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.

To clarify. Squatting is NEVER right. It is always, without exception, wrong. There are ken options for the legitimately homeless.

It's entirely correct that squatters are criminalised.

So, is it just their net income tax contribution then?
What about the years before they had children? Or the years after their children grow up?
Maybe if there were fewer people unemployed that might lower the benefits cost. Maybe if adequate and affordable housing were available the benefits cost would be lower.

How many people make no positive contribution through tax? And why restrict it only to income tax?

Like Dally says, there's a reason why only a small number of people pay a large percentage of the tax, it's because they've got all the money. To redistribute the tax burden you first have to redistribute the wealth.

Oh and I'll still happily shout out "tax the rich!"

That has been tried already and failed dismally. See communism.



And what, might I ask, happens when the rich move out? 3 Californian cities have filed for bankruptcy and more are expected to follow. This is what happens when there are huge public spending commitments and those who actually make a net contribution to the public purse leave town in their droves.

The rich are ultimately wealth creators. They employ people, they spend money, they keep the economy moving.

The politics of envy once again surfaces on The Sin Bin. Another opportunity to unite against the nasty rich, and be part of the 'us' in the never ending battle with 'them'.

That's was why you were proved so resoundingly correct about the attitude toward Jerry Chicken after he 'fessed up to being successful, is it?

Seeing as the world has never had a true communist state, we'll probably never know.

One of the main reasons for introducing LVT is that unlike people and wealth, you cannot offshore land.

But please don't quote the IFS any longer. Not too far back, they advocated abolishing corporation tax and tax paid on dividends. To make up the obvious shortfall to the exchequer, their proposed solution was to raise VAT to 28.5% and levy it on everything, including food etc.