Unpopular Opinions
Comments
-
So are you suggesting some sort of cull to address the national debt?Pross said:My unpopular opinion, one I've mentioned several times on various threads over the years, is that we spend far too much of our limited NHS budget and medical research on prolonging life i.e. long-term treatment of conditions that are going to eventually result in the person's death which in turn is creating knock on issues with infrastructure / housing supply etc., social care costs and pension provision.
If only there was a virus or something that was harmless to the young but deadly to old and weak people.0 -
Would the Conservative party's plans for an extra tax for the over 40s not solve that?Stevo_666 said:
I could certainly make sure enough is passed on to my kid (which almost any sane parent will tell you is where it should go) that my IHT would be nicely mitigated, without putting myself in poverty - as IHT is based on capital values whereas I'll still have an income.kingstongraham said:
So you would choose to live in poverty yourself?Stevo_666 said:
Not a case of sticking it to anyone. Perfectly natural reaction if you know it is all going to the state unless you're a virtue signaller, one of these people who volunteers to pay more taxkingstongraham said:
I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?Stevo_666 said:
That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.ballysmate said:
Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?ugo.santalucia said:
God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.kingstongraham said:Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.
And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares...
... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
Another winner!
And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late. Or you just give to your kids well before you die to avoid it - same end effect.
In any event, the bigger issue is funding care in later life. Many people will end up paying it to care homes and not leave anything for the tax man. That can be planned for as well, though.0 -
Here's another unpopular opinion...
I think there should be a statutory lockdown every spring... I had the time of my life... worked from home every day without having to eat crap food at work or use the filthy microwave to reheat leftovers... I have been baking sourdough bread and pizza almost every day.
I could do structured training and ride my bike at the most favourable hours, rather than when I can... I lost weight and I am in the form of my life. I didn't have to go out and spend money on total crap like live performances and I didn't feel pressured to see people, go places...
It was heaven...
If we all chipped in with more tax to pay for the furlough scheme, we could probably afford it every yearleft the forum March 20230 -
I see that you have thought this through completely.ugo.santalucia said:Here's another unpopular opinion...
I think there should be a statutory lockdown every spring... I had the time of my life... worked from home every day without having to eat censored food at work or use the filthy microwave to reheat leftovers... I have been baking sourdough bread and pizza almost every day.
I could do structured training and ride my bike at the most favourable hours, rather than when I can... I lost weight and I am in the form of my life. I didn't have to go out and spend money on total censored like live performances and I didn't feel pressured to see people, go places...
It was heaven...
If we all chipped in with more tax to pay for the furlough scheme, we could probably afford it every year
All we need to do is pay more tax the rest of the year to cover the £150billion annual bill.
You are going to suggest free money next aren't you.1 -
No, my plan is for some sectors to continue to work and those working in those sectors would pay more tax to pay the wages of those furloughed... basically the retail and leisure & tourism sector gets a break of a couple of months every year sponsored by everyone else.First.Aspect said:
I see that you have thought this through completely.ugo.santalucia said:Here's another unpopular opinion...
I think there should be a statutory lockdown every spring... I had the time of my life... worked from home every day without having to eat censored food at work or use the filthy microwave to reheat leftovers... I have been baking sourdough bread and pizza almost every day.
I could do structured training and ride my bike at the most favourable hours, rather than when I can... I lost weight and I am in the form of my life. I didn't have to go out and spend money on total censored like live performances and I didn't feel pressured to see people, go places...
It was heaven...
If we all chipped in with more tax to pay for the furlough scheme, we could probably afford it every year
All we need to do is pay more tax the rest of the year to cover the £150billion annual bill.
You are going to suggest free money next aren't you.
What have you got to lose? If you can't spend money, you might as well help pay someone else's wage... it can work.
Measuring wealth by GDP is a hoax... diabetes is GDP, but it's GDP we could all do withoutleft the forum March 20230 -
Ugo, have you been sniffing Tub cement?1
-
Not just them. You’d have a whole “spend it before He ends it” industry.ballysmate said:100% inheritance tax would be a godsend for the equity release mob. Sell your crib to release the equity, live the good life there rent free and when you die the taxman gets FA.
Nobody on here works for an equity release company do they?
Not sure why this isn’t obvious?0 -
Depends what those might be.kingstongraham said:
Would the Conservative party's plans for an extra tax for the over 40s not solve that?Stevo_666 said:
I could certainly make sure enough is passed on to my kid (which almost any sane parent will tell you is where it should go) that my IHT would be nicely mitigated, without putting myself in poverty - as IHT is based on capital values whereas I'll still have an income.kingstongraham said:
So you would choose to live in poverty yourself?Stevo_666 said:
Not a case of sticking it to anyone. Perfectly natural reaction if you know it is all going to the state unless you're a virtue signaller, one of these people who volunteers to pay more taxkingstongraham said:
I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?Stevo_666 said:
That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.ballysmate said:
Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?ugo.santalucia said:
God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.kingstongraham said:Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.
And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares...
... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
Another winner!
And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late. Or you just give to your kids well before you die to avoid it - same end effect.
In any event, the bigger issue is funding care in later life. Many people will end up paying it to care homes and not leave anything for the tax man. That can be planned for as well, though.
Btw I'm interested in your thoughts on shortfall's question above..."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
It will work if we are all in it... manufacturing can plan production to take into account the slump in sales during April and May.twotoebenny said:Ugo, have you been sniffing Tub cement?
Bear in mind a lockdown without the virus uncertainty can be switched off and people go back to buying all the stuff they didn't buy previously.
You have to see it as a detox from consumerism... kind of a dry January... it would be fantastic
left the forum March 20230 -
About voluntarily paying more tax on purpose? Of course not!Stevo_666 said:
Depends what those might be.kingstongraham said:
Would the Conservative party's plans for an extra tax for the over 40s not solve that?Stevo_666 said:
I could certainly make sure enough is passed on to my kid (which almost any sane parent will tell you is where it should go) that my IHT would be nicely mitigated, without putting myself in poverty - as IHT is based on capital values whereas I'll still have an income.kingstongraham said:
So you would choose to live in poverty yourself?Stevo_666 said:
Not a case of sticking it to anyone. Perfectly natural reaction if you know it is all going to the state unless you're a virtue signaller, one of these people who volunteers to pay more taxkingstongraham said:
I know I wouldn't leave myself destitute and living 20 years of poverty just to stick it to the man. Would you?Stevo_666 said:
That's the obvious problem - when everyone knows that whatever you have left will be confiscated, you may well piddle it up the wall and leave yourself destitute when old. Another really bad idea on the tax front.ballysmate said:
Get to 67 and spend like a sailor and then get the state to look after you?ugo.santalucia said:
God point... here's another unpopular opinion... inheritance shouldn't exist at all. When you pass, everything goes back to the state.kingstongraham said:Inheritance tax should be very high indeed.
And this has nothing to do with the fact that my dad passed just before the pandemic and only left shares...
... and another one (although this might actually be popular): in order to acquire dogs in built up areas, individuals should get a licence
Another winner!
And the average age of dying is 81 - if the "children" they are leaving it to are waiting till then to get on the housing ladder, I think it might be a bit late. Or you just give to your kids well before you die to avoid it - same end effect.
In any event, the bigger issue is funding care in later life. Many people will end up paying it to care homes and not leave anything for the tax man. That can be planned for as well, though.
Btw I'm interested in your thoughts on shortfall's question above...
That is the beauty of this one. Paying more tax is even unpopular with people who think it's a good idea. I should not be able to mould the future purely because my house has gone up in value. But I will.0 -
Here's another unpopular opinion...
I think the state should be the intermediary in house sale transactions. You sell your house to the state, which then in turns sell it to a private buyer. The fee would be modest, maybe 5% of the value or even less, but the key here is that house price would be in practice controlled, instead of being in the hands of the market... malpractice would be a thing of the past and folks would not be able to profiteer from the property market.left the forum March 20230 -
I did suggest that as a conspiracy theory a couple of months ago.First.Aspect said:
So are you suggesting some sort of cull to address the national debt?Pross said:My unpopular opinion, one I've mentioned several times on various threads over the years, is that we spend far too much of our limited NHS budget and medical research on prolonging life i.e. long-term treatment of conditions that are going to eventually result in the person's death which in turn is creating knock on issues with infrastructure / housing supply etc., social care costs and pension provision.
If only there was a virus or something that was harmless to the young but deadly to old and weak people.
I was joking though....The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yes, that one should pretty much corner the market in unpopularity. It's got everything.ugo.santalucia said:Here's another unpopular opinion...
I think the state should be the intermediary in house sale transactions. You sell your house to the state, which then in turns sell it to a private buyer. The fee would be modest, maybe 5% of the value or even less, but the key here is that house price would be in practice controlled, instead of being in the hands of the market... malpractice would be a thing of the past and folks would not be able to profiteer from the property market.1 -
Nope, I'm suggesting that when someone picks up a disease / illness that they won't recover from and will eventually lead to their death then we shouldn't spend hundreds of thousands on treatment to eek out a few extra years or people being kept on life support for long periods of time when there is no hope of recovery and especially where the quality of that extra life is often very poor. We've reached a stage where medical science is effectively allowing life to be artificially prolonged. I would rather the money be used to provide better treatment to those who can recover and better palliative care for those that can't.First.Aspect said:
So are you suggesting some sort of cull to address the national debt?Pross said:My unpopular opinion, one I've mentioned several times on various threads over the years, is that we spend far too much of our limited NHS budget and medical research on prolonging life i.e. long-term treatment of conditions that are going to eventually result in the person's death which in turn is creating knock on issues with infrastructure / housing supply etc., social care costs and pension provision.
If only there was a virus or something that was harmless to the young but deadly to old and weak people.0 -
When all is said and done, there might just be reasons why some opinions are unpopular...2
-
See it as a purer, more meritocratic form of capitalism which helps move the dial towards rewarding people who do well, and not people who are born into families who have done well.nickice said:
Sounds like socialism to me.rick_chasey said:100% inheritance tax if done properly would solve so so many problems.
In the land of equal opportunity how well you do should be to do as much as possible with your own decision making and not that of something you have no control over.
Whether you make the most of that opportunity or not is your business.
It’s not socialism as it’s equal opportunity not equal outcome.1 -
I've got more unpopular opinions, but I'll keep them for another day... I think you've had enough food for thought today
left the forum March 20230 -
Amber Heard is a narcissistic liar.1
-
^ Wrong thread. This is the Unpopular one.
(She was good in Pirates of the Caribbean though)0 -
A lot of the newer non alcoholic beers are pretty nice.1
-
True, it's not really a socialist v capitalist issue.rick_chasey said:
See it as a purer, more meritocratic form of capitalism which helps move the dial towards rewarding people who do well, and not people who are born into families who have done well.nickice said:
Sounds like socialism to me.rick_chasey said:100% inheritance tax if done properly would solve so so many problems.
In the land of equal opportunity how well you do should be to do as much as possible with your own decision making and not that of something you have no control over.
Whether you make the most of that opportunity or not is your business.
It’s not socialism as it’s equal opportunity not equal outcome.
But to make it really fair, and to prevent those sneaky elites from finding other ways to give their kids an advantage, all children should be removed at birth and reared in mass nurseries. Or perhaps they should even be born in hatcheries.0 -
But how do we remove those unfair genetic advantages that some may have?bompington said:
True, it's not really a socialist v capitalist issue.rick_chasey said:
See it as a purer, more meritocratic form of capitalism which helps move the dial towards rewarding people who do well, and not people who are born into families who have done well.nickice said:
Sounds like socialism to me.rick_chasey said:100% inheritance tax if done properly would solve so so many problems.
In the land of equal opportunity how well you do should be to do as much as possible with your own decision making and not that of something you have no control over.
Whether you make the most of that opportunity or not is your business.
It’s not socialism as it’s equal opportunity not equal outcome.
But to make it really fair, and to prevent those sneaky elites from finding other ways to give their kids an advantage, all children should be removed at birth and reared in mass nurseries. Or perhaps they should even be born in hatcheries."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Level the playing field for those who are smart and those with a propensity for hard work for instance?Stevo_666 said:
But how do we remove those unfair genetic advantages that some may have?bompington said:
True, it's not really a socialist v capitalist issue.rick_chasey said:
See it as a purer, more meritocratic form of capitalism which helps move the dial towards rewarding people who do well, and not people who are born into families who have done well.nickice said:
Sounds like socialism to me.rick_chasey said:100% inheritance tax if done properly would solve so so many problems.
In the land of equal opportunity how well you do should be to do as much as possible with your own decision making and not that of something you have no control over.
Whether you make the most of that opportunity or not is your business.
It’s not socialism as it’s equal opportunity not equal outcome.
But to make it really fair, and to prevent those sneaky elites from finding other ways to give their kids an advantage, all children should be removed at birth and reared in mass nurseries. Or perhaps they should even be born in hatcheries.0 -
Isn't it only chefs and that work hard?ballysmate said:
Level the playing field for those who are smart and those with a propensity for hard work for instance?Stevo_666 said:
But how do we remove those unfair genetic advantages that some may have?bompington said:
True, it's not really a socialist v capitalist issue.rick_chasey said:
See it as a purer, more meritocratic form of capitalism which helps move the dial towards rewarding people who do well, and not people who are born into families who have done well.nickice said:
Sounds like socialism to me.rick_chasey said:100% inheritance tax if done properly would solve so so many problems.
In the land of equal opportunity how well you do should be to do as much as possible with your own decision making and not that of something you have no control over.
Whether you make the most of that opportunity or not is your business.
It’s not socialism as it’s equal opportunity not equal outcome.
But to make it really fair, and to prevent those sneaky elites from finding other ways to give their kids an advantage, all children should be removed at birth and reared in mass nurseries. Or perhaps they should even be born in hatcheries.2 -
Bit of a specialist one, but...
The Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) and its predecessor the Financial Services Authority (FSA) are brilliant regulators , are highly competent and fair, and represent fantastic value for money to those who pay their fees. Hector Sants thoroughly deserved his knighthood and Andrew Bailey totally deserved his promotion to the head of the Bank of England.
Obviously I think the opposite.0 -
I think that more sports people and celebrities should be recognised in the new years Honours list.0
-
Not completely against sports people, but that needs to be limited to those who had to make sacrifices to achieve results in the sport... so for instance a rower or a swimmer relying on a small grant, as opposed to a footballer with a seven figure salary or a tennis player racking up a fortune the size of a small country GDP.First.Aspect said:I think that more sports people and celebrities should be recognised in the new years Honours list.
In fact, I would argue against giving a knighthood to anyone who is on a payroll and earns six figure or more... they already get their bloody reward every month, that should be plenty.left the forum March 20230 -
Okay. So we've narrowed your salary down to between 40 and 100k then.ugo.santalucia said:
Not completely against sports people, but that needs to be limited to those who had to make sacrifices to achieve results in the sport... so for instance a rower or a swimmer relying on a small grant, as opposed to a footballer with a seven figure salary or a tennis player racking up a fortune the size of a small country GDP.First.Aspect said:I think that more sports people and celebrities should be recognised in the new years Honours list.
In fact, I would argue against giving a knighthood to anyone who is on a payroll and earns six figure or more... they already get their bloody reward every month, that should be plenty.
How about sports people who do something else useful as well as excel in their sport? I'm thinking of someone like Juan Mata (if he were eligible) or Didier Drogba (if he was eligible). Perhaps Marcus Rashford is on the right track....
Lottery funded athletes just for what they do in the sitting down rich country sports? Not so sure. I'd be more inclined to honour the Iraqi sculler who only just qualified, and who trains amongst corpses (if he were eligible).0 -
Well, yes, but then you'd knight them for charity rather than sport reasons. Also, there are more worthwile people than a footballer who happens to be influential and writes down a few tweets and maybe visits a couple of youth centres, maybe donates a small % of his fortune to a charity... they are small gestures, which have an impact because of the large audience, but small nonetheless.First.Aspect said:
Okay. So we've narrowed your salary down to between 40 and 100k then.ugo.santalucia said:
Not completely against sports people, but that needs to be limited to those who had to make sacrifices to achieve results in the sport... so for instance a rower or a swimmer relying on a small grant, as opposed to a footballer with a seven figure salary or a tennis player racking up a fortune the size of a small country GDP.First.Aspect said:I think that more sports people and celebrities should be recognised in the new years Honours list.
In fact, I would argue against giving a knighthood to anyone who is on a payroll and earns six figure or more... they already get their bloody reward every month, that should be plenty.
How about sports people who do something else useful as well as excel in their sport? I'm thinking of someone like Juan Mata (if he were eligible) or Didier Drogba (if he was eligible). Perhaps Marcus Rashford is on the right track....
Lottery funded athletes just for what they do in the sitting down rich country sports? Not so sure. I'd be more inclined to honour the Iraqi sculler who only just qualified, and who trains amongst corpses (if he were eligible).
The Iraqi sculler is not eligible, so end of...left the forum March 20230
