Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

[Politics] Starmer v Sunak *** Official Match Thread ***



peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,273
I remember how this was spun against Labour in 2019. They said they would increase income tax for those earning over £80k. Yet this was repeatedly reported as 'Labour to hike income tax' (without mentioning the £80k), until it became ingrained in the public consciousness. The '2k for every working family' thing may be BS, but people will remember it come election day.
These types of simplistic tax policies, like with Child benefit really need to have a much fairer adminstering that takes into account the household rather than the individual. And at the lower end they will appy to working professionals in management or doctors etc, many of whom spent tens of thousands on education, and not just millionaires

Married or common law without kids, with a joint account often, and you both earn £79k you have a household income of £158k, no kids to feed and dont pay the tax hike.

Married or common law with 2 kids, mum or partner at home bringing up the kids, and one partner earning £90K you're hit with the tax, are classed as richer in the eyes of taxation system.

Similar child benefit, couple earn £49k each they have £98k and get full child benefit. One working partner earns £60k the other nothing, they get nothing.
 




Simster

"the man's an arse"
Jul 7, 2003
54,952
Surrey
I'm not sure it's complete BS.

Labour have made a bunch of promises and have not costed them up properly. Tories are trying to coax this out of them. I think the lie is the fact that it was a fully independent analysis.

It's a reasonable point , all these improvements to the NHS , increased defence spending, more money for stopping the boats etc .... Where's it coming from the country is broke.
I agree that we were left wondering how exactly these things are going to be paid for. Yet despite neither of them giving any explanation, the Conservatives were somehow worse. Why is it that Labour are scrutinized over how things will be paid for, yet that never seems to apply the Tories? Last night, Labour said they'd add VAT to private school fees and wouldn't rule out pensions being taxed. They also said they'd tax non-doms properly as they need to start paying their way, and there'd be an tax on energy firms.

It's pitiful, yet is also a damn site more than what we got from Sunak.
 


Bridcutt

Well-known member
Aug 10, 2011
2,747
I'm not sure it's complete BS.

Labour have made a bunch of promises and have not costed them up properly. Tories are trying to coax this out of them. I think the lie is the fact that it was a fully independent analysis.

It's a reasonable point , all these improvements to the NHS , increased defence spending, more money for stopping the boats etc .... Where's it coming from the country is broke.
Starmer said which taxes would rise/where some money would come from. How can you say these things when the manifesto isn't out yet....?
 


peterward

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Nov 11, 2009
12,273
According to Daniel Finkelstein in the times today it's common practice for over 40.years for manifesto pledges to be costed up by the opposition. This then forces labour to counter, so it's not a dastardly tactic. But sneaky to say it was done independently.
Well its not exactly untrue, nor is it as advertised as entirely independent.

The Tories took the Labour pledges, gave that to indepenent civil servants to cost, they did and vis a vis versus available funds, they declared the policy costings fall short and can only be arrived at by a tax hike of £2k per family.

Good soundbite and effective politics, but not exactly entirely independent as advertised.
 


Berty23

Well-known member
Jun 26, 2012
3,643
According to Daniel Finkelstein in the times today it's common practice for over 40.years for manifesto pledges to be costed up by the opposition. This then forces labour to counter, so it's not a dastardly tactic. But sneaky to say it was done independently.
I wrote about it last night. It is shocking use of civil servants, imho.
 




Berty23

Well-known member
Jun 26, 2012
3,643
Well its not exactly untrue, nor is it as advertised as entirely independent.

The Tories took the Labour pledges, gave that to indepenent civil servants to cost, they did and vis a vis versus available funds, they declared the policy costings fall short and can only be arrived at by a tax hike of £2k per family.

Good soundbite and effective politics, but not exactly entirely independent as advertised.
The key bit is that political spads from the Tories tell civil servants what assumptions to use.
 








Easy 10

Brain dead MUG SHEEP
Jul 5, 2003
62,404
Location Location
Without seeing the detail we are just assuming they made up the numbers. Think the proof is in the pudding.
Again, no.

We now KNOW they made up the numbers, because its been proven they came from Tory HQ and not the Treasury. That has now been established as FACT. That removes any lingering vestige of "assumption".
 


timbha

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
10,506
Sussex
exactly the same as any other income. Earn/Income over £12800 and tax you will pay.
Think they are talking about the State Pension and basically saying that the single persons tax allowance (the amount they can earn before paying tax) will always be the same or higher than the state pension, however if the two are the same you will pay tax on any other income whether it be from other pensions or earnings.
 


A mex eyecan

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2011
3,872
Think they are talking about the State Pension and basically saying that the single persons tax allowance (the amount they can earn before paying tax) will always be the same or higher than the state pension, however if the two are the same you will pay tax on any other income whether it be from other pensions or earnings.
it’s the ‘fiscal drag’ by not raising the amount anyone can earn before tax each increase to the pension takes it nearer to, if not past that level.The tories have already said it won’t be increased until 2028 I believe so in doing so have given notice many pensioners will fall into tax payers even without having a private pension.

I think many are fearing, or perhaps scaring others into fearing, Labour would raid people’s private pension pots and hit them way above the normal tax levels that they will pay when they take money out
 




nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
18,574
Gods country fortnightly
Now the dust has settled I'm starting to feel like Starmer had a plan. Just like with Johnson he lets his opposition lie and hang themselves, then let the court of public opinion be the judge.

Initially Sunak scored 51% in poll as coming out on top, but if you ran that again today it would be a lower

Lying spolit public school boy who interrupts a lot sums it up
 


CheeseRolls

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 27, 2009
6,230
Shoreham Beach
I'm not sure it's complete BS.

Labour have made a bunch of promises and have not costed them up properly. Tories are trying to coax this out of them. I think the lie is the fact that it was a fully independent analysis.

It's a reasonable point , all these improvements to the NHS , increased defence spending, more money for stopping the boats etc .... Where's it coming from the country is broke.
Neither side is being entirely honest, given the baseline public spending there are some horrendous cuts to come whoever wins. If you want to call this out. Please bear in mind the £2k was over four years and as Starmer said the figures included for exampe the Tories mental health policy spend.

The other taxation difference was on pensioners paying tax. This is based on Jeremy Hunt's committment to freeze income tax thresholds into the next parliament. How are the tories planning to fund this reversal of their own policy? I assume this is based on increased taxation revenue targetting tax evasion. If they haven't clawed any of this back in the last 14 years what are they going to do different this time?
 


kevo

Well-known member
Mar 8, 2008
9,801
it’s the ‘fiscal drag’ by not raising the amount anyone can earn before tax each increase to the pension takes it nearer to, if not past that level.The tories have already said it won’t be increased until 2028 I believe so in doing so have given notice many pensioners will fall into tax payers even without having a private pension.

I think many are fearing, or perhaps scaring others into fearing, Labour would raid people’s private pension pots and hit them way above the normal tax levels that they will pay when they take money out
So if I'm interpreting this correctly, it means the point at which you start paying tax stays the same, so if basic state pension increases via triple lock or whatever more people are likely to to be paying tax, even if on a pittance.
 




seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,943
Crap Town
I thought Starmer had a piss poor performance last night. If I was him I would pull a sickie for the next TV debate and let Rayner rip into Sunak.
 


A mex eyecan

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2011
3,872
So if I'm interpreting this correctly, it means the point at which you start paying tax stays the same, so if basic state pension increases via triple lock or whatever more people are likely to to be paying tax, even if on a pittance.
yup, as soon as they go above the £12800. Kings ransom that isn’t it. How the F does anyone expect a person to live on that?
 


timbha

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2003
10,506
Sussex
yup, as soon as they go above the £12800. Kings ransom that isn’t it. How the F does anyone expect a person to live on that?
They don’t, which is why successive governments have encouraged people to save and pay into their own pensions. There is no retirement date as such, just ages where the State pension commences. For some people the £221? pw state pension is a nice top up. For others it’s all they’ll get.
 


nicko31

Well-known member
Jan 7, 2010
18,574
Gods country fortnightly
I thought Starmer had a piss poor performance last night. If I was him I would pull a sickie for the next TV debate and let Rayner rip into Sunak.
Just don't think its the Starmer style to be that combative, some say timid some say respectful
 




Deportivo Seagull

I should coco
Jul 22, 2003
5,467
Mid Sussex
I'm not sure it's complete BS.

Labour have made a bunch of promises and have not costed them up properly. Tories are trying to coax this out of them. I think the lie is the fact that it was a fully independent analysis.

It's a reasonable point , all these improvements to the NHS , increased defence spending, more money for stopping the boats etc .... Where's it coming from the country is broke.
The question you need to ask yourself is why the country is broke? Once you answer that you’ll know that Sunak and the Tories are corrupt grifters who are not to be trusted with anything …
 
Last edited:


A mex eyecan

Well-known member
Nov 3, 2011
3,872
They don’t, which is why successive governments have encouraged people to save and pay into their own pensions. There is no retirement date as such, just ages where the State pension commences. For some people the £221? pw state pension is a nice top up. For others it’s all they’ll get.
Exactly.
 


Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here