Independent Leyton Orient Forum

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:57 am

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:41 am The reality is that the lowest paid will disproportionately be paying higher taxes than the high earners. Good old labour standing up for the little person.

Sigh. Please show me with workings how you reach this conclusion.

It was in the Andrew Neil interview, please do keep up with affairs!!

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:07 am

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:57 am

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 7:41 am The reality is that the lowest paid will disproportionately be paying higher taxes than the high earners. Good old labour standing up for the little person.

Sigh. Please show me with workings how you reach this conclusion.

It was in the Andrew Neil interview, please do keep up with affairs!!

Was it? I recall mention of marriage allowance being removed (£250 pa) and tax on pension income.

I don't remember anything about the lowest paid having to pay a bigger proportion than higher earners. Surely the media would've been all over this today?

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:11 am

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:07 am

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:57 am

Sigh. Please show me with workings how you reach this conclusion.

It was in the Andrew Neil interview, please do keep up with affairs!!

Was it? I recall mention of marriage allowance being removed (£250 pa) and tax on pension income.

I don't remember anything about the lowest paid having to pay a bigger proportion than higher earners. Surely the media would've been all over this today?

There was also the bit about only needing a tiny movement of higher tax payers to move abroad and figures fall down without increasing tax on lower paid etc

Where the labour figures fall down, apart from the £58Billion black hole on WASPI pensions and on the cost of renationalization is there is no assessment of the impact of new taxes on higher earners. No consideration that they may/ will simply move abroad to a lower taxed country. Thus for example if you had 1000 people now eligible for Labours new tax, when its implemented, there may only by 750 left to tax, leading to a shortfall on expected tax income

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:11 am

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:07 am

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 9:57 am

Sigh. Please show me with workings how you reach this conclusion.

It was in the Andrew Neil interview, please do keep up with affairs!!

Was it? I recall mention of marriage allowance being removed (£250 pa) and tax on pension income.

I don't remember anything about the lowest paid having to pay a bigger proportion than higher earners. Surely the media would've been all over this today?

Here you go, this is what was said.


Mr Neil then asked him about Labour's higher dividend taxes, which he said would hit people on modest incomes too.

He cited the example of someone on a state pension who has an annuity of £4,000, a small private pension and, because they have saved, a dividend income of £2,000.

The host said: 'At the moment they pay £9 in income tax, that's it. Under you they'll pay over £400 in income tax. We're talking about people who are just on £14,000 a year.'

Mr Corbyn replied: 'They'll be taxed on the basis of their total income. It's a graded tax, so that is reasonable and fair to do.

So FTC do you think that’s fair?

Perhaps we should lower their tax then, in case they leave us.

What the hell is a dividend income Thory boy?

If I have to explain that there’s no helping you.

Sounds just like the kind of thing someone on a low income would get though.

Prestige Worldwide wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:49 am Sounds just like the kind of thing someone on a low income would get though.

Many people earning under £85,000 will have dividend income.

spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:20 am

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:11 am

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:07 am

It was in the Andrew Neil interview, please do keep up with affairs!!

Was it? I recall mention of marriage allowance being removed (£250 pa) and tax on pension income.

I don't remember anything about the lowest paid having to pay a bigger proportion than higher earners. Surely the media would've been all over this today?

There was also the bit about only needing a tiny movement of higher tax payers to move abroad and figures fall down without increasing tax on lower paid etc

Where the labour figures fall down, apart from the £58Billion black hole on WASPI pensions and on the cost of renationalization is there is no assessment of the impact of new taxes on higher earners. No consideration that they may/ will simply move abroad to a lower taxed country. Thus for example if you had 1000 people now eligible for Labours new tax, when its implemented, there may only by 750 left to tax, leading to a shortfall on expected tax income

Which country will they move to? Why aren't they there now?

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:06 am

Sid Bishop wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 10:10 am

o-no wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 5:21 am

Well, there's two possibilities.

Either, there are some people working at the BBC who maybe aren't paying as much attention as they should be to what they're doing

or

It's all a big conspiracy, the BBC is massively anti-Corbyn, and the absolute best way they can sabotage the election is to play a Cenotaph clip from a couple of years ago and edit out some laughing. Yep. It's definitely that one.

On average, BBC news announcers and current affairs programmes lean to the left and are pro remain, for many years now, the audiences in Question time have been overloaded with those who have with left wing views and in recent times, many more who support remain in the audience than those who wish to leave the EU. The selected panel are much the same, with sometimes four remain onto one leaver !
As to Andrew Neil being hard on Corbyn and Sturgeon, well guaranteed that he will be EVERY bit as hard and relentless when it comes to Jo Swinson and Boris Johnson, that is his job and he does it well !

Well said Sid. Neil is excellent at his job, I'd have loved him to do question time there would be no messing around with him in charge.

Yes Neil in charge of question time and with a far more representative audiences of average people with views across the political spectrum than currently happens. Would make for a far better show than the current shouting matches that question time has become. I also hate the rude manners of constantly talking over others and never giving anyone else a chance to speak, Emily Thornberry and Yvette Cooper often do this.

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:08 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:20 am

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:11 am

Was it? I recall mention of marriage allowance being removed (£250 pa) and tax on pension income.

I don't remember anything about the lowest paid having to pay a bigger proportion than higher earners. Surely the media would've been all over this today?

There was also the bit about only needing a tiny movement of higher tax payers to move abroad and figures fall down without increasing tax on lower paid etc

Where the labour figures fall down, apart from the £58Billion black hole on WASPI pensions and on the cost of renationalization is there is no assessment of the impact of new taxes on higher earners. No consideration that they may/ will simply move abroad to a lower taxed country. Thus for example if you had 1000 people now eligible for Labours new tax, when its implemented, there may only by 750 left to tax, leading to a shortfall on expected tax income

Which country will they move to? Why aren't they there now?

if you are so interested, go and ask them.

I'm not their spokesperson.

However, it has happened before and will happen again. Some of the rich will move where they have less tax to pay. It happens all the time.

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:26 am

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:11 am

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:07 am

It was in the Andrew Neil interview, please do keep up with affairs!!

Was it? I recall mention of marriage allowance being removed (£250 pa) and tax on pension income.

I don't remember anything about the lowest paid having to pay a bigger proportion than higher earners. Surely the media would've been all over this today?

Here you go, this is what was said.


Mr Neil then asked him about Labour's higher dividend taxes, which he said would hit people on modest incomes too.

He cited the example of someone on a state pension who has an annuity of £4,000, a small private pension and, because they have saved, a dividend income of £2,000.

The host said: 'At the moment they pay £9 in income tax, that's it. Under you they'll pay over £400 in income tax. We're talking about people who are just on £14,000 a year.'

Mr Corbyn replied: 'They'll be taxed on the basis of their total income. It's a graded tax, so that is reasonable and fair to do.

So FTC do you think that’s fair?

Do you think the poorest in society have private pensions or dividends?

And yes, I do think it's fair to grade tax on personal pensions etc - like i also think it's fair that as a higher earner, I pay more tax on both corporate and personal contributions. How else do you expect a country to provide decent public services and an NHS? Surely the last 9 years have proven that you cannot run the country on bobbins.

spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:11 pm

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:08 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:20 am


There was also the bit about only needing a tiny movement of higher tax payers to move abroad and figures fall down without increasing tax on lower paid etc

Where the labour figures fall down, apart from the £58Billion black hole on WASPI pensions and on the cost of renationalization is there is no assessment of the impact of new taxes on higher earners. No consideration that they may/ will simply move abroad to a lower taxed country. Thus for example if you had 1000 people now eligible for Labours new tax, when its implemented, there may only by 750 left to tax, leading to a shortfall on expected tax income

Which country will they move to? Why aren't they there now?

if you are so interested, go and ask them.

I'm not their spokesperson.

However, it has happened before and will happen again. Some of the rich will move where they have less tax to pay. It happens all the time.

I'm not the one claiming that the rich will all move abroad because they'll be asked to pay an extra 5p in the pound above £80,000 am I?

Where does it happen all the time? Evidence please.

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:21 pm

spen666 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:11 pm

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:08 pm

Which country will they move to? Why aren't they there now?

if you are so interested, go and ask them.

I'm not their spokesperson.

However, it has happened before and will happen again. Some of the rich will move where they have less tax to pay. It happens all the time.

I'm not the one claiming that the rich will all move abroad because they'll be asked to pay an extra 5p in the pound above £80,000 am I?

Where does it happen all the time? Evidence please.

If Labour win the election it starts on December 13th

So no evidence at all then?

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:18 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:26 am

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:11 am

Was it? I recall mention of marriage allowance being removed (£250 pa) and tax on pension income.

I don't remember anything about the lowest paid having to pay a bigger proportion than higher earners. Surely the media would've been all over this today?

Here you go, this is what was said.


Mr Neil then asked him about Labour's higher dividend taxes, which he said would hit people on modest incomes too.

He cited the example of someone on a state pension who has an annuity of £4,000, a small private pension and, because they have saved, a dividend income of £2,000.

The host said: 'At the moment they pay £9 in income tax, that's it. Under you they'll pay over £400 in income tax. We're talking about people who are just on £14,000 a year.'

Mr Corbyn replied: 'They'll be taxed on the basis of their total income. It's a graded tax, so that is reasonable and fair to do.

So FTC do you think that’s fair?

Do you think the poorest in society have private pensions or dividends?

And yes, I do think it's fair to grade tax on personal pensions etc - like i also think it's fair that as a higher earner, I pay more tax on both corporate and personal contributions. How else do you expect a country to provide decent public services and an NHS? Surely the last 9 years have proven that you cannot run the country on bobbins.

Yes I do think that some of these people will have private pensions and will have dividends, so yes it is entirely possible. So with the marriage allowance taken and the tax on pensions and or dividends will effectively make them worse off under labour.

I wasn’t making a point on corporate or personal contributions, I never complained about the tax I paid in the past or what I pay now. I have no issue with it and to be honest it gives me a warm feeling to know I’m paying my fair share.

Back to the point I was making. Labour said no one earning under 80k will pay more tax, that’s a lie and that’s the point I’m making, the lower earners will be worse off than the higher earner. If you earn £14k you will lose approx £400 which is a high proportion of their earnings. Where if you earn £85k say, who gets hit harder? The £85k person will pay more, but will it affect their life, nope no way will it. The £14k person will be affected.

So it’s a lie told by labour.

FTC remember Brown stole people’s 10p starting tax, who got hit hardest by that decision? Yep you’ve guessed correctly the lower paid and it was only the lib / Tory policy of raising the threashold helped those people once more.

The additional tax on the scenario above = 2.8% - are you seriously saying that's a high proportion?

Not sure where you think i've defended Labour on their claim that no one under £80k wont pay more tax. It is possible to be a labour supporter and not be in love with Corbyn y'know.....

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:33 pm FTC remember Brown stole people’s 10p starting tax, who got hit hardest by that decision? Yep you’ve guessed correctly the lower paid and it was only the lib / Tory policy of raising the threashold helped those people once more.

Not sure why you're bringing Gordon Brown into this. Clearly, the 10p tax rate was an utter clusterfuck which did massive harm to the LP.

£400 is a lot of money to someone on £14k. I never said that you are a Corbyn disciple, nor have I suggested that you think people 80k won’t pay more tax. I was just highlighting that there is a potential deduction for people as per the Andrew Neil example.

The money advisory service says he ave cost to power a home with gas and elec is £1,254 I’ve just looked it up so let’s use this figure. That’s 30% of their fuel bill taken away from them, fuel is one of the issues in this election and labour has a policy of renationalising the energy sector. Powering a home is important to everyone, with winter here to lose £400 quid which they will need to cut back elsewhere to pay their fuel bill suggests it’s a large amount.

Remember Labour want to reduce energy costs yet by taking that away it will make it harder for them to pay for their fuel as an example.

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:49 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:33 pm FTC remember Brown stole people’s 10p starting tax, who got hit hardest by that decision? Yep you’ve guessed correctly the lower paid and it was only the lib / Tory policy of raising the threashold helped those people once more.

Not sure why you're bringing Gordon Brown into this. Clearly, the 10p tax rate was an utter clusterfuck which did massive harm to the LP.

Just highlighting that Labour are not a party that religiously supports the poor. Two examples given today. I do believe that the poorer people of society should be helped more not less, any policy that detracts from that is not a good one.

Yes the higher earners should pay more, someone put up examples of what it would cost at 85k 90k etc and the amounts are tiny in comparison to earnings so it won’t effect them too much. I do believe that 80k is a little on the low side as you are not rich on that salary, a nice life yes, but not rich. In my opinion £100k would be a better suited to what they are doing, especially as that’s when you start to lose your personal allowance over that amount.

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:26 am

Father Ted Crilly wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:11 am

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 11:07 am

It was in the Andrew Neil interview, please do keep up with affairs!!

Was it? I recall mention of marriage allowance being removed (£250 pa) and tax on pension income.

I don't remember anything about the lowest paid having to pay a bigger proportion than higher earners. Surely the media would've been all over this today?

Here you go, this is what was said.


Mr Neil then asked him about Labour's higher dividend taxes, which he said would hit people on modest incomes too.

He cited the example of someone on a state pension who has an annuity of £4,000, a small private pension and, because they have saved, a dividend income of £2,000.

The host said: 'At the moment they pay £9 in income tax, that's it. Under you they'll pay over £400 in income tax. We're talking about people who are just on £14,000 a year.'

Mr Corbyn replied: 'They'll be taxed on the basis of their total income. It's a graded tax, so that is reasonable and fair to do.

So FTC do you think that’s fair?

Dividend income being taxed at lower rates than other earnings is a massive loophole. One that I and many others jump through but a massive loophole none the less.

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:55 pm £400 is a lot of money to someone on £14k. I never said that you are a Corbyn disciple, nor have I suggested that you think people 80k won’t pay more tax. I was just highlighting that there is a potential deduction for people as per the Andrew Neil example.

The money advisory service says he ave cost to power a home with gas and elec is £1,254 I’ve just looked it up so let’s use this figure. That’s 30% of their fuel bill taken away from them, fuel is one of the issues in this election and labour has a policy of renationalising the energy sector. Powering a home is important to everyone, with winter here to lose £400 quid which they will need to cut back elsewhere to pay their fuel bill suggests it’s a large amount.

Remember Labour want to reduce energy costs yet by taking that away it will make it harder for them to pay for their fuel as an example.

One would imagine that Andrew Neils imaginary well-off pensioner will soon be benefiting from an increase in their state pension and continued service from the NHS, so don't cry for them too much.

RedO wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 1:31 pm

Thor wrote: ↑Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:55 pm £400 is a lot of money to someone on £14k. I never said that you are a Corbyn disciple, nor have I suggested that you think people 80k won’t pay more tax. I was just highlighting that there is a potential deduction for people as per the Andrew Neil example.

The money advisory service says he ave cost to power a home with gas and elec is £1,254 I’ve just looked it up so let’s use this figure. That’s 30% of their fuel bill taken away from them, fuel is one of the issues in this election and labour has a policy of renationalising the energy sector. Powering a home is important to everyone, with winter here to lose £400 quid which they will need to cut back elsewhere to pay their fuel bill suggests it’s a large amount.

Remember Labour want to reduce energy costs yet by taking that away it will make it harder for them to pay for their fuel as an example.

One would imagine that Andrew Neils imaginary well-off pensioner will soon be benefiting from an increase in their state pension and continued service from the NHS, so don't cry for them too much.

That is a different issue to the manifesto lie that no one earning under £80k will pay more tax