How thick is Starmer

[cromwell]

Well Starmer may be thick though Sunak thinks the plebs are,did he really say that?....yes he did.

https://youtu.be/xegB9J-mn1A

[srb7677]

At what point do YOU deem someone to be rich, and what do YOU deem to be a bit more tax?

If they earn 7 figure salaries or have millions in the bank, then they are rich. If they earn 6 figure salaries they may not be quite so rich but they are definitely very well off, As for what I deem reasonable tax, the nordic model is the kind of thing I have in mind.

[cromwell]

Ducks are made of wood then!!

I wooden know

[Nick]

he said property speculators,not all rich people are

Ducks are made of wood then!!

[patman post]

Looking to find the total context I came across the following:

In a speech in Lincoln on 18 February 1974, Dennis Healey, the then chancellor promised he would "squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak." However, he later denied having used the phrase, whether as Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, from 1972 to 1974, or as Chancellor of the Exchequer, from 1974 to 1979, saying the Times newspaper may have misquoted him.

Proof of the pudding: it wasn't long after (1976) Britain faced its worst ever financial crisis. The Labour government was forced to apply to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to bail it out. An IMF loan was granted but the fund insisted on deep cuts in public expenditure, greatly affecting economic and social policy.

So did he say it or didn't he? 

And his stint as chancellor didn't end in glory — ending up controlled by the IMF is maybe what coloured his views on the EEC...

[cromwell]

So what did I misrepresent?

He wanted a wealth tax and wage control — not Communist, perhaps, but extremely socialist...

he said property speculators,not all rich people are

[patman post]

Here's what he actually said
He included Lord Carrington in that speech.

Healey was an educated man,served with distinction in the British army during WW2....was an avowed anti communist and often misrepresented....as you have just done.

So what did I misrepresent?

He wanted a wealth tax and wage control — not Communist, perhaps, but extremely socialist...

[cromwell]

Dennis Healey was a socialist who denied ever voicing the idea that the rich should be squeezed until the pips squeak.

But so many people reported those words, it seems unlikely to be apocryphal...

Here's what he actually said

In a speech in Lincoln on 18 February 1974, Healey went further, promising he would "squeeze property speculators until the pips squeak."

He included Lord Carrington in that speech.

Healey was an educated man,served with distinction in the British army during WW2....was an avowed anti communist and often misrepresented....as you have just done.

[patman post]

Dennis Healey was a socialist who denied ever voicing the idea that the rich should be squeezed until the pips squeak.

But so many people reported those words, it seems unlikely to be apocryphal...

[Nick]

I work ;ong hours and lack the time to respond to everything and am about to leave now.

But you shouldn't be guessing, ie inventing, anything. Just takie my words at face value instead of imagining I said something else.

If you want to pose a question to me, do so here, and perhaps if I have the time  to respond this evening I will. No promises, and loaded questions are less likely to be answered. And in any case the failure to respmd to any question is not a license to make crap up. I respond to questions when and if I want to, if I have the time.

I've posed the same questions twice now, but you've failed to answer, accusing me of making stuff up when I'm simply applying your thinking to a very simple problem.

At what point do YOU deem someone to be rich, and what do YOU deem to be a bit more tax? Are you going to take into consideration whether they have a large mortgage? Whether they pay 4 grand a year commuting to London. Whether the little bit more you take from a perceived rich person tips them over the edge and they default on their large mortgage? Whether they spent 7 years studying to be an accountant and the moment they land a decent paid job after scrimping to pay tuition fees for years you whack them with your rich person hammer.

I'd love to know what your concept of a rich person is Steve, cause from your posts it's someone who isn't suffering financial hardship. And unless you enlighten me I have no choice but to believe you want them to feel a little bit of pain.

Your perception of rich most certainly will be different to what someone else thinks. Like your long hours might be a doddle to let's say a junior doctor doing close to 100hrs a week during a pandemic!! Do they get whacked the second they make the grade?

[Borchester]

I work ;ong hours and lack the time to respond to everything and am about to leave now.

But you shouldn't be guessing, ie inventing, anything. Just takie my words at face value instead of imagining I said something else.

If you want to pose a question to me, do so here, and perhaps if I have the time  to respond this evening I will. No promises, and loaded questions are less likely to be answered. And in any case the failure to respmd to any question is not a license to make crap up. I respond to questions when and if I want to, if I have the time.

Fair enough Steve.

So can we assume that when you get home you will be studying for a new skill so as to enhance your income ?

As I am sure that you will be the first to agree, working on a supermarket checkout is not the most secure form of employment. Those automatic checkouts may be rubbish now, but they can't get worse and they mean the end of your line of work. So the question is, what are you doing to secure your future?

The thing being missed is that why the poor and no doubt virtuous and the rich beneath contempt, the former can't do much to improve their situation beyond laying out guilt trips and whatever else the former are, they are first class when it comes to hanging onto their money.

So the point is that the best person to look after your interests is yourself and that being the case, what are you doing about it?

[srb7677]

If you actually gave an answer to the question I wouldn't need to guess what you meant.

I work ;ong hours and lack the time to respond to everything and am about to leave now.

But you shouldn't be guessing, ie inventing, anything. Just takie my words at face value instead of imagining I said something else.

If you want to pose a question to me, do so here, and perhaps if I have the time  to respond this evening I will. No promises, and loaded questions are less likely to be answered. And in any case the failure to respmd to any question is not a license to make crap up. I respond to questions when and if I want to, if I have the time.

[Nick]

And in what way does that translate into me saying they should be reduced to the same income level as me? I have never said that, nor have I ever thought that. Is that clear enough for you? You will never find a quote of me saying otherwise.

Saying that someone should pay a bit more tax is in no way the same as saying they should be taxed down to poverty pay levels. So please stop making shite up

If you actually gave an answer to the question I wouldn't need to guess what you meant. 

[srb7677]

I found 2 quotes where he states quite clearly that the rich should be taxed more

And in what way does that translate into me saying they should be reduced to the same income level as me? I have never said that, nor have I ever thought that. Is that clear enough for you? You will never find a quote of me saying otherwise.

Saying that someone should pay a bit more tax is in no way the same as saying they should be taxed down to poverty pay levels. So please stop making shite up

[srb7677]

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.

Thank you for pointing that out. Inventing straw men and false claims to attack is utterly dishonest debating and not worth engaging with. If he chooses to criticise me for something I actually said and think, then we can go on from there.

Let me state this quite clearly. I do not wish to reduce everyone's income level down to mine. And have never said that I do. And no one will ever find a quote of me saying that, just quotes about fairer taxation and so on which they ludicrously and falsely claim mean the same thing when - which I reiterate quite categorically here - they do not. 

So unless Nick ceases to make up lies about me which he cannot support, there can be no sensible debate on such matters between him and I.

After all, two can play at that game. I could say that he wants to gas everyone on benefits in extermination camps. I will of course be unable to find any quote in which he says that. But I could find quotes where he is highly negative about such claimants and state that exterminating them is the essence of what he is saying.

Of course, in reality I would not do anything of the kind because I prefer to engage with what people actually say and think, and not something I choose to imagine they said or thought to suit myself. If Nick would do the same, we could have the basis for an honest debate. 

There can be no honest or intelligent debate if we all start imagining or inventing stuff that each other are supposed to have said or thought, instead of engaging honestly with what people actually say and think.