Skip to content

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

24

Comments

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,355

    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
    Damn, that would take a fair few drones to get rid of that lot.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,271

    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

    The War ended in 1783 in any case (Treaty of Paris).
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,501
    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Top trolling.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,268

    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.
    If there’s one thing shown clearly by this war, it’s the need to diversify military equipment, and that even long-standing allies might not agree to let you send equipment where you want to send it.

    The Americans and Germans have been particularly bad in this respect, but the Ukranians also see the Brits and French as not all good.

    They’ve built their own weapons to send to Moscow, because many of their ‘allies’ got cold feet at the prospect of bombing a nuclear power, even when considered necessary to stop their aggression.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,501
    I’m shocked that Russia can crash a building onto sleeping families in a European capital, murdering 30 people, without any meaningful reaction from the world whatsoever.
    https://x.com/BohuslavskaKate/status/2073079552683675951
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,355

    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
    The current estimates are that we have 20-25 that are actually capable of moving under their own power at any one time although we have a "paper" strength of just over 200. Once again, as with the navy, the difference between what we are supposed to be getting for our £60bn a year and what we actually get is roughly 90%.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,314

    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
    Er... IHT?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,149
    edited 12:37PM
    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.
    Ahem. As I pointed out in my Intermarium article, Poland did some serious spending on defence and instead of wasting it on studies they actually bought things and deployed them. I know, crazy right? A defence investment plan that actually works? Who could have imagined such a thing? (side-eyes MOD)

    https://www.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/29/the-intermarium/
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,417
    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,501
    DavidL 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.
    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
    The current estimates are that we have 20-25 that are actually capable of moving under their own power at any one time although we have a "paper" strength of just over 200. Once again, as with the navy, the difference between what we are supposed to be getting for our £60bn a year and what we actually get is roughly 90%.
    That's what happens when you try to maintain multiple capabilities on inadequate money.

    We need to prioritise, and MBTs simply aren't a priority for an island nation.
  • oxfordsimonoxfordsimon Posts: 6,078

    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.
    It really doesn't. For their faults, Attlee and Blair set out a positive vision and attracted over 49% and 43% of the popular vote.

    Starmer never set out a vision, he promised change without fully laying out what that meant. And he u-turned on a number of things that did feature in his manifesto meaning that he lost trust very quickly. The majority he got was due to the fracturing of British politics and he secured under 34% of the vote. There was never a love for Starmer. No enthusiasm. No passion.

    In no way are these things comparable.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,501
    Don Jr. owns 311,433 shares of GrabAGun Digital Holdings ($PEW). Got 300,000 just for being a "consultant" in December 2024, one month after the election. GREAT timing, some would say PERFECT timing! Board seat too. BEAUTIFUL board seat, the best!

    Who took it public? Colombier II, a SPAC run by Omeed Malik, Don Jr.'s partner at 1789 Capital AND his co-owner at Executive Branch, the D.C. club with the $500,000 entrance fee. Very exclusive! You can't get in, believe me!

    And who showed up at that club's launch party? Paul Atkins, the brand new SEC Chair, 5 days on the job! Two months later the SEC approves the
    $PEW
    listing. Total coincidence, many people are saying!

    But wait, there's MORE! GrabAGun's financing runs through Credova, owned by PublicSquare, where Don Jr. is ALSO a board member and investor. He gets paid coming AND going. Smart!

    Malik even bragged Don Jr.'s "cult of personality" would make the stock trade above the fundamentals. They put it in the SEC filing! IN WRITING!

    Now Daddy's ATF proposes the BIGGEST gun rule change in 20 YEARS, firearms shipped to your door like a pizza. 3.3 MILLION buyers a year, says the ATF. One of 34 — THIRTY FOUR — deregulations from Trump's own executive order. The Post Office wants to mail handguns too. Beautiful synergy!

    Who wins? The family business. The stock's down 85% but don't worry, the regulators are FAMILY FRIENDS!

    https://x.com/TrumpsPortfolio/status/2073316031624310884

    Trump: Our American ancestors did not shed their blood just so that a band of thieves, radicals, and lunatics could come in and loot pillage our nation
    https://x.com/Acyn/status/2073247842718949436
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,520
    edited 12:43PM

    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
    Er... IHT?
    Is a poor financial planning/bad luck tax, with a perverse subsidy for property.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,413

    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.
    It really doesn't. For their faults, Attlee and Blair set out a positive vision and attracted over 49% and 43% of the popular vote.

    Starmer never set out a vision, he promised change without fully laying out what that meant. And he u-turned on a number of things that did feature in his manifesto meaning that he lost trust very quickly. The majority he got was due to the fracturing of British politics and he secured under 34% of the vote. There was never a love for Starmer. No enthusiasm. No passion.

    In no way are these things comparable.
    Indeed, Starmer in 2024 got the same voteshare to win as Kinnock did in 1992 when he lost. When he stood for Labour leader that is what Starmer thought he would be, another Kinnock who could make the party electable again before someone else took them finally back to power. Yet because the Tories blew themselves up with partygate and the Truss budget and Sunak enabling Farage's return so Reform split the rightwing vote, Labour ended up winning a general election they weren't prepared to govern from after
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,149
    DavidL said:

    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
    Absolutely. He was on the BBC yesterday explaining what a difficult and emotional choice it had been deciding to resign as PM and how much he needed his wife's support. It still didn't seem to have registered that the difficult and emotional choices had in fact been made by over 300 Labour MPs who wanted shot of him and had declared for Burnham to replace him and that the "difficult" choices he had were to resign or be utterly humiliated because he had no support to talk of in the party.
    Sympathising with the human part of Starmer for the moment, it will be difficult for him to process what has happened and that process will be painful and may go wrong: see Truss, who drew exactly the wrong conclusions. But the interview also highlights another problem: that Starmer's internal state is of interest. It really isn't. I sympathise with his distress and his desire to be a good husband and father, and good for him. But it's not part of the job.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,268
    Five minute compilation video of social media posts from football fans at the World Cup:

    https://x.com/girlpatriot1974/status/2072188846691983778

    TL:DR a massive well done to all of the fans and the host nations, looks like an awesome worldwide party with very few reports of any trouble.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 21,417

    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.
    It really doesn't. For their faults, Attlee and Blair set out a positive vision and attracted over 49% and 43% of the popular vote.

    Starmer never set out a vision, he promised change without fully laying out what that meant. And he u-turned on a number of things that did feature in his manifesto meaning that he lost trust very quickly. The majority he got was due to the fracturing of British politics and he secured under 34% of the vote. There was never a love for Starmer. No enthusiasm. No passion.

    In no way are these things comparable.
    Attlee won because of the war; I’m not certain it was anything in particular that Attlee did that got them the victory. Blair’s victory came on the back of what Kinnock and Smith had done. I think one can argue that Starmer, of the three, did most work in terms of transforming Labour! Although Starmer also won because of the fracturing of the Right and the failures of Johnson and Truss.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,355
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL 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.
    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
    The current estimates are that we have 20-25 that are actually capable of moving under their own power at any one time although we have a "paper" strength of just over 200. Once again, as with the navy, the difference between what we are supposed to be getting for our £60bn a year and what we actually get is roughly 90%.
    That's what happens when you try to maintain multiple capabilities on inadequate money.

    We need to prioritise, and MBTs simply aren't a priority for an island nation.
    Oh I agree. And Ukraine have shown that MBTs are just death traps anyway on a modern battlefield. The utter disgrace, and I include Healey in this despite his "principled" resignation, is that consecutive SoS for Defence have allowed a situation where our armed forces are so run down that they are barely a shadow of what they bear to be with almost no operational capacity. We incur all of these costs but have next to nothing to show for it. Another example is that France have now intercepted 5 shadow ships from Russia. We have managed to stop 1 and this needed French cooperation. Its utterly pathetic.

    This didn't start with Healey, its been an increasing problem for decades, but I see no signs that his tenure showed any improvement. I seriously doubt if the extra £4.7bn we are talking about would even allow us to restore our paper strength, let alone make any improvements. Whether that should be our priority is a separate issue.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295

    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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,149
    DavidL 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.
    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
    Damn, that would take a fair few drones to get rid of that lot.
    From memory, and from a couple of years back, on any given day there will be approx 10,000 drones in the air over Eastern Ukraine.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,099
    DavidL 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.
    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
    Damn, that would take a fair few drones to get rid of that lot.
    The Ukrainians are still fielding tanks and APCs

    In addition, many of the next generation of tanks and APCs have point defences - they might well be more survivable on a drone filled battlefield than unprotected infantry.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,840
    Nigelb said:

    Don Jr. owns 311,433 shares of GrabAGun Digital Holdings ($PEW). Got 300,000 just for being a "consultant" in December 2024, one month after the election. GREAT timing, some would say PERFECT timing! Board seat too. BEAUTIFUL board seat, the best!

    Who took it public? Colombier II, a SPAC run by Omeed Malik, Don Jr.'s partner at 1789 Capital AND his co-owner at Executive Branch, the D.C. club with the $500,000 entrance fee. Very exclusive! You can't get in, believe me!

    And who showed up at that club's launch party? Paul Atkins, the brand new SEC Chair, 5 days on the job! Two months later the SEC approves the
    $PEW
    listing. Total coincidence, many people are saying!

    But wait, there's MORE! GrabAGun's financing runs through Credova, owned by PublicSquare, where Don Jr. is ALSO a board member and investor. He gets paid coming AND going. Smart!

    Malik even bragged Don Jr.'s "cult of personality" would make the stock trade above the fundamentals. They put it in the SEC filing! IN WRITING!

    Now Daddy's ATF proposes the BIGGEST gun rule change in 20 YEARS, firearms shipped to your door like a pizza. 3.3 MILLION buyers a year, says the ATF. One of 34 — THIRTY FOUR — deregulations from Trump's own executive order. The Post Office wants to mail handguns too. Beautiful synergy!

    Who wins? The family business. The stock's down 85% but don't worry, the regulators are FAMILY FRIENDS!

    https://x.com/TrumpsPortfolio/status/2073316031624310884

    Trump: Our American ancestors did not shed their blood just so that a band of thieves, radicals, and lunatics could come in and loot pillage our nation
    https://x.com/Acyn/status/2073247842718949436

    According to his own criterion, Trump has no American ancestors.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,501

    DavidL 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.
    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
    Damn, that would take a fair few drones to get rid of that lot.
    The Ukrainians are still fielding tanks and APCs

    In addition, many of the next generation of tanks and APCs have point defences - they might well be more survivable on a drone filled battlefield than unprotected infantry.
    There are no unprotected infantry on a drone filled battlefield. Not living, at least.

    MBTs are not employed much.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,413
    'When King Charles made public his accounts this week, he surreptitiously slipped into the document a quite significant change.

    In a few amended lines in the Sovereign Grant Annual Report, the duties of the monarchy have been covertly changed. The King’s title as “Defender of the Faith” has been replaced by “Protector of the Space for Faith within the Multi-faith Nation.”

    https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/king-charles-has-broken-his-coronation-oath-to-defend-the-christian-faith/21787.article?utm_source=null&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15542511_PCTY WEEKLY (4/07/26)&dm_i=16DQ,994OF,4U4J,12UP06,1,0,0,0
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 92,026
    What could possibly go wrong,....

    AI lawyers could save you thousands - Law firms under pressure to lower fees and work faster or face risk of automation
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/07/04/ai-lawyers-are-here-and-could-save-you-thousands/
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295

    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.
    It really doesn't. For their faults, Attlee and Blair set out a positive vision and attracted over 49% and 43% of the popular vote.

    Starmer never set out a vision, he promised change without fully laying out what that meant. And he u-turned on a number of things that did feature in his manifesto meaning that he lost trust very quickly. The majority he got was due to the fracturing of British politics and he secured under 34% of the vote. There was never a love for Starmer. No enthusiasm. No passion.

    In no way are these things comparable.
    Attlee won because of the war; I’m not certain it was anything in particular that Attlee did that got them the victory. Blair’s victory came on the back of what Kinnock and Smith had done. I think one can argue that Starmer, of the three, did most work in terms of transforming Labour! Although Starmer also won because of the fracturing of the Right and the failures of Johnson and Truss.
    Blair did Ming Vase just like Starmer. The main difference (other than charisma and comms) wasn't about Vision it was about a healthier economic and fiscal position, and a more stable international one, on taking office.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,379
    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 8,365
    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    You could abolish IHT and tax it as income of the recipient.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,268

    DavidL 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.
    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
    Damn, that would take a fair few drones to get rid of that lot.
    The Ukrainians are still fielding tanks and APCs

    In addition, many of the next generation of tanks and APCs have point defences - they might well be more survivable on a drone filled battlefield than unprotected infantry.
    The old Soviet tanks had a wonderful weak point, in that their turrets could be blown half way to the moon with a well-placed drone charge.

    Yes, modern Western designs are a lot better.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295
    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    Well it's both. No wealth, no tax. No transfer, no tax.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 90,501
    .

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
    Try this one.
    "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"

    Yes: 51%
    No: 32%

    Research Co. / June 6, 2026

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2072785978356351192
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,314
    edited 12:58PM
    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,271
    Ten years ago today, I was here:


  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,540

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    Once in a lifetime?

    The juice won't be worth the squeeze.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295
    edited 1:03PM

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    It can. I don't see it happening but imo the reason is more political than practicality. I doubt the sort of WT that would raise big £££ would be popular.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 92,026
    edited 1:06PM

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    There is something like 600k deaths per year, so a tiny proportion of the total housing stock. It is something that is done once and it can take bloody ages to settle as the administrators and HMRC can come up with differing opinions. For a wealth tax you need to do everybody every year. It can be done, but its orders of magnitude greater task.

    With tax you can come with two options really. Imperfect but easy to take tax e.g. income tax, sales taxes on good purchased. Or you can do much more done the US route of everybody needs to do self assessment under the fear (which is far less these days) of the IRS auditting your entire taxable history at some point.
  • eekeek Posts: 34,379

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    But the assets are transferable, introduce a wealth tax and suddenly a lot of wealth will be stored outside the UK..
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,534

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    Except you’d have to do it every year, not just once, so that’s a hell if a lot for HMRC to keep up on, and IHT has exemptions for things like shares held in private companies because they are effectively impossible to value. Are you proposing keeping such exemptions?
  • welshowlwelshowl Posts: 4,534
    edited 1:05PM

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    Except you’d have to do it every year, not just once, so that’s a hell of a lot for HMRC to keep up on, and IHT has exemptions for things like shares held in private companies because they are effectively impossible to value. Are you proposing keeping such exemptions?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 64,099
    Nigelb said:

    DavidL 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.
    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
    Damn, that would take a fair few drones to get rid of that lot.
    The Ukrainians are still fielding tanks and APCs

    In addition, many of the next generation of tanks and APCs have point defences - they might well be more survivable on a drone filled battlefield than unprotected infantry.
    There are no unprotected infantry on a drone filled battlefield. Not living, at least.

    MBTs are not employed much.
    MBTs are still on the front lines.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    You could abolish IHT and tax it as income of the recipient.
    I favour that. Corbyn Labour had it in there iirc.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 29,149
    eek said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    But the assets are transferable, introduce a wealth tax and suddenly a lot of wealth will be stored outside the UK..
    Indeed. It has to be a land tax because you can't relocate land
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295
    Nigelb said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
    Try this one.
    "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"

    Yes: 51%
    No: 32%

    Research Co. / June 6, 2026

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2072785978356351192
    That is a worrying stat.
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 37,314

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    You could abolish IHT and tax it as income of the recipient.
    Collection would be much harder and the tax take lower. Currently the IHT has to be paid before probate is granted. Taxing the recipient would require each recipient to complete a tax return (many of whom might not normally do so) and pay the resulting tax. How do you enforce that? Also how do you deal with physical assets? They would still need to be valued as per IHT.

    I can't see the benefit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,268
    eek said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    But the assets are transferable, introduce a wealth tax and suddenly a lot of wealth will be stored outside the UK..
    Worse than that, anyone with any entrepreneurial spirit will simply set up somewhere else in the first place.

    There’s plenty of jurisdictions in the US, Asia, Middle East, who welcome new enterprise and startup companies with open arms.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 8,245
    eek said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    But the assets are transferable, introduce a wealth tax and suddenly a lot of wealth will be stored outside the UK..
    Then also introduce an export tax on personal possessions.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 92,026

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    There is something like 600k deaths per year, so a tiny proportion of the total housing stock. It is something that is done once and it can take bloody ages to settle as the administrators and HMRC can come up with differing opinions. For a wealth tax you need to do everybody every year. It can be done, but its orders of magnitude greater task.

    With tax you can come with two options really. Imperfect but easy to take tax e.g. income tax, sales taxes on good purchased. Or you can do much more done the US route of everybody needs to do self assessment under the fear (which is far less these days) of the IRS auditting your entire taxable history at some point.
    Edit -> my example of income tax meant to say PAYE income tax.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,842

    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.
    It really doesn't. For their faults, Attlee and Blair set out a positive vision and attracted over 49% and 43% of the popular vote.

    Starmer never set out a vision, he promised change without fully laying out what that meant. And he u-turned on a number of things that did feature in his manifesto meaning that he lost trust very quickly. The majority he got was due to the fracturing of British politics and he secured under 34% of the vote. There was never a love for Starmer. No enthusiasm. No passion.

    In no way are these things comparable.
    Attlee won because of the war; I’m not certain it was anything in particular that Attlee did that got them the victory. Blair’s victory came on the back of what Kinnock and Smith had done. I think one can argue that Starmer, of the three, did most work in terms of transforming Labour! Although Starmer also won because of the fracturing of the Right and the failures of Johnson and Truss.
    The memory of the 1930's too.
    There was a feeling that we hadn't fought a War to go back to that.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,905

    Ten years ago today, I was here:


    Didn't know you used to be a professional tennis player!
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 3,905
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
    Try this one.
    "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"

    Yes: 51%
    No: 32%

    Research Co. / June 6, 2026

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2072785978356351192
    That is a worrying stat.
    If Tony Blair was American, he'd be part of the 51%
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,540

    eek said:

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    But the assets are transferable, introduce a wealth tax and suddenly a lot of wealth will be stored outside the UK..
    Then also introduce an export tax on personal possessions.
    LOL. The contortions those who simply seem to dislike others doing well go to is hilarious....
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 32,842

    Ten years ago today, I was here:


    Are you the one about to serve or receive?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,413
    edited 1:14PM
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
    Try this one.
    "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"

    Yes: 51%
    No: 32%

    Research Co. / June 6, 2026

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2072785978356351192
    That is a worrying stat.
    No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295
    You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 13,620

    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

    Why does Russia think that invading Poland would make the West less likely to support Ukraine?
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 92,026

    Ten years ago today, I was here:


    I miss the people judging the line calls...if only for the LOLs of watching them dance around to try and dodge the 140mph rocket serves like they are playing dodge ball.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,840

    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

    Why does Russia think that invading Poland would make the West less likely to support Ukraine?
    I think we should consider the possibility and indeed the probability that the Russian government is increasingly high on its own supply.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,707

    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

    Four 'coulds' and a 'would' in that short passage. To say nothing of a 'sources close' and a 'potentially'. I can't identify a single claim of an actual fact.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,271
    CatMan said:

    Ten years ago today, I was here:


    Didn't know you used to be a professional tennis player!
    I took the picture!

    Murray vs. Krygios, on the middle Monday.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
    Try this one.
    "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"

    Yes: 51%
    No: 32%

    Research Co. / June 6, 2026

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2072785978356351192
    That is a worrying stat.
    No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
    Studied as foundational myth in theology, yes. But not as something that happened.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,268
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
    Try this one.
    "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"

    Yes: 51%
    No: 32%

    Research Co. / June 6, 2026

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2072785978356351192
    That is a worrying stat.
    No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
    Indeed, it’s a phrase which means very different things to different people, and which the atheist elites like to use as a smear against those who believe in God.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 57,330
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
    Try this one.
    "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"

    Yes: 51%
    No: 32%

    Research Co. / June 6, 2026

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2072785978356351192
    That is a worrying stat.
    No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
    America (supposedly) has a seperation of church and state, so doesn't teach religion in public schools.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,271
    dixiedean said:

    Ten years ago today, I was here:


    Are you the one about to serve or receive?
    Murray on the left, Kyrgios on the right. Middle Monday.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,520
    edited 1:21PM

    eek said:

    kinabalu 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
    Er... IHT?
    Yes that is a wealth tax. Most assets are covered.
    It's a transfer tax not a wealth tax. Granted the wealthy the person who died the more tax is paid but it's still paid as part of the process of giving it to someone else..
    But the point is, IHT requires a valuation of all assets. If that can be done for IHT it can be done for a wealth tax.
    There is something like 600k deaths per year, so a tiny proportion of the total housing stock. It is something that is done once and it can take bloody ages to settle as the administrators and HMRC can come up with differing opinions. For a wealth tax you need to do everybody every year. It can be done, but its orders of magnitude greater task.

    With tax you can come with two options really. Imperfect but easy to take tax e.g. income tax, sales taxes on good purchased. Or you can do much more done the US route of everybody needs to do self assessment under the fear (which is far less these days) of the IRS auditting your entire taxable history at some point.
    A property tax would be very simple to set up (and far simpler than council tax). It's a LVT that would be tricky, and that why I lean towards the former, even if the latter is better in principle.

    Last sale price + change in MSOA HPI since the last sale. Easy.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 23,203
    HYUFD said:

    'When King Charles made public his accounts this week, he surreptitiously slipped into the document a quite significant change.

    In a few amended lines in the Sovereign Grant Annual Report, the duties of the monarchy have been covertly changed. The King’s title as “Defender of the Faith” has been replaced by “Protector of the Space for Faith within the Multi-faith Nation.”

    https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/king-charles-has-broken-his-coronation-oath-to-defend-the-christian-faith/21787.article?utm_source=null&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15542511_PCTY WEEKLY (4/07/26)&dm_i=16DQ,994OF,4U4J,12UP06,1,0,0,0

    That would look clunky on the coins.

    Here's the relevant paragraph;

    As Head of State, His Majesty’s duties include the opening of Parliament, appointment of ministers and other key public officials, granting Royal Assent to legislation, convening the Privy Council and receiving the credentials of foreign Ambassadors and High Commissioners. His
    Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.


    But I don't think it's as shocking as Gavin Ashenden makes out. A quick search on some earlier reports (2019/20, 2020/21) mentions the Queen's role as Supreme Governor, but the word faith isn't included at all.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,355

    Nigelb said:

    DavidL 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.
    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
    Damn, that would take a fair few drones to get rid of that lot.
    The Ukrainians are still fielding tanks and APCs

    In addition, many of the next generation of tanks and APCs have point defences - they might well be more survivable on a drone filled battlefield than unprotected infantry.
    There are no unprotected infantry on a drone filled battlefield. Not living, at least.

    MBTs are not employed much.
    MBTs are still on the front lines.
    From my reading they tend to be used as artillery these days from deep camouflage and within air defence protection. And even then they get hit. Tanks have been a major player in warfare for just over 100 years. Its been a seriously good run but I think it is over.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295

    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

    Why does Russia think that invading Poland would make the West less likely to support Ukraine?
    Good question. It seems an odd story.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,271
    viewcode said:

    DavidL 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.
    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
    Damn, that would take a fair few drones to get rid of that lot.
    From memory, and from a couple of years back, on any given day there will be approx 10,000 drones in the air over Eastern Ukraine.
    "He will make an excellent drone!" - Sgt.-Maj. Data
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,707

    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?
    Among other things not ringing true is that it does not contain a single assertion of verifiable fact. And barely any unverifiable ones.

  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,271

    HYUFD said:

    'When King Charles made public his accounts this week, he surreptitiously slipped into the document a quite significant change.

    In a few amended lines in the Sovereign Grant Annual Report, the duties of the monarchy have been covertly changed. The King’s title as “Defender of the Faith” has been replaced by “Protector of the Space for Faith within the Multi-faith Nation.”

    https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/king-charles-has-broken-his-coronation-oath-to-defend-the-christian-faith/21787.article?utm_source=null&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15542511_PCTY WEEKLY (4/07/26)&dm_i=16DQ,994OF,4U4J,12UP06,1,0,0,0

    That would look clunky on the coins.

    Here's the relevant paragraph;

    As Head of State, His Majesty’s duties include the opening of Parliament, appointment of ministers and other key public officials, granting Royal Assent to legislation, convening the Privy Council and receiving the credentials of foreign Ambassadors and High Commissioners. His
    Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.


    But I don't think it's as shocking as Gavin Ashenden makes out. A quick search on some earlier reports (2019/20, 2020/21) mentions the Queen's role as Supreme Governor, but the word faith isn't included at all.
    We atheists not welcome?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,540
    kinabalu said:

    You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.

    You could have stopped after 11 words.

    But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.

    Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?

    It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295
    Sandpit said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
    Try this one.
    "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"

    Yes: 51%
    No: 32%

    Research Co. / June 6, 2026

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2072785978356351192
    That is a worrying stat.
    No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
    Indeed, it’s a phrase which means very different things to different people, and which the atheist elites like to use as a smear against those who believe in God.
    Who the fuggedy fugg are the 'atheist elites'?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,124
    Sandpit said:

    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.
    No, its American ignorance that has been stereotypical for generations. Its what happens when movies like The Patriot are considered documentaries.

    Very few of those answering the survey will have been kids at school recently.
  • 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
    Er... IHT?
    That’s a formal valuation via probate. The issue with wealth taxes is subjective valuations and the ability to hide wealth (eg jewellery).

    A formal valuation every year would be a ridiculous burden
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 29,124

    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

    If Russia were dumb enough to attack Poland, not impossible, I suspect it will end with Kalingrad being taken by Poland.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 14,520
    edited 1:26PM
    Mortimer said:

    kinabalu said:

    You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.

    You could have stopped after 11 words.

    But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.

    Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?

    It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
    Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for up to £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.

    That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 79,840

    Ten years ago today, I was here:


    A very cheerful occasion, I gather.

    Well, Wimbledon made Murray.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,413
    'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.

    The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.

    It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.

    The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/04/private-schools-plan-poach-best-state-school-athletes/
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,707

    HYUFD said:

    'When King Charles made public his accounts this week, he surreptitiously slipped into the document a quite significant change.

    In a few amended lines in the Sovereign Grant Annual Report, the duties of the monarchy have been covertly changed. The King’s title as “Defender of the Faith” has been replaced by “Protector of the Space for Faith within the Multi-faith Nation.”

    https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/king-charles-has-broken-his-coronation-oath-to-defend-the-christian-faith/21787.article?utm_source=null&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15542511_PCTY WEEKLY (4/07/26)&dm_i=16DQ,994OF,4U4J,12UP06,1,0,0,0

    That would look clunky on the coins.

    Here's the relevant paragraph;

    As Head of State, His Majesty’s duties include the opening of Parliament, appointment of ministers and other key public officials, granting Royal Assent to legislation, convening the Privy Council and receiving the credentials of foreign Ambassadors and High Commissioners. His
    Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.


    But I don't think it's as shocking as Gavin Ashenden makes out. A quick search on some earlier reports (2019/20, 2020/21) mentions the Queen's role as Supreme Governor, but the word faith isn't included at all.
    Ashenden is an ex Anglican who dines out on once upon a time, when Anglican, having been one of the 36 Chaplains to the (as it then was) Queen. He is a rightist rent a quote polemicist who pretends rubbish like Charles betraying coronation oaths. The title Defender of the Faith is inherited by all monarchs subsequent to being granted to Henry VIII, while still Roman Catholic by the pope for his services in opposing the Reformation.

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,355
    algarkirk 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

    Four 'coulds' and a 'would' in that short passage. To say nothing of a 'sources close' and a 'potentially'. I can't identify a single claim of an actual fact.
    One fact is that the Poles would conquer Kalingrad within days and the Russians would not be getting it back.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,413

    HYUFD said:

    'When King Charles made public his accounts this week, he surreptitiously slipped into the document a quite significant change.

    In a few amended lines in the Sovereign Grant Annual Report, the duties of the monarchy have been covertly changed. The King’s title as “Defender of the Faith” has been replaced by “Protector of the Space for Faith within the Multi-faith Nation.”

    https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/king-charles-has-broken-his-coronation-oath-to-defend-the-christian-faith/21787.article?utm_source=null&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15542511_PCTY WEEKLY (4/07/26)&dm_i=16DQ,994OF,4U4J,12UP06,1,0,0,0

    That would look clunky on the coins.

    Here's the relevant paragraph;

    As Head of State, His Majesty’s duties include the opening of Parliament, appointment of ministers and other key public officials, granting Royal Assent to legislation, convening the Privy Council and receiving the credentials of foreign Ambassadors and High Commissioners. His
    Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.


    But I don't think it's as shocking as Gavin Ashenden makes out. A quick search on some earlier reports (2019/20, 2020/21) mentions the Queen's role as Supreme Governor, but the word faith isn't included at all.
    Indeed and I suspect Gavin Ashenden would not like the King doubling down on his role as solely Defender of the Protestant Church of England Faith given he is now a Roman Catholic priest
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,540
    Eabhal said:

    Mortimer said:

    kinabalu said:

    You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.

    You could have stopped after 11 words.

    But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.

    Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?

    It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
    Well, I'm sure you'd agree then that taxing the stock of wealth is far more desirible than the accumulation of it? My marginal rate of tax is 56% - that is preventing me build up the wealth you describe. I'll then get stung for £40k in Stamp Duty when I buy a place with my partner.

    That's a far bigger disincentive to wealth accumulation and social mobility than an ongoing tax.
    Rubbish. It is more than possible to accumulate wealth in this country. Especially if you set up a business. Make the sacrifices of weekends and evenings, and employ others.

    Why should I have bothered making the sacrifices if my modest wealth would then be taxed? Why would others bother?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,413
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
    Try this one.
    "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"

    Yes: 51%
    No: 32%

    Research Co. / June 6, 2026

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2072785978356351192
    That is a worrying stat.
    No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
    America (supposedly) has a seperation of church and state, so doesn't teach religion in public schools.
    Private schools teach it and even public schools cover it in history, literature and world religion electives
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 59,355

    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

    If Russia were dumb enough to attack Poland, not impossible, I suspect it will end with Kalingrad being taken by Poland.
    Sorry, I missed that you had already made the same point. Strategically, Kalingrad is indefensible with conventional weapons.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 5,607

    What could possibly go wrong,....

    AI lawyers could save you thousands - Law firms under pressure to lower fees and work faster or face risk of automation
    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2026/07/04/ai-lawyers-are-here-and-could-save-you-thousands/

    Just wait until we get AI judges.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,707

    HYUFD said:

    'When King Charles made public his accounts this week, he surreptitiously slipped into the document a quite significant change.

    In a few amended lines in the Sovereign Grant Annual Report, the duties of the monarchy have been covertly changed. The King’s title as “Defender of the Faith” has been replaced by “Protector of the Space for Faith within the Multi-faith Nation.”

    https://www.premierchristianity.com/opinion/king-charles-has-broken-his-coronation-oath-to-defend-the-christian-faith/21787.article?utm_source=null&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=15542511_PCTY WEEKLY (4/07/26)&dm_i=16DQ,994OF,4U4J,12UP06,1,0,0,0

    That would look clunky on the coins.

    Here's the relevant paragraph;

    As Head of State, His Majesty’s duties include the opening of Parliament, appointment of ministers and other key public officials, granting Royal Assent to legislation, convening the Privy Council and receiving the credentials of foreign Ambassadors and High Commissioners. His
    Majesty is Supreme Governor of the Church of England and protects the space for Faith within the multi-faith nation.


    But I don't think it's as shocking as Gavin Ashenden makes out. A quick search on some earlier reports (2019/20, 2020/21) mentions the Queen's role as Supreme Governor, but the word faith isn't included at all.
    We atheists not welcome?
    Atheist faiths and unfaiths in their many and various forms (see John Gray: Seven Types of Atheism) are well protected in our society, to the extent that for some it is the default position.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295
    edited 1:31PM
    Mortimer said:

    kinabalu said:

    You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.

    You could have stopped after 11 words.

    But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.

    Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?

    It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
    Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 60,271
    DavidL said:

    algarkirk 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

    Four 'coulds' and a 'would' in that short passage. To say nothing of a 'sources close' and a 'potentially'. I can't identify a single claim of an actual fact.
    One fact is that the Poles would conquer Kaliningrad within days and the Russians would not be getting it back.
    Krolewiec, you mean :)
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,865
    I am with David Hume on this, although he had some dodgy views on other topics.

    I am an American in my Principles and wish we would let them alone to govern or misgovern themselves as they think proper.

    But maybe it should be reciprocal?
  • eekeek Posts: 34,379
    kinabalu said:

    Mortimer said:

    kinabalu said:

    You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.

    You could have stopped after 11 words.

    But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.

    Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?

    It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
    Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
    Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 40,343
    ...
    HYUFD said:

    'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.

    The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.

    It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.

    The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/04/private-schools-plan-poach-best-state-school-athletes/

    Haven't Millfied been doing this for the last 80 years?
  • MortimerMortimer Posts: 14,540
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Mortimer said:

    kinabalu said:

    You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.

    You could have stopped after 11 words.

    But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.

    Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?

    It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
    Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
    Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
    Like a good little socialist, of course he does!
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 17,707
    Foxy said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    .

    Sandpit said:

    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.
    Can you turn anything into a MAGA conspiracy theory? The article does not say that. It does talk about a lot about the education system and the decentralised nature of it that means kids in different parts of the country learn different things.
    Try this one.
    "Do you think creationism should be part of the school curriculum in your state?"

    Yes: 51%
    No: 32%

    Research Co. / June 6, 2026

    https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/2072785978356351192
    That is a worrying stat.
    No it isn't, it is a view, biblically upheld in Genesis. Creationism should certainly be studied in Religious Studies lessons for example
    America (supposedly) has a seperation of church and state, so doesn't teach religion in public schools.
    I wonder how, for example, you would teach European history from 1500-1700 without teaching a very great deal about the facts, demography, teachings, ecclesiology, differences and consequences of religion.

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 62,268
    Yesterday Putin said that the town of Kostiantynivka was under Russian control, today Zelenskyy offered to meet him there!

    https://x.com/maks_nafo_fella/status/2073343334295204061

    It’s not under Russian control, and never has been under Russian control. A couple of Russian ‘civilians’ may have sneaked a flag in somewhere close to the town for a photo op, but that’s definitely not the same.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 137,413

    ...

    HYUFD said:

    'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.

    The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.

    It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.

    The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/04/private-schools-plan-poach-best-state-school-athletes/

    Haven't Millfied been doing this for the last 80 years?
    It has and even with, shock horror, football scholarships and of the soccer not rugby variety
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 92,026
    edited 1:40PM

    ...

    HYUFD said:

    'Top private schools have backed plans for a US-style scholarship system to recruit the best state school athletes.

    The multi-million pound national scheme, endorsed by Harrow, Rugby and Epsom College, would be partly funded by private schools and offer hundreds of scholarships to the most talented sportspeople from the age of 13.

    It would initially be piloted with cricket and rugby – sports in which private schools already produce many of the UK’s top athletes – but could be expanded to other sports in the future.

    The plan is proposed in a report commissioned by Sir Peter Lampl, Britain’s leading education philanthropist. It is modelled on the athletic scholarships used by US colleges to recruit the best baseball, basketball and American football players.'

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/07/04/private-schools-plan-poach-best-state-school-athletes/

    Haven't Millfied been doing this for the last 80 years?
    Lots of private school do this. Maro Itoje went to Harrow under a rugby scholarship.

    Millfield is particularly charitable in that they also take the thicko poshos too thick to get into other private schools and train them for a career in sports or the arts or if they even too shit for that a career in making tampon ads.
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 19,865
    The American hegemony of the twentieth century despite the occasional atrocity was more benign than any previous one, or likely future one.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 67,042

    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.
    The Poles lead on European defence these days.

    They've learned the hard way.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 51,295
    eek said:

    kinabalu said:

    Mortimer said:

    kinabalu said:

    You can't effect a shift in the tax burden from income to wealth without increasing tax on wealth.

    You could have stopped after 11 words.

    But more seriously, the talk of a wealth tax usually comes from those who have never accumulated wealth, or inherited it without any effort.

    Could you explain to me, someone who has worked their absolute arse off for two decades, employing 5 people, taking risks, paying rather large amounts of tax in income taken out, to build up a relatively small company that makes me the wealthiest person in the history of my family, why I should have bothered, if my modest wealth is then taxed too?

    It is a MASSIVE disincentive to the enterprise that our already fragile economy relies upon.
    Depends how much it's taxed, I'd have thought. I sense you enjoy your work and take pride in having built something. So I doubt the prospect of a relatively modest annual sum would have caused you to become a blue or white collar wage earner instead. There's no quasi religious principle in my mind that says wealth accrued via business activities must not be touched at all by the fiscal regime.
    Hang on so you want to both tax the profits of his business and slowly destroy the assets of the business year on year as well..
    Course not. I was simply answering his "why would I bother?" question.
Sign In or Register to comment.