How thick is Starmer

[Nick]

Do you think the UK could/would adopt the Nordic Model (often referred to by the euphemism "democratic socialism" because of the way it combines both globalisation and the welfare state)?

After all, these two approaches to government are mostly seen as irreconcilable opposites — especially by the Left. So who is going to push for it, and how is it going to be sold?

Nordic cultures developed over centuries. During this time, citizens there developed a high degree of trust in their governments, brought about by a history of working together to reach compromises and address societal challenges through democratic processes — a situation often claimed to be wanted by the Left here, but seldom worked for by it.

As you cite the importance of taxation, I guess you realise that The Nordic model is paid for by some of the highest tax rates in the world — eg, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are approximately 46.3% in Denmark, 39.9% in Norway, and 42.9% in Sweden.

And tax rates in these countries are relatively high on nearly all income, not just that of wealthy people — Sweden's top personal income tax rate is around 57.3%, Denmark's 55.8%, and Norway's 46.6%.

What facets of British culture do you see would need to change to adopt the Nordic Model, and how long is it going to take — one government, two governments, three, four...?



It's a non-starter Pat, for so many reasons. We'd have to radically change the whole retail system of the country to incorporate the 25% sales tax, put wages up by ridiculous amounts, businesses would collapse overnight.These countries also have a system whereby anyone working abroad references the tax rates for the country they're working in. So that's me exclusively flying anywhere in the world through the Middle East. "Yes Mr tax man, I was working on a big job in Doha for the last 10 Years", "You're correct, I've not paid any tax for that period because the tax level in Doha is zero so that's what I've paid. Bye"

[patman post]

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.

Do you think the UK could/would adopt the Nordic Model (often referred to by the euphemism "democratic socialism" because of the way it combines both globalisation and the welfare state)?

After all, these two approaches to government are mostly seen as irreconcilable opposites — especially by the Left. So who is going to push for it, and how is it going to be sold?

Nordic cultures developed over centuries. During this time, citizens there developed a high degree of trust in their governments, brought about by a history of working together to reach compromises and address societal challenges through democratic processes — a situation often claimed to be wanted by the Left here, but seldom worked for by it.

As you cite the importance of taxation, I guess you realise that The Nordic model is paid for by some of the highest tax rates in the world — eg, tax revenues as a percentage of GDP are approximately 46.3% in Denmark, 39.9% in Norway, and 42.9% in Sweden.

And tax rates in these countries are relatively high on nearly all income, not just that of wealthy people — Sweden's top personal income tax rate is around 57.3%, Denmark's 55.8%, and Norway's 46.6%.

What facets of British culture do you see would need to change to adopt the Nordic Model, and how long is it going to take — one government, two governments, three, four...?



[Nick]

Yes well Baz he didn't outright say the plebs are thick,but I guess you knew what I was getting at.

You quoting things that someone didn't actually say Mr C? Based on the view you gained by reading between the lines?
Hope you never pull anyone up for doing that 😉 

[cromwell]

Not in that video he didn't.

Yes well Baz he didn't outright say the plebs are thick,but I guess you knew what I was getting at.

[Nick]

This is idiotic. Clearly by seven figure salary I am talking about pounds, not pence. Everyone surely knows that obvious fact except you, apparently. Unless you are being wilfully obtuse.

Yes, we know that: and you know I know that. Think you'll find the obtuse one here is the one that deliberately only quoted half my sentence to try and score a point in a tax conversation they are losing.


Here is the full quote.

Someone who earns a 7 figure salary is rich... £10,999.99: That's a 7 figure salary, are we feeling rich yet?  No because you're going to call out my 7 figure salary: even though you said it, and it's perfectly correct, [highlight]it's not the 7 figure salary you were thinking of.[/highlight]

And you have not been guessing but wilfully inventing shite you choose to believe. In what parallel universe does taxing the rich a little more translate into reducing them to a retail workers' income level? That is not simply a guess but a wilful politically motivated misrepresentation.

2 aspects to this, first being that you still haven't given any indication of what a little bit is and at what level the little bit would be applied.

Second being what ever level you set your little bit at it will impact the person just over the threshold, making their being just over that level pointless as it will drop them back to the person just under the threshold. The extra education they did to achieve that little bit more salary is now worthless as they are where the person that didn't do that little bit extra education is anyway thanks to to you little bit more tax.

So Steve, where are you going to pitch this mysterious little bit more tax? Who is going to be the lucky guy that earns 1p less and deemed not to be rich.

Remember, the top 10% earners pay 50% of the direct tax in the country, leaving the other 90% to pick up the remaining 50%. But in your eyes they need to pay more.

fair
adjective

fair adjective (RIGHT)

treating someone in a way that is right or reasonable, or treating a group of people equally and not allowing personal opinions to influence your judgment:

Doesn't seem to match your description of fair Steve!!

And I hate to break it to you but the lowest paid are far better off in Norway and Sweden than they are here. But I lack the time right now to expand much on that. Another long shift at work beckons.

Some real calculations for you here Steve, based on someone on Min wage (£9.25/hr) and Someone on £100K salary. These are net amounts after tax and NI

                MIN.        100K     
U.K.      £16,933    £65,867
DEN.    £12,942    £50,775
NOR.    £16,437    £65,077
SWE.    £9,527      £49,192

I've got the screenshots of the tax calculations if you want me to post them?

Like I said before Steve, which one of these glorious tax systems do you want? Are you now going to modulate the conversation onto minimum wage levels and away from the tax argument you've just lost? If so let's introduce a sales tax of 25% that they levy in Scandinavia, the fact that a Burger and Fries and a pint in Copenhagen airport was 32€ 10 years ago. To register a new vehicle in Denmark with cost you 85% of the vehicles value up to 26,500€ and 150% of anything above that!! Meaning the cheapest Ford Mondeo, costing £16,425 in the U.K. costs you over £30K in Denmark. And like I said, a pint in Norway will cost you 8 quid on average.

But thank heavens for small mercies. At least you cannot realistically accuse me of being a layabout and scrounger, as you surely would if ever I became unable to work for any reason

Vast difference between unable to work and can't be bothered.

[Barry]

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

Not in that video he didn't.

[Nick]

In reply to the post title "How thick is Starmer?" . . .

Not very!  He was at the top of the legal profession before becoming an MP.

Lawyers don't tend to be 'thick' until they're over 80 and losing their marbles.

Being academically clever does not preclude you from being thick. Having 10 O'Levels and a Law degree just means you have the ability to retain information given to you and regurgitate it at the correct time, it certainly doesn't mean you have common sense or the ability to adapt to changing conditions in real time.

During arguably one of the Tories most torrid times in recent history Labour have managed to amass a lead of 8 paltry points. Any other leader would have been dancing a jig around their smouldering remains. What does Sir Beer Korma do? Absolutely nothing, because he has not got the wit or guile to take on Boris. Put that level of material in the hands of Ricky Gervais and he would have undone the Tories thread by thread. 

Tories at their lowest, Boris is on the rocks and to blame, what does he do? He does everything he can to get Boris removed 😂. Cromwell will tell you being a 'noisy neighbour', when Solskjaer and Moyes were in charge at the Scum, everyone was over the moon, and the last thing they wanted was for them to be replaced. 

So yes, he is thick. 

[srb7677]

In reply to the post title "How thick is Starmer?" . . .

Not very!  He was at the top of the legal profession before becoming an MP.

Lawyers don't tend to be 'thick' until they're over 80 and losing their marbles.

He may not be thick, but I have severe doubts about his strategic political sense and core motivations.

[srb7677]

Someone who earns a 7 figure salary is rich... £10,999.99: That's a 7 figure salary, are we feeling rich yet?

This is idiotic. Clearly by seven figure salary I am talking about pounds, not pence. Everyone surely knows that obvious fact except you, apparently. Unless you are being wilfully obtuse.

And you have not been guessing but wilfully inventing shite you choose to believe. In what parallel universe does taxing the rich a little more translate into reducing them to a retail workers' income level? That is not simply a guess but a wilful politically motivated misrepresentation.

And I hate to break it to you but the lowest paid are far better off in Norway and Sweden than they are here. But I lack the time right now to expand much on that. Another long shift at work beckons.

But thank heavens for small mercies. At least you cannot realistically accuse me of being a layabout and scrounger, as you surely would if ever I became unable to work for any reason

[HDQQ]

In reply to the post title "How thick is Starmer?" . . .

Not very!  He was at the top of the legal profession before becoming an MP.

Lawyers don't tend to be 'thick' until they're over 80 and losing their marbles.

[srb7677]

Let's not keep going around in circles, a tax cut is something you will barely notice, it is aimed at high end earners because according to the Westminster party they are the backbone of the economy, because that is what happens in a top-down economy. 

I agree it is usually tax cuts for the rich.

Of course there are those, including on this very forum, who seem to believe that those who already have most are somehow most deserving of even more.

[Sheepy]

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.

Let's not keep going around in circles, a tax cut is something you will barely notice, it is aimed at high end earners because according to the Westminster party they are the backbone of the economy, because that is what happens in a top-down economy.  

[Nick]

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.

Exactly the answer I expected, a non-answer that is so vague that the only option is to try and guess what you mean. Oh, but that gets me in trouble with Mr C because I post things you didn't exactly say. Well how am I supposed to challenge you when you provide answers like above Steve?

Please allow me to answer your points in the manner they were posted. 

Someone who earns a 7 figure salary is rich... £10,999.99: That's a 7 figure salary, are we feeling rich yet?  No because you're going to call out my 7 figure salary: even though you said it, and it's perfectly correct, it's not the 7 figure salary you were thinking of. 

Bearing in mind we are talking about taxing the rich here, you bring up how much money someone has in the bank. Money they've earned under your Nordic tax system, money they've already paid tax on, maybe almost 50% has been taken off them. 

Your great idea of a Nordic tax system. 🤩 

Is this the Danish system where the income average tax is 45%. By the way, you've just taken an extra £4000 (22%) in tax off someone working on minimum wage using the Danish system. £120 of which has gone to the church!! A person who earns 100K person is 15k (15%) worse off. 

Using the Swedish system you've collected collected an extra 8% tax off the guy earning £100K, well done. However in your socialist triumph you've just taken an extra £2k off the woman on minimum wage. 

In Norway the 100k guy is a grand better off but yet again minimum wage dude loses out to the tune of £600. 

You and Cromwell can say what you like but it's quite clear from your posts what your mindset is, even though you don't directly say it. Tax the rich to the hilt, your Nordic tax system remark proves it. You knew that taxes in Scandinavia where high and thought that's a good place to beat the rich, without a single socialist thought for the low paid, not realising the Nordic countries all use totally different systems and tax the poor equality as high as the rich. And it doesn't stop there: I've been to the three countries above and I can tell you in all of them you have to have winter tyres, that means paying for 2 sets of tyres. If you drive from the German side of Denmark to Copenhagen and back which is a couple of hours each way it will cost you about £70 in tolls. A pint will cost you about £9 in Norway and a cheap (ha ha) box of bog standard red wine will cost you about £45. 

So which Nordic tax system do you want Steve? The one that is almost identical to ours, the one that hits the low earners 7% more or the tax system that hits the low earners by only 2% more. 

The fact that your immediate though was a Nordic tax system with scant regard for the low earners leaves no doubt that this is pure jealousy and nothing to do with socialist values. You've obviously not looked into this tax system otherwise you'd have seen that you'd be paying more in tax. 

[srb7677]

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...

As I said, the 2017 policies were popular as measured by polling. Labour lost in spite of them not because of them, and for other reasons which I cited.

You are trying to insist that the policies themselves were unpopular. That's not what the polling was telling us. As usual you are choosing to believe a demonstrable falsehood because it suits you to.

[srb7677]

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?

I work so many hours that I have no spare time for studying. And at 57 I am a bit long in the tooth for learning a new skill. By the time I have done that I will have only a few years left until retirement. Who would employ me in such a new role at my age?

Besides, you seem to assume that all I do is sit on a checkout. I do many things. Serve in the petrol station, collect trolleys, stack shelves, collect shopping for internet customers, undertake stock control tasks. Much of that is unlikely to disappear before I reach retirement age, and if it did, I'd just have to find something else. As an employee of more than ten years I currently enjoy full employment rights in a unionised workforce with an employer who has been around for over 100 years. Never say never but it is one of the ones least likely to fold and as such is closer to being secure employment than many other places I can think of.

Besides in another post elsewhere a few weeks back I referenced my mental health difficulties. Change is something I find hard to cope with and need to work within the limits of my anxiety issues. So I am happy to continue doing what I am doing. Someone has to. Wasn't long ago we were being held up as key workers. Now you try and denigrate us.