What I should make clear is that the answer to the question as to who will benefit from increased defence spending in the UK is the wealthiest people in the country. We do not, after all, already do enough to defend the interests of everybody else, so we might pander to the rich by not taxing them enough. And it is, after all, the assets of, and income streams belonging to, the wealthy that any aggressor of the UK will be interested in. Therefore, it can only be the wealthy who must pay for an increase in defence spending.
It is only the poor who benefit from welfare spending. Therefore it must be only the poor who pay the taxes for welfare spending. QED.
Twat. The assets of the wealthy – you mean their artwork, their jewellery and um gold fillings?
Sorry Godwin.
How benefits more someone renting an expensive house with highly mobile assets or someone with an expensive house? Surely the later so lets have land value tax to pay for defence.
I suppose his world view was warped by having so many strange clients who paid him enormous amounts of money to work out the maximum tax they could pay…
@Hallowed Be,
Surely you mean their JEWels …
“the assets of, and income streams belonging to, the wealthy that any aggressor of the UK will be interested in.”
That’ll be those big piles of gold coins that ‘the rich’ have lying around everywhere then.
Yep, Scrooge Mc Duck again. The “wealthy” increasingly don’t keep assets in the UK because everybody from Starmer down to Spud wants to steal it.
Do you think he believes that houses in Ely aren’t “wealth” or that the taxes he constantly demands will have a get out for him?
Under the yolk of foreign occupation I would exect the rich to suffer much less than the poor. The origininal proposition is wrong.
Pretty sure that if England is attacked “women & minorities hardest hit” will be the headlines.
“The “wealthy” increasingly don’t keep assets in the UK because everybody from Starmer down to Spud wants to steal it.”
This non-wealthy inmate of the GB asylum would like to know how to keep assets abroad. Switzerland? Channel Islands? Singapore? Portugal? How do we go about it, chaps?
Timetable: I’d like it done before Sir Pink Blancmange introduces exchange controls à la Harold Wilson.
I worked for a US company so had accounts to use for investment purposes. Doesn’t help with tax but if Starmer & co decide to really go for it it should at least slow them down. Also, if for some reason the US economy booms under Trump and ours crashes under the commies then it provides some insulation from that.
This is not investment advice. I am regulated in the UK by the voices in my head etc.
Anyway, is there any actual wealth in the UK? It seems to me that all our ‘wealth’ comes from selling houses to each other at ever increasingly inflated prices. Productive assets, not so much.
Dearieme
I have no experience having my wealth – such as it is – in foreign whilst being a UK resident. However, if you become a US resident (or, later, US citizen) your goodies are protected from the tentacles of the UK state. The price of this is relocating to foreign – which is reasonable.
I’d not recommend relocating to France. They have an even nastier government, with very little understanding of or sympathy for private property.
Were I a wealthy resident of the UK, I’d be looking for a new residence.
There’s a self regulating way to do this. Pay your defence levy and you’re not eligible for conscription. Don’t pay, you’re off to Ukraine. Sounds fair. Achieves what Murphy wants, people with the means would be falling over themselves to pay.
“Under the yolk of foreign occupation I would exect the rich to suffer much less than the poor. The origininal proposition is wrong.”
Every yolk has a white. Racists
Witchie February 18, 2025 at 10:08 am
“@Hallowed Be, Surely you mean their JEWels … ” Ha. i did say Godwin’s but there’s also Poe’s at work here. So to be clear I was trying to point out the utter utter stupidity of a man who suggests defence spending increase is for protecting rich people’s assets. It’s for protecting people and assets, but fundamentally people because if nasty people take over your country there are examples from history whereby the invader doesn’t want the populace they find there and in incurring the expense of expunging them they’ll recover whatever assets they can, including all of the above. And yes i can still appreciate an argument that says no extra spending is required, but if it is required then it’s because it’s for everyone.
@LTW
Well, they’re rolling out the “we’re going to conscript everyone” articles again, softening up the public consciousness for when all the white boys and men get rounded up and shipped to Ukraine to die in a ditch.
Duskier hues won’t be forced to go because of “cultural sensitivity”.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-14410971/Trumps-refusal-help-NATO-allies-left-Britain-no-choice-make-plans-conscript-says-GENERAL-RICHARD-SHIRREFF.html