Isn't it time we raised the cut-off age for paying NI

NO I have paid national insurance since the age of 15, and I would utterly resent paying it again. What was all the hard work in aid of if not to keep some of the money I paid into!! Do NOT write to the government and suggest we pay national insurance again when we have retired. I would resent it like mad!!!

Grannygrumps1

I’ve just got my state pension in July. I had 47 years worth of contributions. And my pension is just the same as someone who’s paid 35 years. Go take a hike…… what you are suggesting is ridiculous.

Perfectly put

I’ve just got my state pension in July. I had 47 years worth of contributions. And my pension is just the same as someone who’s paid 35 years. Go take a hike…… what you are suggesting is ridiculous.

Well said! 👏

Unfortunately the cut off point is no longer 60 as in your happy case .it’s 66 and going up .
The only people still working fulltime after 66 probably need the money and are not doing it for fun so no they shouldn’t pay ni.You shoukdnt make all pensioners pay as not all of us are sitting on final salary or public sector pensions

When health service was created the work force generally didn't have a lot of women working paying into the scheme. In the 50s workforce began to change, growing amount of contributions. The explosion in population after WW11 eventually began to contribute increasing the pot. Of course demand on NHS grew too. Looking at the even bigger population in Britain now along with even bigger increase in female workers there has to have been a massive increase in the Nat Ins pot. But, again, expectations have grown along with scientific advances making increase in demand by the increase in population. It's an never ending circle. Yes, people live longer some needing a lot of modern medical support. At the other end of the scale people who would not have survived early life also need modern medical support. Please, I am not saying care in any way should not be given to young or old only highlighting it's not quite as clear as having people pay, it's what is done with all the money. Medicine has changed radically, how much are we as individuals prepared to pay to keep up with it?

In theory that is a good idea, Wildstrawberry, but it would leave young people wide open to exploitation, if it were a case of 'work or starve'. They are already discriminated against by having a lower rate of minimum wage, and apprentice wages are laughable. If they couldn't claim when unemployed they might be forced to work for very low wages. Such a scheme would have to be backed up with decent and rigorously-enforced wage controls.

I know what you mean, though. A genuinely contributions-based insurance scheme would be a better system. A friend of mine's son left university and went back to live in the family home, claiming UC despite having no expenses and having never paid in a penny. When he had to go on some sort of job-finding course my friend was outraged, as 'he had qualifications'. He now works part-time (as a result of the course), but has his wages boosted as they fall below the threshold, so is not trying to get full-time employment. I don't think that is right when there are young people who are homeless and hungry - the money should go to them.

The whole taxation system is not really a personal pot, you pay a lot of tax but if you ever fall on hard times and need to use benefits for a short time, the huge amount of personal tax paid does not earn you any extra help, as a renter the rent would be paid as a mortgagee you get nothing etc
My husband paid a lot of tax, ni
Delayed claiming his state pension and is still working and paying income tax, is paying for private medical insurance.
Why not start making in roads with a benefits system where you pay in and only after contributing for a said amount of years can benefits be claimed.and only for a couple of years whereby the 1st year 80% of wages is paid, reducing to 50% in the second year, unless a person is on disability or medically unfit for work.
Young people need to learn work pays and leave the hard working pensioners alone as they have paid ni until they reached pension age and if they are still working are paying tax and contributing to the economy.

Yes, Treetops, and the fact that this country is stingy with payments to benefit claimants too does not justify targeting pensioners.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

I am so tired of those who think pensioners are rolling in money and easy targets. My Mum scraped by all her life, never having much, we are the same...pensions £760 a month - not exactly a luxury life after working since 16! Leave pensioners alone!

Cossy

National Insurance (as I understand it) is designed to find pensions, though not ring fenced, not the NHS - as a WASPI no I do not think we should carry on paying NI once state pension is finally paid ! Like millions of other women I planned to retire at 60, as it is I’ve recently retired at almost 64 due to ill health (not “ill” enough sadly to get my full pensions early!) I do think both pensions and our amazing NHS need overhauling but definitely NOT at the expense of pensioners - my husband and I are now retired, neither of us inherited big houses nor vote Tory! Like most pensioners we are pretty average and I agree with earlier posters, very high income earners should bear the bulk of any further taxes and both they and all companies/corporations should pay their correct taxes and keys just dispense with Non-doms !!

Yes to all of that.

Yes, Musicgirl. I think that sometimes people lose sight of the things that have been taken away for those of us at the younger end of old (). The length of time people can claim NI contributions for staying at home has shrunk massively - it used to be until the youngest child was 16, meaning that it was possible to have a lifetime of not paying in if your family was spaced out in age. Also, there was MIRAS and non-means-tested child benefit, which again no longer apply. The pension age has got much higher, along with eligibility for bus passes etc, and that's on top of the cutbacks for all ages such as dentistry chiropody etc.

I agree with Callistemon that people do what works for them, which is what pensioners have done, and for most it is now too late to change that. Wh have all acted in good faith, whether we would do the same again or not. To now hear 'oh, but you paid for the previous generation so expecting the same deal back is greedy and entitled' is, maddening, and as Scottiebear says, that mentality penalises those who have worked within their circumstances and made some sort of provision on top of the SP. Or it would if the proponents got their way.

I agree, I stayed at home for ten years to care for my children. After that, I went back to work teaching full time. I paid tax, NIC, and superannuation from then until I retired. I also worked full time until two months before my first baby was born, again paying everything I was due to pay. I have paid for both my state pension, although it was delayed by three years before I received it, and for my not particularly generous professional pension. I still pay tax. I’ve paid everything I was due to pay, including three years of state pension that was suddenly removed from me. I don’t think I need to pay any more NIC ever.
Incidentally I paid the full NIC stamp, many women were able to pay a ‘married woman’s stamp’ which was a pittance. The women I know who chose to pay this reduced stamp were teachers and head teachers, not part time cleaners or dinner ladies. In other words they were paid a proper salary but took advantage of this which was really designed for low paid, part time working women. When these women’s husbands sadly died, these women went on to claim a full state pension, often for many years, even though they never paid for it, but could have chosen to do so. Thankfully that anomaly has been removed but there are still women I know who claim a teacher’s pension and also claim a full state pension based on the contributions their deceased husbands made, despite their having been in a position to pay a full stamp during their working lives.

*fund not find !!

National Insurance (as I understand it) is designed to find pensions, though not ring fenced, not the NHS - as a WASPI no I do not think we should carry on paying NI once state pension is finally paid ! Like millions of other women I planned to retire at 60, as it is I’ve recently retired at almost 64 due to ill health (not “ill” enough sadly to get my full pensions early!) I do think both pensions and our amazing NHS need overhauling but definitely NOT at the expense of pensioners - my husband and I are now retired, neither of us inherited big houses nor vote Tory! Like most pensioners we are pretty average and I agree with earlier posters, very high income earners should bear the bulk of any further taxes and both they and all companies/corporations should pay their correct taxes and keys just dispense with Non-doms !!

I am in my late fifties and slowly but surely every benefit available to older people is being eroded as my age group is set to reach the ever expanding retirement age. We are the biggest generation in history and in the year l was born, 1964, there were more babies born than in any year since the second world war. Successive governments have conveniently ignored this and diverted money elsewhere, forgetting that the vast numbers of babies born in the post war decades have long since come of age and are a financial ticking time bomb. Their solution has always been to make us pay more and for longer. As it is, l will have to pay NI until l am 67, which is when I will receive my state pension. I do not want to continue to contribute it after that.

I think that would penalise people like myself and DH who worked hard till we retired, but have made sure we had some work pensions on top of our state pensions.

Callistemon21

^I see no reason why people can just say 'I'm not going to bother paying tax, but I still want to use the NHS, educate my kids, use the roads, be protected by the police, and all the other things that tax is paid for^

"I'm not going to bother paying tax" - I'm sure there are people who manage to avoid paying tax but they are not the parents who put their careers on hold for a few years to care for their own children. These SAH parents are not deliberately hiding income from HMRC - they sacrifice one income because they believe that is best for their children if they can manage to do this.

Tax is payable on earnings above the Personal Allowance - no income means no tax is liable.

That sounded very like saying that people who didn't pay income tax don't deserve to have any of this.

Yes it does. Although one partner of a SAHP might be paying far more in income tax than two other working parents.

And those who earn under the PA threshold apparently should be very grateful indeed that their children are being educated and they can receive healthcare.

Is that how society should work? You can only take out what you put in?

I'm trying to work out the logic of this.
I may have got it wrong

I was a SAHP, cared for all our children myself. I also took care of everything not related to his work, without his help, that is my job. As well, I'm the management and organisation of our lives.

I don't remember there was childcare near, we had no car for me to transport them in for several years. I wasn't educated for any job that would have paid enough for us to pay for their care.

We felt SAHP suited our children and my husbands job while transitioning to his own work. We did what we needed to do for our family.

Taxes have been paid on income flowing into this house for 60+ years.

People do what works to their circumstance and expectations.

Callistemon21

^nobody pays extra for a partner^
Nor should they.

Most people pay PAYE

Not 'pay for a partner who has no paid employment on top of that'.

But 'nor should they' is a matter of opinion. Who should pay the contribution of a person who doesn't pay in their own right?

maddyone

And you are right in what you say Doodledog. Some people are so resentful of anyone who has more than the basic state pension that they want to tax them to punish them for their prudence. It’s sad.

It does feel that way maddie, yes.

Pensioners are always singled out as 'not needing' anything over a very basic income, in a way that is not applied to younger groups, who are 'doing very well' if they have a more luxurious lifestyle.

I've been thinking about this. To me, it is a given that SAHPs have been given massive tax breaks, but I wasn't suggesting that they are scroungers or are hiding money from the tax man - Maisie said that, not me .

However, to be fair, I feel triggered when people persist in saying that pensioners are entitled scroungers too, so I do understand the reaction. I feel it more so when the people saying it have had years of not paying in but then expect those who do work to keep on paying even after they have 'retired'. It's fair to say that someone working at 70 hasn't 'retired', but equally, how can you 'retire' from not having worked at all?

Thinking about it, there are similarities with my position on pensions, though, in that there is a social contract attached to both situations, and holding that against the beneficiaries seems like a slap in the face, so if those who were SAHPs feel hurt by my comments, I apologise.

I don't retract them, but they were not meant to be hurtful. I think the way in which age groups are set against one another is iniquitous, and that if we are going to shake up the system based on changes in demography and life expectancy it needs to be done at a root and branch level, not aimed at people who aren't usually in a position to earn more, and who have paid thousands over the decades, supposedly in return for some sort of security in old age.

That is what I was getting at - I wasn't making an unsolicited dig at SAHPs out of context. I hope that makes sense.

nobody pays extra for a partner
Nor should they.

Most people pay PAYE

Not 'pay for a partner who has no paid employment on top of that'.

biglouis

Not all of us "boomers" (god how I hate that term) are sitting on million pound houses that we inherited from mummy and daddy. Some of us came from shit poor backgrounds and have worked out way up by hard work, study and determination to have a better life than out parents.

same here, poor cobbled terraced street with dank fog and small yards. That was it. Me and my siblings pulled ourselves out of there by sheer hard work and all of us live in modest homes. Not one of us, including parents, ever had any state benefits. Pensions have been hard earned and so has any (of the small amount of) healthcare that any of my siblings need

We all paid far far more in than we have ever had out

And you are right in what you say Doodledog. Some people are so resentful of anyone who has more than the basic state pension that they want to tax them to punish them for their prudence. It’s sad.

Although one partner of a SAHP might be paying far more in income tax than two other working parents.

So what? That person will pay the tax that’s right for their salary- not for their partner’s too. If they are lucky enough to earn a high salary then of course they will pay more tax, but nobody pays extra for a partner.

I’m not saying there is anything wrong with not working either - it is a perfectly valid choice. All I’m saying is that there are tax breaks for doing so. In a conversation about tax.

I’m not in any way accusing anyone of hiding money or of not paying their dues, either. Nobody should earn below the threshold for tax - the minimum wage should take people well above that, IMO.

In a conversation about older people who have already paid tax for decades and are (by some) being asked to pay more in the form of NI, I am saying that this is unreasonable when others can not pay for years and get NI credited. That is all.

X post
It took me ages to type.

I hope I'm not insulting, just trying to work it out and failing.