Stammer showing his true colours yet again.

Assuming they meant annually? £500 a person would be 7.7BN Or per worker £3.6Bn Plus all those who would pay more than £500. 

But you are right, most people think the rich should pay more. 
I would love to have a sensible conversation about how we fund the ever increasing number of medical issues we can treat, the ever growing number of elderly patients needing more and more treatment.
But all you get on here is "Diversity managers" and "Rainbow crossings" Plus the occasional overpaid executive. Drops in the ocean. 

So did I. 

But your argument about my position is that it isn't just a narrow box, it incorporates all people not just the few, as those who do think in the narrow confines of the their limited political box. Such as yourself.

Grow up and stop having your silly digs at me, and we can give other readers a break from this nonsense.

LOL - with you every instance of waste or mismanagement is just a 'drop in the ocean' - well it must be a fucking big ocean..

And as for a sensible conversation - all we get from you is tax the rich and throw more money at the NHS. We have been trying that for 70 years.

Says that prat who keeps having silly digs at me and is doing so again. So just do me a favour and fuck off with your shit

That bloody strawman! He just keeps saying stupid things you disagree with doesn't he. He's so easy to argue against. 

Much easier than arguing with my claim that the private sector shrunk a bit under New Labour. 

To be honest where people sit depends on the policy. Large majorities liked many of the policies in Labour's 2017 manifesto for example, but a majority do tend to be quite tight wing in some other areas, notably defence, law and order, immigration, and patriotism, not to mention support for the monarchy. Om welfare where the majority stand is more complicated. Many make some kind of distinction between whom they see as deserving and underserving poor, similar to the right. The ones they see as undeserving they want to get extremely tough against in a very right wing way. The ones they see as deserving they tend to want to be very generous towards in quite a left wing way. This picture is complicated still further by the fact that different people have different thoughts on who is deserving and who is not. And an entire thread could be constructed to debate that latter point alone.

But the long and the short of it is that - policy by policy - large majorities can be quite left wing in many areas, especially certain economic ones, yet large majorities can also be very right wing in many others. And this tends to be the main picture. So the notion that most people are in the centre on most things is actually incorrect. Sometimes they are well to the right, other times well to the left, which partly explains why both left and right fell out of love with New Labour in the end.

I would be the first to admit that I am pretty left wing. I am a democratic socialist after all. But I am not some robotic, unthinking extremist ideologue as See 2 seems to want to see me. I have for example recently on this forum been agreed with by of all people The Squeezed Middle for my understanding of why and how the working class in large numbers gave up on Labour, which is something many blinkered Blairites completely fail to get. I am a credit where credit is due kind of guy. I for example support the principle behind Universal Credit but simply think it is too ungenerous, the tapered withdrawal rate too punitive and disincentivising. I support fully  the recent increases under the Tories in income tax and NI thresholds, and acknowledge that they have been rather more generous than Labour was in increasing the minimum wage. And the Tory support during the covid pandemic was truly massive.

I also fully supported New Labour's introduction of a minimum wage and signing up to the social chapter, their successful drive for peace in Northern Ireland, their devolution policies, their greatly increased investment in health and education, removal of most hereditaries from the Lords (though that should have been just the start), and their tax credits, though these latter excluded too many like the childless under 25s and many part time workers.

I fully supported the Lib Dem policies of abolition of tuition fees (which they utterly betrayed when given the chance) their policy of abolishing the Council Tax to replace it with a local income tax, their mansion tax policy and their support for PR.

I supported the Green policies of a massive investment in public transport and the fact that they took climate change more seriously, earlier, than anyone else. And I like the fact that they were serious about building social housing and rent control in the private sector.

So you see, whilst clearly on the left it is wrong to pigeon hole me. I can see the positives - as well as the negatives - in all parties. That See 2 insists upon pigeon holing me in so negative and judgemental a way all the time makes me temperamentally very unwilling to concede to him the good parts of New Labour as I just have to you. And he proved utterly unable to name anything New Labour might have gotten wrong or failed to do when they should have done. So I think that tells you which of us is the more fair minded and open-minded.

Anyway, enough about him. I think the most constructive thing he and I could do is put each other on ignore but I am not going to do it unilaterally. You are a Blairite and supporter of a part of Labour who waged bitter internal war against people like me, no dirty trick too low. Which helps fuel my disdain for many of them. But you personally are a decent guy who debates reasonably and understands where I am coming from even if you disagree, and encourages in me a desire to reciprocate. You never wilfully try and misrepresent or mislabel me. If everyone inside the Labour party - both left and centre - were more like you and I, the broad church would really be a reality.