country.

The bottom line is that the overwhelming majority of people in the UK are financially supported by those in the higher and top tax brackets.

So 'tax the rich' is the order of the day. Because no other bugger seems to be making any net contribution.

The worrying thing is that the 'rich' are not really 'rich'. An army sergeant, or a copper with a decent amount of overtime, would fall into the higher bracket.

Politics of envy, as has been said many times, a few old timers who believe themselves to be relevant when in fact they're not, decent people who you'd happily buy a pint for (either too skint or tight to buy you one back mind), who think the world owes them something, it's been the Sin Bin way for many years, it will never change, but they're at least balanced, a chip on both shoulders.

No. It's exactly trespassing


Then you're wrong.

Are you calling Coddy tight?

Define "Nett Contribution", because if you are trying to suggest that a person earning less than £22k does not pay any tax then you are wrong.

If you are also suggesting that a family with only one wage earner who is bringing in less than £22k gross should not receive some sort of tax credit then you are incapable of seeing the bigger picture and probably not a society sort of person, in other words, like Standee, a "self" person.

And for the record I do not fit either of the two scenarios, do not qualify for any benefits and have in the past paid personal tax bills that would make your eyes water, certainly paid tax bills higher than the average persons salary.

I have never said that and suggest re-reading my post.



Once again, I never suggested that.



Brave admitting that on The Sin Bin. It means you might have had some success in life and you will instantly become a hate figure, probably.

Good, quality, arguments there TB. Complete with informed opinion and supporting evidence.

No, it's only selfish b&stards, regardless of their wealth who are hated on here.

Oh and I think you do need to define "net contribution". Because under one, narrow, definition you may be right. Under others you are definitely wrong.

So then define what you mean by the statement.

I don't mind admitting that I have had some very successful years in business, I don't mind admitting that I inherited the business or that I lost it in 2009 and am now a mere salaried employee, I don't mind admitting any of that because its all in the great tapestry of life and its called "experience" and frankly its made me a more balanced person, the death of a close friend made me a more balanced person in 2009 also, in fact he died just one day after I signed the business over to the administrators and at that point I couldn't give a flying one about making money any more, there is much more to life than money and making a large income does not make you a better person and it certainly does not give you a balanced view on life, far from it in fact.

I gave up on VR's post when he claimed that the IFS was independent

Obviously I'm wrong, that must be why it's now been criminalised.

Like I said, entering onto someone's property without permission is one thing. Staying there for an extended period of time and using it as if it were your own is taking it a step further.

The taxation system needs changing to reward enterprise. That means not taxing assets acquired out of taxed income but rather taxing income at an appropriate level. Assets on death should be taxed at 100% - ie no one should be allowed to inherit even a penny. Also people paying private school fees should be taxed at 1000% of annual school fees. That way we might get a dynamic meritocracy and economy.

The taxation system needs changing to reward enterprise. That means not taxing assets acquired out of taxed income but rather taxing income at an appropriate level. Assets on death should be taxed at 100% - ie no one should be allowed to inherit even a penny. Also people paying private school fees should be taxed at 1000% of annual school fees. That way we might get a dynamic meritocracy and economy.

I meant exactly what I have said when I referred to an article in The Sunday Times, which stated that:

After credits, (but not housing benefit) are taken into account, for a married couple with one earner and two children, it is not until the family's income is £22,000 that any net contribution to income tax is demanded. With 2 earners this figure increases to £25,000.

Unless my interpretation of this is completely wide of the mark, in other words, until the family earns more than those figures their income tax contribution does not cover the benefit they receive from the public purse.

Ok, you have made some bizarre posts recently compared to what I would expect from the normal Dally. But this one gives it away. Either your account has been hacked or you are trolling.

So it's just their income tax net contribution during certain years then?

Why?

The issue at hand is that a substantial amount of the UK population do not actually make a positive financial contribution to UK PLC in any given tax year. The idea that no contribution should be made by these people is not sustainable.

I make no comment as to what the solution is. But there are huge costs to the benefits that we, as a society, receive.

The majority of tax is paid by a very small percentage of the population. Many people make no positive financial contribution through income tax whatsoever. Something for people to think about before shouting out loud to 'tax the rich'.

Whilst I understand that there will always be the poor and needy, and people who genuinely deserve help, how about sorting out the tax system so we are not so reliant on so few?

The above argument is unpalatable and will not win mainstream votes. Instead we will get a rehash of 'we're all in this together'. But with so many people drawing more than they contribute, are we really?

The percentage tax thing is a bit of a red herring as that small percentage enjoy a disproportionate share of income and wealth (something that is never highlighted by them). They have the option of going abroad if they wish. The majority do not wish to for various reasons - including that they probably couldn't do as well eleswhere. They need to pay to provide themselves with the stable platform to generate and enjoy their wealth and to protect them. I am a firm believer in linking tax to passport. If people want a British passport and the protection of the state they should have to demonstrate they and any businesses they control pay UK tax at a composite rate equivalent to the rate applicable to their earnings. For those well known entrepreneurs who operate via offshore companies then ask them to cough up or forfeit their passports and rights of residence here forever.

That is the nature of life. Some people do very well for themselves and reap substantial rewards which can be passed on to future generations. Others are not so lucky.

As for fair taxation of people who absolutely coin it, but seem to pay next to nothing - there is a whole industry built on tax avoidance. Lawyers, accountants, consultants, all working together to minimise tax burdens, in return for hefty fees no doubt.

The Government need to legislate to stop this, and HMRC need to be on the ball to enforce it.