Our climate is changing and we need research like this to ensure that we can still grow food productively in regions where weather is causing crops to fail.

🤡

you’ll put those savings into a stocks and shares ISA where any gains from stocks are tax free guaranteed.

If you have more than £20k a year to put away into stocks and shares then yeah you need to pay some tax bruv.

Actually Ovo energy is trying to do that - they estimate a reduction in your energy bills based on installing an energy efficient system like solar, heat pump, loft insulation, etc. Then they carry out the work and you pay it off gradually through your energy bills.

The challenge I think is then if you want to leave them then you have to either repay that debt or the next energy company has to assume it. There’s a few ways it could be abused and of course the savings take years or even decades to pay off, so there’s a few kinks to work out.

I hope they manage to get it working though, it will be big for UK customers.

I feel like capitalists are waiting on some magic solution like some chemical we spray into the air or a miracle new fuel source.

The established suggestions from scientists (“fly less, stop buying SUVs/Trucks, eat less meat, consider a heat pump and solar panels” etc) doesn’t support the narrative that we can continue unabated infinite growth with no consequences.

Far less. In the UK half of all wealth is owned by the top 10% but there is very little concentration in the top 1% compared with the USA and other nations like Italy, Russia and China. Also, the degree of wealth inequality has mostly remained consistent for the last 10-15 years.

Another factor to consider is that for the top 10% (which in the UK you are in if you earn more than £52,000) hold around 50% of their wealth in pensions (which are taxed) and around 32% in properties on average.

Have a look at ONS data to back up what I’ve said. https://www.ons.gov.uk/visualisations/dvc1727/Fig2/datadownload.xlsx

I still do believe that there is a better balance to be found with tax and wealth, but I’m less convinced that the answer is solely based on going after a 0.1% of wealthy.

agree, but a reminder that the top 1% pay 30% of the taxes the treasury receives.

fair. US debt to GDP seems to be around 100-120%[1] whereas in the UK there was briefly a spike of debt to 100% of GDP[2].

As a much smaller nation whose currency isn’t used as a world trade mechanism, britain devalue its currency too much, so there are fewer economic levers to pull when managing debt.

[1] https://www.macrotrends.net/global-metrics/countries/USA/united-states/debt-to-gdp-ratio [2] https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/uk-debt-hits-100-of-gdp-adding-to-rachel-reeves-headache/ar-AA1qSNYF

the thing is, it’s a gap between the money the government is spending and the amount of money it gets through taxes and other incomes each year.

So it’s money that has to be borrowed from folks, every year to keep things going as they are. And each time that money is borrowed it needs interest paid on it which makes the problem worse. Especially with the high interest rates around the world.

So british people are working hard, paying their taxes and a percentage of those taxes is going towards servicing debt that has been built up, by poor spending decisions in the past.

It’s like payday loans for governments. you’ve either got to get spending under control, make more money somehow (tricks in the car park or maybe sell crack) or eventually reach the end of the road.

reminder if there is no clear winner then congress votes on who should be president with each state getting one vote. every state counts.

I agree.

But the realist in me knows it is unlikely to be allowed to happen.

I know that the government will have to service a £15bn debt through borrowing, which will raise interest rates, mortgages, rents and require cuts to public services to pay for. That is on top of the investment needed over the next few years to stop sewage leaking into rivers and leaks of millions of litres a day.

In addition I know that pension funds and large investors will lose substantial sums of money and will look to divest from similar risks, which could lead to more utility companies becoming insolvent. A snowball effect.

Finally, I know that international investment in the UK will be seen as more risky.

What the government will be doing now is weighing up those risks against the cost of raising bills by the 59% that the water companies and industry bodies are asking for. If the worst should happen, will taxpayers be better off with a couple of hundred extra £ on their water bills to pay, or potentially a lot worse off with a rapid nationalisation of multiple firms.

Giggles nervously in pfsense but TP-Link Omada WAPs

same in Newcastle. Hundreds out with flags and signs. A festival atmosphere.

Cleric, interrupting: I CAST SHATTER!!!

“drink a verification can to continue”

papers gots to have some drama to print headlines on tomorrow.

“government refuses to commit to £2.5bn unfunded spend on this occasion” doesn’t quite hit the mark

deleted by creator

an aide on the other end of the phone will greet you and then advise they are transferring you to speak to the president.

jokes on them I already sent in my postal vote

refinery malfunctions truck/ship breakdowns

sounds like “how to get prescribed as a terrorist organisation 101”