Sunak V Starmer

It would (rightly, IMO) be political suicide to means-test pensions, as however much opponents spin it to say that 'there is no pot', most people have paid in for decades on the understanding that they would get a pension. If there is not enough money, that is the fault of previous governments and for future ones to sort out.

It will never be seen as acceptable to pay money to those who haven't contributed but not to those who did, and not paying pensions to those with nothing would result in starvation, which is obviously even less acceptable.

I've asked a million times on here what 'can afford' means in real terms, but never had a single answer. If someone says they can't afford a luxury holiday, but drives a fancy car, are they lying? If someone is saving for something they really want (say a deposit on a house) does that mean that they should be denied things given to others because for now they have money in the bank? 'Can afford' is meaningless.

The difference who gets to power makes for most pensioners is in things like the NHS, transport and other infrastructure areas that will be improved under a Labour government. Whether or not they have £5 a week more or less to spend, they will have more comfortable lives if they aren't on ever-longer waiting lists for operations, and if they can get a bus to the shops.

State Pension, by itself, is not a benefit. It is a payment, based on contributions, over many years.

Pension Credits etc., are a benefit, but only paid to those below a certain income.

I already pay tax on my State Pension now, simply because some was added, based on my late husband’s contracted out contributions (something like that). So, it’s already over £12500. I then pay tax on my private pensions.

The only way to help everyone, young or old, would be to raise the threshold.🤷‍♀️

maddyone

Well it mean that it would be difficult to maintain the current tax free allowance at the present rate then, or so it seems to me. Starmer didn’t refute that pensioners would have to pay tax though, although I’m a pensioner and I pay tax because I have a professional pension, so it seems to me, it’s not much change for pensioners whoever is in power.

There is a lot Starmer “could” do to hit high income/wealth people. He could abolish the extra IHT allowance that can be £900k, he could restrict State Pension above an income threshold. We already loose the personal allowance over a certain income.

Why give benefits to those that don’t need them?.

maddyone

Well it mean that it would be difficult to maintain the current tax free allowance at the present rate then, or so it seems to me. Starmer didn’t refute that pensioners would have to pay tax though, although I’m a pensioner and I pay tax because I have a professional pension, so it seems to me, it’s not much change for pensioners whoever is in power.

This is not about people who have income additional to State Pension - of course they have to pay tax. It's about State Pensioners (ie those with no other income) being dragged into taxation. It's sophistry, as it isn't true that Labour would laugh a 'raid' on pensioners, and it isn't true that the Tories are the party of low taxation - we pay more tax now than ever, and the reason that pensioners have been at risk of tax is purely because of the freezing of the nil-rate.

Whitewavemark2

What Sunak is trying to do is mitigate against the loss of votes to Reform, to at least gain enough seats to look like an opposition, which at present looks highly doubtful. So much of what he has announced lately is to appeal to our age group.

He has nothing to say to the under 50s

As usual Whitewavemark is saying it as it is.

Well it mean that it would be difficult to maintain the current tax free allowance at the present rate then, or so it seems to me. Starmer didn’t refute that pensioners would have to pay tax though, although I’m a pensioner and I pay tax because I have a professional pension, so it seems to me, it’s not much change for pensioners whoever is in power.

maddyone

So is Sunak saying they will have a separate tax rate for pensioners?

No. He has proposed something called triple lock plus, which, according to him, will guarantee that the tax threshold will always be higher than the basic state pension, and thus remove pensioners from paying tax.

It won’t of course; those with just a state pension are already under the threshold, those with other income are very likely not.

The fiscal drag of the unchanging threshold is, of course, dragging more of us into being taxpayers.

It’s been condemned as sophistry at best, and lies at at worst by everyone from the DWP to Martin Lewis.

Well when he did, (conscription) he was just laughed at by the audience. Starmer returned with him using the levelling up money to fund it and got applause.

I got really fed up with Sunak’s desperate need to jump up and down in his hypo manner rarely allowing Starmer to answer .
If this tactic was supposed to win the day it didn’t work with me. Starmer’s answers were well thought out and presented as such. Sunak’s repeating of the useful figure of £2,000 (not too large, not too small but likely to stick in the minds of the gullible) was an aggressive and desperate tactic. His so called National Service another offering costing billions at the expense of the levelling up budget. Our armed forces have been decimated and this is the Tories answer. It is all smoke and mirrors with no substance. Give me quiet, intelligent answers which are well thought out and not dropped into the equation on the run.

I didn’t watch, and reading these posts I probably did well not wasting my time. I think Labour will win, but watching KS is like watching a rabbit caught in headlights. I would never have voted for Jeremy Corbyn, but he was more convincing than KS.

He has nothing to say to anyone as far as I can see.

What Sunak is trying to do is mitigate against the loss of votes to Reform, to at least gain enough seats to look like an opposition, which at present looks highly doubtful. So much of what he has announced lately is to appeal to our age group.

He has nothing to say to the under 50s

I don’t think Keir Starmer performed well at all, but it won’t change the outcome of the election in my opinion.
My son is a barrister and is far more hard hitting in his arguments then Starmer was, just in political discussions at home.
None of it matters, it’s a done deal this time.

MissAdventure

Nitin Sawhney's music is quite beautiful, if anyone is interested.

I don't think anyone is, MisAdventure. Thornberry is never going to be forgiven by some 😁

So is Sunak saying they will have a separate tax rate for pensioners?

“If you think Labour are going to win this election start saving now”

It might have been 'neat', but it was b*llocks...

Nitin Sawhney's music is quite beautiful, if anyone is interested.

Germanshepherdsmum

Starmer does indeed need to understand that political debate is not a courtroom. He just didn’t have the answers. He should have been ready with them - as a barrister he knows the importance of preparation - but he really wasn’t. He looked lost, like a frightened rabbit. If he disputes the £2k per person cost of a Labour government he needs to come up with evidence rebutting it. This was a forum where he had to have his answers ready - but he didn’t.

Starmer did not perform well - but he didn’t need to because he is not on the back foot like Sunak.

Digging down into the immediate polls after the debate, Starmer was considered to have done best on all areas except the £2k tax and immigration

Both of these areas will be lost to Sunk once the issues are made clea to the voter.

Yes, thanks Doodledog. I understand that the Conservatives have locked the nil band tax rate, till about 2027/8 I think, so if the state pension keeps rising each year, pensions would surely be dragged into taxable income. Is he saying that this situation will continue under Labour?
I pay tax anyway as I have a professional pension.

Katie590

£35 billion is the sum stated by Sunak, regardless if that is accurate or not public spending needs to be increased by either party to improve services.

How much do you think needs to be spent?

As the Treasury has disowned Sunak's figures I think they are best ignored...

Of course there needs to be a massive increase in public spending, but taxation of 'ordinary people' is not the way to go about it, for reasons that I am tired of repeating over and over again. It should be presented as investment, not ordinary spending...

No company would increase prices in order to amass money to invest, it would borrow it. Labour could 'borrow; there is plenty of appetite for investors to buy government bonds, but a government also has the option of creating it's own currency to invest which a business doesn't. (Though much business investment is by way of 'loans' created by banks out of thin air)

No wonder KS didn’t want live tv debates! But he should have been provided with a few punchy takeaway sound-bites. He is bad at this kind of thing and RS is good at it (fair do’s) or has better speech writers. “If you think Labour are going to win this election start saving now” was neat, and KS had nothing like that.

Would rather see Rachel Reeves v Jeremy Hunt. Angela Rayner v Oliver Dowden.

The format was poor as everyone says and the presenter was hopeless. Too many topics for the time available and 45 seconds absurd. Let’s hope ITV can improve on those fronts.

maddyone

I want to know what exactly was meant by ^Labour will tax your state pension.^

It means nothing more than Sunak is reckoning onLabour not raising the tax threshold.

He doesn’t actually know because Labour haven’t spoken about it yet.

Also

Sunak was lying about the Treasury producing the fantasy £2k tax.

The Treasury said that no civil servant has been involved with producing the figures as Sunak claimed.

So Sunak has lied about the £2k and also how it was produced.

Starmer does indeed need to understand that political debate is not a courtroom. He just didn’t have the answers. He should have been ready with them - as a barrister he knows the importance of preparation - but he really wasn’t. He looked lost, like a frightened rabbit. If he disputes the £2k per person cost of a Labour government he needs to come up with evidence rebutting it. This was a forum where he had to have his answers ready - but he didn’t.

maddyone

I want to know what exactly was meant by ^Labour will tax your state pension.^

Sunak has said that the Tories won't. They will add another 'lock' so that the pension is taken out of tax. What he didn't say, of course, is that the nil-rate band was frozen by him, so more and more people who work for a living will be dragged into tax who wouldn't have been if the nil-rate had risen with inflation. He's disguising a tax raid on the poor as a benefit to pensioners.

Back to Miss Marple - the episode with Joanna Lumley - just struck me that the England portrayed in this series has long gone. If it ever existed that is. But where are we now as a nation?