 | Forum
Reply | Sporting lookalikes.
at 17:39 20 Sep 2024
You dirty old man.
On a topical note, how about Kieran McKenna and Phil Neville. Are they actually the same person? |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 13:53 20 Sep 2024
Yes Nick. I am no fan of the Tories but most of the problems that we've faced as a country are not their fault.
I'd add to that list 2 of our biggest problems:
1. Demographics. Our aging population is the fundamental reason why we are facing problems with the public finances and part of the reason why there are so many sick, which is where this thread started.
2. Climate change. We've had to invest billions in green energy and subsidise it, while shutting down our profitable north sea energy. It needs to be done, but it is costing billions. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 13:47 20 Sep 2024
No I don't think they're suddenly going to invest in gold and bitcoin because they're doing it already. It'll just happen in larger numbers when there are extra incentives to do it (that's just basic economics). As stated, there are millions who own gold and bitcoin today, so that's millions who either are or will be pensioners. What's really for the birds is the idea that they will sell.
There may indeed be thousands of people who can't work out pension credit, but the millions who own gold and bitcoin are generally not the same as those earning less than £220 a week and so eligible for pension credit. Earning £220 a week is probably not enough to be described as middle class. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 12:36 20 Sep 2024
saint901, what do you mean when you say "Chasing avoidance is expensive"? Avoidance is legal isn't it, so why would they chase it?
Avoidance includes (in my case) putting savings in my ISA. Doing things like this have been actively encouraged by previous governments, so why include avoidance in the tax gap at all? Is there a notional difference between approved avoidance (e.g. ISAs) and unapproved avoidance where some complex scheme cooked up by tax accountants stretches the law? |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 10:17 20 Sep 2024
"...if you genuinely think that middle class pensioners have ready access to the gold bullion or bitcoin markets I can only suggest such a view is at best extremely unlikely and most likely simply not feasible."
Every middle class pensioner already has access to the gold and bitcoin markets and many of people own them already. If someone wants physical gold, all they need is a couple hundred quid to buy things like this:
https://bullionhouse.co.uk/product-category/100g-gold-bars/
For bitcoin all you need is a phone. The most recent surveys estimate that 5.6 million people in the UK currently own cryptocurrencies including Bitcoin.
These things will only become more popular if they start taxing traditional savings. As I've explained this makes the tax unfair as the burden will fall on the law abiding middle classes. Tax avoidance will be adopted by the wealthy and tax evasion can be easily adopted by the non law abiding using routes like this. Just one of many reasons why this is a bad tax... |
| Forum
Reply | Southampton V Ipswich Town The Preview
at 09:34 20 Sep 2024
Having used my magical powers to correctly predict the lineup for the last 2 PL games (almost), I have once again delved into the mind of RM to predict the following for Saturday:
Ramsdale
Suga, THB, Bednarek, KWP
Fernandes, Downes, Big Les
Dibling, Archer, Diaz
A possible variation on that is Lallana starting instead of Big Les. If RM thinks he really needs to win this one then he might do that. Otherwise I predict the same as last week with one enforced change. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 21:58 19 Sep 2024
Yes, it's true that Scandinavian countries are reported as being happy. I'm not sure why though, how is that known? Not by looking at the data on suicide rates anyway. They all have higher suicide rates than the UK, so aren't we happier on the objective measures? But OK let's go with it anyway. The problem is that the lessons don't translate to a country like the UK.
I've worked there and I can tell you that those countries are entirely different to the UK and what works there won't necessarily work here. They are all small (the population of Denmark, Finland or Norway is only about 4 times Hampshire's) and very socially cohesive cultures (a fact that is attributed to the historically harsh winters and relatively homogenous populations). As a result they're much happier working for the common good, in contrast to this country which is far more individualistic and "nimby". They are happy to pay taxes because they can see where they're spent, unlike the UK where people don't see how they're spent and don't want them spent on the work-shy and immigrants. It's just a difference in culture that isn't going to change any time soon. What works in Scandinavia doesn't even cross the border to Germany and Holland, let alone here.
But even in Scandinavia, wealth taxes don't work. This is Norway's experience of a wealth tax as reported in the rabid right wing Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/apr/10/super-rich-abandoning-norway-at-re
So, with less tax coming in from the wealthy, they have to target the middle classes. You obviously don't have a problem with that, but see Southamptonfan's post above for a more typical reaction. As he says, the messages are all wrong and disincentivise saving. A sensible government encourages saving because then it will have less of a problem in future. That's why UK governments have followed that policy for decades.
Meanwhile, just like Southamptonfan, existing pensioners won't think it's fair that they are being punished for working hard and saving after so many years of the government telling them that's what they should do. So they won't comply. Money will indeed be converted to gold and hidden. The more tech savvy pensioners will convert cash to bitcoin instead where it will never be found. The net result is that the state will have to spend enormous sums trying to track the wealth of 40 million people who have come to see the state as their enemy, or very little tax will ever be recovered.
So yes there may well be wealth taxes because they are politically convenient but they won't work and will do more harm than good. There are better and fairer ways of raising taxes. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 17:52 19 Sep 2024
Wealth taxes don't work. That has been shown internationally. In 1990 12 European countries had wealth taxes. Today most have been abandoned and there are 3 remaining.
There are many problems with them. Maybe the biggest problem is that people who are genuinely wealthy just leave and live elsewhere, so rather than getting more tax from them you get less. So, to raise any money you have to tax the middle classes. But to do that you have to know what their wealth is which you have no way of knowing without doing a detailed audit and searching their attic for the gold bars that they have moved their money into. You need an army of hated tax inspectors for that which will cost more money than it raises.
So, they don't work but I think Labour will introduce some just because it is "red meat" as they say. A likely target will be pensioners with private pensions. They're sitting ducks because they can't hide their pensions. It wouldn't be fair but so what? The only one that would be cost effective to implement and reasonably fair would be a tax on houses but that would lose them too many voters so it won't happen. |
| Forum
Reply | Benefits - essential safety net or invitation to abuse?
at 13:54 19 Sep 2024
Undoubtedly there should be a safety net of some kind, but the big picture is that the current situation is simply unsustainable. No politician will tell you this, but their own bean counters (the OBR) say that if we carry on as we are, spending will increase beyond anything we can ever afford:
So can taxes rise to equal the spending? No, the tax burden is now at record levels at over 40% of GDP and various economic studies have shown that once you go over about 40% it is self defeating because you kill the incentives to work and create new companies. Many argue that we are seeing that already.
It is near impossible to find any area of government spending that should be cut, so what will happen instead is that lots of areas will have to be cut even though we don't want them to be. Within 10 years it will be unavoidable. |
| Forum
Reply | Cornet
at 17:34 18 Sep 2024
No but he's got a bit of brass neck |
| Forum
Reply | Everton Carabao Cup Game Matchday Thread
at 09:27 18 Sep 2024
Meanwhile, as we are doing that the opposition are getting in position and filling any holes, so that by the time we finally try to create a chance it is very difficult to find any space. Even the good teams find it difficult to create chances against a defence that has had time to get set, so what chance have we got with these tactics? |
| Forum
Reply | Gary Shaw
at 22:44 17 Sep 2024
Yes, I'm only 61 |
| Forum
Reply | KWP Off
at 16:47 17 Sep 2024
Yes, looking for a free with dosh. I'm sure West Ham did come in for him last summer, but the wages he was asking for undoubtedly made him too expensive. He'll probably get the wages he wants next summer when no transfer fee needs to be included in the package. His gain, our loss. C'est la football vie. [Post edited 17 Sep 16:47]
|
| Forum
Reply | The Incredible Central Defensive Saga
at 15:26 17 Sep 2024
Fair point but
- how many of these would be starters for a mid table Prem side? 2 maybe?
- there are no strikers on your list, where will the goals come from?
- I think that the likes of Fernandes, Uguchukwu and Dibbling will be Prem standard given some experience, but are they ready to win games today? Being ready in 6 months time won't work for us. |
| Forum
Reply | Southampton V Manchester United The Verdict
at 13:02 16 Sep 2024
"3. If you are pushing out to play offside you have to have someone who calls the line, you can't just have individual players deciding to step up and hope that everyone goes with them."
I'm sorry Nick but that's just wrong. You're a well informed man but in this case you're not understanding how a modern team would defend.
This is just a basic set piece drill. I guarantee you that SFC do it because everyone does it. You can also see by the behaviour of the other players that they have done this many, many times before. From a corner, the ball is played back deep and that is the automatic prompt for the entire defence to step out. They don't wait for anyone to say anything. There probably is a shout but it's not necessary. They just follow the drill.
The position of the line is then taken from the first player who is holding the line (others may have gone out further to press the the ball). The second player in the line then gets level with the first player (who is sometimes called the "lead"), the third from the second and so on. You take your position based on the player next to you (not because someone is explaining to you where to stand) and by doing that you end up in a line automatically.
If you look at this goal as an example. Diaz is the "lead" or whatever Saints coaches call it. Look at a replay and you can see him signal with his hands that he will be the lead as they are pushing out. The signal isn't necessary but it shows what he is thinking about as he pushes up. The line then forms from him and it works well, they are all in a line with one exception - JS.
The idea that "you have to have someone who calls the line" and that this might be the player on the back post is a bit ridiculous really (sorry no offence). It needs to be far more automatic than that because it needs to happen quickly and without thought. There are also issues like the noise in the stadium to consider but above all, the line can only come from the "lead" position because otherwise players would have to turn round to see where other players were. If JS had been "calling the line" that wouldn't work because the other players can't see him and maybe can't hear him. The other defenders have to be able to see the cross coming in and where the line is without turning round to look.
I believe you have connections in the game, so ask them. Anyone in the modern era will have taken part in training drills like this. |
| Forum
Reply | Another pathetic 0-3 result courtesy of Sports Republic’s parallel universe
at 10:35 16 Sep 2024
True Nick, but we can blame Sports Republic for the appointments that they make i.e. the decision makers who do control the transfers.
For me the problem with this recruitment window was that we got our priorities wrong. Once we'd sorted out the obvious issues like Downes, then the priorities had to be a goalkeeper and a centre forward. Congrats to the club for doing an excellent job on the goalkeeper, but we've ended up looking very flaky at centre forward, while bringing in countless players in other positions, many of which will never be used in real games.
As you say the manager has the final say and I think this one is down to him. It is obvious that CF is not a priority for him. Sometimes he even plays without one and when we do have players who might be able to do the role he puts them on the wing. I can't see us scoring enough goals in the PL with that approach. |
| | Ifonly
|
Site Scores| Forum Votes: | 107 | | Comment Votes: | 367 | | Prediction League: | 4 | | TOTAL: | 478 |
|
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.