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!"