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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

X post
It took me ages to type.

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

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.

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.

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

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'.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 !!

*fund not find !!

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.