Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

[ianh]

Wow, an

IMO, ignoring possible funding reasons, it more comes down to those near the top of the armed forces realising that if we are under-prepared it significantly increases the chances of it coming to war, rather than believing war is imminent or inevitable. Sadly the general public likely won't understand it that way, push back against it and ironically make war more likely.

I don't think anyone in the military over the last 30 years hasn't realised that various Governments have cut the MOD to the barest of bones, but they've made it their job to not rock the boat through the various Government cuts, well until shortly after they leave service of course. It's more likely that this particular Government is now, post-Ukraine, believing the alarm calls that have been made by the MOD since the 90's and at long last the UK public is only now just realising the severely deep poop the MOD is in since the release of these horror stories all hitting in January, which shockingly leaves some time before the new financial year starts, odd that. Oh and we've still got the RAF manpower story to probably hit by April too I would guess, which'll be just as shocking all over again.

 

[rumple9]

There's going to have to be steep tax rises

 

[maschio]

Russia will not attack Europe or any UN states, why would they.

However, if our overlords want to, the media will show us images of attacks and explosions to convince us Russia has attacked the EU.

Like it or not, that how it works these days, and very sad it is too.

 

[alchal]

Russia will not attack Europe or any UN states, why would we

However, if your overlords want to, the media will show you images of attacks and explosions to convince you Russia has attacked the EU that are so realistic you can even count dead relatives, think deep state.

Like it or not, that how it works these days, and very sad it is too.

That's why we must conduct a smo into the EU...not a war though, just a friendly warm smo

Fixed.

 

[maschio]

Fixed.

None so blind as those that won't see Be ready or...

 

[Freddie1980]

Russia will not attack Europe or any UN states, why would they.

Erm.....

 

[maschio]

Erm.....

Oh my mistake i did not realise Ukraine was a European or UN state.

 

[Mr Badger]

Oh my mistake i did not realise Ukraine was a European or UN state.

Just LOL at people believing fake western propaganda like a good little Biden puppet. Everyone knows that Ukraine is actually part of Russia and not a real country.

 

[ICDP]

It’s quite sad and disheartening to see people can literally be so badly informed and educated.

 

[Harlequin]

There's going to have to be steep tax rises

UK already has the highest tax load in history (direct and indirect)

 

[Tony habergham]

UK already has the highest tax load in history (direct and indirect)

Office for Budget responsibility:
The UK’s tax burden in historical and international context

While the UK tax burden is currently high by historical standards, it has remained below the average across other advanced economies. In 2021, the most recent year for which there are internationally comparable outturn data, the UK’s tax-to-GDP ratio was 33.5 per cent of GDP on the OECD’s measure (which is slightly lower than the ONS definitions on which our forecast is based).a That is 2.2 per cent of GDP below the average of other advanced economies,b 3.3 per cent of GDP below the average of other G7 economies, and 6.4 per cent of GDP below the average of 14 other western European countries (the ‘EU14’). As Chart A shows, there is considerable variation across countries, with tax-to-GDP ratios among the advanced economies ranging from as low as 21.1 per cent of GDP in Ireland (where GDP is inflated by the recorded profits of foreign multinationals) to as high as 46.9 per cent of GDP in Denmark.

 

[Harlequin]

Office for Budget responsibility:
The UK’s tax burden in historical and international context

Thats conflating the issue and doesn`t disagree with my supposition.

 

[mrgubby]

Thats conflating the issue and doesn`t disagree with my supposition.

If we want to spend more on Defence we will have to raise taxes or cut other services, the money has to come from someplace

 

[Shoza]

UK already has the highest tax load in history (direct and indirect)

Our tax needs to be higher for general spending improvements on matters such as the MOD, NHS, adult services, housing etc..

 

[Rroff]

If we want to spend more on Defence we will have to raise taxes or cut other services, the money has to come from someplace

Spending better on defence would be a good start :s

 

[Tony habergham]

Thats conflating the issue and doesn`t disagree with my supposition.

No. But puts it in context. 'Tax higher than ever' implies 'tax too high to bare'. The issue is the switching of taxes away from corporations onto individuals, especially at the lower end of the spectrum with indirect taxes like VAT, whereas the upper end can often take it as lower-taxed capital gains. And the tax avoidance my multi-nationals, using spurious but allowable allowances, and lower rates for transfer pricing to lower-tax jurisdictions. Hence Ireland can freeload off the rest of Europe and doesn't even support armed forces of any note.

 

[Tony habergham]

Thats conflating the issue and doesn`t disagree with my supposition.

Also. I believe your statement is actually only true of averaged-out personal taxation. Not the whole economy 'tax burden' [A loaded term].

 

[Hades]

I very much support an increase in defence spending even if it means slightly higher taxes. But I would only support it if the money spent went mostly to UK companies. That way the extra taxes also get fed back into the economy.

So more UK ship building, more spend with UK arms companies etc. Inevitably some will have to be spent abroad but let's try to keep the money circulating in the UK.

 

[esmozz]

The simple fact of the matter is that our current army stands at around 76,000 people. During the cold war, at it's height the British Army on the Rhine stood at 250,000 men and women, and we were also able to service commitments elsewhere in the world.

I don't doubt the capability of individual war-fighters has increased versus our likely opponents, but just based on those numbers I suspect we need to triple the size of our army (and I suspect the same is true to a lesser degree for the other armed services).

Are we actually capable of tripling our armed services? I have my doubts, at least in the timescale that may well be required. And I suspect our opponents are counting on the fact we can't.

 

[SPG]

It was a very different world then and still quite manual, with today's tech you don't need so many boots on the ground. Until you get to taking high value areas where boots on the ground is needed. Pretty sure wile will have tech that's not been deployed yet as well.