For some reason everyone in this thread is acting as though the LDs had no power.
A referendum was a bad negotiation position even if an agreement would have been too far.
Also the idea that another election was bad for the LDs, they almost got wiped out in 2015! It couldn't have been worse.
A referendum was a bad negotiation position even if an agreement would have been too far.
Also the idea that another election was bad for the LDs, they almost got wiped out in 2015! It couldn't have been worse.
October 16, 2025 at 3:09 PM
For some reason everyone in this thread is acting as though the LDs had no power.
A referendum was a bad negotiation position even if an agreement would have been too far.
Also the idea that another election was bad for the LDs, they almost got wiped out in 2015! It couldn't have been worse.
A referendum was a bad negotiation position even if an agreement would have been too far.
Also the idea that another election was bad for the LDs, they almost got wiped out in 2015! It couldn't have been worse.
Reposted by JustAGuy
council tax revaluation: fine, yes
shifting income tax even more to high earners: no! stop it! why does no one want a broad tax base any more
being less scared of the bond markets: look, they’re not imaginary, they’re a threat because our borrowing is very high!
shifting income tax even more to high earners: no! stop it! why does no one want a broad tax base any more
being less scared of the bond markets: look, they’re not imaginary, they’re a threat because our borrowing is very high!
September 24, 2025 at 10:47 PM
council tax revaluation: fine, yes
shifting income tax even more to high earners: no! stop it! why does no one want a broad tax base any more
being less scared of the bond markets: look, they’re not imaginary, they’re a threat because our borrowing is very high!
shifting income tax even more to high earners: no! stop it! why does no one want a broad tax base any more
being less scared of the bond markets: look, they’re not imaginary, they’re a threat because our borrowing is very high!
Reposted by JustAGuy
“Uniparty”, from someone talking about British politics, always means “I won’t take any responsibility for the government I supported for 14 years”.
August 26, 2025 at 9:16 AM
“Uniparty”, from someone talking about British politics, always means “I won’t take any responsibility for the government I supported for 14 years”.
(3) conversation on the overall structure of our taxation system, but I'm not sure inflammatory rhetoric works so well with taxation.
JustOneGuy's view on this of course. I think the practical implications of high IHT (children selling their parents houses) could be politically damaging as well.
JustOneGuy's view on this of course. I think the practical implications of high IHT (children selling their parents houses) could be politically damaging as well.
August 22, 2025 at 4:05 PM
(3) conversation on the overall structure of our taxation system, but I'm not sure inflammatory rhetoric works so well with taxation.
JustOneGuy's view on this of course. I think the practical implications of high IHT (children selling their parents houses) could be politically damaging as well.
JustOneGuy's view on this of course. I think the practical implications of high IHT (children selling their parents houses) could be politically damaging as well.
(2) consider the tax as "tax" rather than as a statement of economic ideological alignment.
For example, to raise IHT we would certainly need an Exit Tax first (taxing people moving themselves out of UK tax residency) to avoid capital flight. It would be good to have this more thorough...
For example, to raise IHT we would certainly need an Exit Tax first (taxing people moving themselves out of UK tax residency) to avoid capital flight. It would be good to have this more thorough...
August 22, 2025 at 4:03 PM
(2) consider the tax as "tax" rather than as a statement of economic ideological alignment.
For example, to raise IHT we would certainly need an Exit Tax first (taxing people moving themselves out of UK tax residency) to avoid capital flight. It would be good to have this more thorough...
For example, to raise IHT we would certainly need an Exit Tax first (taxing people moving themselves out of UK tax residency) to avoid capital flight. It would be good to have this more thorough...
Really good article, we have to look at expanding the VAT base and raising VAT as well, by far the most effective and least detrimental way we can raise actually significant revenue.
August 17, 2025 at 12:25 PM
Really good article, we have to look at expanding the VAT base and raising VAT as well, by far the most effective and least detrimental way we can raise actually significant revenue.
Unbelievable player. Haven't been so excited for a new signing since Haaland.
August 16, 2025 at 6:17 PM
Unbelievable player. Haven't been so excited for a new signing since Haaland.
"Won't somebody come up with a good tax to raise?"
Its VAT. VAT is the good tax. All hail our lord and most benevolent form of taxation, the value added tax (comes with a side benefit of massively angering the Trump administration, for some reason).
Its VAT. VAT is the good tax. All hail our lord and most benevolent form of taxation, the value added tax (comes with a side benefit of massively angering the Trump administration, for some reason).
August 11, 2025 at 9:59 AM
"Won't somebody come up with a good tax to raise?"
Its VAT. VAT is the good tax. All hail our lord and most benevolent form of taxation, the value added tax (comes with a side benefit of massively angering the Trump administration, for some reason).
Its VAT. VAT is the good tax. All hail our lord and most benevolent form of taxation, the value added tax (comes with a side benefit of massively angering the Trump administration, for some reason).
God this is so painfully true.
August 11, 2025 at 8:21 AM
God this is so painfully true.