If you want to call any transfer that helps households a “subsidy”, fair enough, but then by the same logic you’d also have to describe things like higher income tax on the rich being used to fund the NHS as “subsidising illness”.
I don’t think your pedantry and snark is necessary at all.
What Zack is proposing is a windfall tax on excess profits and then using that revenue to take the edge off people’s bills – that’s closer to “clawing back” abnormal profits than “subsidising” fossil fuels.
A windfall tax on excess profits.
That’s not a subsidy. It’s a tax on the profits the companies make that is then used to pay towards people’s bills.
This isn’t government money, it’s the company profits being redistributed to consumers.
There’s loads of ways we could tax wealth. One simple option is to stop giving special treatment to income from assets like rents, dividends and interest, and charge National Insurance on that income in the same way we already do on wages.
The war we’re totally not involved in?
The war we’re totally not involved in?
Theres a far bigger landscape here than simply looking at business owners, but if we do look at taxing them more and they leave, the demand is still there. Other companies will simply take their place.
If profits are made on British assets, they can be taxed in Britain regardless of where the owner lives.
There’s people living abroad making billions (largely tax free) simply by owning things like govt debt.
You could literally just remove the words ‘my friend’ and it would be perfectly diplomatic.
Nonsense. Here’s a post from YESTERDAY showing Zack giving a speech about the divisive politics reform offer.
bsky.app/profile/gree...
Monetising engagement was the downfall that place. It’s just full of complete arseholes being horrible to each other hoping to scrape a few quid from it.
Embarrassing.
Imo yes. It being slow and difficult isn’t a reason not to do it, even if the benefits aren’t seen until my kids are old enough to have their own homes.
…with higher rates for more expensive homes and proper protections for low‑income households, so it’s both fairer and actually raises what councils need.
Having a local tax of some sort is still necessary – the problem with council tax is how it’s calculated. We could replace it with a modern property tax based on up‑to‑date values (instead of guessing 1990’s valuations)…
ZP and JC are completely different people and JC has nothing to do with the greens. Dismissing the greens because of Jeremy Corbyn is like dismissing Oasis because you don’t like Coldplay.
This is the thing that stands out to me. They’ve said they wouldn’t work together but I bet that would last all of 5 minutes.
Not really. Are you implying that the greens wouldn’t be able to govern because Jeremy Corbyn wasn’t?
Poll aggregation (as above) is far more useful than individuals
Quite apt that they’re all at the front too.
Yet another example of actions that would end the career of any politician without a blue tie.
When was Jeremy Corbyn in government?
Labour moving left would also be a win. Not just for the politics but it has more chance of opening a Labour/Green alliance of some sort (assuming Starmer isn’t at the head of it that is)
bsky.app/profile/spw-...
💯
No no no. We must go to all the effort and expense of drilling miles down under the sea then turning the sludge we find there into fuel and charge you a fortune for it.
I bet they all have identical websites too
They can even help shape those policies rather than just having them dictated
Web3 without the scams
Yes - People who haven’t joined Corbyn’s party.
It’s relative though, the cost of living is much higher - the average salary is like £70k
It would be interesting to see how much of the 1% are in that age bracket.