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

He will continue to receive rent after he's reached SPA. He dodges CTG by moving into the properties before they're sold and could afford to pay NICs.

Perhaps NI and income tax should be integrated and calculated, if possible, in a way which is fair to young and old, and which ensures that the very wealthy pay their fair share.

growstuff

GrannyGravy13

growstuff

If you have additional income which means you are still accruing funds after retirement I think you should pay tax on the element.

So do I ... and National Insurance.

Pensioners do pay tax on all income over the personal allowance.

I've never claimed they don't, but they don't pay NICs, which for working age people in paid employment can be half the amount they pay in tax - for some it's more.

My ex DH, who hasn't reached SPA yet, hasn't paid NICs for 20 years. I suspect he's managed to squirm his way out of paying that much tax too. He certainly squirmed out of paying me maintenance. He currently has a property portfolio which is (I guess) worth about £4 million and he doesn't have any mortgages.

Your X cannot speak for himself on GN

Please do not tarnish others by his deeds.

Employers also pay NIC for each of their employees who are paying NIC.

After a life time of tax at varying rates, having to wait an extra 6+ years for my State Pension along with still paying tax on salary when I am receipt of SP I am more than happy to continue to pay tax, but NI not so sure.

After a life time of tax at varying rates, having to wait an extra 6+ years for my State Pension along with still paying tax on salary when I am receipt of SP I am more than happy to continue to pay tax, but NI not so sure.

My feelings exactly, GrannyGravy. And if I may say so, growstuff, try looking beyond your own circumstances at the wider picture.

I think that everyone should pay tax, including SAHPs

That's made my eyebrows shoot up past my hairline, Doodledog

What the blazes are SAHPs meant to pay tax out of?

The money that their partners are earning, I suppose. The tax breaks given to single-earner couples are enormous, and that often gets forgotten when working parents are being told that they 'farm out their children to others'.

Doodledog

The money that their partners are earning, I suppose. The tax breaks given to single-earner couples are enormous, and that often gets forgotten when working parents are being told that they 'farm out their children to others'.

Do explain further.

What tax breaks do single earner couples get? I didn't get paid for looking after my own children and my partner was taxed just the same as anybody else.

I'm beginning to think you're talking a bout a poll tax. Being taxed for just existing...

MaizieD

Doodledog

The money that their partners are earning, I suppose. The tax breaks given to single-earner couples are enormous, and that often gets forgotten when working parents are being told that they 'farm out their children to others'.

Do explain further.

What tax breaks do single earner couples get? I didn't get paid for looking after my own children and my partner was taxed just the same as anybody else.

I'm beginning to think you're talking a bout a poll tax. Being taxed for just existing...

I didn't get any tax breaks as a single parent either. Which ones are these Doodledog? I obviously missed something and I'm usually pretty sharp about claiming anything, if I'm entitled to it.

Even before my DH separated, both of us were taxed as individuals.

MaizieD

^I think that everyone should pay tax, including SAHPs^

That's made my eyebrows shoot up past my hairline, Doodledog

What the blazes are SAHPs meant to pay tax out of?

How do you imagine SAHPs in other countries pay? Presumably it's a cost which has to be factored into living as a couple on one salary.

growstuff

Dinahmo

Times are changing. There are now work place pensions into which schemes employees must be automatically enroled. Obviously there are certain parameters concerning age and salary (and a few more). There are also certain options if you change jobs.

I think that they are a good idea because it gets young people into the idea of regular savings, even if their contributions are small. The employer must also contribute.

But this is about state contributions and benefits, not private pension schemes.

I realise that but my point was that times are changing and in the future more people will be able to build up their own pension pot than did in the past.

As I explained earlier many people of my generation contributed little or nothing into private pensions, just like me and my DH (who was self employed throughout his working life)

This does not mean that the State Pension should be reduced in any way, nor should people who cannot afford to contribute to a company/workplace pension plan by stigmatised.

People lose their jobs, become seriously ill or die young and as a society we should always support those people.

You didn't get paid for looking after your own children - neither did I. But both my husband and I paid tax and NI as well as looking after them when they weren't at school, as most parents do.

I don't want to make this personal, but 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' (and yes, I know you will question that), and then say 'Oh, you have more money than I do because you and your husband both work. You should pay more because you work, and because I don't I should be able to get credits or other means tested benefits'.

I'm not saying that tax shouldn't increase the more you earn - in fact I think it should be higher than it is now, so that it can pay for more universal benefits and services. But I also think that all adults who are able to work should do so, and the working partner's taxes cover them, based on their income. They don't cover the other one.

Also (you did ask ) the working couple are paying two lots of commute charges, for two lots of work clothes, lunches etc, and in many cases very high costs for childcare, which are not paid out by the single-earner couples. They are the tax breaks I mean. Oh, and NI contributions are paid for the non-working partner too.

maddyone

growstuff

Casdon It's not about levelling down, but why should people who don't do paid work, but have income from other sources, only pay (nearly) half the percent that working people do?

Because they’ve paid in all their lives and now it’s time to take their pension out of the system. Those who have made the sacrifice of paying in extra for a professional or private pension already pay tax on that. I don’t see any reason to tax them further. It would simply be a tax grab and we are already a highly taxed population.

they did receive tax relief on their contributions.

People lose their jobs, become seriously ill or die young and as a society we should always support those people.

I agree with this 100%.

growstuff

maddyone

People already have to work till 68 and pay NI now till they’re 68. I think they’ve paid enough during their lifetime.

No, they don't. The current age for receiving SP is 66 and will increase to 67 for those born in 1961.

Sorry, but on average they haven't paid enough. The current generation of workers is subsidising them.

Each generation subsidises the previous one. Comments about the current generation subsidising the previous one are very divisive.

Dinahmo

maddyone

growstuff

Casdon It's not about levelling down, but why should people who don't do paid work, but have income from other sources, only pay (nearly) half the percent that working people do?

Because they’ve paid in all their lives and now it’s time to take their pension out of the system. Those who have made the sacrifice of paying in extra for a professional or private pension already pay tax on that. I don’t see any reason to tax them further. It would simply be a tax grab and we are already a highly taxed population.

they did receive tax relief on their contributions.

Well yes, they did, but that’s still the case for current employees as well, I can’t see that would change because it would reduce the incentive to save for retirement.

Each generation subsidises the previous one. Comments about the current generation subsidising the previous one are very divisive.

I agree with this, too. We all pay what is asked of us, and if the money is mismanaged that is the fault of the government, not the contributors. Blaming older people for the mess successive governments have made of the money we have paid in over the years and saying that we are greedy for wanting social care, pensions, (even TV licences!) is a total distortion of the facts, but it appears to have worked, as many people are happy to 'ok boomer' us at every opportunity.

While we are arguing over whether Chloe and Dylan are profligate to buy coffee for the commute, or whether Edna and Cyril deserve a decent pension we are ignoring the fact that they have repeatedly made a total mess of our money.

kittylester

People who continue to work past state retirement age on a self employed basis pay an NI contribution.

No we don't - we stop paying Class 2 when we reach pensionable age and stop paying Class 4 at the end of the year in which we reach pensionable age.

I complete more than 100 tax returns per year and may of my clients are pensioners. They continue to work because they enjoy what they do and they are specialists in various
fields,

From HMRC website

You stop paying Class 1 and Class 2 contributions when you reach State Pension age - even if you’re still working.

You’ll continue paying Class 4 contributions until the end of the tax year in which you reach State Pension age.

For example, you reach State Pension age on 6 September 2022. You’ll stop making Class 4 contributions on 5 April 2023 and pay your final Class 4 bill by 31 January 2024, together with your Income Tax.
.

For the record, I am below SPA, and still pay both tax and NI, FWIW.

We are all arguing about whether people who work beyond the state pension age should pay NIC but are missing the much bigger picture.

I have a client whose net profits from property rents are in excess of £50k. He does not pay NIC on those profits. He is above pensionable age but didn't pay NIC on his rental profits when he was below the retirement age.

Nor do company directors who take most of their income in the form of dividends rather than a salary. They do not pay NIC. The latest budget is reducing the dividend allowance, which is a good thing.

I forget who introduced the idea of directors taking dividends rather than salaries - it was some years ago and I took advantage of it myself. Salaries just a little over the primary threshold were paid so that the directors maintained their rights to social security and state pensions etc. These people will be receiving the state pension without having contributed very much towards it, unlike many of the low paid, but tax paying individuals.

The other thing that should be dealt with is the taxation of non doms. They apparently pay £75k per annum for the privilege of living in the UK. Absolute rubbish. That's peanuts for millionaires and billionaires.

Doodledog

For the record, I am below SPA, and still pay both tax and NI, FWIW.

Quite right - just like everyone else.

Yes, I didn't suggest otherwise, did I?

I have a client whose net profits from property rents are in excess of £50k. He does not pay NIC on those profits. He is above pensionable age but didn't pay NIC on his rental profits when he was below the retirement age.

Are you my former DH's accountant?

My guess is that his net annual profits are in six figures. If I allowed myself to get angry about it, I'd be furious that he's paid less NICs than I have. He'll still be eligible for a state pension because he has about 25 years of contributions before he gave up paid work and, of course, gets free healthcare. He'll continue to receive rental income after reaching SPA.

I agree 100%.

Doodledog I'm not blaming the contributors, but it's up to the government to come up with a fairer scheme.

Most of my clients are artists/artisans and most of them make very little money which is why I do what I do. A few of them make reasonable profits, but most don't. Like Lowry, who didn't sell much until he was quite old and Van Gogh of course, who sold one painting to his brother I think, most of them only start to make money as they get older. Even sadder are those who died before they became well known.