So will we now see a refreshing change in the new Government?
Redistribute some of that wealth to the have nots then surely it creates
a better scenario for everyone. More money in the pockets of the lowly
paid, and the millionaires and billionaires still keep some of their
wealth.
IF he can change things round enough to usher in
another Labour Government we might see some real changes for the better.
On 26/07/2026 12:25, John wrote:
So will we now see a refreshing change in the new Government?
Redistribute some of that wealth to the have nots then surely it
creates a better scenario for everyone. More money in the pockets of
the lowly paid, and the millionaires and billionaires still keep some
of their wealth.
The usual politics of envy.
Let's suppose we have one of these billionaires - -u1,000,000,000,000
(and that's assuming British billions, not American ones!) The current population of the UK is 68.75 million. Take every penny from the
billionaire and divide it equally and everyone gets -u14,545, which
sounds like good sugar, especially if you are married with 2.4 kids.
But first of all remove administrative expeneses, which will not be negligible as the distribution is administered and the assets are sold
(and once all his stocks and shares are on the market their value will rapidly drop, so there probably is not a billion to share out). Even
worse, a lot of his wealth is in the businesses he owned which, without
his guiding hand, promptly collapse adding several thousand workers to
the ranks of the unemployed.
Then what happens next year? All the other billionaires have upped
sticks and headed for Monaco and you're not even getting tax from our
now bankrupt billionaire. Suddenly that fourteen grand doesn't look
quite so munificent after all!
On 26/07/2026 12:25, John wrote:
IF he can change things round enough to usher in another Labour
Government we might see some real changes for the better.
Like all the changes for the better introduced under Starmer and his cronies? More illegal immigrants, more criminals roaming the streets
(and less deterrance against crime), higher taxes, fewer jobs -
especially for young people looking for their first job - and the
economy stagnant. Wow! Really something to which we can all look forward!
Do you begrudge those who have little having a bit extra, which then
gets spent in the shops and helps grow the economy?
Let's suppose we have one of these billionaires - -u1,000,000,000,000
thats a trillion.
Your maths is out, it's -u14.54
but you're looking at it the wrong way.
If there was a better distribution of wealth and that extra tax money
was invested by the Government to boost the economy. Let's say you could extract -u20 billion from 174 billionaires. (Thats roughly 115 million
from each billionaire, but of course that would be less if you only had
a billion compared to another billionaire who had 10 billion, and of
course, millionaires contributing a bit exta too.
I'm not talking about bleeding them dry, but I'm a bit shocked that, as
a Christian, you don't agree with a fairer distribution of wealth.-a I
might be wrong, but I'm sure Jesus said something about rich men and how
it being quite difficult for them to get into heaven.
Again, paying a bit extra when you already have more than enough won'tIt was in the papers yesterday that some loud-mouth tennis star who has publicly urged the government to soak the rich, has been fighting a long battle with the taxman to get out of paying more tax. People rightly
be a hardship, but I think you're over egging it somewhat. Oooh tax us
and we leave, from the same mouth who exploit loopholes in the tax
system to avoid paying what should be already their fair share of tax.
Less illegal immigrants!(1)
But we have a new man at the helm now, steering the ship back to calmer waters.-a In Andy Burnham's first speech he highlighted the importance of young people being in work, and-a will be working on getting young people into apprenticeships and work placements.
I will sing the praises of the Tory Government in one aspect (under
Boris I think); who introduced a scheme where employers took on young
people (up to 24 I think), and paid their wages for the first 12 weeks.
I'm not sure how successful it was, but it was an idea I liked.
(1) Ken knows of course that they aren't illegal immigrants (although I accept it's become the general term for them).-a They land in thisNo, they are illegal immigrants. If they were truly refugees, they could
country illegally, but once asylum is claimed, they are no longer
illegal. If they are processed and rejected, but then don't leave, then
they are an illegal immigrant.
When David Cameron became PM, we suffered 5 years of austerity. "We're
all in it together" he claimed.-a We had a -u960 billion deficit, caused
by the economic crash in 2008, and the idea was to bring it back down.
Like a fool I believed him, but by 2015 it was 1.6 trillion and 2.8
trillion when labour came in 2 years ago.
During that time, the poor became poorer and the rich became richer. In
2010 there were 74 billionaires in the UK, in 2015 it had risen to 117
and is now around 156 (2025)
So will we now see a refreshing change in the new Government?
Redistribute some of that wealth to the have nots then surely it creates
a better scenario for everyone. More money in the pockets of the lowly
paid, and the millionaires and billionaires still keep some of their wealth.-a If Andy can implement the suggested property tax properly that would be a good start.-a His hands are pretty much tied to what he can do
in this parliament but IF he can change things round enough to usher in another Labour Government we might see some real changes for the better.
On 26/07/2026 12:25, John wrote:
When David Cameron became PM, we suffered 5 years of austerity. "We're
all in it together" he claimed.-a We had a -u960 billion deficit, caused
by the economic crash in 2008, and the idea was to bring it back down.
Like a fool I believed him, but by 2015 it was 1.6 trillion and 2.8
trillion when labour came in 2 years ago.
During that time, the poor became poorer and the rich became richer.
In 2010 there were 74 billionaires in the UK, in 2015 it had risen to
117 and is now around 156 (2025)
So will we now see a refreshing change in the new Government?
Redistribute some of that wealth to the have nots then surely it
creates a better scenario for everyone. More money in the pockets of
the lowly paid, and the millionaires and billionaires still keep some
of their wealth.-a If Andy can implement the suggested property tax
properly that would be a good start.-a His hands are pretty much tied
to what he can do in this parliament but IF he can change things round
enough to usher in another Labour Government we might see some real
changes for the better.
I think a hybrid system works best. By that I mean (in broad terms)
manage basic needs on a socialist model, whilst allowing the
entrepreneurs to prosper and create their wealth on the luxuries and 'extras', things that are not basic needs, but are desirable to have.
However, a system needs discourage 'freeloaders' somehow, whilst trying
to ensure nobody falls out the bottom of the system. One way would be to ensure basic level employment for all. Rather than just handing out benefits, perhaps in many cases some sort of contribution to society
ought to be a part of the claim requirements.
Some sort of community work perhaps. Personally, I think that would help
to keep the link between work and reward, which is good for individuals' feeling of self-worth. They would not feel 'useless', and future
employers would not be faced with people who were not used to a working routine.
Yes of course it's not that simple. Mental health patients,for example,
need to feel secure in the knowledge that they will continue to get
support. But most people could do something, even if it was just
attendance at a community mental health centre or something. Tying in
some sort of commitment to their receipt of income would help maintain
the notion of doing something in order to receive, which is after all
how the world of employment functions.
One thing, the populace is for ever pressing governments to provide for
more and more things. More services, but the same populace keep pressing
for ever lower taxes! They want great services, but they don't want to
pay for them. Maybe governments need to 'sell' taxation better?
Let's suppose we have one of these billionaires - -u1,000,000,000,000
(and that's assuming British billions, not American ones!) The current population of the UK is 68.75 million. Take every penny from the
billionaire and divide it equally and everyone gets -u14,545, which
sounds like good sugar, especially if you are married with 2.4 kids.
But first of all remove administrative expeneses,
which will not be negligible as the distribution is administered and
the assets are sold (and once all his stocks and shares are on the
market their value will rapidly drop, so there probably is not a
billion to share out). Even worse, a lot of his wealth is in the
businesses he owned which, without his guiding hand, promptly collapse
adding several thousand workers to the ranks of the unemployed.
Then what happens next year? All the other billionaires have upped
sticks and headed for Monaco and you're not even getting tax from our
now bankrupt billionaire. Suddenly that fourteen grand doesn't look
quite so munificent after all!
On 27/07/2026 00:02, John wrote:
Do you begrudge those who have little having a bit extra, which then
gets spent in the shops and helps grow the economy?
Of course not, but taxing billionaires so severely that they cease to be billionaires (or, more likely, leave the country and you get no tax out
of them at all) is-a not the answer.
Let's suppose we have one of these billionaires - -u1,000,000,000,000
thats a trillion.
Look up "billion" on the internet. The British definition (I believe it
is British) is a million million, whereas the American definition is a thousand million.
Your maths is out, it's -u14.54
Depends on the definition of "billion", but I am more than happy to
accept your figure, which makes my point even more emphatically.
but you're looking at it the wrong way. If there was a better
distribution of wealth and that extra tax money was invested by the
Government to boost the economy. Let's say you could extract -u20
billion from 174 billionaires. (Thats roughly 115 million from each
billionaire, but of course that would be less if you only had a
billion compared to another billionaire who had 10 billion, and of
course, millionaires contributing a bit exta too.
There may be lottery millionaires (I don't think any lottery
billionaires) whose money does nothing for the economy, but the vast majority of wealthy have earned their wealth by doing precisely what you
are wanting. They have invested in the economy, they have built up successful businesses that employ a large number of people, they pay
large amounts in tax both personally and through those businesses, what
with corporation tax and employers' contributions. Tax them unfairly and
you are killing the goose that lays the golden egg.
I'm not talking about bleeding them dry, but I'm a bit shocked that,
as a Christian, you don't agree with a fairer distribution of wealth.
I might be wrong, but I'm sure Jesus said something about rich men and
how it being quite difficult for them to get into heaven.
I'm a realist. If Joseph Bloggs, billionaire, earns no more than Joe
Bloogs, factory worker, where is the incentive for him to put in the
long hours building and running his business? Even more to the point,
why should he build his business in Britain, when he can earn twice as
much by building his business somewhere else that doesn't tax as heavily?
Again, paying a bit extra when you already have more than enough won't
be a hardship, but I think you're over egging it somewhat. Oooh tax us
and we leave, from the same mouth who exploit loopholes in the tax
system to avoid paying what should be already their fair share of tax.
It was in the papers yesterday that some loud-mouth tennis star who has publicly urged the government to soak the rich, has been fighting a long battle with the taxman to get out of paying more tax. People rightly
regard taxation as nothing more than legalised robbery. They may be
prepared to put up with these pseudo-Robin Hoods, provided they are not
too greedy and that the money does indeed go to the poor, but they will
do their best to hang onto what they have earned by hard work, by taking risks, by using their flair for business.
On 27/07/2026 00:19, John wrote:
Less illegal immigrants!(1)
No, I want fewer illegal immigrants. Their size is of no concern to me.
But we have a new man at the helm now, steering the ship back to
calmer waters.-a In Andy Burnham's first speech he highlighted the
importance of young people being in work, and-a will be working on
getting young people into apprenticeships and work placements.
Provided he doesn't raise taxes on ordinary people, I'll suspend
judgement. I don't follow the matter closely, but the headlines I have
seen do not sound promising.
I will sing the praises of the Tory Government in one aspect (under
Boris I think); who introduced a scheme where employers took on young
people (up to 24 I think), and paid their wages for the first 12
weeks. I'm not sure how successful it was, but it was an idea I liked.
It was wonderful. Everyone employed young people for twelve weeks and
then made them redundant.
(1) Ken knows of course that they aren't illegal immigrants (althoughNo, they are illegal immigrants. If they were truly refugees, they could
I accept it's become the general term for them).-a They land in this
country illegally, but once asylum is claimed, they are no longer
illegal. If they are processed and rejected, but then don't leave,
then they are an illegal immigrant.
and should have claimed asylum in any of the countries they passed
through on their way to Britain. You could probably count on one hand
the number who have come directly from some war-torn country to Britain.
God bless,
Kendall K. Down
On 27/07/2026 00:43, Kendall K. Down wrote:
It was in the papers yesterday that some loud-mouth tennis star who
has publicly urged the government to soak the rich, has been fighting
a long battle with the taxman to get out of paying more tax. People
rightly regard taxation as nothing more than legalised robbery. They
may be prepared to put up with these pseudo-Robin Hoods, provided they
are not too greedy and that the money does indeed go to the poor, but
they will do their best to hang onto what they have earned by hard
work, by taking risks, by using their flair for business.
That's a gross misrepresentation Ken.-a You're referring to Gary Neville,
I think you forget that I fact check all your claims.
We're talking about the personal wealth of people, not successful businesses, but is it right that the Government has to top up the ages
of some because some of these wealthy businesses pay minimum wage wilst personally extracting millions from their businesses?
And that's not all successful businesses of course. We've previously discussed Tesco, who do plough some of their profits back into worker investment
As I said, I haven't advocated bleeding him dry, but on a slightly
different note (and I hasten to add I'm not a commie) do you not like
the idea of everyone being equal, having exactly the same status, and no
one having more than anyone else.-a Just think, if there were no poverty,
no greed, no jealousy, how joyous that would be.
That's a gross misrepresentation Ken.-a You're referring to Gary Neville,
an ex-football player who has said millionaires should be taxed more.
I think you forget that I fact check all your claims.Obviously you don't fact-check well enough.
Gary Linekar fought a tax battle in court and won. The court ruled thatWhich is at odds with his apparent claim that rich people should pay
he had legitimately used a Ltd Company to pay less tax, whilst HMRC had argued he shouldn't have used the Ltd Company.
Stop reading just the Daily Mail then!!-a Whilst my paper of choice is
the Guardian, I read right wing press as well if I can to get a balance.
It was actually 26 weeks having now checked.-a Two thrds remained in work after the scheme ended. It had it's downsides as depicted in the article below, but all in all a good scheme, albeit costly.
On the other hand the wealth of the billionaires is a paper creation by
the international bankers, who get the money on paper from satan's money laundering angels can decide "the worth of money", which is really
managing the debt, and satan prints and delivers to them, in exchange
for the souls they in turn deliver to satan.
I think this is nonsense because the wealth of the billionaires is on
paper
Why do you believe these billionaires are billionaires by virtue of
their individual gifts rather than being fungible creations of the
bankers.
Some sort of community work perhaps.
Yes of course it's not that simple. Mental health patients,for example,
need to feel secure in the knowledge that they will continue to get
support. But most people could do something, even if it was just
attendance at a community mental health centre or something. Tying in
some sort of commitment to their receipt of income would help maintain
the notion of doing something in order to receive, which is after all
how the world of employment functions.
One thing, the populace is for ever pressing governments to provide forWhat services do you have in mind? The only services I would press for
more and more things. More services, but the same populace keep pressing
for ever lower taxes! They want great services, but they don't want to
pay for them. Maybe governments need to 'sell' taxation better?
I do sometimes wonder if we're paying enough income tax, even at the
lower end. Or is the solution simply to cut public spending?-a We collect approximately 1.4 trillion in tax, but some services have already been
cut to the bone, particularly in local Government.-a That said, tax has
been brought in using stealth taxes, so maybe not.
I do know that we (in general) better off paying 30% tax back in theBack in those days there wasn't an equality office in the land! And I
early 80's.
On 27/07/2026 12:49, John wrote:
Gary Linekar fought a tax battle in court and won. The court ruled
that he had legitimately used a Ltd Company to pay less tax, whilst
HMRC had argued he shouldn't have used the Ltd Company.
Which is at odds with his apparent claim that rich people should pay
more tax. He should have rejoiced at the opportunity to pay more instead
of dragging HMRC through expensive litigation.
On 27/07/2026 11:18, John wrote:
We're talking about the personal wealth of people, not successful
businesses, but is it right that the Government has to top up the ages
of some because some of these wealthy businesses pay minimum wage
wilst personally extracting millions from their businesses?
Personal wealth doesn't just fall off the magic money tree. Someone, somewhere, has worked hard to amass that money.
I agree with you entirely, that people who amass wealth by mistreating
and underpaying their workers, should be penalised to the maximum.
And that's not all successful businesses of course. We've previously
discussed Tesco, who do plough some of their profits back into worker
investment
Other model firms are, I believe, Cadburys and Sunlight soap. I think
that at least the former has links to the Quaker movement.
As I said, I haven't advocated bleeding him dry, but on a slightly
different note (and I hasten to add I'm not a commie) do you not like
the idea of everyone being equal, having exactly the same status, and
no one having more than anyone else.-a Just think, if there were no
poverty, no greed, no jealousy, how joyous that would be.
Indeed, very joyous. Tell that to the young bludgers who are getting
-u100 a week more than a worker on minimum wage just by claiming that
they suffer from anxiety. If someone works hard, I see no justification
for not rewarding him for his work.
On 27/07/2026 07:52, Timreason wrote:
Some sort of community work perhaps.
You seem to be arguing for "work-fare" as opposed to "wel-fare". You
will not find me disagreeing.
Yes of course it's not that simple. Mental health patients,for
example, need to feel secure in the knowledge that they will continue
to get support. But most people could do something, even if it was
just attendance at a community mental health centre or something.
Tying in some sort of commitment to their receipt of income would help
maintain the notion of doing something in order to receive, which is
after all how the world of employment functions.
Indeed. There are people who are physically unable to work - I'm not
sure that mental health is an obstacle to all work - but other than that suitable employment should be found for all.
One thing, the populace is for ever pressing governments to provide
for more and more things. More services, but the same populace keep
pressing for ever lower taxes! They want great services, but they
don't want to pay for them. Maybe governments need to 'sell' taxation
better?
What services do you have in mind? The only services I would press for
are essentials like rubbish collection, road maintenance, and so on.
On 27/07/2026 10:20, John wrote:
I do sometimes wonder if we're paying enough income tax, even at the
lower end. Or is the solution simply to cut public spending?-a We
collect approximately 1.4 trillion in tax, but some services have
already been cut to the bone, particularly in local Government.-a That
said, tax has been brought in using stealth taxes, so maybe not.
The biggest drain on our taxes is unnecessary welfare payments. If we weren't paying to house illegal immigrants, employ equality officers, sponsor Pride events, cossett young people with imagined mental
illnesses, provide luxury homes for druggies and the work-shy, and on
and on and on, we could probably halve our tax burden.
I do know that we (in general) better off paying 30% tax back in the
early 80's.
Back in those days there wasn't an equality office in the land! And I
don't recall any problem with illegal immigrants either.
I've mixed feelings. In one sense I agree but in another I don't.
It's actually -u47 a week for new claimants, but the -u100 a week is extra if you *can't* work full stop, and only if you're on universal credit.
I'm not conviced that anxiety on it's own would trigger that benefit.
It's called LCWR, and isn't an easy benefit to get.
Oh, I doubt it.-a Perhaps we should do away with the state pension, given
it makes up 44% of the welfare budget!
On a serious note, what "unecessary" welfare payments would you do away with?
Whether you like it or not, we have no choice to house "illegal
immigrants", given it's a legal duty.
I'm not aware of luxury homes
being provided for druggies and the work-shy, perhaps you could
enlighten me.
I'm wondering though, isn't rejecting the foreigner in
your land going against biblical principles?
To pick up on an earlier point, which I forgot to reply to.-a Under the Dublin agreement we could insist the asylum seeker did have to stop in
the first safe country.-a Also Germany and France both take in more than
we do.
Blame Brexit for the boat people.Really? I thought Brexit was responsible for the current heat wave and drought?
We agree, with the priviso that acute anxiety is a debillitating illness.
SEND provision is the biggest expenditure of most councils nowadays,As I don't know what SEND is, I can't comment.
would you do away with that?
On 27/07/2026 23:15, John wrote:
Oh, I doubt it.-a Perhaps we should do away with the state pension,
given it makes up 44% of the welfare budget!
Only if you refund all the pension contributions that workers have made
over the years.
On a serious note, what "unecessary" welfare payments would you do
away with?
I would restore the two child limit, abolish payments for anxiety and similar fashionable afflictions, and I would follow your suggestion (was
it you or Tim?) and institute workfare. Those who want money from the
state should work for it.
Whether you like it or not, we have no choice to house "illegal
immigrants", given it's a legal duty.
Change the law. Some countries tell illegal immigrants to hand over all valuables to pay for their accommodation.
I'm not aware of luxury homes being provided for druggies and the
work-shy, perhaps you could enlighten me.
Rhyl is plagued by big houses being turned into HMOs, where greedy
landlords are cashing in on the money doled out by the welfare
authorities for rent on behalf of druggies and alcoholics - and, of
course, the people who come here claiming to be looking for work but
really wanting a holiday by the seaside.
I'm wondering though, isn't rejecting the foreigner in your land going
against biblical principles?
The Bible certainly instructs us not to discriminate against "the
stranger within thy gates", but mass migration for economic benefit by people who refuse to assimilate is not, I think, the situation for which
the Bible was written.
To pick up on an earlier point, which I forgot to reply to.-a Under the
Dublin agreement we could insist the asylum seeker did have to stop in
the first safe country.-a Also Germany and France both take in more
than we do.
We *should* insist on that, as should Germany and France.
Blame Brexit for the boat people.
Really? I thought Brexit was responsible for the current heat wave and drought?
On 27/07/2026 22:55, John wrote:
We agree, with the priviso that acute anxiety is a debillitating illness.
And exactly how does lavishing money on people and allowing them to hide away at home at tax-payer expense, help them overcome their anxiety?
SEND provision is the biggest expenditure of most councils nowadays,
would you do away with that?
As I don't know what SEND is, I can't comment.
I think you'll find acute anxiety is a heck of a lot more than someone strssing out every now and then.
Special Educational Needs and Disabilities. Children with autism andThank you. I am highly sceptical about ADHD, which in my opinion is
ADHD, amonst other things.
Why would you restore the 2 child cap. Can you feed 3 mouths on the
payment you get for 2 mouths?
As I've previously said, you only get the universal credit payment if
you can't work. PIP has an anxiety depictor but it isn't enough to
receive PIP on it's own.
It was Tim, but it's not something I would object to. Those who can work should work, I agree with you there. Some people lose their job through
no fult of their own, so maybe a breathing space of 3 to 6 months to
give them time to look for another job.
To change the law you would need to abolish the EHCR and the 1953
Refugee Convention.
So bedsits then, not luxury housing.
I've just looked up the housing
benefit for Rhyl bedsits and it's -u78.80 a week. I'm guessing the actual rent will be more, so hardly greedy landlords cashing in. They could
easily let those same rooms to single working people (or couples in a
double bedsits).
Seems pretty clear to me, there don't appear to be any get out clauses.
But we can't, as the Dublin Agreement no longer applies. France won't
want them back.
On 28/07/2026 22:02, John wrote:
Why would you restore the 2 child cap. Can you feed 3 mouths on the
payment you get for 2 mouths?
It is not a perfect solution - as you say, three can't live as cheaply
as two - but it is *a* solution to those (and I have met some) who deliberately have lots of children with the sole purpose of getting lots
of child benefit payments.
As I've previously said, you only get the universal credit payment if
you can't work. PIP has an anxiety depictor but it isn't enough to
receive PIP on it's own.
The figure I saw quoted yesterday was that there are a million young
people claiming to be unable to work because of anxiety. I simply do not believe that so many young people are so inadequate that they cannot work.
It was Tim, but it's not something I would object to. Those who can
work should work, I agree with you there. Some people lose their job
through no fult of their own, so maybe a breathing space of 3 to 6
months to give them time to look for another job.
We agree - except that I wouldn't limit it to six months. It can be virtually impossible for an older person to find work.
To change the law you would need to abolish the EHCR and the 1953
Refugee Convention.
I am all for abolishing the EHCR, which is a good idea in theory but
whose judgements have caused me to lose all confidence in it. And no,
you would not need to abolish the Refugee Convention, just apply it more vigorously and evenly. Someone who passes through a dozen safe countries
to arrive in Britian is not a refugee.
Seems pretty clear to me, there don't appear to be any get out clauses.
I'm all for treating foreigners the same as we treat natives. Do you
know of many native Brits who get free housing and dole without limit?
I'm not against 3 as a limit, as long as there was a safety gap for a
larger family who suddenly find the breadwinner unemployed through no
fault of their own.
An old-a friend's daughter and her partner had 5 children in about 6/7
years whilst being unemployed, so I do know where you're coming from in
that respect.
According to the Telegraph about 430,000 18-24 year olds claim sickness benefit, not all will be for anxiety, but let's assume most are. Not all
of those will be unable to work and Andy Burnham is right to shift the
focus onto helping young people to work.
Fair enough, so mostly younger people would come under workfare?
The ECHR is not just about asylum seekers, so unless we have a bill of
human rights that matches closely what else EHCR covers we're going to
be worse off as a nation.
I keep hearing that foreigners get preferential treatment in respect of housing, I think both claims you make are untrue, but obviously those
with larger families are going to be a higher priority than us brits who tend to have smaller families nowadays.-a It should, and as far as I know does, depend on priority need.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 74 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 02:47:19 |
| Calls: | 1,102 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 1,339 |
| Messages: | 276,965 |