Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy
No. of Recommendations: 4
By Mark Felton:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gru2EDJvj9QBasically, they have more Admirals than ships.
The RN has 63 total ships. Of that, only 25 of them are combatants. Of that,
10 are submarines
2 Aircraft Carriers
6 destroyers
7 frigates.
And that's it. The once-mighty Royal Navy is now just a single task force.
Contrast this with 1996 where the Royal Navy had
17 submarines
3 Aircraft Carriers
15 destroyers
22 frigates
Woof. And none of the defense commitments have changed in the last 30 years. Meaning they have half the ships they had 30 years ago...but still the same amount of work to do.
This doesn't count any ships sitting in yards undergoing maintenance.
No. of Recommendations: 4
This also means that even if the Brits wanted to project power via their aircraft carriers somewhere in the world...
...they can't. Given that they have exactly 1 attack sub ready for use (their other 5 are stuck undergoing refit and repair), and the rest of their surface fleet is in a similar situation, they literally can't deploy their aircraft carrier unless it's with either the US or the French Navy.
No. of Recommendations: 4
No. of Recommendations: 8
lessee...Starmer has been PM slightly less than 2 years. Before that, the Tories ruled for 14 years. Who, pray tell, would own the state of the UK military? Where was the money diverted to, over those years? More "JC" tax cuts?
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 3
lessee...Starmer has been PM slightly less than 2 years. Before that, the Tories ruled for 14 years. Who, pray tell, would own the state of the UK military? Where was the money diverted to, over those years? More "JC" tax cuts?
They've been in decline since the 1990s under a mix of Labour and the Tories. And their spending has gone towards their welfare state.
Not the "JCs"
No. of Recommendations: 6
Not the "JCs"
lessee what the net sifter says:
Over the last 15 years (roughly 2010–2025), the UK government has pursued a mixed policy regarding taxes for "job creators"—a term often used to describe corporation owners, high-earners, and entrepreneurs. While the headline rate of corporation tax was significantly cut for most of this period, it was subsequently raised, and many business-owning individuals have seen tighter tax restrictions on income and capital gains.
1. Corporate Tax Rate Changes
Significant Cuts (2010–2017): Between 2010 and 2017, the UK drastically cut the main rate of corporation tax from 28% to 19%. This was part of a stated goal to create the most competitive corporate tax regime in the G20.
Reversal (2023–2025): The main rate was increased to 25% in April 2023 for companies with profits over £250,000. This was the first increase in the main corporation tax rate since 1974.
"Full Expensing": While the statutory rate has risen, permanent "full expensing" was introduced, allowing companies to deduct the full cost of qualifying plant and machinery investment immediately, aiming to encourage investment.
2. Taxes on Entrepreneurs and Business Owners
Entrepreneurs’ Relief (Business Asset Disposal Relief): The lifetime limit for lower-rate capital gains tax on selling a business was increased from £2 million to £10 million in 2011, but subsequently cut to £1 million in 2020.
Income Tax & National Insurance: The top rate of income tax was reduced from 50% to 45% in 2013. However, the threshold for this rate was reduced from £150,000 to £125,140, meaning more people pay it.
Dividend Taxes: The tax-free allowance for dividends was reduced from £5,000 in 2016 to £500 in 2024, significantly increasing tax on owner-managed businesses that pay themselves via dividends.
Employer NICs: While employee National Insurance has fallen, employer NI rates and thresholds were altered, and the Employment Allowance for businesses was revamped.
3. Investment Incentives
Patent Box: Introduced to tax profits from patented inventions at a lower 10% rate.
R&D Relief: Improvements have been made to research and development tax credit schemes to support innovation
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
lessee what the net sifter says:
You ask it the ratio of welfare to defense spending.
No. of Recommendations: 7
You ask it the ratio of welfare to defense spending.
You should also ask it about effective tax rates.
No. of Recommendations: 4
You should also ask it about effective tax rates.
If the UK needs to raise taxes
To meet their defense obligations (them and the rest of our NATO “allies”) that’s a “them” problem. Not an us problem.
Regardless, this thread should help drive home the point about how the NATO armies and Navies are 1) shells of their former selves 2) incapable of doing even simple jobs and 3) decades away from relevance.
No. of Recommendations: 4
liberals should consider this factoid.
The UK sent a total of 43 warships along with about ~84 other ships (127 total)…
…to the Falklands in 1982.
No. of Recommendations: 4
If the UK needs to raise taxes
To meet their defense obligations (them and the rest of our NATO “allies”) that’s a “them” problem. Not an us problem.
I agree, in principle. The trick is in *how* the taxes are raised. Recall the words of Trump the Mighty, to pay for his wars, he wants to take the money out of child care, Medicare, and Medicaid, ie, take money away from Proles. Because, of course, must not "burden" the JCs with paying for the wars.
Macron wanted to solve his budget problem by taking retirement benefits away from Proles. Must not "burden" the "JCs", you know.
We saw the same thing here in Michigan when we had a "JC" Gov. Raised taxes on pensioners and the working poor, and cut revenue sharing to cities and counties, to cover two rounds of tax cuts for "JCs".
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 7
…to the Falklands in 1982.
And the US sent nothing. So much for "being there" for NATO allies. But it was different when Kuwait was invaded. That mattered to the money interests. And there was papa Bush "this will not stand".
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 4
And the US sent nothing. So much for "being there" for NATO allies. But it was different when Kuwait was invaded. That mattered to the money interests. And there was papa Bush "this will not stand".
Au contraire, mon ami.
The US sent over 2 million gallons of fuel, reloaded their Tomahawk missiles and gave them intelligence and targeting information.
Reagan set back Latin American relations several years with that move but he felt like he had to stand with the Brits.
No. of Recommendations: 4
The US sent over 2 million gallons of fuel, reloaded their Tomahawk missiles and gave them intelligence and targeting information.
What the Brits needed was a real carrier. The Sheffield was lost, because they did not have an E2 giving them long range radar coverage. That entire furball over San Carlos would have been sharply mitigated if there was a CAP of F-14s that would start chopping up the Argentinian air force hundreds of miles out. A lot of brave men died, for lack of decent air cover.
Reagan set back Latin American relations several years with that move but he felt like he had to stand with the Brits.
His cozy relations with brutal, repressive, juntas, and terrorists, in Latin America was a function of his obsession with COMMIES. Maybe the US should have laid down a better marker that that sort of behavior will not be supported by the US. But no. The Generalissimos found they could get away with anything, as long as they paid lip service to being "good anti-Communists", because the US' posturing about "human rights, and democracy" was nothing but hot air.
Steve
No. of Recommendations: 6
The UK sent a total of 43 warships along with about ~84 other ships (127 total)…
…to the Falklands in 1982. By the way, I remember an article in Newsweek at that time, talking about the RN, words to the effect "a navy rescued from the scrap heap and the auction block". Their new carrier, Invincible, had been put up for sale, and Australia accepted the bargain basement offer price. Several destroyers and frigates were to be scrapped without replacement. The Royal Marines amphibious force was on the brink of being disbanded, and the two assault ships were to be scrapped.
This drawdown was in accordance with the 1981 White Paper. Who ruled in 81? Maggie Thacher and the Tories.
1981 Defence White Paperhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1981_Defence_White_P...When Bush #43 invoked Article 5 and asked for help in Afghanistan, who stood up bigly? Tony Blair, Labour Party. Canada, under the Liberal government of Jean Chrétien stood up too, but you would never know it, to hear USian media talk about that war.
Steve
