From webstump at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Sat Mar 14 14:48:23 2026 Return-path: To: JNugent73 at ..il.com Subject: Re: Re: Lodger with deceased intestate landlord References: <10oogds$1p6s$1@dont-email.me> <10op6qk$9dc6$1@dont-email.me> <10ouu96$27nbq$1@dont-email.me> <10p0m01$2vjou$1@dont-email.me> In-Reply-To: Reply-To: matthewv+ulmtestmod at ..riolis.greenend.org.uk Errors-To: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk X-Webstump-Event: [17733972803091] reject abuse Message-Id: From: webstump+ulm-bounces at ..iark.greenend.org.uk Date: Sat, 14 Mar 2026 14:48:23 +0000 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA512 The post that you submitted to uk.legal.moderated has been rejected by a moderator. Your message appears to the moderator to be abusive or hurtful to another contributor. The group charter and moderation policy can be found at https://uklegal.weebly.com/ Disputed moderation decisions can be discussed in the newsgroup uk.net.news.moderation ============================================ Full text of your message follows > From webstump@chiark.greenend.org.uk Fri Mar 13 10:21:20 2026 > Return-path: > Envelope-to: webstump+?@slimy.greenend.org.uk > Authentication-Results: mailhub-cam-d.mythic-beasts.com; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=uni-berlin.de; dkim=pass header.d=uni-berlin.de header.s=fub01 header.a=rsa-sha256 > X-STUMP-Warning-0: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-1: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-2: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > X-STUMP-Warning-3: Next header (DKIM-Signature) truncated! > DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=uni-berlin.de; s=fub01; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Mime-Version:References:Message-ID:Date:Subject:From:To:From: Reply-To:Subject:Date:Message-ID:To:Cc:MIME-Version:Content-Type: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-ID:Content-Description:In-Reply-To: References; bh=1m2bHFeittjt1j7AAkLexQZFLCCYDBsev70jGafa5HI=; t=1773397274; x=1774002074; b=k68YHmV4gimhkwse5tGuz8Q/gDSsRwuyRUcUlW2q/f76azxEuG/9slPK8zauY /+iNWTm+G3kBCl > From: JNugent > Newsgroups: uk.legal.moderated > Subject: Re: Lodger with deceased intestate landlord > Date: Fri, 13 Mar 2026 10:21:12 +0000 > Organization: Home User > Message-ID: > References: > > <10oogds$1p6s$1@dont-email.me> > <10op6qk$9dc6$1@dont-email.me> > <10ouu96$27nbq$1@dont-email.me> > <10p0m01$2vjou$1@dont-email.me> > Mime-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit > X-Orig-X-Trace: individual.net ppMxFBjXs4R/5tsMJoH/SwRdzQLHVHBQxccHAYT5Ua+9DQDM8q > Cancel-Lock: sha1:SbOFhqO+StAWSb64qVHh0ZLlu74= sha256:3jFj1ChT9WNIjSnwSyheo3G/LP04A27phkFmceEWhO4= > User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird > Content-Language: en-US > X-Antivirus: AVG (VPS 260313-0, 3/13/2026), Outbound message > X-Antivirus-Status: Clean > X-Originating-IP: 130.133.4.5 > X-ZEDAT-Hint: RO > X-Mythic-Source-External: YES > X-BlackCat-Spam-Score: 68 > X-Spam-Status: No, score=6.8 > Delivered-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-BlackCat-To: usenet-uk-legal-moderated@usenet.org.uk > X-Mythic-Originator: uid-1081-on-lynx.mythic-beasts.com > X-STUMP-Warning-4: Unfolded headers Received: Received: Received: Received: Authentication-Results: Received: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature: > > On 13/03/2026 09:39 am, billy bookcase wrote: > > > "JNugent" wrote:... > >> On 12/03/2026 05:48 pm, billy bookcase wrote: > >>> "JNugent" wrote:... > >>>> On 10/03/2026 01:37 pm, billy bookcase wrote: > >>>>> "JNugent" wrote: > >> > >>>>>> When I was a teenager, the standard (lowest) rate of income tax was > >>>>>> 37.5% (seven shillings and sixpence in the pound) > >> > >>>>> A standard rate of seven shillings and ninepence in the pound, originally > >>>>> having been introduced by the Conservative Government in the Finance Act > >>>>> of 1960 > >> > >>>>>> and I paid that rate at 16, on wages of a lot less than L10 a week. > >> > >>>>> Except of course you didn't. You paid that rate on the amount your > >>>>> L10 weekly wage exceeded your personal allowance. Can you remember > >>>>> what that was ? > >> > >>>> I paid income tax at 16. That could not have happened under PAYE unless > >>>> earnings (calculated YTD) exceeded the tax-free allowance (also calculated > >>>> YTD). The tax-free allowance for 1966-1967* is quoted below, BTW. > >> > >>> So that when you said above there - > >> > >>> " I paid that rate at 16, [seven shillings and sixpence in the pound], on > >>> wages of a lot less than L10 a week." > >>> > >>> what you actually meant to say was - > >>> > >>> "at 16 I earned the first L5 a week tax free; and I paid seven shillings > >>> and sixpence in the pound on the remainder, which was a lot less than L5." > >> > >> I never claimed that I was paying tax on every pound I earned. > > > > quote: > > > > I paid that rate at 16, on wages of a lot less than L10 a week. > > > > J.Nugent 11.04.26 > > ...And? > > Did the tax-free allowance of £260 per annum not apply to 16-year-olds? > > Or did you (once again) imagine that it didn't? > > > > :unquote > > > > Either your "wages of a lot less than L10 a week" represented *every > > pound you earned*, or they didn't. > > > > And as they did, then you clearly overstated the amount of tax you > > were in fact paying; which in fact was *less than half*. > > > >> You made that up. I said I was on a wage of a lot less than Ł10 (a week, for > >> clarity). > > > > So what ? > > See above. > > Please stop deliberately misinterpreting. > > > Your wages must have been more than Ł5 a week or you wouldn't have > > been paying any income tax at all, would you ? > > My gross wages were more than £5 a week at 16. > > > > So your wages were Ł5 + "x" > > > > Which it's been established, must itself be less than Ł5 > > > > And so you paid income tax of seven shillings and sixpence in the > > pound on "x" > > And? > > > > So you don't need to be Einstein to be able to work out, that the income > > tax your would have been paying on "x" would be less than half, possibly > > a lot less than half, of the income tax you would have been paying on Ł5 + "x" > > Correct. Even you can do it, it seems. > > Not that it is relevant and not that I had claimed what you falsely > attributed to me. > >> > >>> IOW you were paying *less than half* the amount of tax. you just claimed > >>> you were paying. > > I made no claim as to the amount of tax I was paying at 16. If you think > I did, you are making it up. > >> > >> More made-up "facts" from you. > > > > See above. > > Exactly. You do it all the time. it's your obvious and constant > stock-in-trade. > > > >>> To repeat, less than half. > >>>>> And despite your own evident state of deprivation, your fellow teenagers, > >>>>> despite all this onerous taxation, still seemed to have no difficulty in > >>>>> affording scooters, motorbikes, or at least payments on the same > >>>>> along with clothes, gramophone records, beer, cigarettes entertainment > >>>>> along with their keep, etc. etc. > >>>>> Can you explain how that was ? > >> > >>>> I don't recognise your description of the lifestyle of 16 year olds in the > >>>> mid 1960s. > >>>> Maybe in (some parts of) London for earners in some parts of the economy, > >>>> but not generally. > >>>> I certainly could not afford all the things you mentioned (I would never > >>>> have expected to) and I was no exception among friends and colleagues. > >>>> Where were you? Virginia Water? Mayfair? > >> > >>> I wasn't referring there specifically to just 16 year olds was I ? But to > >>> your "fellow teenagers". > > ...who were also your "fellow teenagers"? > >> > >> I was 16. Other "teenagers" (ie, apprentices serving their time) ranged from > >> 16 years old to 20 years and 364 days old. The older ones earned nearly three > >> times as much as a 16 yr old. > > > > And paid a far larger proportion of their wages in income tax at seven > > shillings and sixpence in the pound, don't forget. > > For certain values of "far" which range down to "no difference at all", > that would be correct, for all the relevance it has. > > > > At Ł8 per week they were paying tax on Ł3 > > At Ł24 per week they were paying tax on Ł19 > > Over six times as much. > > Having by that stage, possibly paid off their scooters. > > > Is there a point to this, or are you just trying to prove that your > basic arithmetic is at least equal that of Diane Abbott? > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQEzBAEBCgAdFiEEfWu6wfyjzX88oocanSrwpvmn4x4FAmm1dTcACgkQnSrwpvmn 4x6+yAf+JwIrniNsJi5rzVx1MpTZx31rbnbpVl5No2ogF2i33i6DkeBNAI/OWdme hUvMrE+yGOZ3/Xj3JZjQ0ybbFOncIdkxxFWqzdANZzyuWEua4SR4cKlIpr6qRz87 Mt38auZZx9KVrRlsGeKPj2xE/pyUtchMJEPJU/pehcm423ZxIqBaF4nAfQoTzNYz v/kwi6qugue68Oj1dXozYCBknCIhlTDOMxTu4NUsejXqjvBMmjY2MR5K3jg2NIUR r3qDJTPpBvTqbH6D89+iT1Petl8yH1q4BIhh38Gfumvm13Olpkfeiq9N68+LjjUH 34nad/u3dplDXDCmrUhfPjjq2J1H6A== =wtYg -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----