Page 200 of 202
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 8:59 am
by Mito Man
Lack of tax intake isn’t the problem.
https://benefitsdata.uk/mybill
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:23 am
by V8Granite
ZedLeg wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 8:56 am
You're categorically wrong, trying to run a country like a business is one of the primary reasons we're in this mess.
The government offloaded as much of the stuff that costs money as possible and now all that stuff is fucked, to everyone's detriment.
Let's kick all the wealthy out then and see how we get on, fewer jobs, more benefits, no striving for growth, sounds great
Dave!
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:27 am
by V8Granite
That's quite interesting, 31k median wage and benefits cost of £1800 per person.
If only people could be incentivised to start and grow a business there may be more jobs to go around. Not needing tax money from the pot but actually putting some in.
Dave!
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:43 am
by Rich B
V8Granite wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:27 am
That's quite interesting, 31k median wage and benefits cost of £1800 per person.
If only people could be incentivised to start and grow a business there may be more jobs to go around. Not needing tax money from the pot but actually putting some in.
Dave!
yep, the majority of the people on those stats are not starting a businesses because of the 1.5% increase in employer national insurance contributions and the abolition of the non-dom tax regime.
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:50 am
by 240PP
ZedLeg wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 1:08 pm
240PP wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 12:52 pm
ZedLeg wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 12:31 pm
He also increased his wealth by like 1.4 bil over the last 8 or so years so let's not pretend he was getting screwed.
So we want his £330m in tax but it's not ok for him to increase his wealth at the same time?
No I'm saying that we shouldn't be held to ransom by selfish cunts who just want more money to throw on the pile.
“Thanks for the £330m, you selfish cunt”
Charming
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:59 am
by DeskJockey
V8Granite wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2026 9:58 pm
it's like people don't want people to become wealthy
It should certainly be restricted in terms of how much one person can amass, and how they can spend it.
Your example with Chris Rokos serves well. He's spent hundreds of millions restoring a stately home, and donated to universities (well, Oxford and Cambridge, but still) with a non-directed (politically) remit. No issue with that, he can fill his boots.
Musk, Banks, the Koch family, crypto bros pouring unheard sums into politics, using their wealth to influence through media and platforms, that's not okay. Them controlling hundreds of billions is the root issue.
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:00 am
by V8Granite
Rich B wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:43 am
V8Granite wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:27 am
That's quite interesting, 31k median wage and benefits cost of £1800 per person.
If only people could be incentivised to start and grow a business there may be more jobs to go around. Not needing tax money from the pot but actually putting some in.
Dave!
yep, the majority of the people on those stats are not starting a businesses because of the 1.5% increase in employer national insurance contributions and the abolition of the non-dom tax regime.
No but if there were jobs to go to then they would be doing much better. Eventually people say I'm doing enough and stop taking risks.
Maybe some businesses are just not going to work, times change and people want different things so that's ok. Maybe they are being hurt by excessive bills, like the rental market where the people leaving are not the ones who own multiple properties and put the rent up every year, it's the people using it as a retirement plan. You can't tax your way to growth.
Dave!
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:09 am
by V8Granite
DeskJockey wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:59 am
V8Granite wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2026 9:58 pm
it's like people don't want people to become wealthy
It should certainly be restricted in terms of how much one person can amass, and how they can spend it.
Your example with Chris Rokos serves well. He's spent hundreds of millions restoring a stately home, and donated to universities (well, Oxford and Cambridge, but still) with a non-directed (politically) remit. No issue with that, he can fill his boots.
Musk, Banks, the Koch family, crypto bros pouring unheard sums into politics, using their wealth to influence through media and platforms, that's not okay. Them controlling hundreds of billions is the root issue.
Make billions, I don't care, the only thing I'm against is when one individual dominates a market they can then manipulate in nefarious ways, both political and the market, I haven't a clue how that can be managed without being a bit too much of a communist.
I'm a huge believer in help your neighbour, i want all the local businesses to do well, i want teenagers to leave school and have the ability to get summer jobs, apprenticeships, skilled, unskilled work and that means there needs to be work for them and a business that can help that happen. The government won't directly make that happen, they can certainly help them though.
Dave!
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:11 am
by V8Granite
DeskJockey wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:59 am
V8Granite wrote: Mon Oct 05, 2026 9:58 pm
it's like people don't want people to become wealthy
It should certainly be restricted in terms of how much one person can amass, and how they can spend it.
Your example with Chris Rokos serves well. He's spent hundreds of millions restoring a stately home, and donated to universities (well, Oxford and Cambridge, but still) with a non-directed (politically) remit. No issue with that, he can fill his boots.
Musk, Banks, the Koch family, crypto bros pouring unheard sums into politics, using their wealth to influence through media and platforms, that's not okay. Them controlling hundreds of billions is the root issue.
It would be scary to see how much influence people have, Rayner just got paid 20k to do a speech at a place who conducts training services, shock horror now estate agents need training
.
Those brandy lunches from politicians over the years must have done a lot to shape our country, for better or worse.
Dave!
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:12 am
by Rich B
240PP wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:50 am
ZedLeg wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 1:08 pm
240PP wrote: Fri Oct 02, 2026 12:52 pm
So we want his £330m in tax but it's not ok for him to increase his wealth at the same time?
No I'm saying that we shouldn't be held to ransom by selfish cunts who just want more money to throw on the pile.
“Thanks for the £330m, you selfish cunt”
Charming
To be fair, the tax i pay every month impacts/restricts my lifestyle far more than the tax he paid impacts his - i don’t get any personal letters of thanks either.
It is bad to lose big tax payers, but on a philosophical level - who the fuck needs more money when they already have limitless spending power?
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:18 am
by DeskJockey
Maybe, and this is a crazy thought, if we stopped using money as the only measure of worth and success, we could change things for the better?
If we removed the ability of individuals to influence on a global scale by simply throwing resources around, the local could flourish?
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:19 am
by V8Granite
Where do you draw the line ?
Your spending power is far greater than many others, can they have some more as you have multiple cars and a very nice house ?
I don't care how you earnt it, I want it as I think it's too much.
This is down to a personal belief but I want everyone to do well. If you have a million pounds a year as Daddy did well and gave you a trust fund, you're paying £20 for a coffee with gold sprinkles, you pay your 50k tax bill on your Bentayga and your loafers cost more than my car. Aslong as you are spending in the UK then I'm benefitting.
If he was running Victorian sweatshops illegally then that's not ok, but that's not the case.
I don't understand how the Starbucks case happened where they paid virtually no corporate tax but they also employ 5300 people, a net positive, if they aren't doing anything illegal then what can you do?
Dave!
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:25 am
by V8Granite
DeskJockey wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:18 am
Maybe, and this is a crazy thought, if we stopped using money as the only measure of worth and success, we could change things for the better?
If we removed the ability of individuals to influence on a global scale by simply throwing resources around, the local could flourish?
I agree with that, what would replace it though ? There needs to be some carrot to push towards, it's not always measureable probably ?
I definitely think there has been far too much onus put on your level of formal education.
This may not be fixable by dinner
Dave!
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:38 am
by Rich B
V8Granite wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:19 am
Where do you draw the line ?
Your spending power is far greater than many others, can they have some more as you have multiple cars and a very nice house ?
I don't care how you earnt it, I want it as I think it's too much.
This is down to a personal belief but I want everyone to do well. If you have a million pounds a year as Daddy did well and gave you a trust fund, you're paying £20 for a coffee with gold sprinkles, you pay your 50k tax bill on your Bentayga and your loafers cost more than my car. Aslong as you are spending in the UK then I'm benefitting.
If he was running Victorian sweatshops illegally then that's not ok, but that's not the case.
I don't understand how the Starbucks case happened where they paid virtually no corporate tax but they also employ 5300 people, a net positive, if they aren't doing anything illegal then what can you do?
Dave!
Yep, i don’t disagree.
We’ve ended up in a weird messed up world of extremes. We have the likes of Tesco and Shell making epic increases in profits whilst we declare a cost of living crisis and divert our taxes to top up low earners’ paychecks to be able to afford food and fuel.
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:48 am
by DeskJockey
V8Granite wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:25 am
DeskJockey wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:18 am
Maybe, and this is a crazy thought, if we stopped using money as the only measure of worth and success, we could change things for the better?
If we removed the ability of individuals to influence on a global scale by simply throwing resources around, the local could flourish?
I agree with that, what would replace it though ? There needs to be some carrot to push towards, it's not always measureable probably ?
I definitely think there has been far too much onus put on your level of formal education.
This may not be fixable by dinner
Dave!
I don't know, but it could be anything. The size of the plot you're allocated for the Chelsea flower show, your name on a list of achievers, having a scientific discovery named after you. It could be that you're just told you've done great, been an asset to your country and the apple of your parents' eyes. It could bestow honour on your family, it doesn't really matter as long as it cannot be traded for influence or power beyond what is reasonable for an unaccountable individual.
If you want to influence more than that, get elected into public office, be held accountable for the actions there.
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:54 am
by DeskJockey
V8Granite wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:19 am
Where do you draw the line ?
Your spending power is far greater than many others, can they have some more as you have multiple cars and a very nice house ?
I don't care how you earnt it, I want it as I think it's too much.
This is down to a personal belief but I want everyone to do well. If you have a million pounds a year as Daddy did well and gave you a trust fund, you're paying £20 for a coffee with gold sprinkles, you pay your 50k tax bill on your Bentayga and your loafers cost more than my car. Aslong as you are spending in the UK then I'm benefitting.
If he was running Victorian sweatshops illegally then that's not ok, but that's not the case.
I don't understand how the Starbucks case happened where they paid virtually no corporate tax but they also employ 5300 people, a net positive, if they aren't doing anything illegal then what can you do?
Dave!
The line is that although I do have a nice house and two cars, I do not have the means to buy influence across global, or (ignoring the News Shopper that I doubt anyone reads) local platforms in a way that broadcasts and amplifies my views out of all proportion.
I cannot buy/launch a media outlet and hire loudmouth agitators to push my agenda, or fund/create groups to further my own views.
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:59 am
by DeskJockey
Rich B wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:38 am
V8Granite wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:19 am
Where do you draw the line ?
Your spending power is far greater than many others, can they have some more as you have multiple cars and a very nice house ?
I don't care how you earnt it, I want it as I think it's too much.
This is down to a personal belief but I want everyone to do well. If you have a million pounds a year as Daddy did well and gave you a trust fund, you're paying £20 for a coffee with gold sprinkles, you pay your 50k tax bill on your Bentayga and your loafers cost more than my car. Aslong as you are spending in the UK then I'm benefitting.
If he was running Victorian sweatshops illegally then that's not ok, but that's not the case.
I don't understand how the Starbucks case happened where they paid virtually no corporate tax but they also employ 5300 people, a net positive, if they aren't doing anything illegal then what can you do?
Dave!
Yep, i don’t disagree.
We’ve ended up in a weird messed up world of extremes. We have the likes of Tesco and Shell making epic increases in profits whilst we declare a cost of living crisis and divert our taxes to top up low earners’ paychecks to be able to afford food and fuel.
We've ended up in a situation where minimising contributions is seen as a good outcome, and letting the wider society foot the bill is acceptable.
As an example, while Novo Nordisk were making ridiculous profits a few years ago, it made the news that their officially stated position on tax was that they did not try to minimise their liabilities by using creative structures and mechanisms, but simply acknowledged their due to the wider society. How is that newsworthy? It should be the opposite way round. The news should be that someone is trying to dodge their dues by being "creative".
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 11:09 am
by Jobbo
Rich B wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:43 am
V8Granite wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:27 am
That's quite interesting, 31k median wage and benefits cost of £1800 per person.
If only people could be incentivised to start and grow a business there may be more jobs to go around. Not needing tax money from the pot but actually putting some in.
Dave!
yep, the majority of the people on those stats are not starting a businesses because of the 1.5% increase in employer national insurance contributions and the abolition of the non-dom tax regime.
Those are the main reason why people don't set up an eBay or Vinted store, I'm sure.
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 11:20 am
by V8Granite
DeskJockey wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:54 am
V8Granite wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 10:19 am
Where do you draw the line ?
Your spending power is far greater than many others, can they have some more as you have multiple cars and a very nice house ?
I don't care how you earnt it, I want it as I think it's too much.
This is down to a personal belief but I want everyone to do well. If you have a million pounds a year as Daddy did well and gave you a trust fund, you're paying £20 for a coffee with gold sprinkles, you pay your 50k tax bill on your Bentayga and your loafers cost more than my car. Aslong as you are spending in the UK then I'm benefitting.
If he was running Victorian sweatshops illegally then that's not ok, but that's not the case.
I don't understand how the Starbucks case happened where they paid virtually no corporate tax but they also employ 5300 people, a net positive, if they aren't doing anything illegal then what can you do?
Dave!
The line is that although I do have a nice house and two cars, I do not have the means to buy influence across global, or (ignoring the News Shopper that I doubt anyone reads) local platforms in a way that broadcasts and amplifies my views out of all proportion.
I cannot buy/launch a media outlet and hire loudmouth agitators to push my agenda, or fund/create groups to further my own views.
Agree again with all of that.
It still doesn't explain where we could stop government influence though. For example a new leisure centre is being built not far from me, the old one needed a million put into the roof, 3.5 million to fix it all. Turns out the roof is a 150k job and the land for the new leisure centre is owned by a councillors sister. Can we start with them first ?
Dave!
Re: Trump
Posted: Tue Oct 06, 2026 11:22 am
by V8Granite
Jobbo wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 11:09 am
Rich B wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:43 am
V8Granite wrote: Tue Oct 06, 2026 9:27 am
That's quite interesting, 31k median wage and benefits cost of £1800 per person.
If only people could be incentivised to start and grow a business there may be more jobs to go around. Not needing tax money from the pot but actually putting some in.
Dave!
yep, the majority of the people on those stats are not starting a businesses because of the 1.5% increase in employer national insurance contributions and the abolition of the non-dom tax regime.
Those are the main reason why people don't set up an eBay or Vinted store, I'm sure.
It's also unlikely the small store selling baby clothes won't end up employing folk either.
But if your turnover is below a certain level, it should affect your benefits but pay no tax instead up to that level you were receiving, it's benefitting both government and the poorest.
Dave!
.