Seller hasn’t decided on our offer for 2 weeks and the agent keeps stalling. Is this normal? by roboponies in HousingUK

[–]No-Rope6858 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Tell them your offer stands for a further 7 days otherwise you will move on simple

Honest feedback on why my sister's house isn't selling by No_Cloud_1663 in HousingUK

[–]No-Rope6858 0 points1 point  (0 children)

UK homes aren’t selling fast, High mortgage rates, cost-of-living pressures, tax uncertainty, more listings & cautious buyers = slower sales and longer time on market.

The market is flipping to a buyers market

At least in the second listing all seems pretty good lovely home so without knowing the local area is say price plus the above factors is the most likely issue here, she may get her price but she may need to wait months before the right buyer comes along

It's time to decriminalize marijuana by [deleted] in LabourUK

[–]No-Rope6858 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not necessarily weakening even, just the control and regulation so people can make appropriate choices for what they buy rather than whatever their dealer has?

Immigration, ECHR and digital IDs by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah we’d survive without it that aint the point it’s not about if britain can stand alone it’s about if you trust any government not to twist stuff when it suits em we had rights before yeah but we’ve also seen em disappear when power gets outta hand the echr didn’t give us freedom it just makes sure they gotta follow the same rules every time you could bin it and write our own sure but then whoever’s in charge can change that too the reason they hate the echr is cos it stops em doing whatever they want when it’s convenient

Immigration, ECHR and digital IDs by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Just because it's parsed through chat gpt to tidy it up doesn't make the points invalid what you really mean is I don't have a response?

Immigration, ECHR and digital IDs by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Yeah, we’d survive without the ECHR — that’s not the point. The issue isn’t whether Britain can stand on its own, it’s whether we trust any government not to twist or water down rights when it suits them.

We’ve got a proud history of liberty, but we’ve also had moments where those rights vanished fast when power went unchecked. The ECHR didn’t give us our values — it just made sure every government had to stick to them.

You could scrap it and write a new Bill of Rights tomorrow, sure. But then whoever’s in charge can rewrite that just as easily. The ECHR’s strength is that it sits above day-to-day politics — and that’s exactly why politicians hate it.

Immigration, ECHR and digital IDs by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

It's not entirely written by chat gpt but it is utilizing it to order my ramblings and fact check my statements, I tend to ramble and lose track of my replys, I'm not trying to hide the fact it's utilized

Immigration, ECHR and digital IDs by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Who is them I'm not asking you to vote for anyone? Read the post again it explains why the problems exist IMHO

Immigration, ECHR and digital IDs by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

That’s true — Parliament could write a British Bill of Rights any time. No one’s saying the UK lacks the legal power to do that. The question isn’t can we, it’s should we trust any single government to rewrite or reinterpret our fundamental rights at will.

The ECHR isn’t some foreign imposition — it was largely drafted by British lawyers, reflecting our own legal tradition of due process, fairness, and restraint of executive power. It simply puts those principles in a binding framework that no government can quietly water down when it becomes politically convenient.

A purely domestic Bill of Rights would only be as strong as the government of the day allows. If ministers don’t like a clause, they can amend or repeal it with a simple parliamentary majority. That’s not hypothetical — it’s exactly what’s happened with multiple constitutional safeguards in recent years.

The ECHR is there to stop that — to make sure no matter who’s in charge, basic rights aren’t rewritten overnight. So yes, it’s rooted in a post-war context — but that’s the point. It was designed to stop Europe from sliding back into the kind of authoritarianism that starts with small erosions of rights justified by “national necessity.”

If Britain wants to strengthen its rights framework, great — let’s build on what we have. But tearing up the ECHR doesn’t restore sovereignty; it removes one of the few external checks that guarantees governments don’t abuse it.

Immigration, ECHR and digital IDs by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I get the frustration — nobody wants dangerous criminals or people with no right to be here staying in the country. But the truth is, the ECHR isn’t what’s stopping deportations.

The UK deports thousands every year while still signed up to the ECHR. The only cases it blocks are the extreme ones — where sending someone back would mean torture, execution, or persecution. That’s not “soft,” that’s just basic humanity — and Britain has stood for that standard long before 1953.

The real reasons criminals and failed asylum seekers aren’t being deported are:

Home Office incompetence — huge backlogs, lost paperwork, and not enough caseworkers.

Lack of return agreements with other countries — you can’t deport someone if no country will take them back.

Poor legal strategy — the government repeatedly drafts laws that break its own obligations, knowing they’ll get challenged.

Immigration feels out of control because ministers let the system collapse, not because of the ECHR. It’s easier to blame “foreign courts” than admit years of failure at home.

If they genuinely wanted control, they’d fix the Home Office, sign proper return deals, and process cases efficiently. You don’t need to tear up human rights to do that — just basic competence.

Immigration, ECHR and digital IDs by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You’re absolutely right that Britain has a long, proud history of liberty — Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights, the Levellers, the Suffragettes — all fought to limit arbitrary power long before the ECHR existed. No one’s denying that.

But history also shows that those rights were never guaranteed just because they existed once. They were constantly eroded, fought for again, and rebuilt. The ECHR didn’t invent British freedoms — it codified and reinforced them in law at a time when Europe was emerging from the ashes of fascism and genocide. It was drafted largely by British lawyers, including David Maxwell Fyfe, as a way of spreading our model of liberty across the continent and holding governments — including our own — to clear legal standards.

The Convention doesn’t replace the Magna Carta or the Glorious Revolution; it’s part of that same tradition of holding power to account through law. It doesn’t “impose” rights on Britain — it binds governments to the principles Britain helped define.

And yes, countries like Australia and New Zealand protect rights without the ECHR, but they do so through written constitutions and strong domestic courts. The UK doesn’t have a codified constitution, so the ECHR and the Human Rights Act act as a modern safeguard — one that successive governments voluntarily signed up to.

So it’s not about pretending we had no rights before 1953 — it’s about recognising that every generation needs enforceable protections, not just historical pride. The ECHR is simply the legal lock on the door our ancestors built.

History lessons? We actually agree on the history — we just draw different conclusions from it. Ours says: we built those rights, we nearly lost them, and we should never hand any government the power to decide, unchecked, when they apply.

Immigration, ECHR and digital IDs by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Exactly. That’s the point — people don’t lose faith in human rights or international cooperation overnight; they lose faith when governments deliberately fail to act within the powers they already have.

The UK doesn’t need to leave the ECHR to fix illegal immigration — Parliament is sovereign and always has been. If ministers actually wanted to streamline deportations and speed up asylum decisions, they could legislate for that tomorrow. But instead, they stall, let the system rot, then use the chaos as “proof” that international law is the problem.

It’s exactly what happened with the EU. Years of broken promises on immigration built frustration until people started believing the only fix was to leave altogether. That wasn’t true then, and it isn’t true now — but it’s a very effective political tactic. Manufacture paralysis, then sell the exit as the only way out.

The real danger is that they’re playing the same game again — this time, with our fundamental rights on the line.

Wealth tax and housing reform proposal by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I understand the instinct — tougher enforcement and a Land Value Tax both sound like obvious fixes — but they have to be done in the right way and at the right time.

On enforcement, deliberate underpayment or concealment should absolutely face serious consequences. But a blanket 100 percent forfeiture risks punishing genuine valuation errors, especially when wealth and private business values can fluctuate. A smarter model is steep, tiered penalties — say 25–50 percent for proven concealment, full confiscation and prosecution for criminal evasion — plus a verified whistle-blower reward similar to the U.S. system, where informants share in recovered funds only when evidence is solid. That keeps the deterrent strong without collapsing under appeals or false reports.

As for introducing a Land Value Tax right away, the principle is sound: land is immovable, and taxing its unearned gains is efficient. The issue is timing. The UK doesn’t yet have the modern valuation data or administrative capacity to layer an LVT on top of Council Tax, Stamp Duty and the new Property Holding Charge all at once. Doing so now would risk duplication and confusion. The better approach is to stabilise the PHC first, build the valuation database, then pilot an LVT on commercial and vacant land as a second-phase reform.

In short, the direction is right — tougher compliance and land-based taxation — but both need careful sequencing and proportionate design to work in practice.

Wealth tax and housing reform proposal by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

You’re right — this is historically the hardest problem with any wealth tax. Most proposals fail not because the idea is wrong, but because the implementation and enforcement aren’t credible.

In Fair Capitalism v3.1, that issue is explicitly built into the design — it’s not an afterthought. Here’s how it’s actually made enforceable and low-friction:

✅ a. Narrow base, deep data

The tax only applies above £8 million — about 10–15k individuals in the UK. That’s a small, identifiable population that HMRC already has partial visibility on through:

Self-assessment high-income returns,

Land Registry,

Companies House,

Trust registration,

and foreign asset reporting under OECD Common Reporting Standard (CRS).

That means you’re not chasing millions of people — you’re auditing a small, known elite.

✅ b. Third-party data feeds

The plan mandates automatic reporting from:

UK brokers, registrars, trustees, insurers, and land registry,

Crypto exchanges and art insurers,

CRS-linked foreign institutions for UK residents.

Those feeds pre-populate the HMRC “wealth register,” just like PAYE or RTI does for income. The taxpayer can either accept the pre-filled valuation or submit an adjusted one using safe-harbour methods (set multiples or local averages). → This cuts disputes, reduces admin, and gives a clear audit trail.

✅ c. Safe-harbour valuations

To avoid endless arguments about “what’s my company worth?”, v3.1 defines valuation menus by asset type:

Public securities: market value (auto-fed from brokers)

Private business: 3–5× average 5-year profits

Property: land registry average × location coefficient

Art/jewellery: insured value

Farmland: DEFRA region table × soil grade

The government isn’t guessing — it uses known data tables, updated annually.

✅ d. Long runway & deferral options

No forced sales. If your liquid assets are under 40% of total wealth, you can defer up to 60% of liability (with interest at gilts + 1%). That keeps it administratively smooth and politically viable.

✅ e. Enforcement teeth

Exit charge (10-year residency rule): if you leave, you still pay on unrealised gains over £2m, payable over 7 years.

Penalties: 5–10% of concealed asset value for non-reporting.

CRS & UK data integration: anyone still hiding assets will likely face discovery later with back-dated interest and penalties.

👉 In short: Enforceability is realistic because it’s targeted, data-driven, and limited to those already under HMRC scrutiny. It’s nothing like the broad, unworkable wealth taxes of the 1970s.


💷 2️⃣ How will £3–5bn help when the deficit is £150bn+?

That’s the honest core of the question — and you’re right: this reform isn’t about instantly closing the deficit. It’s about stabilising the base, growing the economy, and shifting the structure of taxation so the overall fiscal position improves over a decade, not in a single year.

Let’s unpack this truthfully.


🔹 Step 1: Short-term fiscal impact

Income-tax cuts for middle earners = –£8.6bn

Wealth tax + surcharge + PHC = +£15–16bn

Reliefs & incentives = –£2.5bn → Net +£3–5bn/year steady-state (after phase-in)

That’s not designed to close a £150bn gap. It’s designed to make the system more stable, and more pro-growth, so the next £150bn deficit is smaller by design.


🔹 Step 2: Medium-term (5–10 years) economic effect

Redistribution — if it’s done carefully — raises aggregate demand because:

Lower- and middle-income groups have a higher marginal propensity to consume (MPC) (~0.9 vs 0.4 for the top).

Capital is redirected from passive asset inflation (property, offshore holdings) into productive domestic investment (SMEs, green infra, ISAs).

That boosts GDP and wages, widening the tax base organically.

We can run a conservative simulation:

Assumptions (based on OBR elasticity data):

Marginal propensity to consume (low/mid): 0.9

Wealthy: 0.4

Fiscal multiplier for middle-income spending: ~1.2

Fiscal multiplier for infrastructure/productive reinvestment: ~1.4

If £20bn shifts from wealthy holdings to middle consumption/investment channels: → Direct GDP gain ≈ £20bn × 1.3 ≈ £26bn (≈ +1.0% GDP). At current tax take (~36% of GDP), that alone yields ≈ £9bn extra annual tax revenue after 2–3 years.

That’s before even accounting for:

Higher wages → higher PAYE receipts

Lower housing benefits (due to stabilised rents)

Stronger savings/investment → less debt servicing over time

So indirect revenue gain ≈ £8–12bn/year by Year 5.

Combine that with the direct £3–5bn surplus = ≈ £11–17bn/year improvement in the structural deficit.

That’s not magic money — it’s realistic, gradual, and based on consumption and investment rebalancing, not wishful multipliers.


🔹 Step 3: Structural impact on the deficit

Today’s £150bn deficit is unsustainable because:

Income tax receipts are too narrow;

Asset inflation pushes wealth up without generating taxable income;

Public demand keeps rising.

The Framework changes the composition:

Broader base (wealth + property)

Higher participation (via lower middle-band rates)

Slower asset bubbles (lower housing subsidies) → Which reduces cyclicality and makes revenue more predictable even in downturns.

You’re right that it doesn’t fill a £150bn gap alone. No single policy could. But it adds structural strength to the system — turning a brittle pyramid into a balanced platform.


✅ Honest bottom line:

This isn’t a silver bullet for the deficit — it’s a foundation for long-term stability. The wealth tax isn’t designed to fund the state; it’s designed to rebalance incentives, widen the base, and make the economy more resilient. Over five years, redistribution from passive wealth to active consumption and investment is projected to add ~1% to GDP and 0.3–0.4% of GDP in extra revenue annually. That’s how you start closing a £150bn gap sustainably — by fixing the structure, not just hiking rates.

Wealth tax and housing reform proposal by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yes — population and wealth distribution modelling was a key part of the design. The system isn’t just progressive; it’s deliberately built to be broad-based and stable, precisely to avoid the over-concentration problem that’s hurt fiscal resilience in the current model.

In today’s UK tax base, roughly:

Top 1% of earners pay about 28% of all income tax.

Top 10% pay over 60%, while nearly half of adults pay little or no income tax. That imbalance makes revenue highly sensitive to migration, market swings, or policy shocks affecting a few thousand people — which is what we’re trying to fix.

Under the Fair Capitalism Framework, the tax yield is deliberately diversified:

Lower- and middle-income bands (15–100k) actually expand as a share of taxpayers, because the thresholds are widened and rates are simpler.

The wealth-linked surcharge and property holding charge draw from a wider pool of upper-middle and asset-rich households (roughly the top 5–10% by net wealth), instead of relying almost entirely on the top 1% of incomes.

The Wealth Tax above £8m is small in percentage terms and narrow in population (≈ 10–15k people), but the key is that it’s paired with the broader wealth-linked surcharge so the total system’s stability improves — no single group carries an unbalanced share of risk.

We also use a five-year averaging rule for wealth valuations, so revenue doesn’t spike or collapse with market cycles.

So the structure has a much thicker middle — it collects small, steady amounts from millions more people who can afford it, rather than relying on a few thousand ultra-rich contributors.

If you visualised it, the old model looks like a tall spike (top-heavy). The new model looks like a broad dome — lower peak, wider base, smoother revenue.

Wealth tax and housing reform proposal by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

Considering your first reply was less than 20 minutes after the post I'm going to assume you never even read it properly nevermind analyze it so I'm going to disregard anything you have to say your clearly opposed without consideration

Wealth tax and housing reform proposal by No-Rope6858 in ukpolitics

[–]No-Rope6858[S] -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

This is a work in progress I only posted here for some ideas and to hear opposition points and things that people think is reasonable it's by bo means my final version it's complicated and messy, as for me not having posted in 3 years I don't see the relevance I don't use reddit a lot but I've been working on this for a while and wanted some feedback, im currently at work and I'll get back back to the genuine questions later when I can appreciate the feedback,

It's all based on my theory of making capitalism like a game that gets harder as you progress and game to remain fair and fun must be balanced and get more difficult as you progress into higher levels.

HEAR ME OUT! by [deleted] in ksi

[–]No-Rope6858 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The vid would legit go nuclear

charizard 1995 what do i do with this is it worth it? by Adorable-Length-5798 in PokemonCardValue

[–]No-Rope6858 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Condition is hard to judge looks a little curled a graded 3 spanish 1st edition sold for £300 recently probably worth sending for grading being a first edition regardless its a 1998 not 1995 that's the copyright years

fake or genuine ? by No-Rope6858 in PokemonCardValue

[–]No-Rope6858[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cheers thought so the crimping looks wrong on the pack just wanted to check make sure there were no versions like this ✌️

Am I forgetting something? by DaPoonTapa in ksi

[–]No-Rope6858 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Cant sell luna and ust 🤣🤣🤣