This messageboard is for Adults 18 years and over.
If you are under this age please leave the board.
Luton Outlaws accepts no responsibility for the content of this messageboard nor any other
content posted on it.
Luton Outlaws disclaims all liability for such content to the fullest extent permitted by law.
What you read on here is 100% conjecture, fiction, lies, bullshit and complete bollocks.
If you want to be taken seriously, you are in the wrong place.
Any potentially libellous comments that might jeopardise the future of this messageboard will therefore be deleted, and the person posting them will receive a
ban.Enjoy.
The British Economy
Posted by Sheff on 8/7/2026, 20:43:24
Even if you only have a passing interest in the problems besetting the British economy you really should tune in to CH4 at 9pm this evening.
It addresses the significance of the ever increasing wealth inequality where the rich are getting richer and richer as they suck up money from the lower/middle classes.
The programe sees economists politicians business people and the super rich giving their opinions which makes for a balanced programe where the viewer can form there own opinions.
Farige Bought For £5m
Re: The British Economy - This Is Also Worth Watching (and a lot shorter!!)
It's Tom Swarbrick interviewing Gary Stevenson. As Tom Swarbrick was pat of Theresa May's Downing St team and asks some good questions which allows Stevenson to explain his thoughts better than he did in the CH4 documentary
[url=
Farige Bought For £5m
Re: The British Economy - This Is Also Worth Watching (and a lot shorter!!)
Much better than the TV doc and it's worth noting he is talking about shuffling the tax burden off of working classes and on to the super wealthy (who can afford to take the hit) essentially keeping the amount of tax revenue static rather than generating extra tax revenue from the super wealthy. I think that's a better way to do it because it frees up the individual's options of what to spend their money on. A surprisingly half Tory idea!outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
Re: The British Economy
Posted by Poster from the past on 8/7/2026, 21:02:04, in reply to "The British Economy"
I fell out with someone last year because they said Stephenson won't achieve anything. Their argument was basically the wealthy establishment are letting him have his moment in the spotlight precisely because they know he represents absolutely no threat to them whatsoever. It really pissed me off because I was just getting into his work and instinctively wanted to nip any criticism of him in the bud.
Having said all that I have wondered in the meantime if my friend was correct.
I broadly agree with Stephenson however I do agree with the comment that even if you do tax the super wealthy more it doesn't mean that extra tax revenue will be spent sensibly.
I also think the only way the wealth divide can be addressed is by global unity of the 99.99% or whatever it is that aren't super wealthy. And of course that 99.99% is a sliding scale of wealth in and of itself.
Divide and rule is the oldest trick in the book and it appears to be being played out everywhere at the moment. This forum is a microcosm of that with the same old arguments trotted out virtually every day.
From the clip I saw advertising this programme I think Fulford had a very salient point in that if the super wealthy are taxed it will naturally reduce the value of their assets. I agree that is almost certainly true. I don't know to what extent though, and so it's difficult to know if it could be a counter productive policy.
Another issue is establishing ownership in order to be able to tax. Super wealthy people are very adept at using shell companies to obscure true ownership. I imagine this is possibly the single biggest practical obstacle to gathering Stephenson's suggested 2% on assets over £10m.
There's also the issue of those who are asset rich but cash poor. I'm thinking mainly here about legitimate farmers who might need to sell land to pay annual tax bills. This of course leads them down the path of shrinking farms and their land is probably going to be bought up by corporations who then get control of our domestic food chain, which could have disastrous consequences for our national security.
Despite all of these concerns I still think a broader share of wealth is likely to be beneficial for society but it isn't guaranteed to be so. It requires sensible government spending and a pro active approach to see off unintended consequences that otherwise could make things even worse.
outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
I broadly agree with Stephenson however I do agree with the comment that even if you do tax the super wealthy more it doesn't mean that extra tax revenue will be spent sensibly.
Well that is obviously depends on the Government of the day. Stevenson has suggested cutting the lower rates of income tax but that benefits every PAYE employee incl those on £200k+
I also think the only way the wealth divide can be addressed is by global unity of the 99.99% or whatever it is that aren't super wealthy. And of course that 99.99% is a sliding scale of wealth in and of itself.
At the moment tackling global wealth inequality impossible. Let's worry about the UK and not the wider world
"From the clip I saw advertising this programme I think Fulford had a very salient point in that if the super wealthy are taxed it will naturally reduce the value of their assets. I agree that is almost certainly true. I don't know to what extent though, and so it's difficult to know if it could be a counter productive policy."
I really don't think a 2% asset tax will reduce the value of assets when they are generally increasing by a lot more than 2%.
Another issue is establishing ownership in order to be able to tax. Super wealthy people are very adept at using shell companies to obscure true ownership. I imagine this is possibly the single biggest practical obstacle to gathering Stephenson's suggested 2% on assets over £10m
I think problems collecting the 2% that you describe could be overcome. Remember HMRC will be able to construct the legislation as they see fit.
"There's also the issue of those who are asset rich but cash poor. I'm thinking mainly here about legitimate farmers who might need to sell land to pay annual tax bills. This of course leads them down the path of shrinking farms and their land is probably going to be bought up by corporations who then get control of our domestic food chain, which could have disastrous consequences for our national security."
I can't believe there are many farmers that own a farm that is worth more than £10m. For the farmers that do get caught the Government could let them sell single plots for country house builds at the boundary of their land. Just one plot could pay the tax bill in certain parts of the country.
Despite all of these concerns I still think a broader share of wealth is likely to be beneficial for society but it isn't guaranteed to be so. It requires sensible government spending and a pro active approach to see off unintended consequences that otherwise could make things even worse
I think people need to realise the consequences of the wealth gap increasing. Their wealth is not increasing from money found floating around in mid air. We need people to realise the super rich individuals are getting 15% richer each year because the money is flowing upwards from the working/middle class and the Government. And the Government is fast heading to an economic catastrophe
I think this is a global problem and attempting to tackle it in isolation is unlikely to succeed. It really needs a co-ordinated global response, government led but due to the pressure placed upon those governments by their citizens. Obviously democracy isn't practiced in every country so there's an immediate stumbling block. But I would clarify one of my own points in that whilst it's 99.99%+ who are getting comparitively worse off to the super wealthy, a global response would only require unity amongst a proportion of this 99.99%. If countries try to tackle this in isolation the super wealthy will wriggle out of it one way or another.
I think you downplay the complexity in establishing asset ownership accurately, and/or simply collecting that 2%. Taxation is a cat and mouse game and the super wealthy employ experts to influence tax policy as well as to spot unplanned loopholes. And they're bloody good at it.outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
I largely agree, the problem is that if we don't do it, it will just continue to get worse. I definitely get that it's difficult but unfortunately it's also not optional in any way.
My big question though for the super rich is just how much do they think they need? Now obviously much of that wealth is accrued through investments and interest etc rather than working for it so why don't they release huge sums for the benefit of society at large? When some of them could solve the problem of sanitation in some of the poorest parts of the world with just their pocket change - yet they choose not to. It's immoral. Live justly, love mercy, perpetuate generosity, walk humbly.
I think it's more complicated than that.outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
Yes, I agree it is more complicated than that. I'm too drained to have given it a fuller response but you get, I hope, where I'm coming from.Live justly, love mercy, perpetuate generosity, walk humbly.
I think you want the best for everyone and it's why I admire you mate.outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
Yes, I really do. And wealth inequality is a major problem in that. That doesn't mean everyone needs to be the same or have the same but it does mean that the gross inequality is just completely wrong on every level. Live justly, love mercy, perpetuate generosity, walk humbly.
1 which I think is the conventional thought which is based on my upbringing in the society I have been broadly moulded by is to agree with you that it seems unfair.
The other thought is the one introduced to me from Buddhism which is basically that everything is basically as it should be based on a law of causality and this must be considered alongside another belief that we have all lived previous life's stretching back infinitely. It's a far out belief but it then follows that we end up in our present circumstances based upon how we reacted to things in all of those previous lives up to and including this present life.
I can see both points of view, the conventional normal one and also the Buddhist one. I honestly don't know if either of them are accurate.outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
I personally struggle with the Buddhist view on this as you describe it (although I do have a lot of time for Buddhism in general) because it relies on a previous life that we have supposedly had. I, personally, don't know what evidence there is, other than a theory, that we have lived here before.
But more than that, for Buddhists, surely they would be in favour of a more equal world?Live justly, love mercy, perpetuate generosity, walk humbly.
The specific strand of Buddhism I followed was essentially about the practitioner developing indestructible happiness (which is entirely different to fleeting happiness, which is one of the 6 effortless lower life states I previously alluded to). It's about becoming resilient to all the suffering one cannot avoid. And also about helping others to find their way to this as well, which is why when a Buddhist achieves Parinirvana (which is the opportunity to end the cycle of infinite lives, it's one level up from nirvana which is enlightenment, they would most likely opt to be reborn again anyway in order to help others find their way).
Buddhism is a faith based philosophy to a great extent in that the belief in an all encompassing law of causality cannot be fully explained - you have to trust in it at some point. Although practitioners are also strongly encouraged to test what they learn, and if it seems to be wrong to reject it. So it's also an experience based philosophy! I think most religions come down to the point of faith becoming a necessity in the absence of proof. Hence why I admit I don't know if it's actually accurate. I do love it though.outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
The issue as I see it is the total lack of unity between the majority of people around the world. I can't see how any progress can be made as long as the majority are unable to unite. It's much easier to divide people than it is to get/maintain unity.outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
In Buddhism there's a concept called the ten worlds. It explains that at any given moment one of those worlds is our dominant life state, but the other nine don't disappear they are just diminished in that moment. The go from the worst life state incrementally up to the best life state. The bottom six life states are effortless and this is why people get stuck switching in and out of these life states. The top four require effort. It was this concept that led me into practicing a very specific interpretation of Buddhism for the next 8 years. It's absolutely brilliant optimistic philosophy. I love it and whilst I am not representative of that specific strand of Buddhism (because I don't do the daily practise anymore) I still use everything I learnt to navigate through life and I think I always will. I have never found anything that surpasses it.outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
I wasn't going to mention it but being as you have, yes, exactly that. The second coming is a huge reason for hope and the afterlife. With all the depressing stuff around us it's helpful to have faith in something that is beyond the burden of this life - and where, according to the Bible - everything will be perfect and as God originally intended; no pain, no suffering, no injustice, no illness, no hurt. Obviously the role of the Christian is to help to bring that Kingdom here on earth, as it is in heaven. We fail drastically but the motivation is there.
This is a helpful short video which I've posted before...
Live justly, love mercy, perpetuate generosity, walk humbly.
Do you know anything about agnostic beliefs within Christianity Godders mate? I have stumbled across a few bits recently and wondered if I have an accurate idea of what they think.outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
It depends what you mean by "agnostic beliefs within Christianity"? Can you elaborate as it isn't a phrase I've particularly come across before but it might describe some people's beliefs/understandings?Live justly, love mercy, perpetuate generosity, walk humbly.
I'm specifically interested in gnostic rejection of petitionary prayer ( ie praying outwardly to something outside of one's self, which in Christianity is God) rather than praying inwardly to one's self for salvation.outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
* gnostic ha ha, not agnostic!outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
Now that changes the question completely! And the answer is that I don't regularly come across it although I do from time to time - usually from funeral visits as it happens when people share their own thoughts about spirituality as it is often a time when people think about the afterlife and spiritual matters in general. I never tell people that they or wrong because I don't know. I believe what I believe as do others although I always give a reason for why I believe it (I have little time for people who are opinionated but have little substance for their opinions but just want to be argumentative). Live justly, love mercy, perpetuate generosity, walk humbly.
Re: The British Economy
Posted by Nearly a Genius on 8/7/2026, 21:13:02, in reply to "Re: The British Economy" Legend of Outlaws
I cannot understand the concept that "if the superwealthy are taxed it will naturally reduce the value of their assets". If they are "super wealthy", no matter how much tax they pay, the bulk of their wealth will still be available to them, and they've all got accountants who know how to "hide" sums. Also , the worker on PAYE and Nat. Ins has no access to these "fiddles", and has the money taken out of their pay before it reaches them.
The value of something in a free or semi free economy is dependent on demand. Therefore it's fluid and prone to change depending on the factors that affect demand. Higher tax on an asset is likely to reduce demand and therefore reduce the value of that asset. That's basic economics. The thing worth debating is to what extent the value is likely to reduce and therefore result in lower tax revenue drawn from it. It's a reasonable argument.outlaws is not the barometer of sanity. You're either Luton full tilt or you are nothing. We have spunked way too much money on shite. The end.
Money can't buy you happiness, in fact the love of money is the root of all kinds of evil.
However, money can do an awful lot of good that everyone can benefit from. Money can, of course, also make life a lot easier which, in turn, can make you happy.
But, as a former clergyman once said, "you can tell what God thinks about money by who he gives it to!".Live justly, love mercy, perpetuate generosity, walk humbly.
The posts made on this board are the opinions of the people posting them and do not always reflect the opinion of the board
administration.
Luton Outlaws is a totally independent forum, paid for and run by supporters of Luton
Town and is not associated with Luton Town Football Club, lutontown.co.uk, lutonfc.com, Loyal Luton Supporters Club, Trust in Luton, Luton Town Supporters Club or
anyone else for that matter and is declared a 100% Tombola Free Zone.
Luton Outlaws accepts no responsibility for the content of this messageboard nor any
other content posted on it. Luton Outlaws disclaims all liability for such content to the fullest extent permitted by law.
What you read on here is 100% conjecture, fiction, lies, bullshit and complete bollocks. If you want to be taken seriously, you are in the wrong place.
Enjoy. Admin contact - dilligaf.outlaws@gmail.com.
on 8/7/2026, 20:43:24
