General News Thread

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

 Sorry but I'm not a simp to the rich.

The wealthiest are wealthy because our economy has been set up to funnel wealth to the top and there's no longer a fair distribution between labour and capital. We've already let them take more and more of the wealth of the nation. I'm not then running scared of threats to leave. 

I'll repeat, let them go.

I wish sometimes people would sit and think about how the rich actaully make their money,  increasingly its done by paying people to do work for peanuts.   So who then is the really paying the tax of the rich.  The majority of people now on UC are in work,  the real beneficiaries of those benefits are therefore employees who are not paying wages sufficient to live on.  

[kenny]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

Anyone on around £73k pays £20k income tax and NI. Not sure where your stats are from @kenny? How did you get to £20k and £20bn?

Just guesswork on the basis the majority will be higher earners. In reality, it will be more once they have spent their salaries in terms of vat etc. £20k x 100k is the £2bn figure I came up with.

 

It's was to represent the point that has been made elsewhere that the higher taxpayers are so important to our economics, we shouldn't be driving them away.

[st albans fox]

3 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

I wish sometimes people would sit and think about how the rich actaully make their money,  increasingly its done by paying people to do work for peanuts.   So who then is the really paying the tax of the rich.  The majority of people now on UC are in work,  the real beneficiaries of those benefits are therefore employees who are not paying wages sufficient to live on.  

Whilst this was undoubtedly true in times past, I think it becomes increasingly less true nowadays.  not the very rich anyway.   Lots of small business owners may be underpaying their staff and living a very decent lifestyle. But they’re not the wealthy that most speak of. The mega businesses who pay very average wages don’t belong to individuals any more. (In the vast majority of cases). 

[Robo61]

1 hour ago, CornwallFox said:

 Sorry but I'm not a simp to the rich.

The wealthiest are wealthy because our economy has been set up to funnel wealth to the top and there's no longer a fair distribution between labour and capital. We've already let them take more and more of the wealth of the nation. I'm not then running scared of threats to leave. 

I'll repeat, let them go.

I wish sometimes people would sit and think about how the rich actaully make their money,  increasingly its done by paying people to do work for peanuts.   So who then is the really paying the tax of the rich.  The majority of people now on UC are in work,  the real beneficiaries of those benefits are therefore employees who are not paying wages sufficient to live on.  

[Izzy]

50 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

I wish sometimes people would sit and think about how the rich actaully make their money,  increasingly its done by paying people to do work for peanuts.   So who then is the really paying the tax of the rich.  The majority of people now on UC are in work,  the real beneficiaries of those benefits are therefore employees who are not paying wages sufficient to live on.  

 

37 minutes ago, Robo61 said:

I wish sometimes people would sit and think about how the rich actaully make their money,  increasingly its done by paying people to do work for peanuts.   So who then is the really paying the tax of the rich.  The majority of people now on UC are in work,  the real beneficiaries of those benefits are therefore employees who are not paying wages sufficient to live on.  

You can say that again 

[CornwallFox]

50 minutes ago, st albans fox said:

Whilst this was undoubtedly true in times past, I think it becomes increasingly less true nowadays.  not the very rich anyway.   Lots of small business owners may be underpaying their staff and living a very decent lifestyle. But they’re not the wealthy that most speak of. The mega businesses who pay very average wages don’t belong to individuals any more. (In the vast majority of cases). 

The model of corporate governance introduced through the reforms of Thatcher and Reagan, which is different to corporate governance elsewhere, is one where legally corporations exist to maximise shareholder value. That means maximising profits and continuing to do so to show growth.

 

There's only a few ways to do that and they do all of them: Raise prices as far as possible; reduce quality and material costs, pay the lowest wages possible, have as few staff as possible. CEOs get share options because they are picked by shareholders and their job is to increase share value. Having shares as part of their pay, as well as share price related bonuses, further incentivises them to make decisions that benefit shareholders.

 

So ordinary workers get ever smaller slices and shareholders ever bigger slices, when it comes to sharing our the benefits of productivity increases and business growth. There used to be a balance so workers did see benefits but the 1980s reforms saw an end to that and workers have steadily been getting worse off ever since, while more and more if the national wealth is transferred to the rich. Capitalism is eating itself. 

 

And what do we see in society? 95% of benefit recipients are in work. 1 worker families are no longer possible. Large companies shedding thousands of jobs despite making billions in profits just because they might not hit share price targets.

CEO: worker pay ratios have flown upwards. We have asset prices at record highs as the rich push their capital into assets like property, art etc, out of reach of ordinary people. See house prices in London. 

 

None of this has helped ordinary people. All of this needs to change.

Edited 19 November 2025 by CornwallFox

[Super_horns]

They don’t seem keen to tax the rich and powerful more in case those people leave the country and end up paying nothing so everyone else carries the can.

[st albans fox]

38 minutes ago, CornwallFox said:

The model of corporate governance introduced through the reforms of Thatcher and Reagan, which is different to corporate governance elsewhere, is one where legally corporations exist to maximise shareholder value. That means maximising profits and continuing to do so to show growth.

 

There's only a few ways to do that and they do all of them: Raise prices as far as possible; reduce quality and material costs, pay the lowest wages possible, have as few staff as possible. CEOs get share options because they are picked by shareholders and their job is to increase share value. Having shares as part of their pay, as well as share price related bonuses, further incentivises them to make decisions that benefit shareholders.

 

So ordinary workers get ever smaller slices and shareholders ever bigger slices, when it comes to sharing our the benefits of productivity increases and business growth. There used to be a balance so workers did see benefits but the 1980s reforms saw an end to that and workers have steadily been getting worse off ever since, while more and more if the national wealth is transferred to the rich. Capitalism is eating itself. 

 

And what do we see in society? 95% of benefit recipients are in work. 1 worker families are no longer possible. Large companies shedding thousands of jobs despite making billions in profits just because they might not hit share price targets.

CEO: worker pay ratios have flown upwards. We have asset prices at record highs as the rich push their capital into assets like property, art etc, out of reach of ordinary people. See house prices in London. 

 

None of this has helped ordinary people. All of this needs to change.

None of this is particularly arguable. 
I don’t see it changing to any great degree though 

[BKLFox]

It's never too early to learn the government is a greedy piglet that suckles on a taxpayer's teat until they have sore, chapped nipples. - Ron Swanson

[Md9]

I don’t know how trump and his team can just constantly lie about everything 😂 job reports come out and say there is less jobs than there has been in a period of time…. Trump- there is more jobs now than ever in history. Any sane person in America that has to deal with this nonsense daily must be losing their minds listening to him talk absolute shite every day 

[Super_horns]

The Russians posing a threat at sea - obviously provoking a strong reaction 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx24028k7edo

[Robo61]

14 hours ago, st albans fox said:

Whilst this was undoubtedly true in times past, I think it becomes increasingly less true nowadays.  not the very rich anyway.   Lots of small business owners may be underpaying their staff and living a very decent lifestyle. But they’re not the wealthy that most speak of. The mega businesses who pay very average wages don’t belong to individuals any more. (In the vast majority of cases). 

Then how can you explain the ever largening gap between the very rich & poor of this country. Those mega businesses you talk about are largely built on modern tech, who got their original owners very rich indeed, that can only be so if they were not paying their workers what they werereally worth, I give you Jeff Bezos. The same mega businesses that are now paying their executives millions in wages while the tax payer foots the claim bill of their employees benefits.

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Robo61 said:

Then how can you explain the ever largening gap between the very rich & poor of this country. Those mega businesses you talk about are largely built on modern tech, who got their original owners very rich indeed, that can only be so if they were not paying their workers what they werereally worth, I give you Jeff Bezos. The same mega businesses that are now paying their executives millions in wages while the tax payer foots the claim bill of their employees benefits.

Right. 

 

We're rapidly approaching a new Gilded Age, only with more sophisticated tech. And the idea that the rising tide of progress is lifting all ships is clearly incorrect - empirical evidence shows that. 

 

Wealth inequality is a massive issue and needs to be addressed, if only because other problems can then be addressed in turn. 

[danny.]

31 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Right. 

 

We're rapidly approaching a new Gilded Age, only with more sophisticated tech. And the idea that the rising tide of progress is lifting all ships is clearly incorrect - empirical evidence shows that. 

 

Wealth inequality is a massive issue and needs to be addressed, if only because other problems can then be addressed in turn. 

It's so incorrect, mass scale AI will make the majority of people redundant.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, danny. said:

It's so incorrect, mass scale AI will make the majority of people redundant.

That is a huge problem incoming, agreed. 

 

So that means either the way working society operates changes drastically, or (along with other pressures) the inequality will mushroom cloud to a degree that serious civil unrest will become probable to the point of being inevitable.

[Lionator]

12 hours ago, Super_horns said:

The Russians posing a threat at sea - obviously provoking a strong reaction 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cx24028k7edo

Not defending the Russians but this is relatively normal maritime stuff being used by the government for political gain that they’re strong in defending the country. 

[kenny]

16 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Not defending the Russians but this is relatively normal maritime stuff being used by the government for political gain that they’re strong in defending the country. 

Accessing territorial waters isn't.

 

Nor is firing lasers at fast jets.

 

Maritime surveillance in international waters, even over pipelines/cables would be normal.

 

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, danny. said:

It's so incorrect, mass scale AI will make the majority of people redundant.

We disagree on a lot but I’m completely with you on this one. I think a lot of people just think too short-term in AI as well - like how it will take certain jobs within the next 5 years and not how it will utterly restructure our society over the next 25 years in weird ways it’s impossible to predict. 
 

Like if told someone how the internet would change almost every job, our attention spans, lead to research suggesting people have less friends, less sex, feel like they have less meaningful relationships, completely change politics, society, how when and where  we work and everything when we were all getting those AOL CD-ROMs through our door and the common line back then was “it’s just a communication tool, it won’t change that many jobs”. Yet it’s so integrated in all our lives that it’s almost impossible to go internet free nowadays - like you can barely buy food with physical cash or use your banking in plenty of western countries nowadays even.

 

AI I think will more likely than not have multiple times more incredible profound and  weird, unthinkable effects on society than even the internet did. 
 

Like, I think most of society nowadays is seriously addicted to the internet in a way that does both individuals and society more harm than good, but AI will be able to quite easily create way more addictive and destructive algorithms to each individual person. Almost to the point where people will find it chemically extremely hard not to doomscroll for hours upon end (and how will powerful people take advantage of that - and how companies and governments will make it such an integrated a part of our life it’s almost impossible to go AI free from). 

 

I saw this Hank Green video recently which did a good explanation of it too. That we just can’t predict the profound changes AI will actually have in society because everyone only thinks short-term and the effect it will have on certain jobs within the next few years and not how it will affect our social relationships in 20-30 years.

 

 

Edited 20 November 2025 by Sampson

[JonnyBoy]

On 15/11/2025 at 09:30, leicsmac said:

Yes, the group that neither genuinely can afford to buy right now, and for reasons beyond their control, can take none of the options you suggest here. 

 

There's more of them than you might think, I reckon. 

 

I know that framing things like this purely in terms of personal responsibility feels good because, you know, "I did it so everyone else can and if they can't they're not trying hard enough" Just World Fallacy, but sometimes people do just need a bit of help - as, indeed, you do mention. 

 

Why cant they take any of the options suggested for group 2? I.e. halve rent by renting with someone or spare room? or live at home? what is their circumstance?

 

 

 

 

[JonnyBoy]

On 15/11/2025 at 09:27, CornwallFox said:

Apparently anybody normal that could buy if landlords weren't. You seem to have a very dim view of people looking to buy. Do you mind me asking so we understand where you're coming from: are you a landlord yourself? 

 

What do you mean? I don't understand your stance that people can't buy their first time house because all the landlords are snapping them up? i have already shown you there are 500+ 2 bed houses under £190,000 in the leicestershire area

 

Yes we own another property 

 

 

Edited 20 November 2025 by JonnyBoy

[Tommy G]

23 hours ago, CornwallFox said:

 Sorry but I'm not a simp to the rich.

The wealthiest are wealthy because our economy has been set up to funnel wealth to the top and there's no longer a fair distribution between labour and capital. We've already let them take more and more of the wealth of the nation. I'm not then running scared of threats to leave. 

I'll repeat, let them go.

So if you're wealthy the only way you've got to that position is because it's the way our economy is set up. 

 

''Let them go'' and public services collapse my friend. 

[CornwallFox]

20 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

So if you're wealthy the only way you've got to that position is because it's the way our economy is set up. 

 

''Let them go'' and public services collapse my friend. 

Don't be ridiculous. The idea all the rich people of the country leave em masses because of a tiny increase in tax rates is laughable. 

 

You'd set up the tax and legal system to support taxing wealth. 

 

Tax assets leaving the UK at a higher rate than you're taxing wealth. 

Have limits on non-uk resident ownership of companies. 

Have a UK residency criteria on property ownership. 

 

The idea that we have to continuously reduce tax on the richest for them to invest. And then not tax them, or as little as possible, on their wealth afterwards in case they run away is ridiculous. I cannot fathom how so many on the right are happy to ignore the huge losses associated with Brexit but run scared of much smaller tax losses from a few people - but gains from everybody that's left - for taxing wealth. 

 

Of course entrepreneurship etc can lead to wealth but equally those people rely on the nation having a well educated workforce, government backed apprenticeship schemes, internet, road, rail, energy infrastructure. They don't do it in a bubble. 

 

I'm all for people having a great idea and getting rich on the back of it. I just have an expectation that once they've made it, they might let the workers that support them benefit a little so the nation doesn't have to top up their wages with benefits, and that they recognise the country they live in has benefited them and don't see paying tax as akin to theft.

 

And when we talk about taxing wealth, we're not talking about targeting somebody on a couple of hundred thousand, maybe not even a millionaire, we're talking about the truly staggering wealth some have gained and which is no longer based on their ideas or work, but it's largely due to assets appreciating and the way they can leverage that. 

Edited 20 November 2025 by CornwallFox

[Lionator]

1 hour ago, kenny said:

Accessing territorial waters isn't.

 

Nor is firing lasers at fast jets.

 

Maritime surveillance in international waters, even over pipelines/cables would be normal.

 

The ship isn’t in territorial waters and if it enters it, should be driven out immediately. The laser thing is common is you look at Cold War history as well as what goes on in the South China Sea these days. Also it wasn’t a fast jet, it was a P8 maritime surveillance plane. 
 

This ship is bad news, and I’m defending Russians, I’m just saying that the government are highlighting this particular incident as it produces a narrative of ‘strength’ when the majority know we can’t defend our borders from illegal migrants, let alone Russians. 

[kenny]

2 minutes ago, Lionator said:

The ship isn’t in territorial waters and if it enters it, should be driven out immediately. The laser thing is common is you look at Cold War history as well as what goes on in the South China Sea these days. Also it wasn’t a fast jet, it was a P8 maritime surveillance plane. 
 

This ship is bad news, and I’m defending Russians, I’m just saying that the government are highlighting this particular incident as it produces a narrative of ‘strength’ when the majority know we can’t defend our borders from illegal migrants, let alone Russians. 

Apologies, it has been in UK territorial waters this year and it isn't clear if it has on this occasion.

 

Correct on the aircraft. Though im not sure that changes anything.

 

I wonder how Russia would react if we behaved in the same way. Nuclear escalation I expect.

[Jon the Hat]

2 hours ago, danny. said:

It's so incorrect, mass scale AI will make the majority of people redundant.

Question then, if he majority of the people don't have a job, how will they buy the products & services which AI creates?  Assuming AI can do everything which of course it cannot.