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

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.

Ah, another sweet worded "I must express my opinion" post.

You are "ridiculous" or, at the very least ... well, I'm sure you can imagine what I think of your post.

What you "contributed" insured you for working life events as well as a pension but was not designed to pay for what the OP explained was my point, i.e., the NHS.

Somebody tell me where these rude people come from?

Everyone is just expressing an opinion though.

It is true that someone who pays for 47 years sees no more return than someone who pays in for 35. And often no more than those who have paid nothing, if they qualify for pension credit.

Whether that is fair, the measure of a decent society or an outrageous situation comes down to opinion, and on a thread like this one opinion is as relevant as another.

You have explained your point, and GG has explained why she feels as she does - she hasn't just come on and said 'You are wrong'.

This is what happens when a nearly limitless amount of poor people come into a country and get to draw benefits of a large variety and who do not or can not contribute in a substantial amount to pay their own way. It falls on the rest of the citizens to carry their weight, as well as that of themselves and families.

It is simply not true that Everyone is just expressing an opinion though Doodledog. Had I wanted to be on a thread that did that I would have put this in chat. There you can get threads where no one reads anyone else's post, and people just post unsupported opinion after unsupported opinion.

This had, up to yesterday, been a News and Politics thread where people offered supporting information and read one another's views. If all people want is "chat" then start a Chat thread. Most of those who want a discussion try not to go there so they will not get any complaints.

DaisyAnne

It is simply not true that Everyone is just expressing an opinion though Doodledog. Had I wanted to be on a thread that did that I would have put this in chat. There you can get threads where no one reads anyone else's post, and people just post unsupported opinion after unsupported opinion.

This had, up to yesterday, been a News and Politics thread where people offered supporting information and read one another's views. If all people want is "chat" then start a Chat thread. Most of those who want a discussion try not to go there so they will not get any complaints.

If anyone is in paid work, earning above the personal allowance then both NI and PAYE should be deducted or the self employed equivalent of self employed regardless of age.

On retirement if your pension is above the personal allowance it is and should be taxed, I would not be in favour of deducting NI as well.

It is true that someone who pays for 47 years sees no more return than someone who pays in for 35. And often no more than those who have paid nothing, if they qualify for pension credit.

You are ignoring the fact that this is an "insurance" as well as pension which insures and ensures you have enough to live on in old age but also ensures protection during your working life. It is not simply a pension pot. Just as with household insurance, car insurance, etc., some people will never need to claim against the insurance part of it - lucky them. However, we know that big pot insurance with as many as possible taking part is the way to deal with the most difficult "life events".

You, and others, just viewing it as a pension pot means your supporting information is simply incorrect.

Sometimes people are wrong. Often when they don't review the facts. Grumpy (and determined to be so, it seems) grumps could have said I was wrong and explain what actual facts I had wrong. That would have been acceptable. She said Go take a hike…… what you are suggesting is ridiculous. Why so rude? What outcome does she expect from that?

I think your own bias is showing when you support such an infantile comment.

I am 69 and still work part time in a care home, as my wages are included with my pension I get taxed over £100 a month but do not pay NI. My friend (and a very good friend and this I don’t hold against her at all but it does irk me) Who lived out of this country for 26 years gets an equal amount of pension as me and I had 45 years contributions, she actually gets quite a low pension but it is made up with pension credits.. and I really don’t think this is fair but I understand she has to have enough money to live on..

Well, you might think that everyone is considered and willing to read one another’s views on N&P, but I don’t see it that way, I’m afraid. You are willing to say that people are ‘infantile’, ‘just wrong’, biased’ etc because they don’t agree with your view. That’s not very balanced, by anyone’s standards.

I was told that I must think that SAHPs are scrounges, tax dodgers, undeserving and that I see myself as a first class citizen because I posted my view, (which had, incidentally, already been expressed by another poster who wasn’t subjected to any of that). A balanced view, or shutting down a contrary one?

On another thread (not your fault, I know) I was told last night not to bother replying because the poster wouldn’t engage with me and/or one other poster - thus, effectively locking us out of the thread and refusing either of us a right of reply.

People regularly say that they don’t read the thread - it’s one of my pet hates on here, and is not tolerated on other discussion boards I use, but it is a cultural thing, I suppose. It happens a lot on here, in every forum.

It seems to me that some opinions are allowed, if they chime with those of posters who don’t like different ones, but anyone saying something different is often rudely shut down. I don’t lose sleep about any of it, but I am starting to realise why people so often say that they don’t dare to venture into N&P. I always thought that was a strange attitude, but I can see why those less used to the sort of thing I’ve mentioned might be put off, and it’s a shame, as it stifles debate.

People are not all as articulate as others - some express opinions easily and eloquently and others not so much. Some can back up arguments with a few clicks, and others have never been shown how. I am not referencing anyone in particular here, on this or other threads- it is a general observation. That doesn’t mean that only the former should be heard though, particularly on a thread when there are those saying that they left school at 14.

Believe it or not, I do know how the tax and NI systems work. I also understand the ‘No personal pot’ aspect of the State Pension system. My views about contributing take that into account, and I have explained that I understand why people might be triggered by them, as I am by comments about greedy entitled pensioners. We all have buttons that can be pressed, and mine is that I have a fear of being unable to support myself. I have tried to do so throughout my life, but as I approach pension age the goalposts keep shifting (apparently as there are now more people claiming for longer) and I am very aware that there are those who resent anyone with more than a basic income.

Meanwhile there are those who have never made financial contributions saying that they didn’t ‘farm out’ their children, and that they are also entitled to express that opinion. My view (and that is all it is) is that if only those who did pay in were able to get out, we would have more of the security be thought we were working towards. Biased? Maybe. But it doesn’t mean that I ‘look down’ on anyone, or see myself as ‘better’, and it’s no more biased than ‘I wouldn’t have had children if I hadn’t had someone else to support them’. I know I am mixing threads, but these things are intertwined. Viewpoints don’t sit neatly in separate boxes.

Doodledog an excellent post, one that I can empathise and agree with 👏👏👏

GrannyGravy13

DaisyAnne

It is simply not true that Everyone is just expressing an opinion though Doodledog. Had I wanted to be on a thread that did that I would have put this in chat. There you can get threads where no one reads anyone else's post, and people just post unsupported opinion after unsupported opinion.

This had, up to yesterday, been a News and Politics thread where people offered supporting information and read one another's views. If all people want is "chat" then start a Chat thread. Most of those who want a discussion try not to go there so they will not get any complaints.

If anyone is in paid work, earning above the personal allowance then both NI and PAYE should be deducted or the self employed equivalent of self employed regardless of age.

On retirement if your pension is above the personal allowance it is and should be taxed, I would not be in favour of deducting NI as well.

Neither am I after the conversations at the beginning of the thread *GrannyGravy and I have said this at least three times. I repeat, NI is a working life insurance and an end-of-working life benefits provision of a liveable amount as a pension.

NI was not set up to be a vehicle for funding the NHS. The NHS has, until recently, been funded out of general taxation. It is obvious that, with an ageing population, we are not providing enough to cover to pay for health and care. My suggestion was that we have a new Insurance, call it NHI for now.

In my suggestion, NI would come down and the 20% of NI that now goes to the NHS would move to the NHI fund. That would be a lifetime contribution (tax) on income (as opposed to the working-life NI). It would reduce a person earning £30,000 a year's NI by (very iffy figures but difficult to calculate without being in the Treasury) say, £533 pa. They would then pay £533 into the NHI fund. Those over SPA would then pay this amount too. Is this too much to ask of someone on £30,000 a year retirement income? Payments would be progressive through the incomes.

Some taxes would also be reduced with the mirror increase in payment to the NHI. This costs nothing more in tax than people are already paying. It creates a separate National Health Insurance for the NHS and Care. Governments do not like them as they cannot raid NHS funds if they are not obvious. Yes, those over the state pension age would pay a little more. My example suggests that would be about £533 per annum for those with a post State Pension Age income of £30,000. This idea may not be the answer. However, who else is suggesting a solution to the cost of the NHS and Care? It is far easier for us all to pay for 'Care' over our lifetimes than for some to have to pay huge sums at the end of life.

It feels as if people do not realise that they are already paying through their general taxation. This way, we could hold governments to account. We would also have to be given detailed information when they say the NHS and Care need more and what they will do with the 'more'.

No. We’ve paid it all our working lives. Anyone with a small addition to state pension will pay tax. Therefore even rises in state pension are taxed. Many people do not get the ’new’ pension rate, which means that they get £141.85 as opposed to £185.15!

Grannygrumpy's comment to which you took exception did not refer to the NHS. She was talking about her pension and how it compared to that of others with fewer years of paying in. There is no suggestion there that she sees it as a vehicle for funding the NHS.

Thank you, GrannyGravy for understanding where I am coming from (and saying so).

Finally, not everyone goes to different forums to find threads. I use 'Active Topics' and rarely have a clue which forum I am in. I behave in the same way regardless. Some may not - but nobody's way of using the site is 'right' or 'wrong'. Or is it?

It doesn’t really matter how many suggestions you make and express DaisyAnne because those who are our elected representatives will make the decisions. We can make suggestions till the cows come home, but they boil down in the end to us expressing an opinion.
And no, I don’t think pensioners should make any further contributions than they already make.

Under the Blair government, I received a letter from the DWP stating that, as I was approaching my 60th birthday, NI contributions would no longer be docked from my salary. As I was in full-time employment at the time and earning a huge amount with few outgoings, I asked if I could continue paying as I could it afford it now and may well need to take from the NHS in the future. I received a response, terse verging on rude, informing me there was 'no provision'. While I appreciate the logistics may have difficulties, I suppose it's down to attitudes!

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.

You are wrong. Where is there any evidence that this is what people are saying.

Coco51

No. We’ve paid it all our working lives. Anyone with a small addition to state pension will pay tax. Therefore even rises in state pension are taxed. Many people do not get the ’new’ pension rate, which means that they get £141.85 as opposed to £185.15!

"No" what? I asked if we should pay more NI to pay for health and care.

I have said I do not think that is what we should do. I have offered an alternative. Where is yours?

Anyone can donate excess money to charity if they their attitude is that they have too much, though.

The difference between that and a compulsory 'donation' is that you can decide on a month to month basis if and when you feel that you do have too much, and alter the amount you can give accordingly.

maddyone

It doesn’t really matter how many suggestions you make and express DaisyAnne because those who are our elected representatives will make the decisions. We can make suggestions till the cows come home, but they boil down in the end to us expressing an opinion.
And no, I don’t think pensioners should make any further contributions than they already make.

So why do you come on GN maddyone? I come to discuss and learn. If you feel as you do what is the point?

I worked in the Civil Service for 2 years in the 70s in the DHSS as an NI Naional Insurance Inspector. Our NI contributions went on an NI card and the Contributions were allocated to several pots - Industrial Injury/Sick benefit/Unemployment benefit/Maternity benefit/Health service. So it appeared to us that our money was being used in correct areas. Now there seems to be no evidence about where our NI contributions are going. What services are actually being supported by our NI contributions and where is the evidence?

DausyAnne
You are ignoring the fact that this is an "insurance" as well as pension which insures and ensures you have enough to live on in old age
No it doesn’t necessarily do that.
I can only think you haven’t tried to do that yet or that you have other funds.

Mollygo

DausyAnne
You are ignoring the fact that this is an "insurance" as well as pension which insures and ensures you have enough to live on in old age
No it doesn’t necessarily do that.
I can only think you haven’t tried to do that yet or that you have other funds.

Why do people start being personal (and nasty with it)?

I am past SPA Mollygo. My income and how I receive it is no business of yours. Wherever I can I help those over SPA needing to claim benefits. I know where that knowledge is limited and in those cases I will help them find further, more in-depth help.

Sometimes people muddle up what is challenging their income. It can be something outside the State Pension or any pension benefits. That is what needs to be addressed. There are people who can help with that.

If you do have a problem, there are plenty of people who will help you. The obvious "age" charities are the best places to go in my experience.

Mollygo
DaisyAnne
You are ignoring the fact that this is an "insurance" as well as pension which insures and ensures you have enough to live on in old age
No it doesn’t necessarily do that.

I can only think you haven’t tried to do that yet or that you have other funds.

Why do people start being personal (and nasty with it)?
So your use of You is not personal but mine is? Oh dear, I’m sooo sorry.

I pointed out that what you said isn’t necessarily true-and it isn’t necessarily true.

Often people make statements like

You are ignoring the fact that this is an "insurance" as well as pension which insures and ensures you have enough to live on in old age.
because they haven’t experienced it.

And you assumed that was what had happened in my case.

I have now made assumptions of my own Mollygo. I find you rude and insulting. You may not be. Just as I may not fit your assumption.

I find you rude and insulting.

Et tu DaisyAnne

I have said I do not think that is what we should do. I have offered an alternative. Where is yours?

If I start a thread asking if people think car drivers should have to pay an extra fixed fee to cover air pollution and then say that I've changed my mind, and instead I suggest that it should be proportionate to the number of miles they drive, does that mean that anyone who disagrees with the idea of having a fee at all should have to suggest an alternative?

Is it not ok to say that no, they disagree with having any extra fee as they already pay road tax and tax on fuel (or whatever other reason they have for disagreeing)?

I can't just keep saying that 'I have explained why we need an extra fee, so that is a given', and demand alternatives to my original idea of a fixed one, surely?