Sunak V Starmer

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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?.

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.🤷‍♀️

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.

The Sunak £2,000 tax claim lie was based on a Tory make-believe version of Labour policies costed by the Treasury. Garbage in, garbage out. The Treasury's top official (appointed under Truss after Kwarteng fired his predecessor) has issued a warning about such a claim not being supported by the Civil Service.

Poll produced by sky

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.

I think the Treasury's Permanent Secretary (a Truss appointee) has already warned the £2,000 claim is not based on official calculations. Another Tory lie but of course they will keep on repeating it for the (dis)benefit of the gullible and blinkered.

Iam64

I watched 15 minutes and decided to read my murder mystery as more relaxing at 9.30pm.
I didn’t lije the format, found the moderator poor, Sunak rude, entitled and shouting ‘I have a plan, the plan is working’ is simply untrue
Starmer seemed to want to avoid shouty sound bites but if Sunak is allowed to continue shouting over him, he may have to respond in a less measured way.
The £2000 a year tax increase was just addressed on radio 4. The interviewer pointed out to the Tory spokeswoman that it’s £250 a year over 4 years.

Etchingham failed to prevent Sunak hogging the debate with soundbites and talking over Starmer. Starmer stuck to the rules of debate but Sunak didn't. Sunak came over as shout and entitled, out of touch with ordinary people.

Kim19

I 'lasted' eight minutes. Awful. Is this seriously the best our Country can come up with?

It's the best ITV can come up with! Etchingham failed to manage the debate. The background staging and lighting was very distracting. I'm sure the BBC will do better.

It's been proven this morning both by fact checkers and by the published letter from the Treasury that Sunak openly lied about the £2000 tax increase he claimed Labour would cost us, this figure was put out by Tory spads not by independent civil servants in the Treasury. As usual all the Tories have are lies.

It doesn’t follow that the figure is wrong. We will know more when the Labour manifesto is published.

Thanks again Doodledog. I think I’m being a bit slow this morning but I was finding it difficult to follow this line of thought during the debate last night. I thought surely no government would make pensioners pay tax on the basic state pension. It doesn’t make sense because the tax free allowance (which has been frozen until 2027/8 by this government) and there is no claim that
I’m aware of that any other government would continue the freeze. Although they might I suppose. I just found these claims puzzling. Apologies.

I’m wondering why the Treasury is costing Starmers plan, have they been given advanced notice of the manifesto in detail?.

In any case should the Treasury be neutral in politics?.

I know of course, that we pay more tax now than ever before.
We are paying huge amounts of interest on money borrowed to pay furlough during Covid and I believe that furlough was allowed to go on for far too long.

maddyone

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

Yes, basically that is what he is saying. Combined with National Service for teenagers he is making it very obvious who is target voter is!

Thank you HPQ

Germanshepherdsmum

It doesn’t follow that the figure is wrong. We will know more when the Labour manifesto is published.

Well, why didn't he wait until he had the information rather than going against a clear letter saying it wasnt treasury costed?

The Treasury provided some of the information. Let’s see how the manifesto looks and how much money is going to have to be raised to pay for its contents.

Germanshepherdsmum

The Treasury provided some of the information. Let’s see how the manifesto looks and how much money is going to have to be raised to pay for its contents.

😄 if you mean the figures provided for the HoC library, then indeed they provided some information.

But really!!??