|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2019 6:31:21 GMT
Let's not forget, Boris has to face the Neil grilling, yet. This is going far too well at the moment, I can see a catastrophe looming. He will destroy Boris It’s great to see an interviewer really pick at these politicians |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2019 6:34:43 GMT
"I set trends dem man copy" As serpico said 20 pages ago Corbyn loves standing up to he believes are the oppressed. To say sorry to the Jews would offend many of the groups he supports |
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Nov 27, 2019 6:35:47 GMT
Let's not forget, Boris has to face the Neil grilling, yet. This is going far too well at the moment, I can see a catastrophe looming. He will destroy Boris It’s great to see an interviewer really pick at these politicians He will just repeat let's get. Brexit done for...30 minutes |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Nov 27, 2019 6:59:47 GMT
Jeremy Corbyn has admitted those on lower incomes could pay more tax under a future Labour government. www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50567979Tax hikes for the many, not the few  Pensioners, married, one has a small private pension.....he clearly hasn't thought this one out in his attack on marriage. |
|
|
|
Post by partickpotter on Nov 27, 2019 7:41:34 GMT
Jeremy Corbyn has admitted those on lower incomes could pay more tax under a future Labour government. www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50567979Tax hikes for the many, not the few Pensioners, married, one has a small private pension.....he clearly hasn't thought this one out in his attack on marriage. Just seen a selection of Corbyn’s lowlights from yesterday’s interview. It’s a shocker. Corbyn comes across as evasive, uncertain and dishonest because he refuses to answer Neil’s questions. For example on Labour’s Waspi policy he is asked repeatedly “How” he will fund it, because Corbyn insists on explaining “Why”. Neil doesn’t let him off the hook. This is a problem for Corbyn because as he is trying to portray Johnson as untrustworthy he has shown himself to also be lacking in that regard. It will be interesting to see if Johnson falls into the same trap. He shouldn’t because it’s a fairly obvious one. You are going to be asked difficult, simple questions that require a direct answer. The way out of the trap is to quickly address the question that is asked, then start answering the question you would have liked him to ask. Not vice versa. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 7:44:45 GMT
Jeremy Corbyn has admitted those on lower incomes could pay more tax under a future Labour government. www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50567979Tax hikes for the many, not the few Pensioners, married, one has a small private pension.....he clearly hasn't thought this one out in his attack on marriage. Where does it say tax is increasing for pensioners? I can only see mention of the loss of £250 a year in those that receive the married tax allowance which a limited number of people receive in any event? Surely offset in any event by the increase to free childcare which is extortionate and closer to £250 a week than a year? |
|
|
|
Post by felonious on Nov 27, 2019 7:54:49 GMT
Jeremy Corbyn has admitted those on lower incomes could pay more tax under a future Labour government. www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50567979Tax hikes for the many, not the few Pensioners, married, one has a small private pension.....he clearly hasn't thought this one out in his attack on marriage. Where does it say tax is increasing for pensioners? I can only see mention of the loss of £250 a year in those that receive the married tax allowance which a limited number of people receive in any event? Surely offset in any event by the increase to free childcare which is extortionate and closer to £250 a week than a year? I can't imagine that there are many pensioners requiring free childcare and not all married couples have children. |
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Nov 27, 2019 8:09:53 GMT
Let's not forget, Boris has to face the Neil grilling, yet. This is going far too well at the moment, I can see a catastrophe looming. He will destroy Boris It’s great to see an interviewer really pick at these politicians Neil is brilliant. He's up there with Brian Walden and Robin Day for me. He slaughtered Corbyn on taxation, and it was startling to see Jezza's reaction. This is what happens when you promise the world and have nothing to back it up. Corbyn looked like a complete idiot. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 8:12:38 GMT
Where does it say tax is increasing for pensioners? I can only see mention of the loss of £250 a year in those that receive the married tax allowance which a limited number of people receive in any event? Surely offset in any event by the increase to free childcare which is extortionate and closer to £250 a week than a year? I can't imagine that there are many pensioners requiring free childcare and not all married couples have children. Where is it saying anything about more tax for pensioners?Or just you just mean all married people including pensioners? I’d be concerned about a party that tried to introduce dementia tax and force people to sell their homes for care they thought they been paying their tax and NI their whole lives. Not all people who have children are married either. |
|
|
|
Post by 4372 on Nov 27, 2019 8:35:13 GMT
What i really want to know is: assuming Boris gets a working majority, are we then doomed to be holding the next GE in midwinter 2024?
|
|
|
|
Post by bathstoke on Nov 27, 2019 8:37:18 GMT
Jeremy Corbyn has admitted those on lower incomes could pay more tax under a future Labour government. www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50567979Tax hikes for the many, not the few Pensioners, married, one has a small private pension.....he clearly hasn't thought this one out in his attack on marriage. Are you married Fel... |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2019 8:40:06 GMT
Jeremy Corbyn has admitted those on lower incomes could pay more tax under a future Labour government. www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50567979Tax hikes for the many, not the few Pensioners, married, one has a small private pension.....he clearly hasn't thought this one out in his attack on marriage. Where does it say tax is increasing for pensioners? I can only see mention of the loss of £250 a year in those that receive the married tax allowance which a limited number of people receive in any event? Surely offset in any event by the increase to free childcare which is extortionate and closer to £250 a week than a year? Every tax rise aimed at high earners almost always affects low earners in the small print. It doesn’t matter by how much but tax laws are complex. You remove one little perk for the rich it affects those lower down. Someone on £80k can afford £9 per week someone on under 20k can’t afford £250 per year. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 8:47:44 GMT
Where does it say tax is increasing for pensioners? I can only see mention of the loss of £250 a year in those that receive the married tax allowance which a limited number of people receive in any event? Surely offset in any event by the increase to free childcare which is extortionate and closer to £250 a week than a year? Every tax rise aimed at high earners almost always affects low earners in the small print. It doesn’t matter by how much but tax laws are complex. You remove one little perk for the rich it affects those lower down. Someone on £80k can afford £9 per week someone on under 20k can’t afford £250 per year. Which is a problem with employers not playing a living wage, the exorbitant cost of childcare, the lack of social care...the very things they want to increase spending on. The Conservatives literally took away people’s entitlement to pensions when they were supposed to receive it and wanted to force people to sell their homes to pay for care but Labour are attacking pensioners. I’m really struggling to see the logic. Two married pensioners on a state pension wouldn’t be paying tax anyway and both would be well within their own tax allowance and not paying tax. |
|
|
|
Post by Foster on Nov 27, 2019 9:03:38 GMT
Every tax rise aimed at high earners almost always affects low earners in the small print. It doesn’t matter by how much but tax laws are complex. You remove one little perk for the rich it affects those lower down. Someone on £80k can afford £9 per week someone on under 20k can’t afford £250 per year. Which is a problem with employers not playing a living wage, the exorbitant cost of childcare, the lack of social care...the very things they want to increase spending on. The Conservatives literally took away people’s entitlement to pensions when they were supposed to receive it and wanted to force people to sell their homes to pay for care but Labour are attacking pensioners. I’m really struggling to see the logic. Two married pensioners on a state pension wouldn’t be paying tax anyway and both would be well within their own tax allowance and not paying tax. Pfft,... and you call yourself a lawyer.  |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2019 9:09:27 GMT
Every tax rise aimed at high earners almost always affects low earners in the small print. It doesn’t matter by how much but tax laws are complex. You remove one little perk for the rich it affects those lower down. Someone on £80k can afford £9 per week someone on under 20k can’t afford £250 per year. Which is a problem with employers not playing a living wage, the exorbitant cost of childcare, the lack of social care...the very things they want to increase spending on. The Conservatives literally took away people’s entitlement to pensions when they were supposed to receive it and wanted to force people to sell their homes to pay for care but Labour are attacking pensioners. I’m really struggling to see the logic. Two married pensioners on a state pension wouldn’t be paying tax anyway and both would be well within their own tax allowance and not paying tax. That’s not what Corbyn admitted to last night. A pensioner on a combined £14000 between state pension and a small annuity would be £400 worse off. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 9:14:58 GMT
Which is a problem with employers not playing a living wage, the exorbitant cost of childcare, the lack of social care...the very things they want to increase spending on. The Conservatives literally took away people’s entitlement to pensions when they were supposed to receive it and wanted to force people to sell their homes to pay for care but Labour are attacking pensioners. I’m really struggling to see the logic. Two married pensioners on a state pension wouldn’t be paying tax anyway and both would be well within their own tax allowance and not paying tax. That’s not what Corbyn admitted to last night. A pensioner on a combined £14000 between state pension and a small annuity would be £400 worse off. Thanks. Did they say why? The article I originally responded to only talks about the married tax allowance which is why I asked the question. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 27, 2019 9:19:39 GMT
Every tax rise aimed at high earners almost always affects low earners in the small print. It doesn’t matter by how much but tax laws are complex. You remove one little perk for the rich it affects those lower down. Someone on £80k can afford £9 per week someone on under 20k can’t afford £250 per year. Which is a problem with employers not playing a living wage, the exorbitant cost of childcare, the lack of social care...the very things they want to increase spending on. The Conservatives literally took away people’s entitlement to pensions when they were supposed to receive it and wanted to force people to sell their homes to pay for care but Labour are attacking pensioners. I’m really struggling to see the logic. Two married pensioners on a state pension wouldn’t be paying tax anyway and both would be well within their own tax allowance and not paying tax. Pensions you want to talk about pensions do you not remember how Gordon Brown pretty much ended final salary pensions for anyone outside the public sector. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613609/amp/Revealed-Labours-stealth-raid-took-118BILLION-pensions-paving-way-end-final-salary-schemes-suddenly-unaffordable.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top&__twitter_impression=trueThe conservatives acted on advice that parties had been told for many years that retirement age had to be increased as we lived longer. And selling homes to pay for care happens now and has for many years, May actually proposed a deal meaning the sale only happened after people died letting them stay in their own homes as long as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 9:21:15 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 9:27:11 GMT
Which is a problem with employers not playing a living wage, the exorbitant cost of childcare, the lack of social care...the very things they want to increase spending on. The Conservatives literally took away people’s entitlement to pensions when they were supposed to receive it and wanted to force people to sell their homes to pay for care but Labour are attacking pensioners. I’m really struggling to see the logic. Two married pensioners on a state pension wouldn’t be paying tax anyway and both would be well within their own tax allowance and not paying tax. Pensions you want to talk about pensions do you not remember how Gordon Brown pretty much ended final salary pensions for anyone outside the public sector. www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2613609/amp/Revealed-Labours-stealth-raid-took-118BILLION-pensions-paving-way-end-final-salary-schemes-suddenly-unaffordable.html?ito=amp_twitter_share-top&__twitter_impression=trueThe conservatives acted on advice that parties had been told for many years that retirement age had to be increased as we lived longer. And selling homes to pay for care happens now and has for many years, May actually proposed a deal meaning the sale only happened after people died letting them stay in their own homes as long as possible. And her husband just happened to work for a major shareholder in the UKs equity release business who stood to gain hugely from the policy. And people pay their taxes and national insurance contributions their whole lives for nothing I assume. People seem outraged at the thought of some having to pay a tiny bit more tax but then happy that what you actually get back in return is ever more decreasing and seems to mean naff all. Again I just don’t understand the logic. |
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Nov 27, 2019 9:49:57 GMT
And her husband just happened to work for a major shareholder in the UKs equity release business who stood to gain hugely from the policy. And people pay their taxes and national insurance contributions their whole lives for nothing I assume. People seem outraged at the thought of some having to pay a tiny bit more tax but then happy that what you actually get back in return is ever more decreasing and seems to mean naff all. Again I just don’t understand the logic. He works for an investment firm who you know invest in companies probably has links to every industry, for a lawyer you dont seem very clued up equity release gives money to the owner of the house for a share of future sale proceeds, May's plan was no one had to sell their homes before they died so care costs came out of sale proceeds so how does equity release benefit from that ? Are you related to Essex ? |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 10:04:48 GMT
And her husband just happened to work for a major shareholder in the UKs equity release business who stood to gain hugely from the policy. And people pay their taxes and national insurance contributions their whole lives for nothing I assume. People seem outraged at the thought of some having to pay a tiny bit more tax but then happy that what you actually get back in return is ever more decreasing and seems to mean naff all. Again I just don’t understand the logic. He works for an investment firm who you know invest in companies probably has links to every industry, for a lawyer you dont seem very clued up equity release gives money to the owner of the house for a share of future sale proceeds, May's plan was no one had to sell their homes before they died so care costs came out of sale proceeds so how does equity release benefit from that ? Are you related to Essex ? Many people have had to turn to equity release to pay for the rising costs of their care. You force people to pay for it and take away the funding which they have done and people find ways to pay. You're pointing one bit of her "plan" which never came about but the policy was that people had to pay more towards the costs of their care. I literally do not understand why people just need to turn to insults. I know nothing apparently but people on here are propagating that it was said on the TV pensioners will be £400 worse off when they don't understand the difference between a dividend income and income from a normal private pension scheme. It's deliberately misleading on the part of the interviewers and the newspapers reporting as your average person wouldn't understand that. |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2019 10:15:50 GMT
That’s not what Corbyn admitted to last night. A pensioner on a combined £14000 between state pension and a small annuity would be £400 worse off. Thanks. Did they say why? The article I originally responded to only talks about the married tax allowance which is why I asked the question. He went off on his usual bollocks of avoiding the direct questions but just quoted labour manifesto policy |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2019 10:17:46 GMT
Thanks. Corbyn said the poor wouldn’t pay any more tax. He’s clearly wrong |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 10:20:31 GMT
Thanks. Corbyn said the poor wouldn’t pay any more tax. He’s clearly wrong Poor people don't own shares in companies! So won't be getting dividends and so won't be paying the higher dividend tax. |
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Nov 27, 2019 10:23:46 GMT
What was Jezziah's presser about? We've only got 16 days to save the NHS or summat?
|
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2019 10:25:26 GMT
Thanks. Corbyn said the poor wouldn’t pay any more tax. He’s clearly wrong Poor people don't own shares in companies! So won't be getting dividends and so won't be paying the higher dividend tax. Then you didn’t watch last nights program. That’s quite a damning statement. Even some poor pensioners on very modest incomes have saved a little for retirement Pensioners with small share annuities of around £4000 saved for retirement will get stung by £400 at least Like I said raising taxes for the rich always has implications for the poor |
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Nov 27, 2019 10:35:48 GMT
What was Jezziah's presser about? We've only got 16 days to save the NHS or summat? Tony Blair said that in 97 and 2008 |
|
|
|
Post by RipRoaringPotter on Nov 27, 2019 10:41:18 GMT
What was Jezziah's presser about? We've only got 16 days to save the NHS or summat? He says he has proof that the NHS is (and has been) on the table in six rounds of US-UK trade talks that have already happened. A 600-page uncensored document, according to him. Too early to tell if it's as explosive as he says. Given the size of the thing it will probably take journalists, critics and campaigners quite a bit of sifting through to actually read what it says. |
|
|
|
Post by The Drunken Communist on Nov 27, 2019 10:42:29 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2019 10:44:07 GMT
Poor people don't own shares in companies! So won't be getting dividends and so won't be paying the higher dividend tax. Then you didn’t watch last nights program. That’s quite a damning statement. Even some poor pensioners on very modest incomes have saved a little for retirement Pensioners with small share annuities of around £4000 saved for retirement will get stung by £400 at least Like I said raising taxes for the rich always has implications for the poor The calculation appears to have been deliberately been made to include a dividend income which is what the tax increases on - they've calculated it on the basis of someone receiving 1) a state pension 2) an annuity of £4000 and 3) a dividend income of £2000 . Unless the newspaper is incorrect. From what is says it is only saying there is a higher tax on dividends (which the Labour government has always been clear on and not tried to hide this). As far as I'm aware annuities are taxed as income so you pay income tax on them which is not increasing. There doesn't appear to be any suggestion of that being changed so it's not clear where this extra £400 is coming from unless its dividends from personally owned shares. |
|
