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

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 have never said, or thought, that people don't deserve anything. I answered a direct question, knowing full well that if I said what I thought I would get an insulting reply. Those who can't work because of illness or whatever, should, IMO, be supported for as long as they need it, and as I've said, I think that taxation should increase so that social funding is better from cradle to grave, although if it doesn't fund spending, maybe we should all stop paying any?

No, not paying work expenses isn't a tax break, but when you take off the expenses of working, and add in childcare, the two-worker household is often no better off than the single-earner one, but taxation comes off before any of that is considered.

Yes, everyone pays tax of one sort or another, but the thread is about paying NI into retirement, not VAT.

I am still considering doing a course in economics after Christmas, at which point I might agree that taxation doesn't fund spending (although I reserve the right to disagree), but that's not really material to this discussion anyway - if you work you pay income tax, wherever it goes, and if you don't, you don't. That doesn't mean that if you don't you are cheating or worthless, or that I think any of the things you ascribed to me - but if we are discussing changing the system so that pensioners who have paid in for decades should be asked to pay more for longer, I see no reason why SAHPs should get a free ride. I'm sorry if that upsets you, but I am as entitled to my point of view as you are to yours.

Doodledog

That is all in your head, not mine. Please don't tell me what I think.

I don't think that anyone is cheating, although I do think the current system gives huge tax breaks to SAHPs. I don't think that I am a first class citizen or that anyone is a worthless parasite. You asked what the tax breaks were and I told you what I think. Either we can say what we think in these discussions or we can't, in which case only one viewpoint is heard.

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'

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

And not having to pay for work clothes, daily commute etc. is not a tax break.

Income tax is not the only tax, you know. Just about everyone pays taxes of one sort of another.

But taxation doesn't fund spending. If people were to take that fact on board we wouldn't have such fractious exchanges.

That is all in your head, not mine. Please don't tell me what I think.

I don't think that anyone is cheating, although I do think the current system gives huge tax breaks to SAHPs. I don't think that I am a first class citizen or that anyone is a worthless parasite. You asked what the tax breaks were and I told you what I think. Either we can say what we think in these discussions or we can't, in which case only one viewpoint is heard.

You didn't get paid for looking after your own children - neither did I.

@ Doodledog

Extraordinary that if you pay someone to look after your children it's absolutely fine, but if you look after them yourself you're somehow cheating everyone else...

I really get the impression that you think that paying income tax makes you a first class citizen and it makes those not paying it a worthless parasite.

I'll leave you to it.

Dinahmo

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.

My OP was about funding the NHS. I want to ensure it survives as a service for all.

I don't think it does miss the "bigger picture". It is simply a different part of the moves towards inequallity. I think both topics come at the issue of those with the broadest shoulder's current bearing too little of the burden. But there are many.

Why not start a thread about the lack of taxation on "unearned" income?

growstuff

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

I agree. But to be fair it needs to take account of the fact that most older people have paid in for decades already, and that they can't easily replace their income when they leave full time work.

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.

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

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%.

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

Doodledog

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

Quite right - just like everyone else.

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.

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

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.
.

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.

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.

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.

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%.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.