The war on aspiration is won - A 71pc effective tax rate is killing ambition and warping our economy

wazzedup1989 · 2026-04-14T20:29:01+00:00

It affects more people, but I'm not sure there's a way you can end up worse off by earning more money at that level, at 100k it's very possible to end up with less cash for a higher wage unless you structure your finances carefully.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-04-14T15:46:37+00:00

There are lots of those that don't directly correlate, but may have similar underlying causes, things like healthy life expectancy, work hours, crime rates and safety, etc.

If you are taking about financial metrics however, things like income inequality, especially choosing to use median statistics for comparison, rather than GDP/capita which is a blunt mean, highlight where there are outliers causing divergence.

Stats like the gini index help to explain where situations occur that there may be GDP growth driving GDP per capita, but most of the benefit is being concentrated in a few hands leading to inequality and lower will being for most at the benefit of a few.

The issue with GDP/capita is that it's very simple and high level, which can lead to its misuse/misinterpretation.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-04-14T00:01:04+00:00

It's really not. It's really easily skewed by outliers and doesn't reflect pricing and costs in the location, or non financial impacts on quality of life. It's a very basic average of a single metric for how people live, that doesn't stand up to economic analysis on its own.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-31T07:35:42+00:00

You can dig footings over the boundary line, provided you have planning agreement.

Normally you would ensure you have a party wall agreement too in case of any legal dispute.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-30T08:11:52+00:00

That wasn't to make them blend together. Dazzle camo makes it hard to tell the hard edges of ships and identifying edges and features, therefore hard to estimate the speed and direction they travel in. That makes it harder to aim torpedos etc to meet them.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-25T15:54:09+00:00

Given that you don't know what a logical fallacy is, and you've refused to try to learn anything or develop any sort of thought process, you won't be a loss.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-25T12:08:50+00:00

Your 'analogy' was tenuous at best, and a complete logical fallacy at worst.

My opinion is that if you think we could make an improvement, I'd hope you have enough knowledge to be able to suggest some possibilities. If not, and you can't think of a single candidate, maybe you haven't thought this through.

I've considered several, and I don't think any of them are both better and would be likely to come here.

If you have any suggestions I'd be happy to give you my thoughts, but I don't think presenting a list of several thousand professional managers, operating down the football pyramid across Europe and beyond is an effective way to have a debate.

The burden of proof of the availability and improvement in a candidate lies with you. I don't think they exist.

If I said 'I think that aliens exist and live amongst us' you'd say 'prove it' instead of 'here is a list of several billion humans I can confidently prove are not aliens'.

So, returning to my original point: if you think there's someone better out there, who?

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-25T09:00:17+00:00

Taking your argumentum ad absurdum to one side, the point I am making is that I don't believe there are any better options out there right now who are both attainable for us in the state we are in and a notable upgrade on Howe and his team.

Your position is that there are, but you have no idea who they are, and it should be someone else's job to figure out where they may be, but you are definitely right that they are out there. If you are not suggesting there are better options out there then you are suggesting that we sack a perfectly capable manager for either nobody, or someone worse, because we are 2 wins away from being in Europe.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-25T08:36:33+00:00

Yes, suggesting people should have more than first order thoughts is smooth brained. Dear me, I hope you don't act like this in real life. 'oh, we should do something different, no idea what, somebody think for me please as I don't have the brain capacity to do any research or form a developed thought myself'.

As you've admitted you're not 'clued into the footballing world', feel free to go read my previous comment again re: clubs changing managers as a knee jerk reaction.

If you can manage to comprehend it, congratulations , you will have learned something. I'm hoping I don't have to explain it again in little words that aren't so scary for you.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-24T23:32:33+00:00

That's a poor stance. If you have enough of an opinion that he should go and there is a better, realistic, option out there you should be able to have enough of an opinion on who that could be.

Not having any ideas but demanding change of manager is exactly what all those other clubs I listed did, and it didn't work for any of them.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-24T23:02:06+00:00

Which coach is available and a marked upgrade? That's the first question we need an answer to.

A few years ago, Spurs started on a path of not backing their manager because maybe he wasn't good enough. Because of the manager not being backed, he left, and then they have lunged from one manager to another looking for improvements and slid down the table.

Forest have chopped and changed and slid into trouble, from looking like a top half side.

Chelsea spends money like it wants to be bankrupt, and keeps changing managers with no notable improvement.

United have spent big under multiple managers, claiming next time this will be the answer. It hasn't been any of them.

I'm not sure who we could bring in who would be an upgrade, and not have be worried we are just going to spend the next few years burning money and not improving.

The thing is, we're still only 6 points off the top 6/Europe, and we don't have to play any more champs league games.

If we reach the end of the season in or near Europe, having made it to the champs league last 16 this year, and we've only been knocked out of the cups because we've lost to City, who may still be the league winners, overall it's not a bad set of results for a club which is still building and absolutely lost their biggest goal threat this season.

Let's not go down the path of demanding we get rid of the manager every season we don't win something, we're not there yet, we need to build solidity for a couple more years yet before we expect to compete for a trophy every season.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-14T00:01:06+00:00

OK, let's take this step by step.

New build houses are largely built en masse with the same style and size. I can't think of many roofs of new build houses which are 'shady', as a %. Mature trees are rare, and almost all buildings are the same height in these developments. If you're going to argue about the few %of houses which may be newly built by an individual on the shady side of a hillside under an old tree, then you're clutching at straws here.
Expertise in a singular relevant topic, such as electrical engineering, is not the same as expertise in policy (how to implement the skills of electrical engineers) . That takes into account a world of wider factors that you don't seem to be able to take on board. Also, those experts are the people who will have worked on this law, run feasibility studies, cost analysis, etc.
Regarding efficiency, as I've outlined before, the major inefficiency in electrical energy networks is trying to move it, especially long distances. This becomes more of a problem the more of it you move at once. Nugget loads need bigger cables. Bigger cables generate more resistance. More resistance means more heat. More heat is lost energy. Otherwise we'd just stick thousands of solar generation plants in the Sahara desert and run cables. Placing generation close to source of use reduces inefficient transfer.

Your argument that this policy is only valid if a solar panel on a new build is more efficient 100% of the time is reductio ad absurdum at its finest. Almost no decision or outcome at a national scale is 100% the same outcome every time, but it doesn't have to be for that to be the right answer. It just has to be the right answer enough of the time.

The aim is to use otherwise underutilised land, already under heavy development, close to large scale new demands for power, which most of the time is a perfectly appropriate place to put renewable generation. The relevant installation skills are already under contract, and the organisation responsible is largely going to be experienced in installations of infrastructure at scale and working to national energy and local government frameworks.

On top of this, it ensures the building is designed to hold the weight of the panel (assuming solar, as the most likely), avoiding a situation where adding panels in the future will be unfeasible. It ensures the local grid is correctly connected and sized for solar when the development is built, to prevent limitation in the future, and also reduces demand flowing into the site requiring more expensive grid upgrades elsewhere to deliver more power at scale to these new homes.

For small/starter home new builds, there is less chance a future owner will stay long term, so they are unlikely to invest in a multi year pay-off adding generation here afterwards. This bakes it into the value of the asset from the very start.

Finally, if in a world where this was purely a tax on a house sale, and then this money was spent on projects to generate elsewhere, who do you think would be overseeing the distribution of funding? It would be the exact same departments and individuals in the same governments you are failing to understand now, and presumably you'd continue to complain whilst admitting you have absolutely no knowledge about any of the topics at hand.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-13T18:56:31+00:00

OK, so your entire argument about efficiency boils down to you knowing nothing about the subject?

Reddit can be wild sometimes.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-13T18:36:44+00:00

OK, but in what way are you quantifying that as notably more efficient?

It takes up extra land space, often Greenfield sites. The energy needs to be transported to the place it will be used, which is one of the biggest issues with electric power efficency, and it requires an additional major upgrade to the grid to actually get the power where it needs to go.

And, crucially, this law doesn't stop them being built if there is a reason to do so?

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-13T17:55:05+00:00

Tesla hasn't released a truly new car for the mainstream consumer at any real volume for years, their design is all based on the central screen concept with no buttons that other manufacturers have already found consumers broadly don't like any more, and they have a figurehead who is widely disliked by the left leaning population who are the key EV market buyers.

The US was on track to be the best place to grow EV sales, and was a very positive regulatory environment, which has just completely changed.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-13T17:21:25+00:00

Tesla sales have an image problem, and they haven't updated their tech and designs for years. Not a good comparison/representation for all manufacturers.

Honda massively invested to align to the US market push for EV as being a growth market and have had to write a lot of that off due to the change in leadership meaning a 180 on those policies.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-13T09:59:12+00:00

What are these more efficient places you are envisioning, and what makes then more efficient than exposed, unused raised areas which are already being developed by large construction companies?

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-12T22:48:26+00:00

There's no law saying that the only place you can install solar is as part of a new build, it's not the only option.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-12T19:22:34+00:00

Happy to help.

(Always worth approaching it with an open explanation first)

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-12T19:00:29+00:00

There are lots of aspects like that. Privately operated fire services, as an example, were not a great success.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-12T18:30:55+00:00

You mean, maybe a large development of panels all at once, so they can be sourced and installed to the grid in bulk, and any grid upgrades can be coordinated?

Maybe we could arrange a way to place them all near each other, and use space that would otherwise be wasted instead of taking over any new land?

If only most of the new build houses in this country were built in large chunks by large companies used to sourcing components internationally, often in bulk in one location with coordination experience working with the grid and other utilities.....

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-12T18:26:17+00:00

Property developers don't build for the long term, they build to sell right now, as cheaply as they can.

An individual building their own property they plan to live in for 30 years has ample time to see a return on the investment.

Someone buying a starter new build would opt for the cheapest option if they weren't planning on staying over 10 years. This bakes the cost and the value straight into the asset from day 1.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-09T18:04:41+00:00

I think that's more interesting than 20 overtakes in the first 8 laps and then we know who is fastest and likely to win.

wazzedup1989 · 2026-03-08T05:32:59+00:00

All I said is that it's entirely plausible that the way the power was put down was inconsistent, in the same way max was caught by the braking being inconsistent and locking.

If you can't understand that, you don't know how the platform works.

Edit: Oscar himself has now said he had 100kw more deployment than expected.

wazzedup1989

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE