[Politics] The Labour Government

[Is it PotG?]

...and your point is?

I often wonder.

 

[Sid and the Sharknados]

Some people are really smart. You know who you are.

Some people are really thick. Unfortunately, you don’t know who you are.

Ironically, genuinely intelligent and knowledgeable people tend to be aware of holes in their wisdom and so underestimate how smart they are.

On the other hand...

 

[aolstudios]

And me.

& me

 

[Me Atome]

We imported fruit pickers because domestic labour found it too hard work. Nothing to do with pay. Now we grow less fruit and veg and import more as a consequence. The cost of food has risen as a result and has thus fuelled inflation.

You could say that. But in the context of this discussion about labour costs fuelling inflation I would view it the other way round. If the pay for fruit picking was higher more people would do it. So with higher pay the cost increases, and the price of fruit increases; this fuels inflation

 

[abc]

You could say that. But in the context of this discussion about labour costs fuelling inflation I would view it the other way round. If the pay for fruit picking was higher more people would do it. So with higher pay the cost increases, and the price of fruit increases; this fuels inflation

I appreciate your logic but pay is not the issue for manual field work, it is actually pretty good. But it is very hard work and Brits aren’t up for that anymore.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Do you Brexiters ever bother looking at evidence and facts instead of basing your views on emotions and wallowing in a feeling of victimhood?
View attachment 187445

Another old chestnut. Back in the day 10% of people went to university, now it's close to 50%, that means that younger people are clever and older people are stupid. Do people really believe that?

The reason fewer people with degrees voted Brexit is because younger people (more likely to have degrees) tended to vote Remain, older people (without degrees) tended to vote Brexit. It correlates quite nicely.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Why would you pay for state visits or palaces if you abolish the monarchy? You’d save on that and generate income by turning any sites that weren’t lived in to either tourist attractions (money to state) or rented property (money to state).

And you’d suddenly have a family of rich aristocrats paying tax.

Is someone from Burnley really saying 345 million isn’t a lot of money? I suggest you look up how much The Amex cost to build and translate that into hospitals.

We would pay for state visits of incoming heads of state. So far as I know, use of palaces and such for state visits comes out of the royal budget.

And no, I wasn't saying that £345m isn't a lot of money. What I was saying is that abolishing the monarchy and saving (at a top end republican estimate) 10p per person per week, would not result in paying "way less tax" which is what Guinness Boy was saying.

 

[The Antikythera Mechanism]

The largest landowner in the world currently is King Charles III of England. How much land does the Royal Family own? He and the British Royal Family own more than 6,600,000,000 acres of land around the world. They technically own many territories around the globe, amounting to 1/6 of the surface of the planet. The family owns land in the United Kingdom, Canada, and beyond.

 

[Wozza]

They technically own many territories around the globe

Yeah, good luck cashing that in, Charlie.

 

[Guinness Boy]

We would pay for state visits of incoming heads of state. So far as I know, use of palaces and such for state visits comes out of the royal budget.

And no, I wasn't saying that £345m isn't a lot of money. What I was saying is that abolishing the monarchy and saving (at a top end republican estimate) 10p per person per week, would not result in paying "way less tax" which is what Guinness Boy was saying.

You could use that money to pay for a public service, or you could use it alongside other methods to increase the amount at which the lowest paid start paying tax at all. So then the most needy of the working class would either stop paying tax or pay less of it.

 

[beorhthelm]

The largest landowner in the world currently is King Charles III of England. How much land does the Royal Family own? He and the British Royal Family own more than 6,600,000,000 acres of land around the world. They technically own many territories around the globe, amounting to 1/6 of the surface of the planet. The family owns land in the United Kingdom, Canada, and beyond.

bogus claim based on not understanding the Crown owns a lot of Canada (and Australia). that's really the state of Canada/Australia, not owned by Charles as private property. it's like saying Pope Francis owns all the land held by Catholic Church, daft how the article inconsistently goes onto to list the institutions owning land after headlining with Charles.

 

[dsr-burnley]

You could use that money to pay for a public service, or you could use it alongside other methods to increase the amount at which the lowest paid start paying tax at all. So then the most needy of the working class would either stop paying tax or pay less of it.

Of course you could use that money for other purposes. If we accept the claim at face value, we could use the funds to run the NHS until the early hours of tomorrow morning, for example. Or pay an extra £6.60 a week in net benefits to a million families. (The most needy of the working classes are net recipients from the state, not net payers in.) What we can't do is make us pay "way less tax", it could only make us pay a little less tax.

 

[abc]

The largest landowner in the world currently is King Charles III of England. How much land does the Royal Family own? He and the British Royal Family own more than 6,600,000,000 acres of land around the world. They technically own many territories around the globe, amounting to 1/6 of the surface of the planet. The family owns land in the United Kingdom, Canada, and beyond.

Another is the Church of England. They are regularly evicting their tenant farmers in order to sell land for housing for £millions on which they pay zero tax. They have assets of somewhere between £8 and 10 billion on which they also pay no tax. They also pay no tax on their multiple income sources (eg rents) and no VAT.
But far too powerful for even our most dogged and aggressive media institutions to challenge.

 

[Right Brain Ronnie]

I'm sure that Starmer is right on top of this

Nearly 500 migrants crossed Channel in small boats on Saturday

He is still in training smashing the gangs............there could be a long wait at this rate.

 

[dsr-burnley]

Another is the Church of England. They are regularly evicting their tenant farmers in order to sell land for housing for £millions on which they pay zero tax. They have assets of somewhere between £8 and 10 billion on which they also pay no tax. They also pay no tax on their multiple income sources (eg rents) and no VAT.
But far too powerful for even our most dogged and aggressive media institutions to challenge.

They're a non-profit organisation (ie. all their income is ultimately spent on their core activity) so they wouldn't pay tax on profits anyway, even if they weren't a charity. As for VAT, businesses don't pay it - their customers do. There is no VAT on rent of agricultural land or on the sale of it for housing, no VAT on rental of housing, no VAT on gifts received from the parishioners, so apart from a bit of VAT income from charging for admission to cathedrals (which would be more than lost for the VAT on repairs to said cathedrals) there would be not much in it for the government to gain.

Same with organisations like the RSPCA, though in a smaller way - they have assets of about a quarter of a billion, I believe. But they don't pay tax.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

He is still in training smashing the gangs............there could be a long wait at this rate.

Richy Sunak would need a stool to stand on to even reach the punchbag

 

[Right Brain Ronnie]

Richy Sunak would need a stool to stand on to even reach the punchbag

Still think he would punch hard than that, I have never seen such a pathetic limp punch ever. His toolmaker dad must be thinking he should have covered his tool before making him.

 

[rogersix]

Of course you could use that money for other purposes. If we accept the claim at face value, we could use the funds to run the NHS until the early hours of tomorrow morning, for example. Or pay an extra £6.60 a week in net benefits to a million families. (The most needy of the working classes are net recipients from the state, not net payers in.) What we can't do is make us pay "way less tax", it could only make us pay a little less tax.

do you think modernising the royal family would one day lead to the aristocracy working for a living?

 

[schmunk]

I appreciate your logic but pay is not the issue for manual field work, it is actually pretty good. But it is very hard work and Brits aren’t up for that anymore.

This doesn't really make sense. Regardless of how hard one has to (physically) work, pay is ultimately the determinant of how desirable a job is.

The key is that Eastern European migrants had a lower threshold of what is acceptable pay for the role, and thus filled the available jobs. Make the pay £1,000/day and there'd be a queue of locals demanding the work.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

Still think he would punch hard than that, I have never seen such a pathetic limp punch ever. His toolmaker dad must be thinking he should have covered his tool before making him.

He doesn't need to punch hard with a 174 seat majority