University students have concluded that the real losers of Tuesday’s economic debate between the Jamaica Labour Party (JLP) and People’s National Party (PNP) were the Jamaican citizens, as neither side offered enough clear and direct answers to several questions posed.

“In regards to the questions and the debate and who answered, quite frankly, I think majority of the times, neither team answered the questions. There were some really important issues, and we kept going back and forth [feeding] political red meat just to heat up the base,” said Therel Marriott, a third-year political science student at The University of the West Indies (The UWI), Mona.

“It was another defeat after Saturday, another defeat for the Jamaican people. Both parties did not properly explain the policies for the future of the country and that’s disappointing and for me, Jamaicans lose again after this debate,” he told the Jamaica Observer.

Marriott said the debate failed to properly address concerns that matter most to young Jamaicans, such as student debt and the cost of higher education.

“I’m very disappointed in both parties about why are we not hearing any proposals about subsidising university education and tuition and so on? Why are we not hearing any kind of proposals? We’re continuously talking about, you know, student loan borrowing and the guarantors are eliminating debt. I mean, why are we putting our young people in a position to take the loan in the first place? If the youth are really the future of the country, the backbone of the future, why are we not putting them in a position where coming out of university they don’t have to pay a large debt that is not even covering the entire tuition in the first place?” he expressed.

“We were supposed to be finding out how exactly they’re going to fund these policy proposals and yet it just went into a political shouting match and it’s very disappointing,” Marriott said.

His remarks reflected the overall sentiment of other university students who told the Observer that the debate left them more sceptical than reassured.

Marlon Mattison, a third-year law student at The UWI, Cave Hill campus in Barbados, said he believed several of the responses lacked substance.

“I just want to hear substance. Give me the substance and you get my vote. That’s literally it. Let me know how we’re going to do this and that, and then you have my vote. If you cannot outline the whole plan to me, then you can’t get my vote, and then if you on the other side, all you’re just talking about is what I used to do and how things have been then, it means nothing if you are not explaining your future plans properly,” he said.

He identified one particular instance during the debate when, he said, neither side gave an adequate response when asked about what policy changes would be introduced to ensure taxes are collected from platforms such as
Google, Meta and TikTok with Jamaicans earning through these avenues currently paying no taxes on their income.

“You’re telling me that I am going to school, spending all this money, and our parents are hard-working taxpaying citizens of Jamaica and you’re telling me that both sides are afraid to give a more direct response on the issue?… You are afraid to tax a man talking foolishness on TikTok? That, to me, is hypocritical and absolutely ridiculous,” he said.

Nathan Roper, a third-year communication studies student at Northern Caribbean University, agreed with Mattison and said the broader problem was what he believes was the lack of proportionality in Jamaica’s taxation system.

“The way taxing is supposed to work is not that we have a single rate for every single individual. It ideally is to be proportional. I am of the belief that to some extent everybody should be taxed to contribute to the nation’s growth and development,” he said.

Roper also voiced disappointment that several questions were not answered directly.

“In terms of this debate, there was no winner, but definitely Jamaica arose as the loser, simply put,” he said.

He pointed out that while proposals such as the PNP’s plan to raise the tax threshold to $3.5 million and the promise to reduce the income tax rate from 25 per cent to 15 per cent by the JLP may sound appealing to many Jamaicans, the lack of clear explanation on implementation made them seem like nothing more than empty promises.

“It’s like Aladdin, I can show you the world but I can’t give you a map of how we’re going to get there; that’s how I feel about this debate,” Roper said.

He also expressed concern with Finance Minister Fayval Williams’ delivery during the debate but admitted that based on his observation there were moments when she made a deliberate effort to give a direct response.

“Fayval, to her credit, out of everybody up there, answered the most questions directly, because for the rest of them, it was a lot of deflection or talking about the past or talking about something else. Whenever the JLP was asked about an economic programme or portfolio, they fell back on their previous achievements… and when the PNP was asked a question, they fell back on the tried-and-true corruption and all that stuff while they were making promises that they had no intention of explaining how they were going to fulfil,” he said.

Connor England, a second-year international relations and management studies student at The UWI, Mona, argued that the PNP’s income tax threshold increase proposal lacked credibility, especially in relation to how it would be financed.

“The biggest qualm that I’ve had with this debate is the fact that Julian Robinson still cannot explain how it is that he’s going to fund all of these various social programmes,” he said. “It makes no sense because then you’re not taking into account all of the other spending programmes that they want to implement that, if not responsibly addressed, has the potential to tank our economy.”

ROPER… Fayval Williams the only one who answered most questions directly

ENGLAND… PNP’s income tax threshold increase proposal lacks credibility.

MARRIOTT… debaters fed political red meat just to heat up their base .