General News Thread

[Tommy G]

47 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Shouldn't it say government might have to raise tax AGAIN shocker? 

 

Y'know... Cuz the first Labour budget  included some £40billion~ in tax rises? 

Once in a generation style tax rises I think she said 

[Robo61]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgzkyk7knzo

 

Cheek of the women,  she goes onto a TV channel that is also supposed to adhere to impartialy rules,  but has multiple politicians hosting weekly TV propoganda programmes.,  to call for heads to roll becasue the BBC has clipped two genuine speeches of Trump together.  A minor breach at most.  

[Foxdiamond]

22 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgzkyk7knzo

 

Cheek of the women,  she goes onto a TV channel that is also supposed to adhere to impartialy rules,  but has multiple politicians hosting weekly TV propoganda programmes.,  to call for heads to roll becasue the BBC has clipped two genuine speeches of Trump together.  A minor breach at most.  

I'm no Tory or Reform but I don't think the issue can be dismissed as a minor breach if confirmed. Hardly an example of impartial quest of the truth by the BBC. 

[st albans fox]

Reading the bbc article, it seems it was an independent production - that’s at least the second occurrence this year that beeb will be hung out to dry on the back of independent productions.  Very tough for them to police this 

[leicsmac]

23 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ckgzkyk7knzo

 

Cheek of the women,  she goes onto a TV channel that is also supposed to adhere to impartialy rules,  but has multiple politicians hosting weekly TV propoganda programmes.,  to call for heads to roll becasue the BBC has clipped two genuine speeches of Trump together.  A minor breach at most.  

The hypocrisy would be funny if...you know the rest. 

 

Honestly, I know this has been covered earlier and yes, the BBC has to be squeaky clean for reasons that are entirely valid, but it's really come to a pretty pass when some folks appear to get more bent out of shape about reportage of a coup attempt (which can be proven in any number of ways not involving the Beeb) than the inspirer of that coup attempt not only still being politically active, but also the top man, and also what he's up to now, past and future. 

 

There is (and will be) far too much commentary on this matter using it functionally as an excuse to give the postcode particular brand of neofascism ascendant in the US right now a free pass. And that shows either ignorance or proper malice. 

[Foxdiamond]

11 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Reading the bbc article, it seems it was an independent production - that’s at least the second occurrence this year that beeb will be hung out to dry on the back of independent productions.  Very tough for them to police this 

Tough but in the current climate ever more important 

[st albans fox]

19 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The hypocrisy would be funny if...you know the rest. 

 

Honestly, I know this has been covered earlier and yes, the BBC has to be squeaky clean for reasons that are entirely valid, but it's really come to a pretty pass when some folks appear to get more bent out of shape about reportage of a coup attempt (which can be proven in any number of ways not involving the Beeb) than the inspirer of that coup attempt not only still being politically active, but also the top man, and also what he's up to now, past and future. 

 

There is (and will be) far too much commentary on this matter using it functionally as an excuse to give the postcode particular brand of neofascism ascendant in the US right now a free pass. And that shows either ignorance or proper malice. 

The subject of the manipulation is irrelevant imo 

 

it could  be anyone 

it could be Putin 

it could be xi

it could be netenyahu

it could be knomeni 

 

in this case it was trump. 
 

it could be starmer or farage or Polanski 

 

 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

The subject of the manipulation is irrelevant imo 

 

it could  be anyone 

it could be Putin 

it could be xi

it could be netenyahu

it could be knomeni 

 

in this case it was trump. 
 

it could be starmer or farage or Polanski 

 

 

I think the actions of the subject and therefore the surrounding context have a critical effect on the matter, but fair enough. 

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Shouldn't it say government might have to raise tax AGAIN shocker? 

 

Y'know... Cuz the first Labour budget  included some £40billion~ in tax rises? 

Still doesn't answer the question.

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

Once in a generation style tax rises I think she said 

Tory tax rises 2010-2024 equated to 3% of GDP. 

It's also fairly clear the tax rises 5 months into a labour government last year weren't a response to labour policies. 

[Tommy G]

Just now, CornwallFox said:

Tory tax rises 2010-2024 equated to 3% of GDP. 

It's also fairly clear the tax rises 5 months into a labour government last year weren't a response to labour policies. 

I'm hazarding a guess you aren't a tax payer or don't have a family to support, because your constant defence of her is wild!

[Leicester_Loyal]

42 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Tory tax rises 2010-2024 equated to 3% of GDP. 

It's also fairly clear the tax rises 5 months into a labour government last year weren't a response to labour policies. 

Laffer Curve might mean that people are less incentivised to do overtime and extra work as they'll just be taxed more.

 

I'd have no problem paying more tax if it wasn't wasted on constant crap. We'll all pay more tax, yet none of the services will get any better.

[Lionator]

Compared to what Reeves is about to do, why would ‘tax wealth, not work’ be a bad idea? 
 

She should go after the ultra rich rather than the masses. If they leave the country then fine, seize their assets. 

[danny.]

21 hours ago, Voll Blau said:

Fvcking well would be to me.

 

20 hours ago, Trav Le Bleu said:

Oh how the other half live.

With a 7% pension contribution it’s a take home of £2800. 
 

If you bought a house ages ago maybe that’s good money, but if not then you can easily sink £1400 on a 3 bed semi in a not-amazing area. That leaves £1400.
 

If you don’t own a car and need one you’re looking at £500-700 a month for finance, insurance, fuel, VED, tyres, breakdown for just a standard low spec family car. 

 

That leaves £700-900. Take off £400 for food, £50 for internet and phones, £50 for water, £100 energy , £150 council tax, and you’re left with with between -£50 and £150. I haven’t included clothes, entertainment or anything crazy like a holiday into that. 
 

Hardly the life of a wealthy person is it!?

[Voll Blau]

1 minute ago, danny. said:

 

With a 7% pension contribution it’s a take home of £2800. 
 

If you bought a house ages ago maybe that’s good money, but if not then you can easily sink £1400 on a 3 bed semi in a not-amazing area. That leaves £1400.
 

If you don’t own a car and need one you’re looking at £500-700 a month for finance, insurance, fuel, VED, tyres, breakdown for just a standard low spec family car. 

 

That leaves £700-900. Take off £400 for food, £50 for internet and phones, £50 for water, £100 energy , £150 council tax, and you’re left with with between -£50 and £150. I haven’t included clothes, entertainment or anything crazy like a holiday into that. 
 

Hardly the life of a wealthy person is it!?

Yet still they manage to be a lot wealthier than me.

[danny.]

19 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Compared to what Reeves is about to do, why would ‘tax wealth, not work’ be a bad idea? 
 

She should go after the ultra rich rather than the masses. If they leave the country then fine, seize their assets. 

Because the wealthy already pay most of the tax. Most people do not even break even in terms of paying into the system positively - the U.K. government spends £17k per person, so unless a person is earning around £70k/year they are paying in less tax than government spending on them (ie net drain). If they have dependants that figure would be much higher. 
 

If the wealthy are taxed too high they will simply leave the country and then the problem escalates. Wealth taxes have been tried around the world and they don’t work. 

[danny.]

4 minutes ago, Voll Blau said:

Yet still they manage to be a lot wealthier than me.

Not sure that means much, why are you the yardstick here? Are they just “rich” because they are apparently wealthier than you?

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, danny. said:

Because the wealthy already pay most of the tax. Most people do not even break even in terms of paying into the system positively - the U.K. government spends £17k per person, so unless a person is earning around £70k/year they are paying in less tax than government spending on them (ie net drain). If they have dependants that figure would be much higher. 
 

If the wealthy are taxed too high they will simply leave the country and then the problem escalates. Wealth taxes have been tried around the world and they don’t work. 

Alright then... so assuming this is an accurate description of the problem, is there a solution that doesn't end with critical public services going missing and the most vulnerable people burning? Genuinely interested. 

[leicsmac]

On the general topic, ask practically anyone in the Gilded Age who wasn't a robber baron how well laissez-faire economics did for them. Or, for a more recent example, the UK and US in the 1980s.

[danny.]

6 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Alright then... so assuming this is an accurate description of the problem, is there a solution that doesn't end with critical public services going missing and the most vulnerable people burning? Genuinely interested. 

Either put taxes up or cut spending. One of those. Someone will lose out either way. We could also invest on infrastructure that would save/make money long term but can’t see this government doing that. 

[DennisNedry]

Surely the uproar to a rise in the basic rate of income tax would be higher than that to the benefit cuts earlier this year? 

[danny.]

Just now, DennisNedry said:

Surely the uproar to a rise in the basic rate of income tax would be higher than that to the benefit cuts earlier this year? 

Especially as she’s promised over and over again not to, and it was a manifesto pledge. Pointless having pledges if they are broken soon into the duration of parliament 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, danny. said:

Either put taxes up or cut spending. One of those. Someone will lose out either way. We could also invest on infrastructure that would save/make money long term but can’t see this government doing that. 

I'd like to see any government doing that. Particularly concerning highly important projects like green energy and public transport. 

 

But the fact is wealth inequality is clearly increasing, and the rising tide Isn't lifting all ships, and steps need to be taken to address that however possible. 

[danny.]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

I'd like to see any government doing that. Particularly concerning highly important projects like green energy and public transport. 

 

But the fact is wealth inequality is clearly increasing, and the rising tide Isn't lifting all ships, and steps need to be taken to address that however possible. 

Importing millions of cheap workers bringing down GDP per capita and pushing up house prices won’t help with stagnant wages or wealth inequality either 🤷‍♂️

[Zear0]

6 minutes ago, danny. said:

Importing millions of cheap workers bringing down GDP per capita and pushing up house prices won’t help with stagnant wages or wealth inequality either 🤷‍♂️

Brings down per capita but raises overall GDP. Was what the previous government were doing on overdrive to fiddle the books to make them look economically sound.  You've seen posters in here leap on the gross GDP figures without a clue of the other metrics and that kind of start padding is a vote fiddle.