Jeremy Corbyn interview with Andrew Neil

Personally I really like an interviewer who persists in demanding a straight answer.
Too many politicians seem unable to give one - obviously terrified of committing themselves. They slither endlessly around the question like an oiled snake.

I do sometimes wonder whether they have to pass a test in oiled-snake-slithering before they're allowed anywhere near the media.

I simply wanted to point out Mazie that not all dividend income is unearned, some work very hard to make a profit so they have a dividend to draw.

They may pay a personal reduced rate of tax on what they draw, but the business they own will have already paid Corporation tax which is currently around 20%.

The business owner is in effect paying tax twice, once on the profit made and again if more than £2000 is taken as a dividend.

The Chief Rabbi is a good friend of Johnson's and ... Netanyahu.

All this demonisation of Corbyn and antesemitism is orchestrated and manipulated- from a great height.

Last night Corbyn gave the keys of no. 10 to Johnson.

jolbrook the election isn’t over yet

It can't be pleasant being interviewed by Andrew Neil. But isn't that the point? He tears into Tory politicians too. The difference between him and other interviewers is that he is tough on left-wingers instead of fawning glutinously over them like Emily Maitlis.
Corbyn was skewered, no mistake, but it should come as no surprise to anyone that he will come for people of all incomes. I personally believe a bit of extra public funding wouldn't come amiss in a lot of areas of British life especially in the north and on our railway system, if system is the right word. But it's such a lie for Labour to pretend their tax hikes won't hit the pockets of ordinary people.
As for the anti-semitism issue - Corbyn just doesn't get it, because it's the water he swims in. He is a lifelong enemy of Israel and in that milieu he has happily tolerated all kinds of gross anti-semitism in his section of the Labour Party for decades. If he can say things like "they don't get irony" in public, who knows what he says in private? But because he believes he's anti-racist, he believes that he is the definition of anti-racism - "If I say it, it's not racist - because I said it"
I remember him as my local MP in the 1980s. He was a complete toad. He supported every terrorist cause going. He's a barely educated man who learned a simple set of political ideas a very long time ago and hasn't changed them despite all the appalling things that have been done in the name of communism. He's incredibly arrogant, incapable of listening empathetically to any point of view other than his own.
Just on a point of fact, Neil was never Editor of The Times but the Sunday Times. They are different titles.

jolbook, I wouldn't count your chickens yet- for sure.

The constant hounding by the gutter press may well please the older folks who are pro Johnson, pro Tory and pro Brexit- but the sheer unfairness, clear manipulation from above (all the way up to Trump and Netanyahu I am pretty sure) - will make others rally for him. Certainly has that effect on me + OH.

WWM2

If that was the case with Lesley Perrin, then why on earth did Jeremy not clarify that in the interview at the time?

Andrew Neil is pretty tough with everyone he interviews.
What struck me was how pathetic Jeremy Corbyn seemed. And refusing to give straight answers.
He is not the Prime Minister that this country needs.
But, to be honest, I don't know who is!

But it's such a lie for Labour to pretend their tax hikes won't hit the pockets of ordinary people.

Can you explain why you think this, sarahcyn? The only increase in taxation proposed for 'ordinary people' is in the £80,000 + bracket

From the manifesto:

^We’ll ask those who earn more than £80,000 a year to
pay a little more income tax, while freezing National
Insurance and income tax rates for everyone else.^

Of course, there is the increase on the dividend tax; currently £2,000 is tax free then the rest is taxed at 10%, but how many 'ordinary people' have dividend income? And why should unearned income be taxed at a lower rate than earned income?

And there's corporation tax...

Just on a point of fact, Neil was never Editor of The Times but the Sunday Times. They are different titles.

Indeed they are. I was a faithful Sunday Times reader until Neil moved it over to the the Right all those many, many years ago. Didn't know then that I was a closet leftie...I just thought that rightwing views were nasty.

The chief Rabbi has been backed by other religious leaders now jura.

Some of the attacks on him by Corbyn supporters have been despicable, let's hope that Gransnet does not follow down that route. It's a pity that this subject of anti-semitism by certain members of the Labour Party today cannot be open for discussion without accusations about Israel and Zionism.

Corbyn, as usual, sits on the fence. Is that a sign of weakness?

I am assuming Neill will apply the same questioning technique to the next leaders he interviews.

When all the big earners have left the country to live in Monaco or wherever if Labour get in, who will be left funding everything? I think it will whittle down the line to Joe Public. I seem to remember pop stars, actors and celebrities did that when Labour did similar back in the 60’s/70)s.

how many ordinary people have dividend income

Naïve question

Many, I suspect, including those on barely more than a state pension.

Of course, many people when they were working, decided to invest any savings into the public utilities sales. But they needn't worry about paying more in dividends from income on those shares because they will be seized back, at a pittance, by a Labour Government under the re-nationalisation schemes.
Building societies gave shares to customers, banks gave them to people when they took over building societies etc.

Invested pension funds of course, were hit by Gordon Brown and now will be slammed if Labour get in this time.

These proposals don't just hit the very rich and probably won't as they can move their money around with impunity.

So right Callistemon. The rich can get their money out of the Country if Labour win.
But to return to topic. Ok. Neil can be a hard questioner, but if Corbyn can't stand up to him how on earth can he be expected to run the Country and deal with World Affairs. The poor man has "Failure" written all over him. I find him very embarrassing.

he was put in a situation where he was damned if he did (apologise) and damned if he didn't. For a large part of the interview. Yes, I'd personally would like Keir Starmer to take over asap- but nothing, nothing, can be as bad and as destructive as Johnson and his No Deal (because that is what ERG want, and the ones pulling the strings, Trump, Putin ... and more).

I agree he is not a great leader, not a great speaker- but a racist and an antisemite, he is NOT.

But he is a fence sitter jura and he cannot continue as he has - witnessing anti-semitism himself, seeing it in action, doing nothing then having a friendly chat with the perpetrator seconds later.

MaizieD - your comment about Neil's question - or non-question on taxation - is clearly a reflection of his accurately researched information.

This is classic, let's not bother with details approach, let's pluck random numbers out of the air, and with an air of condescending gravitas make an assertion for which we have scant evidence.

It would be like suggesting that if income tax (basic rate) was raised to say 21%, then the average household would be £1,000 a year worse off. (Oh wait, I've just increased the tax free allowance by £500, and the level at which we start to make Class 1 NI contributions - but we'll ignore those shall we, because £1,000 a year worse off looks better and is easier to write!)

Also sounds a bit like the 50,000 more new nurses claim - obviously that doesn't include the 18,000 nurses we already have, and we won't say whether we're recruiting 32,000 trained nurses, or whether we will need to train some over a 5 to 10 year period.

Sorry - liked your post - it does highlight so many inconsistencies in the 'election facts' we get bombarded withy daily.

@MazieD I just saw the interview this morning as I had taped it. The additional tax on pensions is because Corbyn is introducing a transaction tax which will hit all financial transactions such as on pensions.

www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1209554/Election-news-poll-latest-Labour-Party-Jeremy-Corbyn-pension-policy-Boris-Johnson

It is strange because he seems to be giving away a lot and the cost is astronomical yet he is gaining some money back by bringing in new taxes.

I just worry with billions and billions of extra borrowing it will push the tax burden on to our children and grandchildren for years to come. It is unfair to do this in my opinion. Each generation should pay for its own deficit through taxation. So not to pass on nightmare levels of debt to the next generation.

RE taxation of small business:

Some years ago when the CT rate was reduced to 19% it became beneficial for sole traders to form their business into a limited company. They then paid themselves a small salary which was slightly over the Class 1 NIC limit so that they retained their benefits in future years. Typically the salary would be between £8,000 and £9,000. The company would have had a small liability to employer's contributions.

They then took dividends out of the company profits after taxation. Up until 2015/16 there was a tax credit of 1/9 of the dividend which was refundable, if the taxpayer's income was less than the PA.

The government got wise to this and changed the system w.e.f 2016/17 when they introduced the Dividend Allowance of £5000 pa. This has been reduced to £2000 pa w.e.f. 2018/19. For dividend income in excess of the allowance, the rate of tax is 7.5% for those in BR band.

AN referred to the amount of tax that people earning £14,000 would pay. Under the current rules, if the taxpayer has £2000 of dividend income and the remainder is salary or pension they won't pay any tax because the Dividend Allowance of £2000 plus the PA of £12,500 exceeds the £14,000 total income. If, as some people believe, the Dividend Allowance is reduced to £1000 they would pay tax on £500 dividends.

It should not be forgotten that the self employed and company directors do receive certain benefits. For example, if the base of operations (as it often is) is one's home address then travel between home and place of work is tax deductible. The daily newspaper is tax deductible too. One needs to read the business pages. Compare this with those employees who are paying huge sums to commute to work plus the cost of their daily paper.

sarahcyn ...what an excellent post.??

MaizieD...wrong! Corbyn has admitted that people will lose money (not just those with earnings over £80,000 as claimed)
But those who have the married tax allowance ( many) and those who have state pensions and dividends and may only have £14,000 a year as well.

Dinahmo - love it, excellent post. I especially liked this para.
It should not be forgotten that the self employed and company directors do receive certain benefits. For example, if the base of operations (as it often is) is one's home address then travel between home and place of work is tax deductible. The daily newspaper is tax deductible too. One needs to read the business pages.

That is so true - I have heard of many self-employed and SME's who claim for DVD players/recorders, and even horses - and these are journalists/writers/reporters. Many subscriptions to industry journals are tax deductible, as part of the cost of sales of your work - be it an article for a magazine, a book, or a documentary about the different ways to travel by rail around say Europe.

If Corporation Tax for SME's is increased to a more normal level of 26%, I wouldn't see that as a negative impact on business - since all these claims to offset against tax are perfectly legitimate. Unless of course the 'business' doesn't have a grip on its accounting practices.

newnanny - that link is to the "Daily Express", so I wouldn't pay too much attention to it, especially since their data seems to come from research done at Conservative Central Office.

Hardly an independent or authoritative source.

There is of course the proposed FTT that has been put forward by the EU, and even Wikipedia (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_financial_transaction_tax) had a fair amount to say on it:
Particularly the UK government has expressed strong views about the negative impact of the tax and is expected to use its power of veto to block the implementation of this proposal, unless the tax was to be introduced globally. The likelihood of a global FTT is low due to opposition from the United States.

That opposition may in part be due to the fact that the UK economy is more than 70% dependent for income on financial services. Most SME's transactions were out of scope of the EU transaction tax, but a lot of the activities of non-traditional banking, maybe hedge fund managers' activities were included.
This little presentation gives an overview - ec.europa.eu/taxation_customs/sites/taxation/files/resources/documents/taxation/other_taxes/financial_sector/ftt_under_ec_en.pdf
but I'm uncertain how the "Daily Express" / Conservative Party Central Office have established their claims about this "damage" from the Labour policy.

the current choice by Johnson not to appear in interview with Andrew Neil and be savaged- truly means none of his supporters have any right to criticise those who have agreed to be interviewed. End of.

railman:
Well as a self-employed person with a journalist husband we are clearly getting it wrong - we can't even claim our newspaper subscriptions even though it's impossible for my husband to work without reading them...apparently not relevant.
I've watched the Corbyn interview again and I've got to say the most worrying part of it is where he doesn't seem to understand the link between government bonds and borrowing. The rest you can blame on Andrew Neil if you like but WTF???