Water water everywhere

No I don't, which is a shame. But there are very few issues that can gather that sort of support. 
My view is that a vote for the libdems would just be another vote for the Tories. I don't think it proves your argument that people don't want taxes raised. Most people want the rich to pay more tax. 

So I'm voting Labour because I do expect them to raise taxes and repair the damage done to the NHS. I hope they would also sort the railways and the water, but I'm a pragmatist. 

True.

It was tested with one of these gizmos. www.amazon.co.uk/Qinlorgo-Odorless-Electrolyzer-Non-toxic-Agriculture/dp/B08YV6WPWW

So you really believe that a 100% tax rate would generate more tax receipts than a 50% tax rate?.  Any actual evidence or peer reviewed research to support this?

I'll give a recent example. The Tories have introduced a windfall tax on oil and gas production from the North Sea. As a result the exploration companies have cut output, investment and jobs  -  is this going to lead to higher tax receipts?

My point wasn't that you invented the claim. It was merely that you used the term to blur the reality that Labour did, do and will raise taxes. 



That's historical, I will go through it if you wish, but I'm pretty sure you know how Labour got a terrible reputation in the 70's. How New Labour reversed that and stayed in power for 13 years, how Corbyn took over Labour and threatened to return it to those bad days. 
I don't think it has anything to do with tax rates which are generally higher than ours and where as you say  social democratic parties often hold power. 



You might be right, but the fact is tax has to come from those with enough money to pay it and in the UK the wealth divide is very evident. 


That depends on whether you see a slippery slope or just a step. Personally I find gross exaggeration makes a poor argument. 
You are right in one thing, as we find ways to keep people alive from evermore diseases the cost will keep climbing and at some point we will either have to accept a two tier service where only the wealthy get certain drugs, treatments etc. Or that we consider the health of our fellow humans more important than our 4th holiday in the Seychelles. 
You are right, we have to stop kicking the can down the road and make a decision. 

Oh yes in fact I think that while we're being ridiculous we should make it 150% . 

You paid standing charges when they were Nationalised - are standing charges from private companies somehow worse than standing charges from nationalised ones?

As for your other point, it's called competition. When you go to fill up your car you have a choice of filling stations from a range of different companies. They dont all have their own refineries and oil wells - they use the same resource and package it differently.

That is the most interesting claim of the day on this forum. Do you have any actual evidence that tax rates do not influence lifestyle changes. If so I would like to see it because it flies in the face of every economic text that I have ever read.