How thick is Starmer

[Nick]

And when challenged you said you'd find the quote.....and haven't because he's never said that so you now claim it's the essence of his posts

I found 2 quotes where he states quite clearly that the rich should be taxed more, and when asked on more than one occassion to qualify what is meant by more he doesn't answer. So I'm am quite within my right to decide based on his posts as a whole what more means, and thats what I posted.

That's great so the essence of your posting is anyone who is on benefits is an idle sod with a 50 inch tv  and sky dish who never gets out of their pit in their subsidised council house till the afternoon and then slouches down to the off-licence to get their cigs and booze and then goes begging in the food bank.

Correct!! When I left the RAF in 1989 I worked on the very first installation on SKY TV in the UK. I visited houses where I had to hold my breath, go inside and do as much as possible before going back outside to breathe. Tiny babies crawling on the floor where there was dog muck, parents smoking in the presence of their children with the air thick with smoke. This wasn't the odd one, it was the majority, so yes I have formed my views on experince. Anyone one on this forum who has done similar work, plumbing or building will tell you the exact same tale.

Minimum wage is £9.50 X 40hrs is £380. Average Council House rent is £102 a week.
Would you like to tell me how someone who works 40hrs a week cannot cope?

[Sheepy]

That's a lot of goalpost moving,when you originally said thisAnd when challenged you said you'd find the quote.....and haven't because he's never said that so you now claim it's the essence of his posts.

That's great so the essence of your posting is anyone who is on benefits is an idle sod with a 50 inch tv  and sky dish who never gets out of their pit in their subsidised council house till the afternoon and then slouches down to the off-licence to get their cigs and booze and then goes begging in the food bank.

And really they should be grateful they don't live in India!!!! When the reality is that there's a hell of a lot of working people who need benefits and food banks in order to survive.

Meanwhile those who make the rules do so in order that there are enough get out clauses,fake charities and scams so that they pay nothing like their fair share.

Its the little people that pay the taxes and the vat in a proportion far greater to the income they receive.

I have seen it many times before Nick seems to think he is immune from any backlash and only the plebs get kicked around, the poor are people you sneer at because it's their own fault not his or mine or yours. Yet the system is heavily weighted against them ever getting out their box, it is planned that way.

[cromwell]

OMG Steve, it's a line stating the essence of what you say, it's not a direct quote.

That's a lot of goalpost moving,when you originally said this

But your idea of equality is taxing the rich and successful until their pay packet equals yours.

And when challenged you said you'd find the quote.....and haven't because he's never said that so you now claim it's the essence of his posts.

That's great so the essence of your posting is anyone who is on benefits is an idle sod with a 50 inch tv  and sky dish who never gets out of their pit in their subsidised council house till the afternoon and then slouches down to the off-licence to get their cigs and booze and then goes begging in the food bank.

And really they should be grateful they don't live in India!!!! When the reality is that there's a hell of a lot of working people who need benefits and food banks in order to survive.

Meanwhile those who make the rules do so in order that there are enough get out clauses,fake charities and scams so that they pay nothing like their fair share.

Its the little people that pay the taxes and the vat in a proportion far greater to the income they receive.

[patman post]

The people you are talking about are the types who would never vote for the left anyway. The price of winning their favour would be to lose many more votes at the other end, as Starmer may well be set to demonstrate

As for policies that a majority of people can buy into, polling showed large majorities in favour of the policies in Labour's 2017 manifesto. You can pretend that isn't so because you don't want it to be but the polling speaks for itself. I can show it to you if you doubt me. Labour narrowly lost that election in spite of those popular policies and not because of them. The reasons it lost were largely related to Brexit, division and discord and constant plotting from it's own MPs, and severe doubts amongst older voters about Corbyn personally.

But when it comes to popular policies a majority of people can buy into, that 2017 manifesto is the place for the left to start. Note that I am talking about a majority of the people as measured by polling, and not a majority of the people you happen to know which you might be mistaking for the same thing. A common misperception based upon the often false assumption that the people we know personally are representative.

I'm referencing/talking-about the electorate — and they haven't voted a Labour into government since Blair. Seems a conclusive barometer of popularity.

Citing the 2017 manifesto — which was eventually judged to have included billions of uncosted proposals  — appears an own goal. It didn't get Labour elected, and eventually led to its worst defeat since Michael Foot.

It appears to me that the Left are holding Labour back rather than gaining it support. Which is not surprising, as the majority of the UK are not extremists for either Right or Left, and prefer middle-of-the-road governments...

[Nick]

All those various quotes fail to say what you accused me of saying, namely that I supposedly want to reduce everyone's income down to my level.

Either find a quote where I said that or admit that you made it up.

OMG Steve, it's a line stating the essence of what you say, it's not a direct quote.

Asking the rich to pay a little more in tax in no way amounts to that. And so what if they pay 25 times more in tax than I do? Many of them earn many hundreds of times more than I do so it's not entirely unreasonable.

We have people who cannot afford the heating, millions driven to the food banks, many thousands on the streets, yet your sympathies lie exclusively with the poor hard done by rich.

At what salary is someone rich Steve? What constitutes a little bit more tax Steve?

My son-in-law Finished school, job a part time job doing his A-Levels at the same time, went to Uni, studied Psychology and then did his Masters. Last week he finished paying off his student loan and has been approved for a Mortgage upto nearly 600K. 
He will have a hefty mortgage, high council tax and has a car. You telling me he should pay more tax to help out the person that didn't study, didn't go to Uni and ultimately has a poor paid job because they couldn't be bothered? My daughter worked 3 jobs whilst at Uni: Curry's, a cleaning job and behind a bar. She has a good job, do you think she should be paying extra for Mr can't be arsed? 

No, my sympathies don't lie with the rich exclusively, they lie with the people who have worked hard and done well. 
For the ones who did nothing to help their own situation I have 5 words.

MY HEART BLEEDS PURPLE P*SS

All you are showcasing here is how out of touch with reality you are.

I am fully aware of reality Steve, I have been travelling 17 miles to work every day for 3 months along the streets of India where people sleep on the pavement, where 4 and 5 year olds weave through traffic at the lights begging for enough to eat at the end of the day, or get kidnapped and used in the sex trade. Where the pittance of a wage is somewhere between 2 and 4 pounds a day for carrying bricks or mortar in a basket on their head (women). None of these people have the luxury of going to a food bank, if they're lucky there might be a charity kitchen within walking distance. These people cannot progress through hard work as there is a Caste system in place to keep them down. 

So no, I'm not out of touch, I know the reality, and that reality is that the vast majority of people in the U.K. are where they are through their own graft, or lack of. There is nothing stopping someone from a poor background learning a new skill, putting on a shirt and tie and starting the climb up the pole. 

BTW, are you suggesting trickle down economics works Steve? 😂 

[srb7677]

You stating that top earners don't pay great deal more tax than you which is utter codswallop.

Taking all taxes together - both direct and indirect, local and national - all income groups pay similar proportions in tax in percentage terms.

You of course are wilfully and dihonestly misrepresenting me. I never said the rich don't pay a lot more in tax. I said they don't pay a much bigger percentage of their income in tax, taking all taxes as a whole. In fact, clever accountants no doubt are used to reduce the amount they pay

[srb7677]

2 quotes below where you state higher earners don't pay enough tax despite potentially paying 25 times what you do.

All those various quotes fail to say what you accused me of saying, namely that I supposedly want to reduce everyone's income down to my level. 

Either find a quote where I said that or admit that you made it up.

Asking the rich to pay a little more in tax in no way amounts to that. And so what if they pay 25 times more in tax than I do? Many of them earn many hundreds of times more than I do so it's not entirely unreasonable.

We have people who cannot afford the heating, millions driven to the food banks, many thousands on the streets, yet your sympathies lie exclusively with the poor hard done by rich.

All you are showcasing here is how out of touch with reality you are.

[Nick]

Rubbish. That is just something you have made up.

Please provide the quote in which I said that.

It should be filed under "straw men".

2 quotes below where you state higher earners don't pay enough tax despite potentially paying 25 times what you do.

It is because the top 1 percent earn vastly more.

In any case you have yet to acknowledge that taking all taxes together, not just income taxes, the top decile do not pay a markedly higher proportion of their incomes in tax than other deciles

Above underlines the exact point I referred to. You stating that top earners don't pay great deal more tax than you which is utter codswallop.

I only want the so-called successful to pay their fair contribution in tax. Top earners pay a smaller prcentage of their incomes in indirect taxes like VAT than lower earners, and a vastly smaller percentage in council tax. So paying a higher percentage in income tax is not unreasonable, especially since they pay a much smaller percentage in national insurance once they hit the higher tax rates

Again, categorically stating top earners don't pay their fair share in tax.


So let's look at you're 'Fair Tax' shall we

30K salary: Pays £3486 Tax and £2665.90 NI

300K salary : Pays £119,960 in Tax and £13,467.90 in NI


Ah yes, I can see it now Steve, I can see how totally unfair it is. 🙄 
So NO, I won't be acknowledging that the top 10% earners don't pay enough tax. 

[Nick]

Rubbish. That is just something you have made up.

Please provide the quote in which I said that.

It should be filed under "straw men".

I've not made it up, you consistently state that higher earners don't pay their share of tax. And yes, I'll find and quote you. 

[cromwell]

Burmah Oil is part of BP, whose profits go up and down like a whore's drawers on Friday night. So there you are. Stick to the 2.30 at Kempton Park. You will have a better chance of winning

No it isn't it might have been taken over by bp but as a trading entity it's defunct.

It's like saying avro is part of bae systems anyway don't be giving me an oil company sob story.

[srb7677]

I follow your posts with some interest but what was the thinking behind Comprehensive education if it wasn't to remove any perceived advantage of Grammar Schools?

The idea was that all kids would get access to the best teachers and facillities and not just the brightest, and to avoid writing off large numbers of 11 year olds as failures.Levelling up in other words. There is no reason why this cannot work with the necessary investment if robust streaming by ability is maintained in such schools, so that kids share classes with their peers in terms of ability in each subject. Where faddish or ideological motivations might lead to mixed ability classes in the name of equality is likely to be the problem that needs addressing, and not the schools themselves.

[srb7677]

Fine. But all political parties have the same electorate to address.

And you don't appear to be searching for whatever it is that's keeping the Left out of power, and identifying attractive policies that a majority can buy into.

Bleating about false perceptions and politically motivated shite is unlikely to win you converts, or let you match the Tory election winning machine...

The people you are talking about are the types who would never vote for the left anyway. The price of winning their favour would be to lose many more votes at the other end, as Starmer may well be set to demonstrate

As for policies that a majority of people can buy into, polling showed large majorities in favour of the policies in Labour's 2017 manifesto. You can pretend that isn't so because you don't want it to be but the polling speaks for itself. I can show it to you if you doubt me. Labour narrowly lost that election in spite of those popular policies and not because of them. The reasons it lost were largely related to Brexit, division and discord and constant plotting from it's own MPs, and severe doubts amongst older voters about Corbyn personally.

But when it comes to popular policies a majority of people can buy into, that 2017 manifesto is the place for the left to start. Note that I am talking about a majority of the people as measured by polling, and not a majority of the people you happen to know which you might be mistaking for the same thing. A common misperception based upon the often false assumption that the people we know personally are representative.

[Borchester]

If you judge me a lefty is up to you,have you worked out yet in another reply why Burmah wouldnt be a good investment? Butt Kick

Burmah Oil is part of BP, whose profits go up and down like a whore's drawers on Friday night. So there you are. Stick to the 2.30 at Kempton Park. You will have a better chance of winning

[patman post]

It is a false perception that half of them probably don't literally believe to be true even themselves, just a convenient exaggerated gripe.

I mean how many people out there truly - genuinely - actually believe such nonsense as the left want to reduce everyone to the financial level of a shelf stacker?

I have spent a lot of time in left wing circles and on left wing forums - inside and outside the Labour party - and have never yet heard anyone arguing for anything of the sort. The people you reference are believing in myths and scare stories. Often what is happening psychologically speaking is that they are well enough off to be amongst those asked to pay a bit more by the left, which they resent, seeing themselves as uniquely hard working and deserving, so they exaggerate what they are moaning about for a more effective moan. But not one based upon reality.

I like to deal in facts, and false perceptions need to be called out for the politically motivated shite that they are and exposed to the cold light of both fact and reason.

Fine. But all political parties have the same electorate to address.

And you don't appear to be searching for whatever it is that's keeping the Left out of power, and identifying attractive policies that a majority can buy into. 

Bleating about false perceptions and politically motivated shite is unlikely to win you converts, or let you match the Tory election winning machine...

[cromwell]

I follow your posts with some interest but what was the thinking behind Comprehensive education if it wasn't to remove any perceived advantage of Grammar Schools?

Well the tories weren't totally against comprehensives we're they!