Not sure they're necessarily who we should benchmark against. What I'm really talking about is better childcare policies, benefits etc. Not entirely sure what Russia did?
UK General Election 24/25
- Thread starter LarryHagman
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
Not sure they're necessarily who we should benchmark against. What I'm really talking about is better childcare policies, benefits etc. Not entirely sure what Russia did?
That’s a tough question. There’s probably a few variables and those in the south would disagree with my definition.
Household income £70k, homeowner (even with mortgage), two cars and can do the food shop at M&S.
Household income £70k, homeowner (even with mortgage), two cars and can do the food shop at M&S.
Oh I doubt it - but I just found it interesting that they tried their best to undo the depopulation there and it just failed. I wouldn't be surprised - if ever there is a China-Russia war, it would be about that land as it's emptying out.
Sweden or Finland (one of them) has unreal benefits of having kids - and families there aren't huge either.
I'm not sure if benefits would make much of a difference to those who are quite happy with smaller families (say 1-2 kids) ... If anything, they'd just help those who already desire bigger families.
I mean - how many people here wanted say families of 4 (spouse +2) or 6 (spouse +4) etc etc?
My solution to all these problems is simple. Ban having kids after 2030.
That means everyone alive now can live like kings, use as much energy as they like, basically treat the planet like a hire car and say fuck it we had a good innings. The digital versions of us are the ones that are gonna explore the galaxy anyway, so why go out on our own terms?
That means everyone alive now can live like kings, use as much energy as they like, basically treat the planet like a hire car and say fuck it we had a good innings. The digital versions of us are the ones that are gonna explore the galaxy anyway, so why go out on our own terms?
Wage stagnation has killed millennials and beyond. Me and my partner are on higher than average wages in a lower than average cost of area to live and having all three of home ownership, kids and half-decent retirement is a challenge. I would surmise that most people in my age range are are 6-10 years behind' on their financial ambitions when they were younger.
We could afford a child reasonably comfortably but there would be a compromise in the present and our future resources. People will say that's always been the case, but it's not been nowhere near as compromising for other generations. My mother was a single mother and was set for life on a massive pension at 55 and able to fuck everything off and travel the world. There will be biggest generational wealth transfer in history over the next thirty years, but it will come well passed the point of the children rearing window. The sad thing is the younger generations will have it even harder unless there is radical growth and housebuilding over the next decade and beyond. The wealth, if not swallowed up care costs, will carry on passing down, but everyone will be getting it at 60/70 years old. It's hard to see how that cycle changes now it's been set.
We could afford a child reasonably comfortably but there would be a compromise in the present and our future resources. People will say that's always been the case, but it's not been nowhere near as compromising for other generations. My mother was a single mother and was set for life on a massive pension at 55 and able to fuck everything off and travel the world. There will be biggest generational wealth transfer in history over the next thirty years, but it will come well passed the point of the children rearing window. The sad thing is the younger generations will have it even harder unless there is radical growth and housebuilding over the next decade and beyond. The wealth, if not swallowed up care costs, will carry on passing down, but everyone will be getting it at 60/70 years old. It's hard to see how that cycle changes now it's been set.
I've read that there already are regions of Russia which are filled with Chinese people. It's in the book prisoners of geography.
Yup, and "more children" has been on their political agenda ... no success
I have no idea, and have no idea if there'd be desired impact, but policy should be there to encourage the behaviors that we want, and need.
And we're really short on young people and that problem is getting worse, so, removing as many reasons as possible for people not to have kids seems like a good idea.
Brave New World is the blueprint for replacement. Test tube babies bred for specific roles.
Toss in a tube, hand it to some white coats in a heated lab, they add some DNA then jiggle it on one of them jiggling things, put a label on it. Bit later you've got a burger flipper. Easy.
I've no idea what this has to do with the General Election but I'm down this rabbit hole now.
Toss in a tube, hand it to some white coats in a heated lab, they add some DNA then jiggle it on one of them jiggling things, put a label on it. Bit later you've got a burger flipper. Easy.
I've no idea what this has to do with the General Election but I'm down this rabbit hole now.
Glad as I am that the Tory scum are history, there is no alternative for the new Labour Govt than to pursue a wealth tax. Whether they admit it now, or pussyfoot around for 12 months trying other ways to raise money, they're going to have to do it.
Raising taxes is something that any party who won would have had to do. Improvements to the NHS and to public services aren't going to happen by accident; and no-one wants to see the private sector get involved, we know where that will go.
So, as well as sacking non-dom, Labour are going to have to introduce a wealth tax, are going to have to crack down on tax avoidance schemes, are going to have to target major corps.
Otherwise, they'll end up doing what the scum did, taxing average Joes to the hilt or playing with pennies and fucking the country up.
Raising taxes is something that any party who won would have had to do. Improvements to the NHS and to public services aren't going to happen by accident; and no-one wants to see the private sector get involved, we know where that will go.
So, as well as sacking non-dom, Labour are going to have to introduce a wealth tax, are going to have to crack down on tax avoidance schemes, are going to have to target major corps.
Otherwise, they'll end up doing what the scum did, taxing average Joes to the hilt or playing with pennies and fucking the country up.
I wouldn’t mind paying more if the country saw the benefit. Selfishly, I’d love to see schools being better funded, kids getting free meals, making it easier to see a doctor or dentist, decent roads, etc. It’s all for the better society.
Oddly, the bastard Tories already started a wealth tax increase. The drop in Capital Gains allowance is the first step. I’d increase the rate. Same with all unearned income. I’d charged a higher rate on that than earned income. The whole it doesn’t reward investment is bull shit. Our labour should attract a lower rate than people living off that labour.
Oddly, the bastard Tories already started a wealth tax increase. The drop in Capital Gains allowance is the first step. I’d increase the rate. Same with all unearned income. I’d charged a higher rate on that than earned income. The whole it doesn’t reward investment is bull shit. Our labour should attract a lower rate than people living off that labour.
Given that we are currently overall paying the highest taxes ever are you sure the answer is to raise the tax burden again? 2008 & 2020 were two financial tsunamis that have pushed the public debt to new highs. Balance the books first?
There is enough money in this country to raise the basic tax allowance to £20K. To make sure that people on low incomes are tax exempt.
Income tax on those below £20k is minimal compared to other things. Those on that wage pay more in VAT as a % of income than of someone higher rate income tax. Same for council tax, road tax, tv licence, etc.
Laudable and most will feel the same. However, if as an individual your credit card is maxed, is your first thought to increase spending? Right/Left/Green/Nazi/Comi the debt exists. The Tories were in denial are Labour going to be too?
It’s not comparable to an individual with credit cards though. The government has more at its disposal than I do as an employee.
Even if you wanted to look at an individual and the increase in their wealth. At what point do they need that extra money? £100k? £250k? £1 million? £25 million?
Give a poor person money, they spend it in the economy. Give it to a rich person and they hoard it.
Labour aren’t in denial. This evening its Come out how much we’ve been pillaged. Let’s hope voters never forget.
So there's my personal gripe. All those taxes, all managed by different bodies and departments. All with different thresholds and rules.
National Insurance, Income Tax, Council Tax, VAT, Stamp duty, Road Tax, Capital gains etc
Then you add in all the rules to give back to people with again rules, limits and exceptions.
It's fucking insane.
When the government raise the minimum tax limit I benefit as well as the low paid. Makes no sense!
The family that are struggling to buy their weekly food are taxed 20% on it and then rely on a government subsidy to afford it. Both of which cost money to apply and to police.
Got it. People/politicians are to blame we have a massive debt and that should be remembered but the debt won't go away. We do need to pay off the debt, no matter if it was the wicked step-mum that the whole family hates created it.
I genuinely felt relief when the family allowance got means tested but was still fucking annoyed that it just added to the bureaucracy at the same time
Anyway I'm off to bed. Need to be rested to be a good capitalist tomorrow 🙂
The whole 'credit card' analogy is ridiculously fucking shit, because governments incur debt in a completely different way.
Credit cards need to be paid off each month, otherwise you get stung with high interest fees and the like.
Governments issue bonds which are typically over decades. Government debt is absolutely nothing even remotely like a credit card, it's just a really really shit way comparison to draw.
If you *have* to make a state vs individual comparison, a mortgage is a much better fit
Crikey, ok let me amend that. Cos that’s totally different.
If your mortgage is crippling then your first thought is probably not to spend more
In fact, just in case I’m being misunderstood. If you have ( fill in huge debt here) then your first thought is probably not spend more
Just to be extra clear the Tories shouldn’t have tossed in last minute tax cuts which we can’t afford. This isn’t a party thing. We need to pay down debt period
Bloody disgraceful and typical where they had go to as as a party.
Now look at the contenders for leadership :shudder: like choosing between Gengis Khan, Attila the Hun or Hitler
I get the feeling this 20bn is a number Reeves can hide behind while she turns into George Osborne. It sounds big and will freak people out, but is less than 2% of the govt budget. I mean a couple of points swing in interest rates would cause a bigger headache, and there must be contingency for that.
I can't see anything helping us out of this mess other than investing in infrastructure projects. If that's off the table nothing is improving any time soon. We've had fourteen years of austerity, it failed, it will continue to do so.
I can't see anything helping us out of this mess other than investing in infrastructure projects. If that's off the table nothing is improving any time soon. We've had fourteen years of austerity, it failed, it will continue to do so.
Yepp. The ones Reeves is threatening to cut in the BBC article I've just read. We'll see
Similar threads
