LLL

The UK state is spending unprecedented, record-breaking amounts on millionaires. The UK state is spending unprecedented, record-breaking amounts on multimillionaires. If the UK state stopped all spending on millionaires and multimillionaires tomorrow, we could slash income tax meaningfully for everyone, pay off the national debt entirely and begin the creation of a sovereign wealth fund – all within just 30 years! Eventually, we could transform the UK into one of the most prosperous, low-tax developed nations on earth. Unfortunately, both left and right are unanimously aghast at the prospect of cutting state expenditure on millionaires and multimillionaires. The left hate any challenge to the universality of public services, pensions & healthcare, seeing this as a stepping stone to further erosion. The right despise the idea that the poor might get some entitlement they don't – and thus also demand universality. Even the most vociferous critics of the big state and our ever-swelling state budget cannot bring themselves to suggest just the slightest curtailment of expenditure on millionaires and multimillionaires. On the contrary, all political parties fall over themselves to outcompete one another regarding who can raise state expenditure on multimillionaires more. There isn't even a minor political party who advocates for a curtailment of state expenditure on multimillionaires. In the UK, there is absolutely zero discussion about any of this. The idea that we should STOP SPENDING STATE MONEY ON MILLIONAIRES AND MULTIMILLIONAIRES is so far outside of the Overton Window, that if anyone actually read this rant, their response would likely be "Huh?? The UK state doesn't spend money on multimillionaires!" I'm pretty sure I'm the only person on this island who believes the state should radically and swiftly reduce state expenditure on millionaires. The UK is done.

Wrong. The graph in the paper is wealth-adjacent taxes 'as a % of GDP'. Do you know why the author chose to display wealth taxes as a % of GDP? Because 'total % of tax revenue generated by wealth-adjacent taxes' would should the world's most successful economy – the USA – right at the top of the list, and that's not the answer the author wanted. So instead, he devised this bizarre, nonsensical metric 'wealth-adjacent taxes as a % of GDP.' What is the relevance of GDP here?? Yes, we know Britain has a productivity problem, but to weasel that into a graph about wealth taxation is either idiocy or charlatanism.

@JeevunSandher So much to challenge there, but I'll just point out.. 1⃣ there is overwhelming evidence that high taxes on wealth are anti-growth 2⃣ the UK raises more from wealth-related taxes than any other OECD economy More here... iea.org.uk/publications/f…

Workers spend more of their income than the wealthy. But our nation has been taxing workers *more* and the wealthy less. Wealth as a share of UK GDP has doubled since the Thatcher era. But tax revenue from wealth only rose by 35% over the same period. That's anti-growth.

@TheJoeySwoll Will never tire of saying you're a great man Joey.

No, he should NOT touch your phone but you shouldn’t be filming in the first place and it’s NEVER ok to put your hands on someone.

@bratty_cakes @TxBallCoach40 @crazyclips_ 'Fell outta the pool' is probably strange wording. She was sat on the edge of the above ground pool. Fell off. Hurt her leg. Sadly, the clickbait whores then tried to make this a gross sexual story. It isn't.

@TxBallCoach40 @crazyclips_ Even still you’d have to work really hard to fall OUT of a pool. That’s an upward and out motion of water which makes you heavier upon exiting lol unless she was on a floatation device? Lol It’s not registering with me

She could barely walk when she got home… and her brother saw everything 😭💀

@augusteprompt LVT is inevitable sooner or later though. The current economic system mechanistically drives wages downwards in perpetuity. There is no way to prevent this, so either you tax land more and wages less to compensate, or yno... French revolution II.

@LongLostLiberty Getting LVT passed will be very difficult because of a handful of very wealthy landlowners and the damage to the banks but if he does it I’ll be very happy. We can then cut all the other taxes in the future.

I actually agree with Burnham on implementing a land value tax. It is the only sensible tax aside from sin taxes. However I want every other tax abolished entirely. Every other tax reduces the production/consumption of the thing being taxed making us poorer.

Poor math... Who is getting richer? Who is getting poorer? Largely, the top 10 - 20% of the wealthiest in the country will be fine - wealthy via assets. If you do not get yourself into this group, you are going to continue to get materially poorer. The math is very simple - inflation will continue, not the CPI number, that is bullshit. If your wage growth is not 7-12% a year, you are going to get poorer every year. It will be slow and hard to notice at times, but dinner out, holidays etc... you'll be cutting back. Inflation will continue as none of the leading parties have the knowledge or desire to fix it - also none of you will vote for what fixes it.

All this nation does is heap cash and benefits and perks and bonuses on pensioners – the wealthiest generation in the nation, and in fact, the wealthiest people in the entire history of the known universe. When will Britain support those of reproductive age? The civilization is dying because they can't afford children. It's insane and destructive to think we could possibly do anything more for pensioners. Is all of the world's money not enough??

When will Britain support its pensioners and make the state pension a livable amount. . . .

Wages are NOT fine. When measured in houses or S&P 500 shares or land in cities or business premises in cities or scarce metals or collectibles or classic cars or fine wine or rare art or mansions or ANYTHING ELSE that is scarce and desirable to humans – the things we collectively call wealth – they've declined dramatically over the past 50 years. Your salary buys less wealth than at virtually any point over the past 150 years. Wages are only fine if they're measured against mass-producible objects like potatos and 4k ultrawide monitors and nail varnish. We get better and better at producing such things at cheaper and cheaper prices, which masks the wage erosion. I guess you are talking about non-scarce, abundant land in the desert? Because there's no way in hell you're talking about land in Manhattan or anywhere else in the world where people actually want to live.

@LongLostLiberty @ProjectLiberal Wages are fine. There just aren't enough houses. A house costs <$100,000 to build. The land: $20,000 - $120,000. Yet they are selling for $300,000 - $700,000.

America doesnt need 50 year mortgages. It needs to build more housing.

@Liviman2 @joeschmo269 @TheSalesBull1 I know you're a dumb fraud because you still haven't given a counter explanation. You're not capable of doing so because you'd only expose your own stupidity.

@LongLostLiberty @joeschmo269 @TheSalesBull1 You literally make up a series of mad assumptions and nonsensical suggestions and ignore facts presented to you to feed your anger. As I said, I come across a lot like you.

£2,392 - that's the average council tax bill this year In 1993 it was £568 A 321% increase Salaries rose 179% in the same period Council services have not got 321% better Nobody stood for election on that platform It's theft by increment. Thirty years of it.

That is how it works. Footballers pay 45% tax and 2% NI on virtually their entire salary. They're not tax dodging en masse. Yes, commercial endorsements also make him an extra mill or two a year (but much less than his £12M salary). Additionally, your net worth figure seems to be from Google AI. There is no definitive answer as to his net worth because the information isn't public, but the oft-quoted Salary Sport puts him at £52M. Seems reasonable.

@LongLostLiberty @AaronBastani That's not how footballers income works. They're not on the checkouts at Tesco. Declan Rice’s net worth is estimated to be approximately £26 million ($33 million). Pay and major commercial endorsements, such as with Adidas.

London is such a dangerous, hellhole; so full of ‘no go zones’, that millionaire footballers walk around at 5am.

@Liviman2 @joeschmo269 @TheSalesBull1 Do you work in finance for a council by any chance? That would make perfect sense.

@Liviman2 @joeschmo269 @TheSalesBull1 You're massively overpaid. You're far too thick to understand or engage with anything I said.

Throwing our taxes onto a pile and burning them would be fantastic. At least that way, the money supply would contract rapidly and the value of our salaries would rise sharply. What they actually do is a peverse combination of eroding our salaries via perpetual monetary expansion, and consequently, claiming an ever larger portion of our diminished earnings to maintain parity.

The modern left don’t care if taxes are literally thrown onto a pile and burned.

I know plenty of millionaires and most of them are basically just regular people who live in nice houses. When I was a kid, the word millionaire meant 'lottery winner wealthy' and now it means 'lives in a four-bed in Wokingham'. If you know anything about economics, then you'll know that by the time you die, the median person will be a millionaire and it won't be anything special. So at what point does the word lose all meaning? I'm just saying it's like... now... I guess?

@LongLostLiberty @AaronBastani Wtf are you talking about 😂 what we have is fine.

I'm afraid you're simply way out of your depth in this discussion, so I doubt it's worth the effort to explain, but what the hell... The scheme was implemented in the early 1970s, so yes, perhaps it wasn't in place for a full 40 years prior to the change in 2008, but if you're disputing my calculation because someone may have spent 34 years on the 1/80th + 3x lump sum scheme and 6 years on a very similar scheme – that is simply bad-faith pedantry. The median council worker in 2008 was on approx £24k. However, someone who had worked there for 40 years – after a long career – was disproportionately likely to be earning well above the median. In virtually all workplaces, the median 60-something year old is typically earning substantially more than the median 20-something year old. So whilst likely a little above the median for a 2008 retiree with 40 years service, a final salary of £48k is not a wild assumption. 40/80 * 48k = 24k annual + tax free £72k lump sum (lump sum is 3x the annual amount). Of course, that doesn't tell the full story, as the £24k is inflation-linked. £24k in 2008 is now £40k. And then the £12.5k state pension is added on top of this. £52.5k a year? Nice! Nothing like this is on offer to people working in the private sector earning <£150k nowadays. But hey, even if you were earning the median £24k and retired in 2008 after 40 years, you'd still have a £36k lump sum bonus (£60k in today's money) + £12k per annum, which would now be £20k + £12.5k state pension. Nice!! Boomers do not know they were born. I know people in their mid-30s who have worked an entire career with under £10k in their pension pot... and they are paying for yours! Have some dignity for once in your life and stop with the disingenuous pedantry.

@LongLostLiberty @joeschmo269 @TheSalesBull1 Just about everything. You have not taken into account scheme changes or rules of the scheme. You are just making shit up.

@Liviman2 @joeschmo269 @TheSalesBull1 What precisely is wrong?

@LongLostLiberty @joeschmo269 @TheSalesBull1 You are wrong here. You don't appear to understand how the scheme works.

The comparison isn't fair. It's wrong and dumb & demonstrates 0 understanding of economics. When you buy the house, you typically do so with a 5x – 10x leveraged loan. If you put £53k down to buy a £530k house, that house will almost certainly double in value within about 15 years. When it does, your gain will be £530k. Yes, you could have bought the S&P with a 5x - 10x leveraged loan, and could have worked out better if you'd got the right timing, or done some sophisticated hedging to counterbalance your risk of liquidation, but most people aren't financial professionals. Getting the mortgage approved is considerably simpler than placing a 10x leveraged bet on the S&P 500. Just whacking £53k in an ETF will not outperform £53k levered up 10x to buy a house. That's what these weirdos don't seem to understand.

@2147mill The comparison is fair but missing one thing. You can't live in your S&P 500 portfolio. The house eliminates rent, which is itself a guaranteed monthly cost. Factor in 30 years of not paying £1,500 a month and the math gets a lot closer.

Everyone thinks buying a house is the best investment they’ll ever make. The data disagrees. UK house prices rose 4.33% annually over the last 10 years. The global stock market returned 10.1% annually over the same period. Now think about the opportunity cost of your deposit. Average UK deposit: £53,000. £53,000 invested in the S&P 500 instead: → After 10 years: £141,000 → After 20 years: £376,000 → After 30 years: £1,000,000+ Your deposit sitting in bricks: → After 30 years at 4.33%: £186,000 Schroders studied this over 25 years. £100,000 in global stocks became £631,000. The same £100,000 in UK property became £454,000. And that’s before: → Stamp duty → Maintenance costs → Insurance → Estate agent fees when you sell Property feels safe. The numbers say otherwise. Investment or liability?

Mistakes?? In the first two years of New Labour, we had BoE independence, Scottish & Welsh devolution, an end the conflict in Ireland, human rights brought into UK law, the introduction of min wage, a new deal for unemployed workers, capped school class sizes, Sure Start, the introduction of university tuition fees, the establishment of NICE to govern the NHS's use of medicines, the handgun ban, the creation of working tax credits, and intervention in Kosovo. Thatcher's first two years were similarly eventful. I won't bore you with the list, but the norm when you elect a government promoting itself with promises of 'change' is to see a fundamental shift in the national philosophy. Starmerism represents militant nothingness. We've never had such a conservative government in the entire history of this nation. It's stunning to witness how dedicated he is to changing absolutely nothing ever.

Is Starmer amazing? No. Is he a decent bloke? Yes. Every leader makes mistakes. Thatcher, Churchill, Blair. Now tiny issues are magnified into full blown crisis. Perspective needed. Line must be drawn or we end up with instability ad infinitum with PMs going every other year.

You're forgetting the £72k tax free lump sum. So for working on the average wage, you get to retire at 65, you get £72k tax free, and then £24k council pension and a £12.5k state pension? £36.5k a year + £72k tax free lump sum for the rest of your life? I know people in the mid-30s who have worked their entire lives and have less than £10k in their pension pot. I'd keep very quiet indeed about your deal matey.

@LongLostLiberty @TheSalesBull1 A full-career council worker (40 years) in the Local Government Pension Scheme (LGPS), average annual pension is about £17,000 to £24,000 which assumes a standard career average salary ranging from £25,000 to £35,000, also includes the full state pension, which adds £11,500 pa