Have you noticed how the leftoids are talking about the rise in the personal allowance?

They’re shouting about how much revenue will be lost by not taxing the lowly paid.

Hmm, OK.

Except, when they calculate the effects of paying the lowly paid more, as with the living wage, they very carefully take note of how much more tax will be paid: and also how much less will be paid out in tax credits and the like.

But here, where less tax is to be paid, more of the lowly paid get to keep more of their own money and fewer tax credits will as a result be paid….there’s no mention of those tax credits any more.

My, aren’t they being open and honest here?

23 thoughts on “Have you noticed how the leftoids are talking about the rise in the personal allowance?”

  1. Allowing people to keep the money they earn! The money only becomes GOOD money when the sacerdotal class of functionaries have gathered it, blessed it and redistributed it. Even if the outcome is the same the ESSENCE has changed.

  2. The further gambit, as played by the Huffington Post, is to claim that raising PAS benefits THE RICH more than the low paid. How so? Well you fiddle with the sample population, take a PERSONAL ALL WANT and apply it to FAMILIES, making sure not to adjust so as to compare like – for – like.

    The desire to keep the low paid paying tax is – a social injustice.

  3. Of course, those complaining (high earning lefties like Ritchie, Polly, et al) will be writing cheques to the treasury for the amount they benefit from this won’t they?

    Ritchie’s band A rated annex qualifies for a £500 discount this year due to Tory policies, I assume he’s refused to take that discount?

  4. Noel, does he pay business rates on the annex now? I thought he claimed that it wasn’t pure business use because he kept his train track in there? Or am I out of date?

  5. @Richard,

    It’s now registered for council tax (after my nagging him a few years ago). No business rates on it as he claims the train track and garden tools exemption (yet to be seen on youtube videos), no visitors (youtube shows some Sky interviews from there) and not a dedicated office (Google Streetview shows a separate phone line from the house). Twitter posts have stated that he gets wet in the rain even on the short walk to his office, so he regards it as an office, but doesn’t tell the council he regards it as business premises.

  6. Whenever a conservative speaks, a blue mist descends over the brains of the hack-left robots and produces automatic programmed key-word responses:

    Far right, elite, 1%, Thatcher, hate etc.

    Ivan Horrocks – one of the habitual and most odious commenters on Murphy’s site – appears to be a later model of leftist robot however, which uses more sophisticated word combinations, eg mention “Cameron” and it is able to produce a superficially credible and long response including “Thatcher and despise” in the same sentence.

  7. Arnald,

    All from public information, just as Ritchie expects from everyone else.

    Besides, I think my getting him to pay council tax on his annexe was a triumph of tax campaigning, after all, that’s what everyone wants – everyone to pay the right amount of tax, in the right place at the right time?

  8. Try searching the Unite (or is it Unison?) website for Hawards Reed’s report on the £8 minimum wage.

  9. Hang on a minute – does the tax credit system work on a post tax or gross income basis? I can see how paying people more via higher minimum wages would reduce tax credit payments, as their headline income would have risen, and this would affect their tax credit. But if a persons headline wage stays exactly the same and they get taxed less on that, and thus have more disposable income, does the tax credit system take that extra income into account?

  10. Howard Reed is one of the sycophant Muppet show cast members infesting the comments section of Murphy’s blog on a regular basis.

  11. Dear Mr Worstall

    Keeping the poor poor is one of the main purposes of government.

    The minimum wage has lifted the lid a little on government policy of tax poverty; meanwhile the benefits trap is as deep as ever.

    Perhaps one day the reasons for these policies will become clear.


  12. Perhaps one day the reasons for these policies will become clear.

    Cui bono?

    Allow the working poor to work their way out of poverty and they might – heaven forfend! – vote Tory.

  13. DP has either lived too long under a Labour government or is trolling. I can remember Geoffrey Howe telling a meeting that one of his main pitches when he first won election was that ICI demonstrated the success of the private sector because it had raised the pay of its manual workers, while workers in nationalised industries got pay rises despite the high inflation in the last years of the Attlee government – basically Vote Conservative and the workers can expect to be paid more. Howe was a member of what is now an endangered species, an honest politician – between 1951 and 1964 median wages rose by more than 40% in real terms. The perennially misquoted remark of SuperMac “Some people have never had it so good” referred to OAPs whose pensions in 1959 were higher than their wages had been when they were in work.

  14. Sorry – horrendous typo: it should reasd
    “while workers in nationalised industries got NO pay rises …”

  15. Luke

    It is quite strange. I expect a high level of pernicketiness on this ‘opinion medium’. Bad use of the space bar, auto-correct frivolity, tedious pedantry; all of these things are staple here.

    But not, it would seem, on every other post by Worstall. It’s almost like the dozen or so frequent posters who ape his opinions, however wrong-headed, stimulate some sort of ‘cult’ or ‘sycophantic’ appeals for recognition.

    SMFS is the exception. He (and it must be a he – genetically proven by his fucking prose) is a toilet.

  16. Arnie baby- go on: name the dirty dozen. Look at my ‘s yco phanti c’ use of the space bar. Am I in?

  17. @ Luke
    if you mean me: produce a single reference – just one – to contradict my factual statements. I had politics beaten into me in 1951. That was a few years before the internet was invented.
    There is almost certainly evidence filed at companies house that will demonstrate that ICI increased total wages in the late 1940s: the amount of the increase implies an increase for manual workers (since non-manual workers were a tiny minority in the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s), but the guys whom I could have called as witnesses have died (there may be a few 1940s ICI workers still alive but not the ones I knew).
    Let’s see a single genuine fact from you, or any reason to dispute the truth of what I have said.
    If you don’t mean me, say so.

  18. In terms of Ritchie’s own tax situation, I had always recalled his claim had been that he had concluded he wasn’t business rated. But, in order to be sure, he had asked specifically whether he should be business-rated, but that they had turned him down. Eg post & comments here (URL edited to satisfy Tim’s no-link policy): http://www.t*xr*s**rch.org.uk/Blog/2010/07/09/right-wing-libertarians-bully-oh-yes-they-do/

    (And I’m pretty unimpressed by the narking involved there. But it’s a fascinating post given the way he has so often denied ‘letter of the law’ defences to others where he deems they should have paid tax regardless of what the law says)

    So has he subsequently changed that story?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *