Starmergeddon: They Came And Ate Us

Where goats go to escape
sockwithaticket
Posts: 8626
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:48 am

Most importantly, the rolling stock is basically all foreign owned. Nationalising the operators won't do an awful lot for passengers while whoever runs the railways pays out the nose to rent the actual trains.
Biffer
Posts: 9105
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

dpedin wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:19 pm
Biffer wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2024 12:27 pm
Hal Jordan wrote: Fri Nov 29, 2024 9:59 pm

Almost as if they were being run down to be flogged off cheap.
Exactly.
A good chunk of UK railways are owned by railway companies from overseas! Most European countries have state owned railways albeit supplemented by some private sector operators. They seem to do ok?
Yeah, I made that point further up the page?
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
dpedin
Posts: 2963
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 8:35 am

Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2024 7:03 pm
dpedin wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:19 pm
Biffer wrote: Sat Nov 30, 2024 12:27 pm

Exactly.
A good chunk of UK railways are owned by railway companies from overseas! Most European countries have state owned railways albeit supplemented by some private sector operators. They seem to do ok?
Yeah, I made that point further up the page?
Ooooops! Sorry
Biffer
Posts: 9105
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

dpedin wrote: Mon Dec 02, 2024 9:29 am
Biffer wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2024 7:03 pm
dpedin wrote: Sun Dec 01, 2024 5:19 pm

A good chunk of UK railways are owned by railway companies from overseas! Most European countries have state owned railways albeit supplemented by some private sector operators. They seem to do ok?
Yeah, I made that point further up the page?
Ooooops! Sorry
:thumbup:
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
I like neeps
Posts: 3570
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:37 am

The charity I volunteer with has now sent three emails with a template to email my MP. NI raises will see exactly 160k added to their costs next year (employ c180 people) and as a result there will be job cuts/services scrapped.

Tick tock, this rise won't last.
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 9361
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:20 am The charity I volunteer with has now sent three emails with a template to email my MP. NI raises will see exactly 160k added to their costs next year (employ c180 people) and as a result there will be job cuts/services scrapped.

Tick tock, this rise won't last.
Tichtheid wrote: Wed Oct 30, 2024 2:08 pm The NI increase is going to really hit small charities which are already scrabbling over ever-decreasing sources of funding

It was the first thing my wife said at the announcement- she was a trustee for a small charity.

I don't think they'll go back on it, though.
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

Always an interesting political conundrum, do you go back on an announcement once it’s realised it’s dumb and will hurt jobs and growth and tax revenue raised, and run the risk of looking weak and useless, OR do you stand firm and kick can down round and continue to blame the other party y / trump / EU / thatcher (delete as appropriate) for long enough that people will forget and find a new thing to whinge over ?

I doubt Labour will go back on anything, they are unsurprisingly proving to be just as inept and scandal full as the previous govt
Biffer
Posts: 9105
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

Biffer wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:49 am Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?
The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 9361
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

Biffer wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:49 am Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?

I don't know enough to be able to answer that properly, but closing or cutting charities doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it.
I like neeps
Posts: 3570
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:37 am

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:03 pm
Biffer wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:49 am Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?
The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc
I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)
Last edited by I like neeps on Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Biffer
Posts: 9105
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:09 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:03 pm
Biffer wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:49 am Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?
The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc
I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
I would also like to see a system that taxes assets more, particularly when they add little or nothing economically or societally. By default assets are untaxed and transactions are taxed, except when it’s detrimental to the wealthy.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
sockwithaticket
Posts: 8626
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:48 am

Given that charities perform a lot of functions that perhaps the state ought to or clean up after messes the state makes (food banks and homless shelters for example), there's certainly a case to grant exemptions.

I really believe it can't be beyond the wit of man to draw up something that would see the likes of Amazon and Starbucks pay a fairer share that would more than compensate.
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:48 am Always an interesting political conundrum, do you go back on an announcement once it’s realised it’s dumb and will hurt jobs and growth and tax revenue raised, and run the risk of looking weak and useless, OR do you stand firm and kick can down round and continue to blame the other party y / trump / EU / thatcher (delete as appropriate) for long enough that people will forget and find a new thing to whinge over ?

I doubt Labour will go back on anything, they are unsurprisingly proving to be just as inept and scandal full as the previous govt
Not by a long fucking shot. That is some utterly absurd 'both sides are the same' nonsense.

Labour have had Keir taking advantage of being offered free clothes and event tickets (which we know about because he actually declared them, Private Eye have exposed many a Tory who accepted stuff they didn't declare).

Louise Haigh having an expired conviction for lying about losing her phone to get a new one.

And...?

Whereas Priti Patel alone has off the books meetings with a foreign power and resultant breach of the ministerial code, bullying of subordinates which led to a settlement.

One would hardly know where to start with the Boris era, but the crony contracts for non-existent or defective PPE during covid and flagrant breaching of lockdown laws the government were insisting everyone else abide by are as good a place as any.
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:09 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:03 pm
Biffer wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:49 am Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?
The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc
I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)
I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:17 pm Given that charities perform a lot of functions that perhaps the state ought to or clean up after messes the state makes (food banks and homless shelters for example), there's certainly a case to grant exemptions.

I really believe it can't be beyond the wit of man to draw up something that would see the likes of Amazon and Starbucks pay a fairer share that would more than compensate.
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:48 am Always an interesting political conundrum, do you go back on an announcement once it’s realised it’s dumb and will hurt jobs and growth and tax revenue raised, and run the risk of looking weak and useless, OR do you stand firm and kick can down round and continue to blame the other party y / trump / EU / thatcher (delete as appropriate) for long enough that people will forget and find a new thing to whinge over ?

I doubt Labour will go back on anything, they are unsurprisingly proving to be just as inept and scandal full as the previous govt
Not by a long fucking shot. That is some utterly absurd 'both sides are the same' nonsense.

Labour have had Keir taking advantage of being offered free clothes and event tickets (which we know about because he actually declared them, Private Eye have exposed many a Tory who accepted stuff they didn't declare).

Louise Haigh having an expired conviction for lying about losing her phone to get a new one.

And...?

Whereas Priti Patel alone has off the books meetings with a foreign power and resultant breach of the ministerial code, bullying of subordinates which led to a settlement.

One would hardly know where to start with the Boris era, but the crony contracts for non-existent or defective PPE during covid and flagrant breaching of lockdown laws the government were insisting everyone else abide by are as good a place as any.
Ah, you are whatabouting my whataboutery ?
Labour have not been in long, and they seem to have had enough scandals in that short time , nicked phones and freebies just in the last few weeks. They are on course for a decent level of slease in a whole parliament . Trumps election gate labour link is arguably far worse than a nicked phone. Just because the previous incumbents were terrible doesn’t mean the current ones are blameless.

Glad you don’t object to me saying they are as inept though.
I like neeps
Posts: 3570
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:37 am

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:30 pm
I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:09 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:03 pm

The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc
I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)
I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing
And that tax should be increased, like tax on labour (actually doing something) is.

And unless you built the house, you don't provide anything. You take rent on an existing asset. It was there before you and will be there after you. Happy to help you with that.
Biffer
Posts: 9105
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:30 pm
I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:09 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:03 pm

The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc
I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)
I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing
Rent sitting is economically damaging.
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
sockwithaticket
Posts: 8626
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 11:48 am

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:39 pm
sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:17 pm Given that charities perform a lot of functions that perhaps the state ought to or clean up after messes the state makes (food banks and homless shelters for example), there's certainly a case to grant exemptions.

I really believe it can't be beyond the wit of man to draw up something that would see the likes of Amazon and Starbucks pay a fairer share that would more than compensate.
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:48 am Always an interesting political conundrum, do you go back on an announcement once it’s realised it’s dumb and will hurt jobs and growth and tax revenue raised, and run the risk of looking weak and useless, OR do you stand firm and kick can down round and continue to blame the other party y / trump / EU / thatcher (delete as appropriate) for long enough that people will forget and find a new thing to whinge over ?

I doubt Labour will go back on anything, they are unsurprisingly proving to be just as inept and scandal full as the previous govt
Not by a long fucking shot. That is some utterly absurd 'both sides are the same' nonsense.

Labour have had Keir taking advantage of being offered free clothes and event tickets (which we know about because he actually declared them, Private Eye have exposed many a Tory who accepted stuff they didn't declare).

Louise Haigh having an expired conviction for lying about losing her phone to get a new one.

And...?

Whereas Priti Patel alone has off the books meetings with a foreign power and resultant breach of the ministerial code, bullying of subordinates which led to a settlement.

One would hardly know where to start with the Boris era, but the crony contracts for non-existent or defective PPE during covid and flagrant breaching of lockdown laws the government were insisting everyone else abide by are as good a place as any.
Ah, you are whatabouting my whataboutery ?
Labour have not been in long, and they seem to have had enough scandals in that short time , nicked phones and freebies just in the last few weeks. They are on course for a decent level of slease in a whole parliament . Trumps election gate labour link is arguably far worse than a nicked phone. Just because the previous incumbents were terrible doesn’t mean the current ones are blameless.

Glad you don’t object to me saying they are as inept though.
It's hardly whatboutery to point out differences in scale and seriousness of scandal. It does matter. Having an expired conviction isn't really in the same ballpark as trying to protect a serial sexual assaulter (the Chris Pincher affair), I shouldn't think it's even a resignation issue tbh. What's the point in allowing convictions to expire if we're going to hold them against people in perpetuity?

The trump election thing is only a scandal in the minds of GB news types who desperately want to be outraged at any and everything, even continuations of established behaviour. Thought you were better than that.

I don't expect much of a Labour lot committed to neo-liberal economics and buddying up with businesses like Blackrock. Although not picking pointless fights with the unions that cost more than meeting demands, introducing (slight) improvements to workers and renters rights are certainly good first steps towards being more useful than the Tories ever were.
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 9361
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:17 pm Given that charities perform a lot of functions that perhaps the state ought to or clean up after messes the state makes (food banks and homless shelters for example), there's certainly a case to grant exemptions.

I really believe it can't be beyond the wit of man to draw up something that would see the likes of Amazon and Starbucks pay a fairer share that would more than compensate.

Hear hear, all of it.

"Oh you can't do that, business will flee the country if you actually get them to pay what they should on their income from the UK"

Utter shite, Amazon etc will not quit the UK, that would just allow someone else to take over their business
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:52 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:39 pm
sockwithaticket wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:17 pm Given that charities perform a lot of functions that perhaps the state ought to or clean up after messes the state makes (food banks and homless shelters for example), there's certainly a case to grant exemptions.

I really believe it can't be beyond the wit of man to draw up something that would see the likes of Amazon and Starbucks pay a fairer share that would more than compensate.



Not by a long fucking shot. That is some utterly absurd 'both sides are the same' nonsense.

Labour have had Keir taking advantage of being offered free clothes and event tickets (which we know about because he actually declared them, Private Eye have exposed many a Tory who accepted stuff they didn't declare).

Louise Haigh having an expired conviction for lying about losing her phone to get a new one.

And...?

Whereas Priti Patel alone has off the books meetings with a foreign power and resultant breach of the ministerial code, bullying of subordinates which led to a settlement.

One would hardly know where to start with the Boris era, but the crony contracts for non-existent or defective PPE during covid and flagrant breaching of lockdown laws the government were insisting everyone else abide by are as good a place as any.
Ah, you are whatabouting my whataboutery ?
Labour have not been in long, and they seem to have had enough scandals in that short time , nicked phones and freebies just in the last few weeks. They are on course for a decent level of slease in a whole parliament . Trumps election gate labour link is arguably far worse than a nicked phone. Just because the previous incumbents were terrible doesn’t mean the current ones are blameless.

Glad you don’t object to me saying they are as inept though.
It's hardly whatboutery to point out differences in scale and seriousness of scandal. It does matter. Having an expired conviction isn't really in the same ballpark as trying to protect a serial sexual assaulter (the Chris Pincher affair), I shouldn't think it's even a resignation issue tbh. What's the point in allowing convictions to expire if we're going to hold them against people in perpetuity?

The trump election thing is only a scandal in the minds of GB news types who desperately want to be outraged at any and everything, even continuations of established behaviour. Thought you were better than that.

I don't expect much of a Labour lot committed to neo-liberal economics and buddying up with businesses like Blackrock. Although not picking pointless fights with the unions that cost more than meeting demands, introducing (slight) improvements to workers and renters rights are certainly good first steps towards being more useful than the Tories ever were.
You trying to say it’s a GB news only thing is hilarious and I must say I’m enjoy watching you wriggle , Trump made a formal complaint to their electoral commission and was widely reported as such on bbc news , Reuters etc - hardly tinfoil hat gb news . You somehow think it’s not really a thing though

Labour also had a sexual assaulter, and at minister level too. Unsure if was upheld or swept under the carpet , was last year before they got in power so doesn’t quite count perhaps to you in this discussion.

Let’s see how the scandal tally looks at the end of the parliament , because right now the run right is quite similar

Yougov poll shows quite similar public views on which party was sleazier , biggest split is who was worse Boris or kier (Boris will never be topped for sleaze and scandal surely)

https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/ ... -is-sleazy
Last edited by Yeeb on Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:45 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:30 pm
I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:09 pm

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)
I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing
And that tax should be increased, like tax on labour (actually doing something) is.

And unless you built the house, you don't provide anything. You take rent on an existing asset. It was there before you and will be there after you. Happy to help you with that.
You don’t seem to understand what home provision is , or more importantly what happens to existing tenants and those who wish to rent if landlords leave the market at an increasing rate like they have been doing. (And ultimately, government tax revenue from landlords too).
Happy to help you with that.
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 9361
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:05 pm

Labour also had a sexual assaulter, and at minister level too. Unsure if was upheld or swept under the carpet , was last year before they got in power so doesn’t quite count perhaps to you in this discussion.


Who was that, again?
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:19 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:05 pm

Labour also had a sexual assaulter, and at minister level too. Unsure if was upheld or swept under the carpet , was last year before they got in power so doesn’t quite count perhaps to you in this discussion.


Who was that, again?
No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 9361
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:26 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:19 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:05 pm

Labour also had a sexual assaulter, and at minister level too. Unsure if was upheld or swept under the carpet , was last year before they got in power so doesn’t quite count perhaps to you in this discussion.


Who was that, again?
No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking

Predatory men, it's almost always men, are certainly a problem. However that view often gets dismissed as being "woke"

I may have found the story
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... al-assault
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:32 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:26 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:19 pm


Who was that, again?
No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking

Predatory men, it's almost always men, are certainly a problem. However that view often gets dismissed as being "woke"

I may have found the story
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... al-assault
Probs was that, would not have been guardian site where I read it though as that’s almost a gb news yin yang
Most likely would have been bbc or Reuters source

Can imagine Rayner would be predatory after a few snakebite blacks, she has that look
robmatic
Posts: 2075
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:46 am

Biffer wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:49 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:30 pm
I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:09 pm

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)
I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing
Rent sitting is economically damaging.
There would be much less of a problem with rentierism in the UK if people were actually able to build new houses but the country is basically 100% nimby.
User avatar
Sandstorm
Posts: 10810
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 7:05 pm
Location: England

Tichtheid wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:08 pm
Biffer wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 11:49 am Where do people want to see tax revenue raised from btw?

I don't know enough to be able to answer that properly, but closing or cutting charities doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it.
Charity cases are just lazy people and should go back to work, do the jobs that immigrants do and so on and so forth.
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 6566
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:26 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:19 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:05 pm

Labour also had a sexual assaulter, and at minister level too. Unsure if was upheld or swept under the carpet , was last year before they got in power so doesn’t quite count perhaps to you in this discussion.


Who was that, again?
No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking
It was not a shadow minister
It was Geraint Davies MP for Swansea. He was accused of sexual harrassment by several women over a period of several years. He had the whip withdrawn and was then suspended from the Labour party as soon as a formaal complaint about him had been made. He subsequently stood as an Independent and stood down at the last election
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 6566
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:43 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:32 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:26 pm

No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking

Predatory men, it's almost always men, are certainly a problem. However that view often gets dismissed as being "woke"

I may have found the story
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... al-assault
Probs was that, would not have been guardian site where I read it though as that’s almost a gb news yin yang
Most likely would have been bbc or Reuters source

Can imagine Rayner would be predatory after a few snakebite blacks, she has that look
WTF are you on about?
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

robmatic wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:44 pm
Biffer wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:49 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:30 pm

I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing
Rent sitting is economically damaging.
There would be much less of a problem with rentierism in the UK if people were actually able to build new houses but the country is basically 100% nimby.
Agree 100%
Instead of pissing about with NI, Labour should have announced a ‘benefits for builders’ programme of
National home building where those able to should be forced to learn a trade and build houses for their money.
The legal archaic blocks to this probably outweigh the vast cost this would be, even though it would largely be spent on Uk based labour, benefitting Uk based people, using Uk based firms and materials.
The land to build it could be nabbed from golf courses , there are 75 within the m25 alone
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

SaintK wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:49 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:26 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:19 pm


Who was that, again?
No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking
It was not a shadow minister
It was Geraint Davies MP for Swansea. He was accused of sexual harrassment by several women over a period of several years. He had the whip withdrawn and was then suspended from the Labour party as soon as a formaal complaint about him had been made. He subsequently stood as an Independent and stood down at the last election
I stand corrected, nothing to do with Labour then or ministers - tbf though that guardian news headline does say shadow minister so it’s an easy mistake to make.
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

SaintK wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:51 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:43 pm
Tichtheid wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:32 pm


Predatory men, it's almost always men, are certainly a problem. However that view often gets dismissed as being "woke"

I may have found the story
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/202 ... al-assault
Probs was that, would not have been guardian site where I read it though as that’s almost a gb news yin yang
Most likely would have been bbc or Reuters source

Can imagine Rayner would be predatory after a few snakebite blacks, she has that look
WTF are you on about?
The lager cider and blackcurrant cordial beverage popular
With northern redheads and rapey labour ministers
User avatar
Tichtheid
Posts: 9361
Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2020 11:18 am

Fuck's sakes.
User avatar
Paddington Bear
Posts: 5908
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 3:29 pm
Location: Hertfordshire

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:30 pm
I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:09 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:03 pm

The short answer is, from anyone else, especially if they are seen to be wealthier than them.

Sadly , the vast majority of people and politicians , equate higher tax rates, with higher tax revenue - it’s just as incorrect as the Reagan esque mantra of fewer & lower taxes = more jobs, tax revenue, trickle down of wealth etc
I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)
I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing
There’s a place for decent landlords in any economy. What we have is a parasitic class taking vast amounts of productive people’s take home pay, generally offering the lowest possible service, and massively holding back the economy. And somehow this group are a protected class whose investment must be protected at all costs as well
Old men forget: yet all shall be forgot, But he'll remember with advantages, What feats he did that day
Yeeb
Posts: 841
Joined: Thu Jul 02, 2020 12:06 pm

Paddington Bear wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 2:27 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:30 pm
I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:09 pm

I'd pay more tax, it sucks but the UKs public services don't work.

In return, I'd like to see unproductive asset owners (landlords, house sellers who benefitted from the magic tree etc)s tax go up with mine as an employee. Triple lock being ended too.

Taxing business just means fewer jobs and less growth.
(And Labour only raised this tax because of the dishonest we won't raise taxes pledge in the election. If they were honest they could have come up with a better policy. A big IF for Sir Keir)
I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing
There’s a place for decent landlords in any economy. What we have is a parasitic class taking vast amounts of productive people’s take home pay, generally offering the lowest possible service, and massively holding back the economy. And somehow this group are a protected class whose investment must be protected at all costs as well
You touch on several points there , and nothing I disagree with at all. Weeding out the exploitive slum Rachman Rigsby types, I am wholly in favour of , and one of mine has been hit by a scheme to in theory ensure these standards are met (Redbridge council now force you to buy a licence , £840 for 5 years, another increasing cost that will have upwards pressure on rents).

It’s actually (in London at least) far easier to go for the highest levels of service, keep the flat nice, attracting higher paying tenants who want to stay long, and in a decade plus I’ve only had about 7-8 weeks void between tenancies when it was empty. Nice places do encourage people who want to keep them nice, as it is their home after all, not mine.

As for protecting classes , I’m also against that too, someone earlier on the page mentioned the triple lock for pensions needing to be zapped , I wholeheartedly agree with this as it’s the biggest single slice of govt spending by far. Even freezing it for a year and putting those savings straight into the nhs (when oldies again take up huge amount of costs) would be a start.
I also have a big problem with the current retired generation for cumulatively being partly to blame for many of the past political decisions affecting us all now.
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 6566
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:55 pm
SaintK wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:51 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:43 pm

Probs was that, would not have been guardian site where I read it though as that’s almost a gb news yin yang
Most likely would have been bbc or Reuters source

Can imagine Rayner would be predatory after a few snakebite blacks, she has that look
WTF are you on about?
The lager cider and blackcurrant cordial beverage popular
With northern redheads and rapey labour ministers
Twat!!!
Biffer
Posts: 9105
Joined: Mon Jun 29, 2020 6:43 pm

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:53 pm
SaintK wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:49 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:26 pm

No idea , from memory it was just a shadow minister last year . Hard to keep up with all these sleazy mp’s and their lawbreaking
It was not a shadow minister
It was Geraint Davies MP for Swansea. He was accused of sexual harrassment by several women over a period of several years. He had the whip withdrawn and was then suspended from the Labour party as soon as a formaal complaint about him had been made. He subsequently stood as an Independent and stood down at the last election
I stand corrected, nothing to do with Labour then or ministers - tbf though that guardian news headline does say shadow minister so it’s an easy mistake to make.
The point you're deli erately missing is the tories tried to protect their guy. Labour got shot of theirs.

How is that the same in your mind?
And are there two g’s in Bugger Off?
I like neeps
Posts: 3570
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 9:37 am

Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:09 pm
I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:45 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:30 pm

I’m a landlord, trust me I pay plenty of tax , and newer ones pay on acquiring it, whilst holding it, and when disposing or inheriting it. But hey, landlords are all rich and evil and provide nothing
And that tax should be increased, like tax on labour (actually doing something) is.

And unless you built the house, you don't provide anything. You take rent on an existing asset. It was there before you and will be there after you. Happy to help you with that.
You don’t seem to understand what home provision is , or more importantly what happens to existing tenants and those who wish to rent if landlords leave the market at an increasing rate like they have been doing. (And ultimately, government tax revenue from landlords too).
Happy to help you with that.
Oh no, I hope tax changes don't forget landlords to sell up en masses driving down house prices considerably. The horror of it all.

Landlords (not through malign intentions) in combination with poor planning laws have distorted British society in a profoundly negative way.
Rhubarb & Custard
Posts: 2095
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 4:04 pm

I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 3:53 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:09 pm
I like neeps wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 12:45 pm

And that tax should be increased, like tax on labour (actually doing something) is.

And unless you built the house, you don't provide anything. You take rent on an existing asset. It was there before you and will be there after you. Happy to help you with that.
You don’t seem to understand what home provision is , or more importantly what happens to existing tenants and those who wish to rent if landlords leave the market at an increasing rate like they have been doing. (And ultimately, government tax revenue from landlords too).
Happy to help you with that.
Oh no, I hope tax changes don't forget landlords to sell up en masses driving down house prices considerably. The horror of it all.

Landlords (not through malign intentions) in combination with poor planning laws have distorted British society in a profoundly negative way.
The flip side to which is you don't want them to have to sell, you want a lot more landlords and more flexibility in the labour market. That said allowing them to profit from capital gains for doing sod all is an oddity
User avatar
SaintK
Posts: 6566
Joined: Tue Jun 30, 2020 7:49 am
Location: Over there somewhere

Biffer wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 3:43 pm
Yeeb wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:53 pm
SaintK wrote: Fri Dec 06, 2024 1:49 pm
It was not a shadow minister
It was Geraint Davies MP for Swansea. He was accused of sexual harrassment by several women over a period of several years. He had the whip withdrawn and was then suspended from the Labour party as soon as a formaal complaint about him had been made. He subsequently stood as an Independent and stood down at the last election
I stand corrected, nothing to do with Labour then or ministers - tbf though that guardian news headline does say shadow minister so it’s an easy mistake to make.
The point you're deli erately missing is the tories tried to protect their guy. Labour got shot of theirs.

How is that the same in your mind?
Whilst it goes on in both main parties the difference in the way they handle these cases is quite stark.
Post Reply