The Politics Thread

[Worthy4England]

Extension of free school meals to all on universal credit is some good news in a year that hasn’t contained much!

I think that's good news. I'm less enamoured to be paying for people to pop out more than two kids on benefits.

[BWFC_Insane]

Extension of free school meals to all on universal credit is some good news in a year that hasn’t contained much!

I think that's good news. I'm less enamoured to be paying for people to pop out more than two kids on benefits.

Well you aren’t yet. And who knows if you will be? I think we should be because the research shows it’s the most cost effective way to life the most children out of child poverty. The kids exist and it’s not really their fault.

[Worthy4England]

Extension of free school meals to all on universal credit is some good news in a year that hasn’t contained much!

I think that's good news. I'm less enamoured to be paying for people to pop out more than two kids on benefits.

Well you aren’t yet. And who knows if you will be? I think we should be because the research shows it’s the most cost effective way to life the most children out of child poverty. The kids exist and it’s not really their fault.

The research should show that the most cost effective way of ensuring kids are not in poverty is not to have them unless you can afford them. That doesn't put anybody on "no kids," because we can still pay for two - don't have a major problem with that. We shouldn't be encouraging more than that for the state to pick the tab up for.

You're right it's not the kids fault. How would you propose we sanction irresponsible parents when they can get contraception free?

[BWFC_Insane]

Extension of free school meals to all on universal credit is some good news in a year that hasn’t contained much!

I think that's good news. I'm less enamoured to be paying for people to pop out more than two kids on benefits.

Well you aren’t yet. And who knows if you will be? I think we should be because the research shows it’s the most cost effective way to life the most children out of child poverty. The kids exist and it’s not really their fault.

The research should show that the most cost effective way of ensuring kids are not in poverty is not to have them unless you can afford them. That doesn't put anybody on "no kids," because we can still pay for two - don't have a major problem with that. We shouldn't be encouraging more than that for the state to pick the tab up for.

You're right it's not the kids fault. How would you propose we sanction irresponsible parents when they can get contraception free?

Firstly we need a higher birth rate. So need to do more to encourage people to have kids. Urgently.

Secondly - the two child limit was introduced in 2017. The birth rate has declined since then but more importantly the kids it plunged into poverty already existed. How is that fair?

Thirdly - why should we say to parents - ok we will take support away that existed since for 50 years because you should have planned better to pay for your own kids without state support but not say to pensioners - the same?

I feel state support should be strongest and highest and most enveloping for kids. Because they can’t directly help themselves but more fundamentally all the downsides that go along with poverty as children tend to track through peoples lives. Mental health, physical health, education etc

[Hoboh]

Extension of free school meals to all on universal credit is some good news in a year that hasn’t contained much!

I think that's good news. I'm less enamoured to be paying for people to pop out more than two kids on benefits.

Well you aren’t yet. And who knows if you will be? I think we should be because the research shows it’s the most cost effective way to life the most children out of child poverty. The kids exist and it’s not really their fault.

The research should show that the most cost effective way of ensuring kids are not in poverty is not to have them unless you can afford them. That doesn't put anybody on "no kids," because we can still pay for two - don't have a major problem with that. We shouldn't be encouraging more than that for the state to pick the tab up for.

You're right it's not the kids fault. How would you propose we sanction irresponsible parents when they can get contraception free?

Firstly we need a higher birth rate. So need to do more to encourage people to have kids. Urgently.

Secondly - the two child limit was introduced in 2017. The birth rate has declined since then but more importantly the kids it plunged into poverty already existed. How is that fair?

Thirdly - why should we say to parents - ok we will take support away that existed since for 50 years because you should have planned better to pay for your own kids without state support but not say to pensioners - the same?

I feel state support should be strongest and highest and most enveloping for kids. Because they can’t directly help themselves but more fundamentally all the downsides that go along with poverty as children tend to track through peoples lives. Mental health, physical health, education etc

Well I don't, your kids are your kids and your responsibility, not anyone else's. Help with two? Yes fine and I can see you couldn't resist yet another dig at pensioners most of whom have paid in to 'the system' all their lives.
Seriously, I hope when it's your turn, state pension is a thing of the past and Rachel Theives plants loads of tax on your private one. Let's see your attitude then.

[BWFC_Insane]

Extension of free school meals to all on universal credit is some good news in a year that hasn’t contained much!

I think that's good news. I'm less enamoured to be paying for people to pop out more than two kids on benefits.

Well you aren’t yet. And who knows if you will be? I think we should be because the research shows it’s the most cost effective way to life the most children out of child poverty. The kids exist and it’s not really their fault.

The research should show that the most cost effective way of ensuring kids are not in poverty is not to have them unless you can afford them. That doesn't put anybody on "no kids," because we can still pay for two - don't have a major problem with that. We shouldn't be encouraging more than that for the state to pick the tab up for.

You're right it's not the kids fault. How would you propose we sanction irresponsible parents when they can get contraception free?

Firstly we need a higher birth rate. So need to do more to encourage people to have kids. Urgently.

Secondly - the two child limit was introduced in 2017. The birth rate has declined since then but more importantly the kids it plunged into poverty already existed. How is that fair?

Thirdly - why should we say to parents - ok we will take support away that existed since for 50 years because you should have planned better to pay for your own kids without state support but not say to pensioners - the same?

I feel state support should be strongest and highest and most enveloping for kids. Because they can’t directly help themselves but more fundamentally all the downsides that go along with poverty as children tend to track through peoples lives. Mental health, physical health, education etc

Well I don't, your kids are your kids and your responsibility, not anyone else's. Help with two? Yes fine and I can see you couldn't resist yet another dig at pensioners most of whom have paid in to 'the system' all their lives.
Seriously, I hope when it's your turn, state pension is a thing of the past and Rachel Theives plants loads of tax on your private one. Let's see your attitude then.

A large number of children in poverty are from families where parents are working. And in many cases it’s not like they knew what circumstances would be when they had kids. Stuff happens. So your answer is if for example an accident happens that leaves a dad caring for his wife who now can no longer work and having to support the three kids without state reduced hours and much lower income that it’s tough - the three kids should suffer - just because that’s life?

Or even parents who weren’t bright enough to figure out they couldn’t afford a third child and had one anyway - the kids should go hungry, cold and lead an early life that in most cases leaves them on the scrap heap well before they are a teenager.

That’s your answer? Cos it’s fine if it is but that’s what you are saying.

I absolutely have no issue with the state pension - people worked and earned and the state pension is the outcome. But there was never any promise it had to be with the triple lock nor that it should be topped up with allowances.

The generation and attitudes you’ve reflected here make my point for me.

If we aren’t putting all our resources at kids who are the future to give them the best fecking chance of fixing stuff then I’m not sure what the point is. At the very very least, we should without question be looking to raise as many out of goddamn poverty as we can. After all pensioners have less poverty than any other group in society. And who is the most in poverty? Yep it’s kids. That is scandalous in any country let alone one supposedly that prides itself on education.

[Worthy4England]

I like a good "Firstly" on a slow news day!

Regarding poverty measurements, I think there are problems with the way we calculate those, which are as dumb as how we calculate whether housing is affordable, the other way round. It's relative to mean income and by most measures it's decreased since 2002 (although is on uptick now)

Firstly. We only need a higher birth rate on current neo-liberal economic planning narratives. The birth rate dropped dramatically in the mid-1970's when the pill was introduced. Whilst it has cyclical ups and downs, it's been constantly - under 2, since 1973 - 50 years. We haven't adjusted our economic model to take account of that. The model where we just increase population will not work long term, the lower birth rate has been in part offset by higher immigration.

Secondly - I'm getting into the spirit of this now! - Fair needs to cut all ways, it has to come with responsibility, that in general, fair would be that you have children you can for the main part support. I doubt most have a problem with the concept of the welfare state providing short term safety nets - but that's not what's occurring in too many cases. I'm happy that we already provide additional support for those who were born before it was announced in 2017, which includes anyone who already had more than 2 children.

I like thirdly. We have made at least 3 significant changes to pensions, first equalizing the age at which women get state pension and then raising the age for qualification to 66, then 67. It's not like there have been no changes in pensions provision - that is taking "support away" that existed for 50 years. It is a fact that people will get old and need to retire - if they're getting full state pension it's because they've paid into that fund. It is a choice (for the most part) to have more than 2 children.

If you give people in the trap more money (without anything else occurring), landlords, supermarkets and utility companies will find ways of taking it off them, so more money will go the same way as all the other pots of cash the state hands out. There needs to be some joined up thinking across departments, and there we have a huge problem.

[Worthy4England]

Extension of free school meals to all on universal credit is some good news in a year that hasn’t contained much!

I think that's good news. I'm less enamoured to be paying for people to pop out more than two kids on benefits.

Well you aren’t yet. And who knows if you will be? I think we should be because the research shows it’s the most cost effective way to life the most children out of child poverty. The kids exist and it’s not really their fault.

The research should show that the most cost effective way of ensuring kids are not in poverty is not to have them unless you can afford them. That doesn't put anybody on "no kids," because we can still pay for two - don't have a major problem with that. We shouldn't be encouraging more than that for the state to pick the tab up for.

You're right it's not the kids fault. How would you propose we sanction irresponsible parents when they can get contraception free?

Firstly we need a higher birth rate. So need to do more to encourage people to have kids. Urgently.

Secondly - the two child limit was introduced in 2017. The birth rate has declined since then but more importantly the kids it plunged into poverty already existed. How is that fair?

Thirdly - why should we say to parents - ok we will take support away that existed since for 50 years because you should have planned better to pay for your own kids without state support but not say to pensioners - the same?

I feel state support should be strongest and highest and most enveloping for kids. Because they can’t directly help themselves but more fundamentally all the downsides that go along with poverty as children tend to track through peoples lives. Mental health, physical health, education etc

Well I don't, your kids are your kids and your responsibility, not anyone else's. Help with two? Yes fine and I can see you couldn't resist yet another dig at pensioners most of whom have paid in to 'the system' all their lives.
Seriously, I hope when it's your turn, state pension is a thing of the past and Rachel Theives plants loads of tax on your private one. Let's see your attitude then.

A large number of children in poverty are from families where parents are working. And in many cases it’s not like they knew what circumstances would be when they had kids. Stuff happens. So your answer is if for example an accident happens that leaves a dad caring for his wife who now can no longer work and having to support the three kids without state reduced hours and much lower income that it’s tough - the three kids should suffer - just because that’s life?

Or even parents who weren’t bright enough to figure out they couldn’t afford a third child and had one anyway - the kids should go hungry, cold and lead an early life that in most cases leaves them on the scrap heap well before they are a teenager.

That’s your answer? Cos it’s fine if it is but that’s what you are saying.

I absolutely have no issue with the state pension - people worked and earned and the state pension is the outcome. But there was never any promise it had to be with the triple lock nor that it should be topped up with allowances.

The generation and attitudes you’ve reflected here make my point for me.

If we aren’t putting all our resources at kids who are the future to give them the best fecking chance of fixing stuff then I’m not sure what the point is. At the very very least, we should without question be looking to raise as many out of goddamn poverty as we can. After all pensioners have less poverty than any other group in society. And who is the most in poverty? Yep it’s kids. That is scandalous in any country let alone one supposedly that prides itself on education.

Ok - so if the large number of children in poverty are from families where parents are working, then clearly they're not getting a "living wage." So we allow business to pass the tab onto tax payers...tax payers pay the subsidy, which is then take off the families by utilities, landlords and supermarkets....it's a complete nonsense.

[BWFC_Insane]

I like a good "Firstly" on a slow news day!

Regarding poverty measurements, I think there are problems with the way we calculate those, which are as dumb as how we calculate whether housing is affordable, the other way round. It's relative to mean income and by most measures it's decreased since 2002 (although is on uptick now)

Firstly. We only need a higher birth rate on current neo-liberal economic planning narratives. The birth rate dropped dramatically in the mid-1970's when the pill was introduced. Whilst it has cyclical ups and downs, it's been constantly - under 2, since 1973 - 50 years. We haven't adjusted our economic model to take account of that. The model where we just increase population will not work long term, the lower birth rate has been in part offset by higher immigration.

Secondly - I'm getting into the spirit of this now! - Fair needs to cut all ways, it has to come with responsibility, that in general, fair would be that you have children you can for the main part support. I doubt most have a problem with the concept of the welfare state providing short term safety nets - but that's not what's occurring in too many cases. I'm happy that we already provide additional support for those who were born before it was announced in 2017, which includes anyone who already had more than 2 children.

I like thirdly. We have made at least 3 significant changes to pensions, first equalizing the age at which women get state pension and then raising the age for qualification to 66, then 67. It's not like there have been no changes in pensions provision - that is taking "support away" that existed for 50 years. It is a fact that people will get old and need to retire - if they're getting full state pension it's because they've paid into that fund. It is a choice (for the most part) to have more than 2 children.

If you give people in the trap more money (without anything else occurring), landlords, supermarkets and utility companies will find ways of taking it off them, so more money will go the same way as all the other pots of cash the state hands out. There needs to be some joined up thinking across departments, and there we have a huge problem.

It’s also a choice (mostly) to get to retirement relying on the state pension and other top ups. It’s a series of choices to need top up benefits. Theoretically anyone could choose to go and get a job that pays well enough to not need UC or whatever. And save and invest. It’s all choices at the end of the day.

I agree with a lot of your points - just not the outcome. The outcome is that by saying to people ‘tough luck’ we make hundreds of thousands of kids suffer and likely repeat the same cycle the next time round and on and on getting only worse. Starts in life and education are how we can break the cycle.

Yes as you say below we are ultimately letting business pay below a living wage. So we should either stop them doing that or tax them more. And both things have happened to an extent in the last year but neither is without consequence nor criticism. And until someone says ‘I know how governments can fix the economic system we have and this is how’ I’d prefer they make sure kids don’t go hungry and cold.

I accept we can’t afford an endless welfare state and we have to make decisions about where support goes. I just think this is one area where if we can afford it we should.

[Worthy4England]

I think the main point we disagree on, is that just making decisions on rearranging the deckchairs in favour of one beneficiary or another is any form of responsible government. There will be winners and losers as there always is, with the same pie as you baked 50 years back just with different proportions.

The notion that starts in life and education will break the cycle, I don't believe is correct, in a number of important aspects. Everyone going to university and getting (or otherwise) degrees doesn't seem to have had any noticeable at an aggregate level on productivity and wage growth has been stagnant for 30 years, the wage gap has increased, so it's not the same target - so what improvement is it actually effecting? What cycle has been broken? Hobes might have some comments on this one!

[BWFC_Insane]

I think the main point we disagree on, is that just making decisions on rearranging the deckchairs in favour of one beneficiary or another is any form of responsible government. There will be winners and losers as there always is, with the same pie as you baked 50 years back just with different proportions.

The notion that starts in life and education will break the cycle, I don't believe is correct, in a number of important aspects. Everyone going to university and getting (or otherwise) degrees doesn't seem to have had any noticeable at an aggregate level on productivity and wage growth has been stagnant for 30 years, the wage gap has increased, so it's not the same target - so what improvement is it actually effecting? What cycle has been broken? Hobes might have some comments on this one!

I don’t think that is what we disagree on - I mean we agree but there isn’t an answer. So as Dave Fishwick says feed the kids first then figure out the rest.

That’s where I am. If we can drag kids out of poverty I can’t really see a good reason not too - obviously if it is affordable. I think where we disagree is on spending priorities. That’s fine. Don’t think we will get all Musk Trump about it

[Worthy4England]

I certainly don't want anyone in poverty, in a nation as rich as ours, but distribution at the very top end is where we need to go after. All going after margins will do, is push a few up, push a few down in between that some will get dragged in that weren't in so the problem perpetuates, so you have to move that bar again.

Ahhh. That last bit. What a big beautiful fall out. How long before the Reformers start saying things like "well not THAT Doge, that wasn't the DOGE we meant!" Keep taking that Ket, Elon, either way I'm not buying the shit you're selling."

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

The government should be concentrating on making a more equal society rather than micro managing 100s of different types of payments/benefits/entitlements. We should be working towards wages that are liveable rather than topping up to the benefit of shareholders. If you work, you can afford a reasonable living out of poverty. If you can't work then you're looked after to a degree you aren't in poverty. If you wont work then you can feck off. There needs to be a temporary safety net and that should be based on medical advice and not whether Capita thinks you can.

Simplify tax, close loopholes and regulate properly against corporate piss taking. If billionaires don't like it they can feck off. They don't create wealth as they claim, they suck it up from the bottom and are a large part of the problems of today.

[BWFC_Insane]

The government should be concentrating on making a more equal society rather than micro managing 100s of different types of payments/benefits/entitlements. We should be working towards wages that are liveable rather than topping up to the benefit of shareholders. If you work, you can afford a reasonable living out of poverty. If you can't work then you're looked after to a degree you aren't in poverty. If you wont work then you can feck off. There needs to be a temporary safety net and that should be based on medical advice and not whether Capita thinks you can.

Simplify tax, close loopholes and regulate properly against corporate piss taking. If billionaires don't like it they can feck off. They don't create wealth as they claim, they suck it up from the bottom and are a large part of the problems of today.

That’s absolutely correct the issue is nobody can say how to do that in real terms. No country has managed it even those who tried. It’s hard to do it when most of the targets are outside the tax system we have anyway or those who aren’t can easily move outside of it.

I don’t think that will be possible in the modern world unless there is a huge international rewiring of the global economy.

Traditional high earners who we might have thought of as being targets for higher income tax for redistributive purposes are now no longer good targets and indeed in many cases are the surgeons and consultants and other professionals leaving to work elsewhere. The people we need to keep.

[Worthy4England]

The government should be concentrating on making a more equal society rather than micro managing 100s of different types of payments/benefits/entitlements. We should be working towards wages that are liveable rather than topping up to the benefit of shareholders. If you work, you can afford a reasonable living out of poverty. If you can't work then you're looked after to a degree you aren't in poverty. If you wont work then you can feck off. There needs to be a temporary safety net and that should be based on medical advice and not whether Capita thinks you can.

Simplify tax, close loopholes and regulate properly against corporate piss taking. If billionaires don't like it they can feck off. They don't create wealth as they claim, they suck it up from the bottom and are a large part of the problems of today.

That’s absolutely correct the issue is nobody can say how to do that in real terms. No country has managed it even those who tried. It’s hard to do it when most of the targets are outside the tax system we have anyway or those who aren’t can easily move outside of it.

I don’t think that will be possible in the modern world unless there is a huge international rewiring of the global economy.

Traditional high earners who we might have thought of as being targets for higher income tax for redistributive purposes are now no longer good targets and indeed in many cases are the surgeons and consultants and other professionals leaving to work elsewhere. The people we need to keep.

The minute our response is "that's tough," we sanction everyone, next tier down, to change their approach because it's ok to do that. Why wouldn't people look to stick stuff in offshore trusts and the like, when they can see that potentially offers protection from the tax man. All that happens in a "that's too tough" scenario is the middle gets squeezed with missing extra tax from one end and increasing demands from the other end, so the bar lowers for everyone. That's unsustainable.

[BWFC_Insane]

The government should be concentrating on making a more equal society rather than micro managing 100s of different types of payments/benefits/entitlements. We should be working towards wages that are liveable rather than topping up to the benefit of shareholders. If you work, you can afford a reasonable living out of poverty. If you can't work then you're looked after to a degree you aren't in poverty. If you wont work then you can feck off. There needs to be a temporary safety net and that should be based on medical advice and not whether Capita thinks you can.

Simplify tax, close loopholes and regulate properly against corporate piss taking. If billionaires don't like it they can feck off. They don't create wealth as they claim, they suck it up from the bottom and are a large part of the problems of today.

That’s absolutely correct the issue is nobody can say how to do that in real terms. No country has managed it even those who tried. It’s hard to do it when most of the targets are outside the tax system we have anyway or those who aren’t can easily move outside of it.

I don’t think that will be possible in the modern world unless there is a huge international rewiring of the global economy.

Traditional high earners who we might have thought of as being targets for higher income tax for redistributive purposes are now no longer good targets and indeed in many cases are the surgeons and consultants and other professionals leaving to work elsewhere. The people we need to keep.

The minute our response is "that's tough," we sanction everyone, next tier down, to change their approach because it's ok to do that. Why wouldn't people look to stick stuff in offshore trusts and the like, when they can see that potentially offers protection from the tax man. All that happens in a "that's too tough" scenario is the middle gets squeezed with missing extra tax from one end and increasing demands from the other end, so the bar lowers for everyone. That's unsustainable.

It’s not offshore trusts though. I mean not in the main. Take Thames water as an example. We are banning bonuses. Hurrah. At last. And talk of capping the chief exec salary. But the real responsible folk are the shareholders. And not even just current ones. But even if we take current shareholders. The folks or orgs that got rich whilst they ignored the need to invest and fix the sewage system. Foreign orgs, pension schemes and sovereign wealth funds. Let me know how you tax them whilst also persuading them to invest the billions, tens of billions needed to fix the infrastructure?

Or we buy it off them and do it from the tax bill. Whilst trying to also balance the other stuff and of course meaning that we have to end up spending hundreds of billions of pounds as no other water company shareholder will want to see any investment.

This is the problem we face. Yes we can hammer bosses of water companies and private business. But ultimately they can’t do a lot. Because they are beholden to shareholders who don’t care and can’t in many cases be touched.

What are you going to do to change for example Microsoft shifting their profits through Ireland? And how do you even that withstanding deal with their ludicrous profits that don’t get taxed anyway. Who are you ‘taxing’ and how?

I’ve heard all the ‘we can’t just say it’s hard’ arguments and agree with them. But I’ve not heard anyone actually say how. The only concrete offering anyone has made is ‘do it on property’ since that’s the only asset that a) we can reasonably trace and track ownership of and b) can assume value of and c) can’t be moved outside the tax jurisdiction. Ok - I’m up for doing it on houses but the people who will be hit by that in the main won’t be the people you and I know need to be hit. And in doing that what you will likely see is economic contraction - maybe only by a small degree but the end result may be balance sheet wise broadly the same as without it.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

If we must have privatised utilities then you regulate the feck out of them and fine the feck out of them if they don't provide adequate service/infrastructure. If they don't like it they can walk away and either someone else will, or the taxpayer will like we used to. British Rail might have been shit, but it cost £30 to go London Manchester. Now its more crowded, more or less just as shit and it probably costs £400. Might as well be shit and cheaper than shit and beyond the means of Joe Average.

[BWFC_Insane]

If we must have privatised utilities then you regulate the feck out of them and fine the feck out of them if they don't provide adequate service/infrastructure. If they don't like it they can walk away and either someone else will, or the taxpayer will like we used to. British Rail might have been shit, but it cost £30 to go London Manchester. Now its more crowded, more or less just as shit and it probably costs £400. Might as well be shit and cheaper than shit and beyond the means of Joe Average.

I mean I agree entirely with that but the issue is that the people responsible are the shareholders - as in they are the ones demanding lower costs and more revenue. Yet we can’t get to them as they aren’t by law legally responsible. Which is a nonsense. But also we can’t get to them through tax as most aren’t here and often are wealth funds, foreign corporations and pensions.

This is the issue. We are cracking down on the bosses of companies who aren’t really responsible for the history of the problem and are now going to struggle to solve it as to do so they need the shareholders and investors to cough up.

[Abdoulaye's Twin]

If we must have privatised utilities then you regulate the feck out of them and fine the feck out of them if they don't provide adequate service/infrastructure. If they don't like it they can walk away and either someone else will, or the taxpayer will like we used to. British Rail might have been shit, but it cost £30 to go London Manchester. Now its more crowded, more or less just as shit and it probably costs £400. Might as well be shit and cheaper than shit and beyond the means of Joe Average.

I mean I agree entirely with that but the issue is that the people responsible are the shareholders - as in they are the ones demanding lower costs and more revenue. Yet we can’t get to them as they aren’t by law legally responsible. Which is a nonsense. But also we can’t get to them through tax as most aren’t here and often are wealth funds, foreign corporations and pensions.

This is the issue. We are cracking down on the bosses of companies who aren’t really responsible for the history of the problem and are now going to struggle to solve it as to do so they need the shareholders and investors to cough up.

There is no shareholder value if your profits are fined out of existence for breaking the law. The issue we have is the regulator hits them with say 10m in fines whilst the shareholders via the board are syphoning off dividends way in excess of that. If they don't meet their obligations then fine them so they don't make a profit to take dividends out of. Pass a law that states they can't take dividends when it means taking on debt to do so. It can be done. Our feckless politicians just don't want to because as Worthy points out it is easier to not bother and hit Joe Average.

[Worthy4England]

If we must have privatised utilities then you regulate the feck out of them and fine the feck out of them if they don't provide adequate service/infrastructure. If they don't like it they can walk away and either someone else will, or the taxpayer will like we used to. British Rail might have been shit, but it cost £30 to go London Manchester. Now its more crowded, more or less just as shit and it probably costs £400. Might as well be shit and cheaper than shit and beyond the means of Joe Average.

I mean I agree entirely with that but the issue is that the people responsible are the shareholders - as in they are the ones demanding lower costs and more revenue. Yet we can’t get to them as they aren’t by law legally responsible. Which is a nonsense. But also we can’t get to them through tax as most aren’t here and often are wealth funds, foreign corporations and pensions.

This is the issue. We are cracking down on the bosses of companies who aren’t really responsible for the history of the problem and are now going to struggle to solve it as to do so they need the shareholders and investors to cough up.

Ok. I hear you. Where precisely are you going to take the tax from. Put it in front of us.