Skip to content

Happy Treason Day you bunch of ungrateful colonials – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 13,231
edited 9:31AM in General
Happy Treason Day you bunch of ungrateful colonials – politicalbetting.com

4 July marks 250yrs of US independence-10% of Brits think independence was a bad thing-53% view George Washington favourably-Over all history, 28% say US has been more a force for bad in the world vs 38% force for good-64% say US now a force for bad-35% think Trump has permanently changed US

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 37,590
    First? Really?
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,707
    edited 9:38AM
    First? No second.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 9,486
    @ydoethur We had this once, it was debt collectors. But it was for a previous owner.

    I don't see what law prevents your opening a hand-delivered letter.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,266
    Happy 250th birthday to the United States of America! 🇺🇸
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,266
    St. Petersberg putting on an awesome fireworks display!

    https://x.com/zelenskyyua/status/2073314218086969456
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,962
    carnforth said:

    @ydoethur We had this once, it was debt collectors. But it was for a previous owner.

    I don't see what law prevents your opening a hand-delivered letter.

    Someone mentioned Deeds. Just in case any PBers who don't know - you can tell Land Registery to send you an email alert if someone starts messing with the entry for your property at the Registery.

  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,311
    edited 9:46AM
    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,962
    Sandpit said:

    St. Petersberg putting on an awesome fireworks display!

    https://x.com/zelenskyyua/status/2073314218086969456

    Interesting piece in this week's Spectator asking whether Putin knows any of this is happening. He is it seems in an information bubble and only gets updates and news from a tiny handful of inner circle. Mainly Gerasimov.

  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,607
    Sandpit said:

    Happy 250th birthday to the United States of America! 🇺🇸

    At least this year the UK can say 'To us it's just Saturday.' Has to be better than Tuesday.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,311
    Sandpit said:

    St. Petersberg putting on an awesome fireworks display!

    https://x.com/zelenskyyua/status/2073314218086969456

    Linky not working for me
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,694
    Sandpit said:

    St. Petersberg putting on an awesome fireworks display!

    https://x.com/zelenskyyua/status/2073314218086969456

    Really good to see the oil export terminal hit and a further step taken to the destruction of Russia's oil and gas industry.

    Last night Ukraine sent a bunch of flamingos to attack a plant that makes Iskander-M missiles, but unfortunately they were all shot down by Russian air defences. Fingers crossed that next time some will make it to the target.

    https://t.me/noel_reports/48813?single
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,962
    On the topic:


    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico

    The day of American insurrection is not a date to be celebrated by those who were rebelled against.

    https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2073334034503983590
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,114

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,627
    carnforth said:

    @ydoethur We had this once, it was debt collectors. But it was for a previous owner.

    I don't see what law prevents your opening a hand-delivered letter.

    Yes, it definitely sounds like that to me too.

    No reason not to open the hand-delivered letter. No reason, either, not to open an RM-delivered letter after several RTSes have been ignored.
  • TazTaz Posts: 29,114
    Driver said:

    carnforth said:

    @ydoethur We had this once, it was debt collectors. But it was for a previous owner.

    I don't see what law prevents your opening a hand-delivered letter.

    Yes, it definitely sounds like that to me too.

    No reason not to open the hand-delivered letter. No reason, either, not to open an RM-delivered letter after several RTSes have been ignored.
    When we sold my wife’s house we had three letters from DVLA for the tenant. I put ‘not at this address’ and sent it back

    The fourth time I opened it. Wrote ‘he’s moved, how many more fucking times’ and sent it back.

    We didn’t hear after that.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,600
    edited 9:55AM
    I am not at all sure things will return to the pre Trump period and especially in regard to the US attitude to NATO and individual member's need to increase their share of defence spending to 5% of GDP

    On domestic issues I posted this on the last thread as it changed:

    I have just read Starmer's recent interview where he cautions Burnham that he cannot simply dismiss international affairs as it plays a considerable part in a Prime Minister's in tray

    He also wants to claim he has been a success and also seems bemused why all of a sudden he is labour's shortest serving PM

    There does seem to be quite a group of mps and labour supporters quite shell shocked at the Burnham coronation and indeed it is reminiscent of Johnson's exit, with anger to this day from his close associates in the manner he was treated

    I hope Burnham succeeds but with each passing day it does seem he is avoiding accountability, but then that all comes to an end 2 weeks this weekend when he will be on the brink of power and will have a cabinet to announce

    If the rumours are true, he wants David Miliband and Ed Balls elevated to the Lords so they can be part of his government with David Miliband tipped as Foreign Secretary you do then have to wonder just how his present 400 plus mps feel when he has parachuted in his old cronies to jobs of influence at their expense

    I really hope he does appoint a COE that is not controversial, especially not Ed Miliband, and if he wants to make people feel better he needs an immediate impact offer on the cost of living
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,694
    edited 9:57AM
    The most striking polling result to me is the different reaction to Trump's first and second terms. Besides the Covid period - when Trump's manifest failings became all the more obvious - people's opinion of the US was not overwhelmingly negative, and not obviously damaged by the Trump presidency, but in the second term, the reaction has been much more negative. I think this is consistent with Trump's second term being much more damaging than his first, and it's interesting to see evidence of opinion reacting to things that happen, rather than being fixed in 2016.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 24,694

    Sandpit said:

    St. Petersberg putting on an awesome fireworks display!

    https://x.com/zelenskyyua/status/2073314218086969456

    Linky not working for me
    Text is:

    Last night, our Ukrainian long-range sanctions against Russia over this war reached targets near St. Petersburg. Ukraine's Defense Forces struck port oil infrastructure that generates revenue for Russia's war, and there were also successful strikes on Kronstadt – an important military target. The distance from Ukraine's state border is more than 850 kilometers.

    My thanks to everyone who is ensuring Ukraine's precision and carrying out our long-range sanctions plan. Glory to Ukraine!


    There's also a video showing large flames and smoke from an oil installation.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,273

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    True, but that accounts for 75%ish of the tax base, with the remaining 25% across about 25 different streams bring in 0-2% each, think council tax at 4% the only one above 3%. Even if you double a tax thats bringing in 1% (and lets assume the laffer curve allows for now) it is still a rounding error in total tax take, but you have created a load of political enemies. Double 5 of the 25 and the view of the population will be your a mad communist tax raiser who hates wealth and you still only have an extra 5%.

    He has made his first big mistake in not disavowing this pledge.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,266
    edited 10:07AM

    Sandpit said:

    St. Petersberg putting on an awesome fireworks display!

    https://x.com/zelenskyyua/status/2073314218086969456

    Interesting piece in this week's Spectator asking whether Putin knows any of this is happening. He is it seems in an information bubble and only gets updates and news from a tiny handful of inner circle. Mainly Gerasimov.

    Indeed. Not too sure he could have missed St. Petersburg being on fire when he had his little international conference there a few weeks ago though.

    He’s been talking about oddly specific territorial gains, which don’t match up to any other reports of what’s happening on the ground in the Donbas, and there’s some funny reports of ‘flag squads’, which are basically a couple of unarmed Russians posing as civilians, sent to get themselves behind the front line and to show Russian flags in Ukraine, apparently for little other than to get photos on the nightly news. As one might expect, these flags last about three minutes before the people involved get arrested or worse.

    I doubt he has any awareness that Crimea is being starved out, and that civilian Russian workers are in the process of being evacuated from the peninsula.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 8,245

    The most striking polling result to me is the different reaction to Trump's first and second terms. Besides the Covid period - when Trump's manifest failings became all the more obvious - people's opinion of the US was not overwhelmingly negative, and not obviously damaged by the Trump presidency, but in the second term, the reaction has been much more negative. I think this is consistent with Trump's second term being much more damaging than his first, and it's interesting to see evidence of opinion reacting to things that happen, rather than being fixed in 2016.

    Two things that really damaged Trump with British voters (and particularly Reform voters who viewd Trump favourably) was the disgrace in the Oval Office with Zelenskyy and the denigration of the British war dead.

    He's now a net negative with Reform voters.
    Also, how can any country that chooses baseball over cricket be classed as a civilised country.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,311
    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,905

    The most striking polling result to me is the different reaction to Trump's first and second terms. Besides the Covid period - when Trump's manifest failings became all the more obvious - people's opinion of the US was not overwhelmingly negative, and not obviously damaged by the Trump presidency, but in the second term, the reaction has been much more negative. I think this is consistent with Trump's second term being much more damaging than his first, and it's interesting to see evidence of opinion reacting to things that happen, rather than being fixed in 2016.

    Two things that really damaged Trump with British voters (and particularly Reform voters who viewd Trump favourably) was the disgrace in the Oval Office with Zelenskyy and the denigration of the British war dead.

    He's now a net negative with Reform voters.
    Also, how can any country that chooses baseball over cricket be classed as a civilised country.
    I think it's quite funny that the first ever international cricket match was between the USA and Canada.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_cricket_team_in_the_United_States_in_1844
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,311

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    True, but that accounts for 75%ish of the tax base, with the remaining 25% across about 25 different streams bring in 0-2% each, think council tax at 4% the only one above 3%. Even if you double a tax thats bringing in 1% (and lets assume the laffer curve allows for now) it is still a rounding error in total tax take, but you have created a load of political enemies. Double 5 of the 25 and the view of the population will be your a mad communist tax raiser who hates wealth and you still only have an extra 5%.

    He has made his first big mistake in not disavowing this pledge.
    75% of the current tax base. Never underestimate any government's ability to think of new taxes.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,123

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    True, but that accounts for 75%ish of the tax base, with the remaining 25% across about 25 different streams bring in 0-2% each, think council tax at 4% the only one above 3%. Even if you double a tax thats bringing in 1% (and lets assume the laffer curve allows for now) it is still a rounding error in total tax take, but you have created a load of political enemies. Double 5 of the 25 and the view of the population will be your a mad communist tax raiser who hates wealth and you still only have an extra 5%.

    He has made his first big mistake in not disavowing this pledge.
    You don't need to double our total tax take though. We are taxed a lot already and a 5% increase on that is huge not tiny.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,273
    edited 10:12AM

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Why should private residence and pension pots be exempt. Pretty unfair on renters who have mostly used ISAs for pension saving. Small group but we are out there!

    Given the size of MPs property portfolios and their generous pension schemes, I'm sure they will/would be, but chucking everything in the mix is clearly fairer.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,962
    Trump urged Congress to terminate the filibuster and pass the Save America Act, which has been widely criticised as a voter suppression bill. “We do that, we’re not going to lose an election for 100 years,” he said. “The communist party is made up of illegal immigrants, criminals and everybody that doesn’t want to work.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/04/trump-launches-americas-250th-birthday-celebrations-with-partisan-attack
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,273

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    True, but that accounts for 75%ish of the tax base, with the remaining 25% across about 25 different streams bring in 0-2% each, think council tax at 4% the only one above 3%. Even if you double a tax thats bringing in 1% (and lets assume the laffer curve allows for now) it is still a rounding error in total tax take, but you have created a load of political enemies. Double 5 of the 25 and the view of the population will be your a mad communist tax raiser who hates wealth and you still only have an extra 5%.

    He has made his first big mistake in not disavowing this pledge.
    75% of the current tax base. Never underestimate any government's ability to think of new taxes.
    28% Income tax 1799
    17% National Insurance 1911
    9% Corporation tax 1965
    18% VAT 1973
    4% Council tax 1992 (transition from poll tax and rates 1601)

    We introduce a lot of new taxes that come and go. They tend to be resented and bring in 0.5% or so of total tax take. It is exceptionally rare to introduce a new category of significant tax - it is not me underestimating their ability to think that, but you are underestimating the difficulty in applying that at a level that creates significant spending headroom.

    The public simply won't notice if we spend a couple of % more, as our demographics mean that increasing regularly by those amounts = standing still in public services, not improving them.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,273
    edited 10:25AM

    Trump urged Congress to terminate the filibuster and pass the Save America Act, which has been widely criticised as a voter suppression bill. “We do that, we’re not going to lose an election for 100 years,” he said. “The communist party is made up of illegal immigrants, criminals and everybody that doesn’t want to work.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/04/trump-launches-americas-250th-birthday-celebrations-with-partisan-attack

    I didn't realise he has moved on from calling the Republicans, MAGA and now identifies as Communist? Another hat tip to his mate Putin I suppose.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,273

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    True, but that accounts for 75%ish of the tax base, with the remaining 25% across about 25 different streams bring in 0-2% each, think council tax at 4% the only one above 3%. Even if you double a tax thats bringing in 1% (and lets assume the laffer curve allows for now) it is still a rounding error in total tax take, but you have created a load of political enemies. Double 5 of the 25 and the view of the population will be your a mad communist tax raiser who hates wealth and you still only have an extra 5%.

    He has made his first big mistake in not disavowing this pledge.
    You don't need to double our total tax take though. We are taxed a lot already and a 5% increase on that is huge not tiny.
    5% sounds like a lot because we don't know how to raise it, but it would be easy to spend.

    The defence spending commitment in full alone swallows that up. Health, roads, police, courts, education untouched and services weakened by our demographics.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,620

    On the topic:


    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico

    The day of American insurrection is not a date to be celebrated by those who were rebelled against.

    https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2073334034503983590

    Not 100% sure, but pretty certain that they are dead?
    I thought he was a fan of the Anglo-Saxon world? If we hadn’t lost America we wouldn’t have conquered India and that did far more for the UK long term than anything else
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,813
    Neo Liberalism gone mad. 1/2

    Privatise Britain's entire fleet of nuclear reactors, then allow the government of France to take control of the whole lot

    Privatise Royal Mail, then allow a Czech billionaire to take control of it

    Privatise MG, then allow the Chinese government to take control of it

    Flog off tens of thousands of units of housing on UK military bases, then rent the houses back at a cost of £14.5 billion more than it would've cost just to keep the military homes under public ownership

    Flog off England's water boards for a tiny fraction of their true value, then allow the private owners to extract tens of £billions in shareholder dividends and lavish executive salaries, whilst pumping billions of litres of raw sewage into our rivers and coastal waters

    Hire profit seeking corporations to subject disabled people to dehumanising and degrading "fit for work" assessments, which cost far more to administer than they save by booting people off disability benefits

  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,620

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 72,962

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,291
    One way I look at USA today is as a friend in an abusive relationship. In which case the main thing they will need, post Trump, is lots of TLC. So long as 'post Trump' doesn't entail more MAGA this is what I think we should give them.
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,813
    Neo Liberalism gone mad 2/2

    Relocate HMRC to an office complex owned by a pair of Tory party donors owned through the British Virgin Islands offshore tax haven

    Mass privatise thousands of schools in England into the hands of unaccountable profiteering academy spivs, who topslice the education budget to award themselves enormous six figure salaries

    Let private health profiteers cherry pick easy & most profitable work and get paid same or more per case than NHS hospitals who see most complex difficult cases at same level of income at same time as health profiteers are donors to successive Health Secretarie
    ·
    Flog off Britain's strategically vital underground aviation fuel distribution network (GPSS) for a tiny fraction of what it would've cost to build from scratch, then hire it back on a ten year contract worth three times what it was just sold off for

    Privatise police forensic science services, then watch the private owners screw up the evidence in literally thousands of cases without sanction

    I COULD GO ON
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,413
    So George Washington and Lincoln still seen favourably as is the USA in terms of its prior history but the USA of today under Trump unsurprisingly viewed unfavourably by most British voters. 55% of Green voters though see the US over its entire history as a force for bad in the world but on the other side only 40% of Reform voters think even Trump's USA is a force for bad in the world today.

    Tories and Greens do share one thing, in common, they are the voters most likely to think it was a bad thing the 13 colonies declared independence from Great Britain to form the USA. As Americans celebrate the 250th anniversary of their independence, 13% of Tory voters say US independence was a bad thing as do 15% of Green voters, both higher than the 10% of British voters overall who say US independence was a bad thing. LDs and Reform voters are on this occasion somewhat unusually united with only 7% of LDs and 8% of Reform voters saying US independence was a bad thing

    https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/Internal_USA_260625_w.pdf
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,839

    Trump urged Congress to terminate the filibuster and pass the Save America Act, which has been widely criticised as a voter suppression bill. “We do that, we’re not going to lose an election for 100 years,” he said. “The communist party is made up of illegal immigrants, criminals and everybody that doesn’t want to work.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jul/04/trump-launches-americas-250th-birthday-celebrations-with-partisan-attack

    I didn't realise he has moved on from calling the Republicans, MAGA and now identifies as Communist? Another hat tip to his mate Putin I suppose.
    ’They went around ‘gathering’ and ‘sharing’ ‘for fair distribution’ which meant they got it and we didn’t.’

    Sounds like Trump, but was actually Tolkien satirising the postwar Labour government.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,748



    Privatise MG, then allow the Chinese government to take control of it


    TBF, we did them up the shitpipe with that one. They paid 50 million quid just for a brand that was already trashed and have had to turn around.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,546
    Dura_Ace said:



    Privatise MG, then allow the Chinese government to take control of it


    TBF, we did them up the shitpipe with that one. They paid 50 million quid just for a brand that was already trashed and have had to turn around.
    I think they wanted the BMW engines.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,413
    Sir Keir still believes he saved Labour 'He made clear that he sees his four years as Labour leader in opposition as "absolutely core" to his legacy.

    Describing Labour when he became leader as "politically, financially and morally bankrupt", he said it had been "hard and bloody work".

    Sir Keir said that in electoral terms his success should sit alongside Clement Attlee's victory in 1945 and Sir Tony Blair's in 1997.

    He added: "The Labour Party arguably could have been lost, but I stepped up as leader and with others we saved the Labour Party".

    But he said he had been ousted because Labour MPs no longer believed he was "the right person to take us into the next election".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qy2zxjkwvo
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,813
    HYUFD said:

    Sir Keir still believes he saved Labour 'He made clear that he sees his four years as Labour leader in opposition as "absolutely core" to his legacy.

    Describing Labour when he became leader as "politically, financially and morally bankrupt", he said it had been "hard and bloody work".

    Sir Keir said that in electoral terms his success should sit alongside Clement Attlee's victory in 1945 and Sir Tony Blair's in 1997.

    He added: "The Labour Party arguably could have been lost, but I stepped up as leader and with others we saved the Labour Party".

    But he said he had been ousted because Labour MPs no longer believed he was "the right person to take us into the next election".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qy2zxjkwvo

    DELUDED
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,813

    HYUFD said:

    Sir Keir still believes he saved Labour 'He made clear that he sees his four years as Labour leader in opposition as "absolutely core" to his legacy.

    Describing Labour when he became leader as "politically, financially and morally bankrupt", he said it had been "hard and bloody work".

    Sir Keir said that in electoral terms his success should sit alongside Clement Attlee's victory in 1945 and Sir Tony Blair's in 1997.

    He added: "The Labour Party arguably could have been lost, but I stepped up as leader and with others we saved the Labour Party".

    But he said he had been ousted because Labour MPs no longer believed he was "the right person to take us into the next election".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qy2zxjkwvo

    DELUDED
    Every time Starmer opens his mouth to squeak about how he saved the Labour Party from hope, justice, equality and kindness, I despise him more.

    A unprincipled liar to the end.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,607

    The most striking polling result to me is the different reaction to Trump's first and second terms. Besides the Covid period - when Trump's manifest failings became all the more obvious - people's opinion of the US was not overwhelmingly negative, and not obviously damaged by the Trump presidency, but in the second term, the reaction has been much more negative. I think this is consistent with Trump's second term being much more damaging than his first, and it's interesting to see evidence of opinion reacting to things that happen, rather than being fixed in 2016.

    Seems to me a mistake to imagine things returning to how they were once Mr Trump leaves office. Trust has been damaged, and that takes quite a while to rebuild, if it ever can be rebuilt.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,202
    HYUFD said:

    Sir Keir still believes he saved Labour 'He made clear that he sees his four years as Labour leader in opposition as "absolutely core" to his legacy.

    Describing Labour when he became leader as "politically, financially and morally bankrupt", he said it had been "hard and bloody work".

    Sir Keir said that in electoral terms his success should sit alongside Clement Attlee's victory in 1945 and Sir Tony Blair's in 1997.

    He added: "The Labour Party arguably could have been lost, but I stepped up as leader and with others we saved the Labour Party".

    But he said he had been ousted because Labour MPs no longer believed he was "the right person to take us into the next election".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qy2zxjkwvo

    Given the state of the party in 2020, he's not entirely wrong, is he?

    (Yes, Jeremy got lots of votes from people who loved him. But that didn't matter when a sufficiently larger number of people hated, or were terrified of, him.)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,546

    Neo Liberalism gone mad. 1/2

    Privatise Britain's entire fleet of nuclear reactors, then allow the government of France to take control of the whole lot

    Privatise Royal Mail, then allow a Czech billionaire to take control of it

    Privatise MG, then allow the Chinese government to take control of it

    Flog off tens of thousands of units of housing on UK military bases, then rent the houses back at a cost of £14.5 billion more than it would've cost just to keep the military homes under public ownership

    Flog off England's water boards for a tiny fraction of their true value, then allow the private owners to extract tens of £billions in shareholder dividends and lavish executive salaries, whilst pumping billions of litres of raw sewage into our rivers and coastal waters

    Hire profit seeking corporations to subject disabled people to dehumanising and degrading "fit for work" assessments, which cost far more to administer than they save by booting people off disability benefits

    None of that is anything to do with neoloberalism, its incompetence or downright corruption.
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,540

    Neo Liberalism gone mad. 1/2

    Privatise Britain's entire fleet of nuclear reactors, then allow the government of France to take control of the whole lot

    Privatise Royal Mail, then allow a Czech billionaire to take control of it

    Privatise MG, then allow the Chinese government to take control of it

    Flog off tens of thousands of units of housing on UK military bases, then rent the houses back at a cost of £14.5 billion more than it would've cost just to keep the military homes under public ownership

    Flog off England's water boards for a tiny fraction of their true value, then allow the private owners to extract tens of £billions in shareholder dividends and lavish executive salaries, whilst pumping billions of litres of raw sewage into our rivers and coastal waters

    Hire profit seeking corporations to subject disabled people to dehumanising and degrading "fit for work" assessments, which cost far more to administer than they save by booting people off disability benefits

    I've just seen the twitter thread that these were copied from; can you explain to me why the state should own a car company?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,748
    edited 11:05AM

    Dura_Ace said:



    Privatise MG, then allow the Chinese government to take control of it


    TBF, we did them up the shitpipe with that one. They paid 50 million quid just for a brand that was already trashed and have had to turn around.
    I think they wanted the BMW engines.
    MG Rover were only using the 4 pot BMW diesel by that stage. They weren't built at Longbridge and were horrendously unsuited to transverse applications anyway. They did get all the tooling for the mighty K series though. Mean time between head gasket failures ~ 5 months.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 8,245
    edited 11:05AM
    AnneJGP said:

    The most striking polling result to me is the different reaction to Trump's first and second terms. Besides the Covid period - when Trump's manifest failings became all the more obvious - people's opinion of the US was not overwhelmingly negative, and not obviously damaged by the Trump presidency, but in the second term, the reaction has been much more negative. I think this is consistent with Trump's second term being much more damaging than his first, and it's interesting to see evidence of opinion reacting to things that happen, rather than being fixed in 2016.

    Seems to me a mistake to imagine things returning to how they were once Mr Trump leaves office. Trust has been damaged, and that takes quite a while to rebuild, if it ever can be rebuilt.
    The longest term damage will be to the American defence industry, as Europe gradually builds up its own defence manufacturing capability. I don’t think the other NATO countries will forget what Trump has done for a long time.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,397
    Cracking first lap.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,748
    Mortimer said:

    Neo Liberalism gone mad. 1/2

    Privatise Britain's entire fleet of nuclear reactors, then allow the government of France to take control of the whole lot

    Privatise Royal Mail, then allow a Czech billionaire to take control of it

    Privatise MG, then allow the Chinese government to take control of it

    Flog off tens of thousands of units of housing on UK military bases, then rent the houses back at a cost of £14.5 billion more than it would've cost just to keep the military homes under public ownership

    Flog off England's water boards for a tiny fraction of their true value, then allow the private owners to extract tens of £billions in shareholder dividends and lavish executive salaries, whilst pumping billions of litres of raw sewage into our rivers and coastal waters

    Hire profit seeking corporations to subject disabled people to dehumanising and degrading "fit for work" assessments, which cost far more to administer than they save by booting people off disability benefits

    I've just seen the twitter thread that these were copied from; can you explain to me why the state should own a car company?
    Ownership is irrelevant. SAIC are state owned and they make 4 million cars a year and shitloads of money doing. The only thing that matters in the fucking car business is the product.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 15,748

    AnneJGP said:

    The most striking polling result to me is the different reaction to Trump's first and second terms. Besides the Covid period - when Trump's manifest failings became all the more obvious - people's opinion of the US was not overwhelmingly negative, and not obviously damaged by the Trump presidency, but in the second term, the reaction has been much more negative. I think this is consistent with Trump's second term being much more damaging than his first, and it's interesting to see evidence of opinion reacting to things that happen, rather than being fixed in 2016.

    Seems to me a mistake to imagine things returning to how they were once Mr Trump leaves office. Trust has been damaged, and that takes quite a while to rebuild, if it ever can be rebuilt.
    The longest term damage will be to the American defence industry, as Europe gradually builds up its own defence manufacturing capability. I don’t think the other NATO countries will forget what Trump has done for a long time.
    I see things going one of two ways from here. First, the US succeeds, in concert with Russian and China, in splitting the EU apart with some countries opting for US vassalage (the UK has already done this) and others aligning with China and/or Russia. I think this is most likely over the medium to long term. Second, and less likely, the EU evolves into a more coherent structure that braids security, trade and politics into 'EUTO'.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 28,273

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
    That is about 0.4% of government spending. The country has gone mad that a rounding error in tax take will provoke hysteria among the press and commentariat, and ridiculous optimism from voters that public services can be turned around from inconsequential tax rises.

    Just raise income tax or don't bother.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,202

    Neo Liberalism gone mad. 1/2

    Privatise Britain's entire fleet of nuclear reactors, then allow the government of France to take control of the whole lot

    Privatise Royal Mail, then allow a Czech billionaire to take control of it

    Privatise MG, then allow the Chinese government to take control of it

    Flog off tens of thousands of units of housing on UK military bases, then rent the houses back at a cost of £14.5 billion more than it would've cost just to keep the military homes under public ownership

    Flog off England's water boards for a tiny fraction of their true value, then allow the private owners to extract tens of £billions in shareholder dividends and lavish executive salaries, whilst pumping billions of litres of raw sewage into our rivers and coastal waters

    Hire profit seeking corporations to subject disabled people to dehumanising and degrading "fit for work" assessments, which cost far more to administer than they save by booting people off disability benefits

    None of that is anything to do with neoloberalism, its incompetence or downright corruption.
    That's some of the problem; after all if you start from the position that the state tends to be less commercially sharp than the private sector, the private sector is pretty likely to get the better of any deal where state assets are privatised. Having sai that, it's painful to see how much of a better deal they have got in some cases.

    But the other problem is the one that Supermac pointed out all those years ago. There's nothing inherently bad about selling off family silver- especially if you're not getting much use out of it, or the cost of ownership exceeds the benefit. But for pity's sake, don't think of that as a recurring revenue stream. (And also recognise that one of the things you are selling is a degree of control over the asset you are selling; it's not yours any more. Golden shares may offer some protection, but only up to a point.)
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,546

    Neo Liberalism gone mad. 1/2

    Privatise Britain's entire fleet of nuclear reactors, then allow the government of France to take control of the whole lot

    Privatise Royal Mail, then allow a Czech billionaire to take control of it

    Privatise MG, then allow the Chinese government to take control of it

    Flog off tens of thousands of units of housing on UK military bases, then rent the houses back at a cost of £14.5 billion more than it would've cost just to keep the military homes under public ownership

    Flog off England's water boards for a tiny fraction of their true value, then allow the private owners to extract tens of £billions in shareholder dividends and lavish executive salaries, whilst pumping billions of litres of raw sewage into our rivers and coastal waters

    Hire profit seeking corporations to subject disabled people to dehumanising and degrading "fit for work" assessments, which cost far more to administer than they save by booting people off disability benefits

    None of that is anything to do with neoloberalism, its incompetence or downright corruption.
    That's some of the problem; after all if you start from the position that the state tends to be less commercially sharp than the private sector, the private sector is pretty likely to get the better of any deal where state assets are privatised. Having sai that, it's painful to see how much of a better deal they have got in some cases.

    But the other problem is the one that Supermac pointed out all those years ago. There's nothing inherently bad about selling off family silver- especially if you're not getting much use out of it, or the cost of ownership exceeds the benefit. But for pity's sake, don't think of that as a recurring revenue stream. (And also recognise that one of the things you are selling is a degree of control over the asset you are selling; it's not yours any more. Golden shares may offer some protection, but only up to a point.)
    I agree with not selling off the family silver. I agree with retaining a golden share. Britain's policy has been the worst of all worlds. We have insisted upon a studiously laissez-faire attitude to foreign takeovers, even of key resources, yet presided over a an economy where British businesses have been progressively weakened by state socialism.

    My only objection is to label all this as neoliberalism.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,416
    HYUFD said:

    Sir Keir still believes he saved Labour 'He made clear that he sees his four years as Labour leader in opposition as "absolutely core" to his legacy.

    Describing Labour when he became leader as "politically, financially and morally bankrupt", he said it had been "hard and bloody work".

    Sir Keir said that in electoral terms his success should sit alongside Clement Attlee's victory in 1945 and Sir Tony Blair's in 1997.

    He added: "The Labour Party arguably could have been lost, but I stepped up as leader and with others we saved the Labour Party".

    But he said he had been ousted because Labour MPs no longer believed he was "the right person to take us into the next election".

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c0qy2zxjkwvo

    Fair enough. I think Starmer’s 2024 victory does sit alongside Attlee’s and Blair’s… but Attlee and Blair then did something with their victories.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,266

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
    That is about 0.4% of government spending. The country has gone mad that a rounding error in tax take will provoke hysteria among the press and commentariat, and ridiculous optimism from voters that public services can be turned around from inconsequential tax rises.

    Just raise income tax or don't bother.
    This is how Starmer messed up, annoying identifyable groups of people, many of them, in exchange for tiny amount of tax raised.

    VAT on school fees being the most obvious one.

    The real money is in merging employee NI into Income Tax, so JFDI.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 67,041

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    That's one area in which I can sympathise with the American rebels today: no taxation without representation.

    That's exactly what Burnham intends to do, unless he approaches the country for a new mandate.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,397
    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 67,041

    On the topic:


    Andrew Lilico
    @andrew_lilico

    The day of American insurrection is not a date to be celebrated by those who were rebelled against.

    https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/2073334034503983590

    Not 100% sure, but pretty certain that they are dead?
    I thought he was a fan of the Anglo-Saxon world? If we hadn’t lost America we wouldn’t have conquered India and that did far more for the UK long term than anything else
    I'm not sure that follows. India was well on the way to being brought under EIC rule before the American Revolution.

    Australia might not have been settled as fast, though.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,416

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    Something doesn’t ring true about this story. I think it’s the part about Washington warning Warsaw. Why would Trump/Vance/Hegseth do that?
  • bigjohnowlsbigjohnowls Posts: 23,813

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    War Mongers of the West unite

    SKS saved Lab from Bankruptcy * 3 surely he could have nuked Putin
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 67,041
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
    That is about 0.4% of government spending. The country has gone mad that a rounding error in tax take will provoke hysteria among the press and commentariat, and ridiculous optimism from voters that public services can be turned around from inconsequential tax rises.

    Just raise income tax or don't bother.
    This is how Starmer messed up, annoying identifyable groups of people, many of them, in exchange for tiny amount of tax raised.

    VAT on school fees being the most obvious one.

    The real money is in merging employee NI into Income Tax, so JFDI.
    VAT on school fees will cost the Exchequer money.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 129,397
    edited 11:42AM

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    Something doesn’t ring true about this story. I think it’s the part about Washington warning Warsaw. Why would Trump/Vance/Hegseth do that?
    There was a WaPo or NYT article which said there's plenty in the armed forces and intelligence services who value their alliances/NATO etc and are making it impossible for these findings not to be shared.

    Plus

    The Telegraph also understands that a recent naval exercise in Latvia, in which the US navy and marines played a central role, was designed to remind Moscow that any attack on the eastern flank would be a de facto attack on American troops.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,520

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
    Is that true? I can think of plenty of Pigouvian taxes that raise revenue and have an upside too. But the broader point is that the "best" taxes for actually raising substantial revenue have largely been ruled out - income tax and VAT. Property is the only decent option left.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 8,365
    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
    Is that true? I can think of plenty of Pigouvian taxes that raise revenue and have an upside too. But the broader point is that the "best" taxes for actually raising substantial revenue have largely been ruled out - income tax and VAT. Property is the only decent option left.
    A new property tax is going to take some time to implement though
  • DriverDriver Posts: 5,627
    edited 11:48AM

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
    That is about 0.4% of government spending. The country has gone mad that a rounding error in tax take will provoke hysteria among the press and commentariat, and ridiculous optimism from voters that public services can be turned around from inconsequential tax rises.

    Just raise income tax or don't bother.
    This is how Starmer messed up, annoying identifyable groups of people, many of them, in exchange for tiny amount of tax raised.

    VAT on school fees being the most obvious one.

    The real money is in merging employee NI into Income Tax, so JFDI.
    VAT on school fees will cost the Exchequer money.
    True - but it was never supposed to raise revenue.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,520

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    This has been going on for ages and no one in Europe has shown the conviction to actually do anything about it. The defence spending ramping is pure virtue signalling.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 8,365
    I don't know why the USA is celebrating its 250th birthday today. The 13 colonies declared independence as sovereign states and it was not until Confederation in 1781 they became one country. So only the 13 original colonies plus maybe some other states that were part of them (such as Maine, Tennessee, W Virginia) should be celebrating
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,416
    Eabhal said:

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
    Is that true? I can think of plenty of Pigouvian taxes that raise revenue and have an upside too. But the broader point is that the "best" taxes for actually raising substantial revenue have largely been ruled out - income tax and VAT. Property is the only decent option left.
    The article discusses a number of Pigouvian taxes, but notes these can still have downsides, including increased smuggling or failing to produce the desired effects.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,501
    edited 11:54AM
    Eabhal said:

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    This has been going on for ages and no one in Europe has shown the conviction to actually do anything about it. The defence spending ramping is pure virtue signalling.
    It seems unlikely that Poland is spending around 4% of GDP and rearming rapidly, out of pure virtue signalling.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 8,365
    Eabhal said:

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    This has been going on for ages and no one in Europe has shown the conviction to actually do anything about it. The defence spending ramping is pure virtue signalling.
    What will he needed will be the resolve to act appropriately.

    If some Russians cross the border "accidentally" they should be told to leave, and if they don't turn round immediately and head back to Kaliningrad, destroyed. I am sure the Poles would do the job.

    Harder to work out what a sufficient response to a drone strike would be.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,520
    Nigelb said:



    Eabhal said:

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    This has been going on for ages and no one in Europe has shown the conviction to actually do anything about it. The defence spending ramping is pure virtue signalling.
    It seems unlikely that Poland is spending around 4% of GDP and rearming rapidly, out of pure virtue signalling.
    I might give the Poles a pass. But even then, Russian jets and drones have repeatedly gone into their airspace and there has been (as far as we know) next to no response.

    Oddly enough, the only leader I give any credit to on this is Erdogan. No qualms at all about shooting those jets down.
  • 83% of these correspondents do not think Abraham Lincoln was a "very good thing". Methinks they can be ignored and their views with them.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 17,708

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
    That is about 0.4% of government spending. The country has gone mad that a rounding error in tax take will provoke hysteria among the press and commentariat, and ridiculous optimism from voters that public services can be turned around from inconsequential tax rises.

    Just raise income tax or don't bother.
    This is how Starmer messed up, annoying identifyable groups of people, many of them, in exchange for tiny amount of tax raised.

    VAT on school fees being the most obvious one.

    The real money is in merging employee NI into Income Tax, so JFDI.
    VAT on school fees will cost the Exchequer money.
    But it gives Labour activists a warm fuzzy feeling, so...
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,266
    Driver said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
    That is about 0.4% of government spending. The country has gone mad that a rounding error in tax take will provoke hysteria among the press and commentariat, and ridiculous optimism from voters that public services can be turned around from inconsequential tax rises.

    Just raise income tax or don't bother.
    This is how Starmer messed up, annoying identifyable groups of people, many of them, in exchange for tiny amount of tax raised.

    VAT on school fees being the most obvious one.

    The real money is in merging employee NI into Income Tax, so JFDI.
    VAT on school fees will cost the Exchequer money.
    True - but it was never supposed to raise revenue.
    2020s fox hunting, and f*** all the kids who have their education turned upside-down.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 35,546
    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:



    Eabhal said:

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    This has been going on for ages and no one in Europe has shown the conviction to actually do anything about it. The defence spending ramping is pure virtue signalling.
    It seems unlikely that Poland is spending around 4% of GDP and rearming rapidly, out of pure virtue signalling.
    I might give the Poles a pass. But even then, Russian jets and drones have repeatedly gone into their airspace and there has been (as far as we know) next to no response.

    Oddly enough, the only leader I give any credit to on this is Erdogan. No qualms at all about shooting those jets down.
    If only people did the same to Turkey when it goes for one of its little jaunts outside its own borders.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,416
    A new national poll reveals a striking paradox in public sentiment ahead of America's 250th anniversary: a disconnect between Americans' strong patriotic pride and their lack of civic knowledge.

    According to a survey from the libertarian Cato Institute think tank of more than 2,000 U.S. adults conducted in late June, 86% of respondents said they are grateful to be American and 70% believe the nation's founding principles remain relevant.

    However, nearly half of Americans (46%) don't know that America's 250th anniversary commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.


    https://www.npr.org/2026/07/03/nx-s1-5881451/cato-institute-250th-july-4th-constitution-declaration-of-independence-poll
  • solarflaresolarflare Posts: 4,972

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    Something doesn’t ring true about this story. I think it’s the part about Washington warning Warsaw. Why would Trump/Vance/Hegseth do that?
    Agreed, almost more believable is the Poles accidentally overheard the Americans snickering about it
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,098
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    St. Petersberg putting on an awesome fireworks display!

    https://x.com/zelenskyyua/status/2073314218086969456

    Interesting piece in this week's Spectator asking whether Putin knows any of this is happening. He is it seems in an information bubble and only gets updates and news from a tiny handful of inner circle. Mainly Gerasimov.

    Indeed. Not too sure he could have missed St. Petersburg being on fire when he had his little international conference there a few weeks ago though.

    He’s been talking about oddly specific territorial gains, which don’t match up to any other reports of what’s happening on the ground in the Donbas, and there’s some funny reports of ‘flag squads’, which are basically a couple of unarmed Russians posing as civilians, sent to get themselves behind the front line and to show Russian flags in Ukraine, apparently for little other than to get photos on the nightly news. As one might expect, these flags last about three minutes before the people involved get arrested or worse.

    I doubt he has any awareness that Crimea is being starved out, and that civilian Russian workers are in the process of being evacuated from the peninsula.
    In the book Red Storm Rising, a collapse of fuel supply in the USSR kicks off World War III

    The Soviet leadership do this because they are presented with misleading intelligence on their chances of success.

    The KGB chief in the book is called Gerasimov.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,266

    A new national poll reveals a striking paradox in public sentiment ahead of America's 250th anniversary: a disconnect between Americans' strong patriotic pride and their lack of civic knowledge.

    According to a survey from the libertarian Cato Institute think tank of more than 2,000 U.S. adults conducted in late June, 86% of respondents said they are grateful to be American and 70% believe the nation's founding principles remain relevant.

    However, nearly half of Americans (46%) don't know that America's 250th anniversary commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

    https://www.npr.org/2026/07/03/nx-s1-5881451/cato-institute-250th-july-4th-constitution-declaration-of-independence-poll

    That’s what happens when history and civics curricula are reduced to slavery and racism and AmericaBad, as opposed to continuing to advocate for those founding principles.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 104,258
    After losing by about 0.50% 3 times already, I'm sure this tight win will usher in a stable time for Peru, which is the hallmark of their presidencies.

    Right-wing candidate Keiko Fujimori has been declared the winner of Peru's tight presidential election, nearly a month after the vote took place.

    The 51-year-old won 50.135% of voters' support in the runoff, held on 7 June, to 49.865% for left-wing candidate Roberto Sánchez - a margin of less than 50,000 votes, figures certified by Peru's electoral court show.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr5jpvv06e1o
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 72,600
    edited 12:17PM
    Cookie said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
    That is about 0.4% of government spending. The country has gone mad that a rounding error in tax take will provoke hysteria among the press and commentariat, and ridiculous optimism from voters that public services can be turned around from inconsequential tax rises.

    Just raise income tax or don't bother.
    This is how Starmer messed up, annoying identifyable groups of people, many of them, in exchange for tiny amount of tax raised.

    VAT on school fees being the most obvious one.

    The real money is in merging employee NI into Income Tax, so JFDI.
    VAT on school fees will cost the Exchequer money.
    But it gives Labour activists a warm fuzzy feeling, so...
    Bangor and Ruthin private schools closed yesterday plunging 350 schoolchildren and over 100 teachers into chaos

    Rydal School in Colwyn Bay is seeking to attract some of these pupils and also a school in Denbigh

    However, never mind it lights Philipson's face up in delight and that is all that matters
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 104,258

    A new national poll reveals a striking paradox in public sentiment ahead of America's 250th anniversary: a disconnect between Americans' strong patriotic pride and their lack of civic knowledge.

    According to a survey from the libertarian Cato Institute think tank of more than 2,000 U.S. adults conducted in late June, 86% of respondents said they are grateful to be American and 70% believe the nation's founding principles remain relevant.

    However, nearly half of Americans (46%) don't know that America's 250th anniversary commemorates the adoption of the Declaration of Independence.

    https://www.npr.org/2026/07/03/nx-s1-5881451/cato-institute-250th-july-4th-constitution-declaration-of-independence-poll

    That genuinely surprises me, as american mythologizing about their foundation is very strong, so I'd have assumed some of the core facts would have been permanently embedded on all citizens.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 55,731

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    Closer to home, if true, holding a lot of shares becomes a significant risk.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,098

    Eabhal said:

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    This has been going on for ages and no one in Europe has shown the conviction to actually do anything about it. The defence spending ramping is pure virtue signalling.
    Not in Poland it isn't.

    Eabhal said:

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    This has been going on for ages and no one in Europe has shown the conviction to actually do anything about it. The defence spending ramping is pure virtue signalling.
    Not in Poland it isn't.

    Eabhal said:

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    This has been going on for ages and no one in Europe has shown the conviction to actually do anything about it. The defence spending ramping is pure virtue signalling.
    Not in Poland it isn't.
    Something for those who don’t think we should re-arm

    The Germans are already noticing that the Poles are not referring to them on European defence anymore. The Poles rejected a request to by German for some items and went with South Korea.

    This bleeds though into strategy and what action will be taken.

    As the Poles see it, when they have the largest land army in Europe, they will be in charge of what they do with it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 104,258

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    War Mongers of the West unite

    SKS saved Lab from Bankruptcy * 3 surely he could have nuked Putin
    War mongers would be the ones who started a war and are thinking of expanding it.

    Which would be the Russians.
    And there are the war enablers, who immediately call for a 'halt' to fighting as soon as Russia attack anywhere in the name of 'peace', thus ensuring they would have obtained a lot more territory and population by force than they have managed to do in reality by helping Ukraine to resist.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,271

    Eabhal said:

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    This has been going on for ages and no one in Europe has shown the conviction to actually do anything about it. The defence spending ramping is pure virtue signalling.
    Not in Poland it isn't.

    Eabhal said:

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    This has been going on for ages and no one in Europe has shown the conviction to actually do anything about it. The defence spending ramping is pure virtue signalling.
    Not in Poland it isn't.

    Eabhal said:

    Next time you are inclined to think defence spending shouldn't be increased/Russia isn't a threat, remember this.

    Russia planning attack on Poland to test Nato resolve, US warns

    Critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones, with soldiers potentially crossing the border from Kaliningrad or Belarus


    Russia is planning an armed “provocation” on Polish soil to test Nato’s resolve, the United States has warned.

    Polish critical infrastructure could be targeted by missiles and drones or Russian soldiers could cross the border into Nato territory.

    Washington has issued several warnings to Warsaw about the plot, sources close to Karol Nawrocki, the Polish president, told Onet, the Polish news outlet, which, along with The Telegraph, is owned by Axel Springer and is part of its Global Reporters Network.

    The goal of the Russian provocation would be to escalate tensions and force Western allies to suspend aid to Ukraine. It could be launched in a matter of months.


    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/85bd86993903ea8b

    This has been going on for ages and no one in Europe has shown the conviction to actually do anything about it. The defence spending ramping is pure virtue signalling.
    Not in Poland it isn't.
    Something for those who don’t think we should re-arm

    The Germans are already noticing that the Poles are not referring to them on European defence anymore. The Poles rejected a request to by German for some items and went with South Korea.

    This bleeds though into strategy and what action will be taken.

    As the Poles see it, when they have the largest land army in Europe, they will be in charge of what they do with it.
    Poland = 800 main battle tanks
    Germany = 300
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 48,154
    Sandpit said:

    Driver said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    FPT - caught by the new thread:


    Regarding taxes, there's plenty of scope for Burnham to increase taxes without breaking manifesto promises imo. The key relevant statements about tax from the actual manifesto would seem to be:

    "[Labour will] keep taxes, inflation and mortgages as low as possible."
    "we will not increase National Insurance, the basic, higher, or additional rates of Income Tax, or VAT."
    "Labour will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25 per cent, the lowest in the G7"


    So, off the top of my head: property taxes, wealth taxes, additional taxes on unearned income, IHT rates, CGT rates, non-Dom taxes, ex-pat taxes... are all options.

    To those of you still wedded to the 'cut spending' panacea, I say wake up - it's not happened through 14 years of Tory rule, it's certainly not going to happen now or for the foreseeable (not should it imo).

    Taxes will rise. We all know it.

    SKS had the right idea on spending. Not cut it, but slow the rate of growth. However there may come a point where we have no choice. We’re not there yet.

    I’d be interested in what sort of wealth taxes you’d, or others, would suggest. Property is the simple one. But other assets, which is effectively what wealth is. How do you value a collection of pictures, or wine, or other assst classes for example.

    I think they will look at property up beyond that, I’m not sure.
    Yes, property has got to be the easy one to go for.

    Regarding wider wealth, I would just apply the rules that are used for IHT. Anyone completing an annual tax return would need to self-declare if their wealth is above a threshold and self-value, with HMRC having the ability to challenge/review.

    With a threshold of £1m say for personal wealth excluding principal residence and pension pot*, you're looking at c.600k people with an aggregate wealth of about £3 trillion. 1% pa tax on that is a very useful £30bn - more than pays for the Defence review. It would be the price of British Citizenship - living abroad or assets abroad would not be an exemption.

    I've done this quickly, my figures may be out - I'm sure someone will point it out if so - but the principle is sound.

    (*Pension LTA would need to come back - it should be re-implemented anyway.)
    Very difficult to implement and much is subjective. That’s why wealth taxes usually end up as property taxes

    Dan Neidle
    @DanNeidle

    Andy Burnham is probably going to raise tax by at least £4.7bn, and maybe much more.

    Here's my list of 37 ways he might do it: every potential tax rise, how much it would raise, and what the downside would be. There's always a downside.

    Thread:

    https://x.com/DanNeidle/status/2073339247575040440
    That is about 0.4% of government spending. The country has gone mad that a rounding error in tax take will provoke hysteria among the press and commentariat, and ridiculous optimism from voters that public services can be turned around from inconsequential tax rises.

    Just raise income tax or don't bother.
    This is how Starmer messed up, annoying identifyable groups of people, many of them, in exchange for tiny amount of tax raised.

    VAT on school fees being the most obvious one.

    The real money is in merging employee NI into Income Tax, so JFDI.
    VAT on school fees will cost the Exchequer money.
    True - but it was never supposed to raise revenue.
    2020s fox hunting, and f*** all the kids who have their education turned upside-down.
    Trump's ears prick up.

    Fuck all the kids you say?
Sign In or Register to comment.