General News Thread

[Tommy G]

Pizza Hut in administration. Great childhood memories 

[kenny]

3 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Pizza Hut in administration. Great childhood memories 

Another business going is sad. But it has been rubbish for years, it's one of those it's done well to last this long ones.

[Spudulike]

5 hours ago, davieG said:

No sorry just a few people sharing similar info like this guy.

 

Daniel Lismore 

22 September at 21:00 ·

 

Who Really Costs Britain

Every time the asylum debate comes up someone shares a meme saying asylum hotels are bankrupting the country. The figure usually quoted is £45 per year. It looks simple but it hides the truth. When you look at the actual numbers, asylum is one of the smallest costs in Britain. The real drains on our money are elsewhere.

The Home Office spent £3.1 billion on hotels for asylum seekers in 2023–24. That works out at £46 per person in the UK or about £86 per taxpayer. If you add all asylum support the total rises to £4.7 billion. That is £70 per person or about £130 per taxpayer.

Benefit fraud and error cost £9.5 billion in 2023–24. That is £142 per person or about £260 per taxpayer. Much of this is not fraud but mistakes or official error. Some is recovered later.

The tax gap which means avoidance, evasion, non-payment and error was £46.8 billion. That is £699 per person or about £1,300 per taxpayer.

Bank bailouts and corporate subsidies are another hidden cost. They add up to £50–60 billion a year. That is £750–£900 per person or about £1,600 per taxpayer.

Military operations overseas cost between £5–15 billion each year. That is £75–£225 per person or about £150–£400 per taxpayer.

Foreign criminals in UK prisons cost around £600 million per year. That is £9 per person or about £20 per taxpayer. This does not include court costs or deportation costs.

Financial crime enforcement costs £1–2 billion per year. That is £15–£30 per person or about £30–£60 per taxpayer. The real cost of financial crime is far higher.

Billionaires who are not taxed on their wealth and big companies that use loopholes cost Britain another £15–25 billion every year. That is £225–£375 per person or about £500–£830 per taxpayer.

HS2 has already cost about £27 billion. That is £403 per person or about £900 per taxpayer so far. If it reaches £80 billion the final bill will be £1,190 per person or over £2,300 per taxpayer.

The bailout of energy companies and support for bills during the crisis has cost £78 billion over two years. That is nearly £600 per person per year or about £1,200 per taxpayer. The collapse of Bulb alone added another £3 billion which is £45 per person or about £90 per taxpayer. Fossil fuel subsidies add around £17.5 billion a year. That is £260 per person or about £550 per taxpayer.

The Ministry of Justice and police budgets together cost over £30 billion a year. That is £450 per person or about £830 per taxpayer. A huge share of that goes on petty crimes that clog up courts and prisons at high cost to the public.

So let’s put this side by side.

Asylum seekers: £46–£70 per person

Benefit fraud and error: £142 per person

Tax avoidance and evasion: £699 per person

Bank bailouts and subsidies: £750–£900 per person

Military overseas ops: £75–£225 per person

Foreign criminals in prison: £9 per person

Financial crime enforcement: £15–£30 per person

Billionaire and corporate loopholes: £225–£375 per person

HS2: £403 so far and possibly £1,190 each

Energy bailouts and subsidies: £600–£850 per person each year

Criminal justice system: £450 per person

It is obvious what costs Britain the most. Asylum seekers are not even close. The idea that they are draining the country falls apart the moment you see the numbers. The biggest costs come from corporate bailouts, billionaire tax reliefs, tax avoidance, subsidies, failed megaprojects and the justice system itself.

So the next time someone waves a meme about asylum hotels remember the truth. You are paying more for failed energy companies, HS2, bank bailouts, corporate subsidies and tax avoidance than you will ever pay for asylum seekers. If you want to save money start at the top not the bottom

 

 

So each taxpayer is paying £130 per year just for asylum seekers hotels. Plus more for foreign prisoners etc. That's quite a burden to pay for uninvited people, isn't it?

 

Obviously the other figures are eye-watering in comparison but I think the argument is that it shouldn't cost UK taxpayers anything 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Spudulike said:

So each taxpayer is paying £130 per year just for asylum seekers hotels. Plus more for foreign prisoners etc. That's quite a burden to pay for uninvited people, isn't it?

 

Obviously the other figures are eye-watering in comparison but I think the argument is that it shouldn't cost UK taxpayers anything 

Depends on whether you think in this case Appeal to Bigger Problems is a fallacy or not. 

 

I'm inclined to think that it's not on this one given the wildly disproportionate levels of attention given to the one in comparison to the others, but each to their own. 

[kenny]

5 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

So each taxpayer is paying £130 per year just for asylum seekers hotels. Plus more for foreign prisoners etc. That's quite a burden to pay for uninvited people, isn't it?

 

Obviously the other figures are eye-watering in comparison but I think the argument is that it shouldn't cost UK taxpayers anything 

These are the short term accomodation costs and won't include NHS, education, pensions, social the real costs are much higher.

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, kenny said:

These are the short term accomodation costs and won't include NHS, education, pensions, social the real costs are much higher.

Is there any way of substantiating/quantifying this? Genuinely interested. 

[Spudulike]

4 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Depends on whether you think in this case Appeal to Bigger Problems is a fallacy or not. 

 

I'm inclined to think that it's not on this one given the wildly disproportionate levels of attention given to the one in comparison to the others, but each to their own. 

I'd have thought that £4.7 billion deserves attention. Can't ignore it just because it's small in comparison.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Spudulike said:

I'd have thought that £4.7 billion deserves attention. Can't ignore it just because it's small in comparison.

Attention? Absolutely. 

 

As per above, wildly disproportionate attention at the expense of those bigger problems? I'm not so sure. 

[Tommy G]

Course it deserves attention but it’s a way to spin it so it doesn’t look like a problem ? There are so many onward costs and associated costs that will make the figure much more eye watering.

[leicsmac]

There are bigger problems, much bigger problems - to the exchequer, to social discourse, to the future itself - than the migration of people into the UK. It's deeply frustrating, and detrimental, that it appears to have a focus of singular importance that it simply does not deserve among so many.

 

It's about time more was done to either disabuse or treat that focus with the attention it deserves. I would say facts help, but the discussion above appears to indicate otherwise. 

Edited 20 October 2025 by leicsmac

[Trav Le Bleu]

1 hour ago, Sly said:

Apparently a 3rd of the internet went this morning 

Pre-internet, it was very difficult, almost impossible for a foreign agent to affect some many people on a personal.

 

I'll call it now. One day the whole shebang will go and bring the western world to its knees.

 

O' brave new world!

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Pre-internet, it was very difficult, almost impossible for a foreign agent to affect some many people on a personal.

 

I'll call it now. One day the whole shebang will go and bring the western world to its knees.

 

O' brave new world!

I think that it won't just be the Western world that falls if there is some kind of digital catastrophe. 

 

All these systems are codependent. 

 

Another reason nationalism is becoming outmoded. 

[st albans fox]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Pizza Hut in administration. Great childhood memories 

 

1 hour ago, kenny said:

Another business going is sad. But it has been rubbish for years, it's one of those it's done well to last this long ones.

Half the huts are closing as part of the deal

 

wouldn't be a shock for the other half to be gone by next spring 

[Zear0]

I've always loathed Southgate as a player and manager and it stemmed from that absolute travesty of an advert he did with them in 96 that was unforgivable. Years of voodoo and curses have finally paid off and I get the last laugh. 

 

Disclaimer: not happy about the people losing jobs from this and wish it remained trading. 

[kenny]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

Is there any way of substantiating/quantifying this? Genuinely interested. 

According to chapgpt, absolutely.

 

So no, probably not.

[kenny]

34 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Course it deserves attention but it’s a way to spin it so it doesn’t look like a problem ? There are so many onward costs and associated costs that will make the figure much more eye watering.

It was written by and activist and artist that has little to no knowledge of economics. It's a set of figures from the ONS spun to his political wants.

[Trav Le Bleu]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think that it won't just be the Western world that falls if there is some kind of digital catastrophe. 

 

All these systems are codependent. 

 

Another reason nationalism is becoming outmoded. 

Many countries in Africa will barely blink.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Many countries in Africa will barely blink.

And quite a bit of Latin America and South Asia, too.

 

Of course, they'll have other problems of their own at a similar time. 

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Pizza Hut in administration. Great childhood memories 

Hard to know why it hasn't been able to outdo papa John's who do frankly disgraceful pizzas

 

2 hours ago, Spudulike said:

So each taxpayer is paying £130 per year just for asylum seekers hotels. Plus more for foreign prisoners etc. That's quite a burden to pay for uninvited people, isn't it?

 

Obviously the other figures are eye-watering in comparison but I think the argument is that it shouldn't cost UK taxpayers anything 

Just on the foreign criminals, that's a bit of an unfair one. That would include people that have lived here decades, just ordinary people who've ended up committing a crime. They could have worked for years.

[Tommy G]

1 hour ago, leicsmac said:

There are bigger problems, much bigger problems - to the exchequer, to social discourse, to the future itself - than the migration of people into the UK. It's deeply frustrating, and detrimental, that it appears to have a focus of singular importance that it simply does not deserve among so many.

 

It's about time more was done to either disabuse or treat that focus with the attention it deserves. I would say facts help, but the discussion above appears to indicate otherwise. 

Lots of words but you don’t get to the point here - what needs more focus?

[Trav Le Bleu]

Penguin and Club bars can no longer be described as chocolate - BBC News

 

https://share.google/BUZOJ9VFzxTaxyqOk

 

"If you like a lot of chocolate flavour topping with cocoa mass on your biscuit join our Club!" doesn't have the same ring to it.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, Tommy G said:

Lots of words but you don’t get to the point here - what needs more focus?

Well, judging by that article on the previous page, the benefit fraud and errors, tax gaps and bank bailouts, to name but three, are greater strains on the exchequer. (The MoD budget is too, but the funding of that is a whole other debate.)

 

I'm inclined to think that none of them carry the same space in the public consciousness than some idea of "foreigners" getting a "free ride" - even when those three things above cost the average UK citizen far, far more.

 

The single-minded hyperfocus on one policy area doesn't actually end up helping anyone long term. Or even medium term.

[CornwallFox]

37 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Well, judging by that article on the previous page, the benefit fraud and errors, tax gaps and bank bailouts, to name but three, are greater strains on the exchequer. (The MoD budget is too, but the funding of that is a whole other debate.)

 

I'm inclined to think that none of them carry the same space in the public consciousness than some idea of "foreigners" getting a "free ride" - even when those three things above cost the average UK citizen far, far more.

 

The single-minded hyperfocus on one policy area doesn't actually end up helping anyone long term. Or even medium term.

Let's face it, there's a big chunk of society that fiddle their taxes by pretending their partner works for them, putting things for home through as expenses etc. Given the numbers involved it's worth huge sums. Often the same people spending their lives obsessing over other people not paying their fair share, or getting something they're not. 

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

4 hours ago, Zear0 said:

I've always loathed Southgate as a player and manager and it stemmed from that absolute travesty of an advert he did with them in 96 that was unforgivable. Years of voodoo and curses have finally paid off and I get the last laugh. 

 

Disclaimer: not happy about the people losing jobs from this and wish it remained trading. 

 

[Jon the Hat]

6 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Course it deserves attention but it’s a way to spin it so it doesn’t look like a problem ? There are so many onward costs and associated costs that will make the figure much more eye watering.

A lot of the other stats are also dubious.  For example, the government controls completely the amount of tax corporates pay, and the way they pay it, so to say corporate tax strategies - utilising rules which are understood by and often created by government to encourage investment etc - "costs" us money is nonsense.  They could close a lot of the gaps immediately, and those they can't they have the choice to offset with other corporate taxes.  They don't do so because they have a very good view of the total corporate taxation burden on companies, and to increase it would be counterproductive to the overall tax income, ergo, there is not a real gap in corporate tax contributions.