Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:24 pm  

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.

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Sun Sep 02, 2012 10:33 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

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?

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!"

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Mon Sep 03, 2012 5:47 am  

Him wrote:

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.

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

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

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'.

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:23 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

... 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?

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:43 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

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'.

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.

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:06 am  

The Video Ref wrote:

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'.

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?

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Mon Sep 03, 2012 1:26 pm  

The Video Ref wrote:

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

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

The Video Ref wrote:

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.

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.

The Video Ref wrote:

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'.

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.

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:12 pm  

Dally wrote:

Assets on death should be taxed at 100% - ie no one should be allowed to inherit even a penny.

Amen to that.

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Mon Sep 03, 2012 8:13 pm  

Diavolo Rosso wrote:

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?

Re: "Squatters' Rights" abolished : Mon Sep 03, 2012 9:09 pm  

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?