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.

If that's the case then why are you whining about a small percentage of people paying the most tax proportion? You can't move the tax burden without moving the wealth. It's simple.
Which communist state should I look to see this wealth redistribution in effect then?



Oh dear. I assume you think the rich shouldn't be taxed then? Otherwise you must surely agree with statement.

The only people displaying envy on this thread are the ones suggesting that people on below the average wage should pay more in tax because they have children and so receive something from the state, so as to reduce the tax on the rich.

And you've still never answered the question - is it just their income tax contribution in certain years that you're deciding this on?

One doesn't have to be Communist to want some redistribution of wealth.


Depends which of the rich people you are talking about.
Many employ but a few and invest their money overseas.
Beyond a certain level of income many will invest any tax reduction abroad rather than spending it in Britain.


I am not envious of the rich.
But I do think that I, and those more wealthy than I, should be looking after the worse-off a bit better than we are doing ... and certainly not reneging on our responsibilities.

Amen to that.

I'm usually the one who Standee and Video Ref point towards, in their "politics of envy" rants.

In 2010 my aunt & uncle died within weeks of each other and as such, their estate was combined for IHT purposes. A cousin of mine was one of the executors and complained bitterly about the 40% IHT that was due on the balance above £650k. He also moaned about some of the beneficiaries, including my ex-wife. He seemed shocked when I told him that I couldn't give a flying fook who got what. It wasn't ever our money to start with, it had been earned by someone else. Basically this was simply money that had fallen out of the sky and as such, I didn't begrudge the exchequer taking their cut.

Is that the politics of envy?

I've been rather fortunate in recent years to have seen my income and concomitant standard of living increase. And I'm very grateful for that. I won't lie – a little bit more would change my life completely. It would enable me to work at exactly what I want to work at.

Not sit around and do nothing, but work at what I want to work at.

But there you go.

But the fact that I am doing very nicely, thank you, is not an excuse, for me, to forget what OI have experienced, or o forget what other people are still experiencing.

I find it aggravating that some seem to assume that, if you are doing okay yourself, you have to become a selfish git who doesn't care about anyone else. I hate to think that I could become like that. Why would I?

Quite apart from possessing a moral compass, it may just have something to do with actually experiencing life (as in real-world living, as opposed to Sal's "Real World" life) under Thatcher and even she didn't go as far as this lot in decimating the NHS and welfare

What about the wishes of the deceased? Many parents work hard their entire lives to provide for their children, and that includes once they have passed. They take out savings funds and even amend the legalities regarding ownership of property to ensure the maximum sum possible is passed on to their loved ones.

100% tax on inheritance? Idealistic bllsht if you ask me. Why should the exchequer get a massive chunk of what parents have worked their fingers to the bone to pass on to their children? It's already been taxed - why does dying suddenly release that cash and those assets as some sort of tax bounty?

My parents are elderly and my mum has been in poor health for many years, though you wouldn't know it to meet her. One of their biggest concerns is that what they have worked all their lives for is passed on to myself and my sister, and they've taken financial advice several times to that effect. They're not hugely wealthy but they both had decent jobs, saved and invested well and my dad fell on his feet as far as voluntary retirement was concerned.

That inheritance will help provide a better life for my family. And in the same manner, I'll do my absolute damndest to ensure my kids get as much as possible once I've gone and frankly the exchequer can go whistle. I'm not a materialistic person at all - never been bothered about a fast car or the biggest TV or latest gadgets - but I do care about the security of my family's future.

What about the wishes of the deceased?

They're dead, they are no longer sentient, presumably they died knowing the situation regarding IHT, so basically their wishes no longer count for anything.

Legacies are unearned income and are taxed as such. I really can't see the problem with IHT, especially when applied to increased property values. Just how hard does someone work to watch over an increase in house prices?

Oh and it wasn't me who suggested a 100% IHT rate BTW

I admit that I've been there and I've seen it in others who have, through graft, acheived a level of income where the household bills can be paid without thinking "oooh thats a bit higher this quarter", there is an inate feeling that you've done well, you've done it yourself and you're self sufficient now.

Whereas of course you aren't, with a few years and some bad times on your back you learn that actually most of your success was just good luck and the bad times are all part of the parcel, and its in the bad times that you need to fall back on society for support.

I'm the first to admit that for 18 months during 2009/10 we relied on the tax credits that we applied for to pay the mortgage, if it hadn't been for those credits then we'd have been stuffed, just like the family were who bought our last house from us in 2007 and over-stretched themselves just before the recession hit - that house is now for sale by the mortgagee for £60k less than we sold it for and the family has had to move out - I'm under no illusion that that could easily have been us.

Independence from the state is an illusion created in young minds, its only after you properly mature that you realise how much you need a properly functioning public sector.

I still find myself 'looking over my shoulder' these days, wondering if our improved fortunes will end and we'll be back where we were, which was, in effect, working poverty. Struggling to pay basic bills, very rare holidays (and often only because friends effectively subbed us), reliant all too often on 'the copper jar': forget decent clothes – cheap stuff off the market, which only lasted a short time anyway.

I never, ever want to go back to that.

But I cannot fathom how some people don't realise that this is reality for many – or who actually and really believe that it's easy to job hop into vastly better pay.

At the risk of invoking Sal Paradise – what world do they inhabit?

The money should be given to "good causes." If kids know they are in line for good inheitances they often become lazy and useless, despite their expensive educations. If the spongers on benefits need to work to "improve themselves" to drive the economy forward surely even more so those who have had a priveleged education. I used to work with a really nice lad whose father was a very successful businessman. As soon as the lad struggled with an exam in his mid 20s he just gave up never to work again because he couldn't see the point. He'd inherited his first tranche of money at 21 which allowed him to buy a house in an expensive area and a brand new top of the range BMW and anything else he wanted. He was in line for a few 10s of million more so he decided to watch telly (rather than Hugh Grant in About a Boy).

The outlook of many in this country has to completely charge in my opinion. We begrudge people who work hard to earn a lot of money for themselves yet deem it perfectly acceptable for people who have done sod all to earn that money to inherit it. How about re-focusing our tax system to encourage people to keep what they themselves have earned and to remove assets from those who haven't?

I can understand people wanting to leave a parting present for their families, perhaps to pay for a car for their grandson or a bit of cash towards their Uni fees, but I just don't see why we allow people to inherit £100,000s.

Possibly because those who don't work don't tend to have any assets to remove.

Thats your first stumbling block right there.

100% Inheritance Tax would be political suicide for whoever was in.

They'd certainly lose the farming vote.

I've not problem with IHT at a reasonable rate - and at the moment it's fairly reasonable. And I have no problem with people finding loopholes in IHT - even if that means envelopes of £50 notes.

It's the 100% rubbish people are spouting that's ridiculous (I realise you didn't suggest it).

Who begrudges people working hard to earn a lot of money? I don't. Good luck to 'em.

But it's their money, it gets taxed, and it's theirs to do what they like with. If some kids end up inheriting millions what's the problem? It's not like they'll be a drain on resources, is it? If they choose to sit in a big house and party for the next 60 years, who cares? Meanwhile, many of the wealthy will actually go on to create or sustain businesses and jobs.

If it's the last will & testament of the deceased to pass on their wealth - money they have earned and paid tax on - why is it anyone else's business? Smells fishily of jealousy.

So you're suggesting no-one should be permitted to make a Will, and everyone's assets are to be seized at the moment of death?

If this lad truly decided to watch telly for the rest of his life, what business is that of yours? With millions in the bank he's not costing anyone anything is he? His choice to live an unproductive life is is sod all to do with anyone else other than a source of gossip and ill-disguised jealousy.

The whole concept of 100% IHT is a nonsense, and a laughable one at that.

I have no problem with people doing what they want. What I object to is the economic stagnation that results from inherited wealth. The classic family business is started by a hard-working driven bloke (usually). If the business is lucky his son carries it on but rarely do they get past silver spoon generation three. We are constantly told by our right wing politicians and media that we all need to work harder for the sake of the economy. That surely applies to all? If spoilt kids are incapable of pulling their weight in the economic war for survival then the state should take their wealth away to make them earn their way through work in the same way it expects the impoverished to work hard.

Psst you seem to have forgotten about VAT, Fuel duty,Tax on utilities etc.