General News Thread

[st albans fox]

41 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. 

the really wealthy will find ways around it 

and those who work their arses off (yes I know that there are plenty who do that who aren’t wealthy) will be left to carry the can 

 

if she brings in a property wealth tax above £2m then down in the south east that will pick up quite a few pensioners who won’t have the funds to pay it. 
Tax should be simple 

I can’t see how she can bring in a simple wealth tax which doesn’t affect a fair chunk who won’t be able to afford it 

 

 

[leicsmac]

15 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 🤷‍♂️

Assuming this is relevant to the ongoing discussion, perhaps the powers that be in the UK and elsewhere might then look to perhaps take measures to ensure those cheap workers don't have to come here (eg. help them more where they are). Or they can abandon them to their fate like any good Social Darwinist, I guess. 

[danny.]

10 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

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. 

Yup, just brings down the standards of living for everyone. I heard on LBC at the weekend we’re down to close to 40th in the global GDP/capita rankings. Quite a drop from 15th at the turn of the century. 

[Lionator]

41 minutes 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. 

So we tax the people working their arse off everyday then? Those who have little to begin with?

[danny.]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Assuming this is relevant to the ongoing discussion, perhaps the powers that be in the UK and elsewhere might then look to perhaps take measures to ensure those cheap workers don't have to come here (eg. help them more where they are). Or they can abandon them to their fate like any good Social Darwinist, I guess. 

People literally can’t afford Basic human necessities like food, heat and housing here. Why should we be spending money we don’t have to help people in other countries? That’s up to their governments. 

[Tommy G]

[danny.]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

So we tax the people working their arse off everyday then? Those who have little to begin with?

I didn’t say that. Is that your proposal? 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, danny. said:

People literally can’t afford Basic human necessities like food, heat and housing here. Why should we be spending money we don’t have to help people in other countries? That’s up to their governments. 

Because their problems appear to also be our problems, and those problems will not go away - indeed, they will likely get worse. 

 

So we either help as best we can (and so does whoever else in the world who can), or we pull up the drawbridge and let them suffer whatever fate they do.

 

At the fundamental level, that's the choice on offer here and I'd appreciate it if those dressing up the latter in flowery terms and deflection (probably because they know having that much blood on their hands won't look great) were actually honest about what it means and what they really want. 

[bovril]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

This is no joke to be fair. The English still toil under the Norman yoke. 

[danny.]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Because their problems appear to also be our problems, and those problems will not go away - indeed, they will likely get worse. 

 

So we either help as best we can (and so does whoever else in the world who can), or we pull up the drawbridge and let them suffer whatever fate they do.

 

At the fundamental level, that's the choice on offer here and I'd appreciate it if those dressing up the latter in flowery terms and deflection (probably because they know having that much blood on their hands won't look great) were actually honest about what it means and what they really want. 

I guess where we disagree here, is that I believe that a sovereign country first and foremost should look after it’s own citizens, and you believe that they should look after citizens of other sovereign countries. Suspect we won’t agree here! 

[CornwallFox]

2 hours ago, Tommy G said:

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!

Firstly, I'm not sure I offered much defence, I simply added some context that goes sorely missing. 

Second, multiple times I've asked questions of you or offered honest discussion about the pros and cons of approaches to be met by silence. There seems to be a group on here that pops in to slate labour whilst never wanting to engage in any meaningful discussion of alternatives.

[CornwallFox]

1 hour ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

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.

There's a fair discussion to be had there. 

Not regarding the laffer curve though,  which is basically meaningless when it comes to real world application,  particularly if you're trying to extrapolate one single curve across an increasingly complicated tax code. Certain taxes have certainly brought in higher revenue at higher rates in the past.

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, danny. said:

I guess where we disagree here, is that I believe that a sovereign country first and foremost should look after it’s own citizens, and you believe that they should look after citizens of other sovereign countries. Suspect we won’t agree here! 

Fair to say. 

 

I think that global problems sometimes transcend national ones, sometimes the two are intertwined, and that while first and foremost a nation should look after its own citizens, doing that in every circumstance doesn't tend to end well. 

 

Edit: again, though, that approach guarantees the suffering and death of a great many people who just don't happen to be British. How well that sits clearly is up to the beholder, but I'd rather people have the stones to regardless admit that is the case and that's the choice they make.

Edited 4 November 2025 by leicsmac

[CornwallFox]

12 minutes ago, danny. said:

I guess where we disagree here, is that I believe that a sovereign country first and foremost should look after it’s own citizens, and you believe that they should look after citizens of other sovereign countries. Suspect we won’t agree here! 

Are there not times when the two things are one and the same? 

Realistically, no honest approach to the small boats issue can ignore the need to improve conditions in other countries. I.e. solve problems at source. If you don't do that, you're not going to solve the problem no matter how many over simplified policies farage comes up with.

Edited 4 November 2025 by CornwallFox

[AS78UK]

We need to start cutting back government expenditure on projects like HS2 and come up with a better long term solution to the state pension...  

 

We can blame labour or the conservatives but both have increased borrowing during both parties tenures, without addressing the long-term.   

[AS78UK]

Honestly never felt so worried about the future of our children and the world they will inherit...

[Miquel The Work Geordie]

Reeves looks absolutely knackered 

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, AS78UK said:

Honestly never felt so worried about the future of our children and the world they will inherit...

I think that's a sentiment a lot of people share regardless of political compassing.

 

I wish I could say such fears are groundless, but unfortunately that wouldn't be true. However, there is hope and a pathway to a better future does exist. It will just take strength, smarts, and above all unity. And there are those who simply don't want that future, and would rather have one that serves their own self interest alone. 

[Tommy G]

24 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Firstly, I'm not sure I offered much defence, I simply added some context that goes sorely missing. 

Second, multiple times I've asked questions of you or offered honest discussion about the pros and cons of approaches to be met by silence. There seems to be a group on here that pops in to slate labour whilst never wanting to engage in any meaningful discussion of alternatives.

Because mate this is a football forum (mainly) - and there is no obligation to engage with people if you ask questions - I’ve debated plenty with people over the years and it’s hard to form an argument when it’s met with “but but but the tories did this though” 

 

Either that or I was distracted by my job or child. 
 

ps you didn’t answer if you are a tax payer or providing for your family fwiw 

[Tommy G]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think that's a sentiment a lot of people share regardless of political compassing.

 

I wish I could say such fears are groundless, but unfortunately that wouldn't be true. However, there is hope and a pathway to a better future does exist. It will just take strength, smarts, and above all unity. And there are those who simply don't want that future, and would rather have one that serves their own self interest alone. 

I think most people serve their own interests - we’re on the planet for a finite time - 80 years or so if you’re lucky. 
 

We aren’t all going to turn into a society of mother Theresa’s overnight - doesn’t mean everyone is selfish and plenty will do things for others - charity, unpaid care, voluntary work etc. 

[CornwallFox]

8 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Because mate this is a football forum (mainly) - and there is no obligation to engage with people if you ask questions - I’ve debated plenty with people over the years and it’s hard to form an argument when it’s met with “but but but the tories did this though” 

 

Either that or I was distracted by my job or child. 
 

ps you didn’t answer if you are a tax payer or providing for your family fwiw 

Yes I'm a higher rate tax payer with daughter at uni

[Tommy G]

2 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Yes I'm a higher rate tax payer with daughter at uni

Just outside the treasury’s definition of a working person then!

[leicsmac]

11 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

I think most people serve their own interests - we’re on the planet for a finite time - 80 years or so if you’re lucky. 
 

We aren’t all going to turn into a society of mother Theresa’s overnight - doesn’t mean everyone is selfish and plenty will do things for others - charity, unpaid care, voluntary work etc. 

We're a communal species, and though our lifespans are short compared to the way some things change, you're right in that people can and do lots of things for other people they have no obligation to help.

 

Perhaps mutual self interest is a better way of framing it, but not thinking of the future is the quickest way for there not to be one for anyone. Which is the very basis of the fears described above. 

 

So while, yes, people can and do serve their own interest, sometimes more is needed and I hope that enough people realise and are ready to act upon that, because a lot rides on it. 

 

Edit: considering what we now know about Mother Teresa, I'm not sure she's the best example to be used here 

Edited 4 November 2025 by leicsmac

[CornwallFox]

29 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

Just outside the treasury’s definition of a working person then!

Not sure what you mean? 

[Tommy G]

11 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

Not sure what you mean? 

https://news.sky.com/story/income-tax-and-national-insurance-unlikely-to-rise-as-sky-news-obtains-definition-of-working-people-13459288