*Bob*

If you were to turn-on ITV2 (accidentally, of course) in any given week, in any given year, there would be a very high probability that "About a Boy" will be showing. Explain that, maths fans.

Alas, I did GCSEs too. But a teacher began one of our lessons by writing said oyster/shell conundrum on the blackboard. I think it was a way of gettin dahn wit da kidz. "Hey - science can be fun!" I could only assume it must have been in his biology o-level paper, circa 1935.

It's a fact, Macroban. To calculate how much the market will dip in any particular postcode, simply: add-up the number of Foxtons minis, multiply by the number of organic butchers and subtract the number of times you've changed electricity provider in the last five years.

bean_and_legumes Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > i request more questions like "Donald Duck never > wears trousers. but always wraps a towel round his > waist after bathing - why?" > and less well known, mathematically and logically > solvable problems like the three doors probability > pooper.. I thought I was getting into the spirit of things, Beans. After all, you did start us off with a biology O-level yawner classic.

Several years ago, I sat perplexed and silent and thinking in a pub after a so-called friend layed 'The Monty Hall Question' on me. So, for anyone who wants to sit perplexed silent and thinking for a while, is desperately trying to not do any work and who hasn't heard it before, here it is: Monty Hall, quiz show host, offers his contestant a choice of three doors, behind each of which a prize is hidden. Behind one door is a sports car, behind the other two, booby prizes. The contestant selects a door, which remains closed. Monty then opens one of the remaining doors, behind which he knows there is a booby prize. The contestant is then give the choice of either sticking to his first choice, or switching. Should he switch, or stick?

Looks like you'll be able to afford that bumper breakfast at Franklins after all, Macroban.

It's a combination of 'choice' and of what's 'fair and reasonable'. I chose to buy a house and for that I had to pay Stamp Duty. I believe income tax to be fair and reasonable because I live in country where the the collected taxes (are supposed to) go towards making it a good place to live. Incidentally, whilst I don't choose to pay income tax as such, I don't (for the most part) go out of my way to pay as little of it as is humanly possible without going to jail, as some self-employed people in my position do.

Alan Dale Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > VAT is paid out of taxed income, council tax the > same, road tax, tax on ciggies, congestion charge, > etc. etc. There is no rule that money should only > be taxed once nor should there be. > There are good arguments against IHT but double > taxation is not one of them. I disagree entirely. VAT is paid on (some) goods and services that you choose to buy or use. Fag tax on something you choose to smoke. Road tax on choosing to drive a motor vehicle. The congestion charge because you're too lazy to use the bus. Stamp Duty because you choose to buy a house. TV licence because you want to watch the goggler. Inheritance Tax, however, is the only tax which befalls you simply for choosing to do absolutely nothing in particular, unless you count dying. As I say, I'm not against IHT in principle at all, and no doubt my estate (whoever that may be.. naturally I change my will every year or so to keep people on their toes) - will pay my fair share. Fine. But it should be there to skim from the excess for the greater good, not penalising people simply because property happens to have become excessively expensive. The imbalance has been corrected now anyway to a certain extent (though not for us living-in-sinners)

There's a big difference between posing with a Bugaboo and being able to magic-up and extra ?20-?30k/year of disposable income in order to put two kids through private school. I think many people here overestimate the actual wealth of SE22's recent spate of Dreaded Incomers.

I'm enjoying the new 'take me seriously' face he's been honing over the past month or so. aka 'Squinting'

How much does it cost (per year) to educate a child privately?

That's right, Monkey (*uncorks Veuve, twangs braces and phones stockbroker*)

I like this post. Day after day there's always someone (on here) droning on about ED filling-up with 'braying' (this seems to be the adjective of choice, when you have no imagination to speak of) 'Hooray Henrys' (another one) - a demographic which which largely exists in caricature and imagination rather than reality. In five years, the percentage of SE22'ers who send their children to private school will certainly be up on what it is now, but for the most part, SE22 will still be filled with people who can't afford it.

Those Asians can be pretty racist. Can't stand the blacks. Northern Italians are pretty bad as well - mostly about southern Italians, it has to be said. And don't talk to me about the Spanish and north Africans. The Greeks and the Turks have had their fair share of issues. Even Papua New Guinea is rife with tribal warfare.. but only because they haven't encountered The Jews yet, I suppose. The French are always having a pop at the Belgians. I don't know who the Belgians don't like. Probably the French. That would seem fair. The lesson seems to be that whichever country you go to - anywhere in the world - and whatever they look like, there will always be a small but significant percentage of people who don't like someone or other, based on something or other, rightly, wrongly, or a mixture of the two.

There's no such thing as a word you can't use. It's usage and application which is the defining factor. I've seen two things on the box in the last week alone in which the word 'nigger' was used, and neither was (ultimately) offensive, derogatory, or a rap record. On the BNP issue: Liberal democracies (like ours) need their BNPs - and we need them to be visible. The more visible the better.

I thought I'd save the revelation of my unfettered greed until the very end. Actually I'd quite like to be mummified with all of my cash and possessions - including Mrs *Bob*, of course - dead or alive.

I consider IHT to be a perfectly reasonable way for the government to collect revenue and redistribute wealth - just as long as I can be exempted from it, please.

My point is that 'property' as it is (of late) referred to, or 'land' as it was called for the several millenia prior to Sarah Beeney et al - has always been a much desired (the most desired) means of securing and increasing your wealth. It's nothing new.

I don't agree that houses have only recently become an investment. My Gran and Grandad bought their first house for ?450 and sold it several years later for ?800. That was well over half a century ago. So what you're saying is if you made money 'unfairly' (ie by means of a rising housing market) then you should have to suffer a burden of IHT? Putting aside (for now) the thorny issue of what 'making money fairly' means in a capitalist country.. I assume then that the Government of Sean will be offering full compensation to anyone unlucky enough to lose money unfairly (ie by means of a falling housing market)?

I'm not up for abolishing IHT. But IHT was never meant to mean a man in a grey suit waiting for you to die so he can auction your house off and hand half the proceeds to the Chancellor. It was always assumed that your house would be your house, and only the *excessively wealthy* would be taxed. House prices may have risen and become laughably unaffordable to many, but I don't see how owning a three bed terrace suddenly means you're 'excessively wealthy' and need to be robbed blind when you die. Essentially, the government (and the opposition) have now agreed that this is so and raised the threshold. But only if you're married. (I look forward to a trip to the Reg Office and pulling-in two strangers of the street as witnesses sometime soon.) Houses are an investment. You're not buying a bit of timeshare fun in Spain. If you have to save your ass off for a deposit and commit most of your working life to paying it off, there ought to be a reward at the end of it.. and for whoever you want to leave it to. What if you don't own a property for one reason or another but have saved half a million pounds? Still fair when you get double-clobbered?

'Potentially in this situation in the relatively near future' doesn't count. Let's talk again in twenty years. You may feel differently. I don't mind being taxed. I don't mind paying tax. But I simply cannot see how it can possibly be fair to be taxed AGAIN on the money which I've (essentially) managed to save all my life from my income which I've ALREADY been taxed on in the first place. Taxed once is fair enough. Twice? That's just theft.

SeanMacGabhann Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > why would you have to sell the family home to pay > for inheritance tax? (Up until the recent changes in IHT.. which only help-out those who are married or in civil partnerships) If your average 3-bedder with mortgage paid (around here) is worth ?500k and the tax-free threshold limit is ?300k, when final parent dies, in order to keep the family home, child must pay 40% tax on the ?200k over the threshold in order to keep the house. Or sell the house in order to pay said 40%. Fair? Or not..?

7 years, Brenders, 7 years and you're home (tax) free. But if your nearest and dearest buy the farm before the 7 years is up then there's a sliding scale for repayment, depending on when they kicked the bucket. Lovely, eh? It must be nice to suddenly start getting wads of cash gifted by your folks.. perhaps spoiled slightly by the knowledge that they think they might not have that much longer left to go.

You give it to them before you die, Brenders. Quick. You never know what's round the corner.

It's all too easy to feel benevolent when you're under the threshold limit and perhaps don't have children. Not so easy when you're over the threshold (by virtue of having worked all your life to pay off a mortgage), have already been taxed on your earnings and go to your grave knowing the chancellor will be scooping hundreds of thousands of pounds of your money which could be going to your children.