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

biglouis

No I dont agree. NI is supposed to pay for your state pension so once you are old enough to draw it (I was fortunate enough to draw mine at 60) you have paid your share into the communal kitty and be able to relax. Some pensioners are fortunate and fit enough to be able to work after state retirement age and should not be robbed bline to pay for those who have yet to make a full contribution.

NI is not only for your state pension. How long have you believed that? All working-age "benefits of insurance", including an end-of-working-age pension (the largest benefit by far), are, and always have been, paid from it. It is funded by both those in work and their employer.

It now also pays for 20% of NHS funding. The rest of the funding for the NHS comes from general taxation. I would rather we had a separate fund for our Health Insurance or make it an obvious part of the National Insurance scheme. I believe it would be better to reduce general taxation and increase NI/a Health Insurance so we can see what we are paying. It would not cost any more to do this; people's tax take would go down while NI/Health Insurance would go up to take the same amount overall. It would just be clear what we are paying for what.

In which part of the world do older people not have to pay for health insurance? In which part of the world do they not have to pay more instead of less? Why do you think we should get it for free? And no - we haven't paid enough in our working lives to cover our insurance costs; those of working-age will pay for it for us. I think asking them to do that for those over 80 is quite enough.

I believe that when companies install an automated machine to replace people because (no sickness/holiday/breaks) it is cheaper, they should be made to pay NI for the people they would have employed each year, eg supermarket’s cashier place would be a two person job (8am-10pm). It should be in all offices and factories.
It would help to plug a hole in the NI debt.

The issue I have with this is that it changes the goalposts when older people have already made, and are living within their income. Most people live on their nest egg, and don’t continue to invest money once they have retired, being property rich does not mean that most can afford to live extravagant lifestyles or to pay an additional tax which they had not budgeted for.

I suppose it could be called the sour grapes tax, how dare some people be fortunate enough to have saved enough to live comfortable retirements, let’s make them pay for it - levelling down.

I started work at 15 inbetween going to college for 2 years on a secretarial course. Inbetween having 3 children I have worked. Infact all my life I have worked and paid taxes and it is hard now surviving on a pension as well as my husband’s pension. We are not wealthy people and never will be but our bills are paid and we have paid taxes all our lives.

Wyllow3

And yes, I think people who are well and above pensionable age who work should still pay NI, up to a higher cut off point. It goes against the grain in one way, but money has to be raised. At any age, health is utterly variable and the fortunate are still paying into a pot they will benefit from.

NI is just another form of tax. It's about half of income tax for most people. Therefore, people who don't pay NI are paying a third less. How is that fair? NI is capped too, which means that high earners don't pay more than low and middle earners, even if they do pay more income tax.

It doesn't mean that just because something else is unfair that changes can't be made independently.

Witzend

I’d like to see non-dom status abolished first. It’s an anachronism, dating back (I believe) to when rich people owned sugar plantations in the Caribbean. And I dare say there are many who still exploit it.

Either you’re normally resident or you’re not, and if you are, you pay U.K. taxes.

One thing doesn't preclude the other.

I'd like to see higher rate tax relief for pension contributions abolished. How can it be fair that people on higher incomes receive a higher subsidy on contributions to their pensions?

biglouis

*After starting work at age 15, and contributing for many years, and never being well off in my entire life, I would resent any suggestion of continuing to pay NI or any kind of tax whatsoever. I've earned my pension*

I agree with Henetha My aim now is to keep as much of my money out of the grubby hands of the tax man as I possibly can.

And you'd be prepared not to have any public services?

The whole system is flawed and needs a rethink.

I agree.

I carried on working( and deferred my state pension) for a year after reaching pension age. I was really surprised that NI deductions were no longer taken. In my circumstances it seemed reasonable to expect to be paying NI.
I would not suggest it for someone who takes on some part time work later on in retirement but probably they would be below the threshold anyway.
The whole system is flawed and needs a rethink.

After starting work at age 15, and contributing for many years, and never being well off in my entire life, I would resent any suggestion of continuing to pay NI or any kind of tax whatsoever. I've earned my pension

I agree with Henetha My aim now is to keep as much of my money out of the grubby hands of the tax man as I possibly can.

I’d like to see non-dom status abolished first. It’s an anachronism, dating back (I believe) to when rich people owned sugar plantations in the Caribbean. And I dare say there are many who still exploit it.

Either you’re normally resident or you’re not, and if you are, you pay U.K. taxes.

And yes, I think people who are well and above pensionable age who work should still pay NI, up to a higher cut off point. It goes against the grain in one way, but money has to be raised. At any age, health is utterly variable and the fortunate are still paying into a pot they will benefit from.

I'm not against a properly graduated "just for care" tax as being separate and protected...... in theory..we'd be able to see how much actually got spent on NHS and Care

but....wouldnt it in practice just create yet more complex bureaucracy? I'm quite willing to be proved wrong!

Callistemon21

^It is only a tax, after all. It has nothing to do with paying our actual pensions or benefits^

Yes, the tax rate in this country is much higher than many people realise.
It's all smoke and mirrors.

What is the upper limit?

Those just under the upper limit must be paying more in tax and NI than those above it.

Or have I got that wrong?

No, you haven't got it wrong. There are all sorts of anomalies like that.

henetha

After starting work at age 15, and contributing for many years, and never being well off in my entire life, I would resent any suggestion of continuing to pay NI or any kind of tax whatsoever. I've earned my pension.

But you haven't, I'm afraid. You paid for the generation before you, just as the current generation of workers is paying for you. You never did build up an individual pension pot.

It is only a tax, after all. It has nothing to do with paying our actual pensions or benefits

Yes, the tax rate in this country is much higher than many people realise.
It's all smoke and mirrors.

What is the upper limit?

Those just under the upper limit must be paying more in tax and NI than those above it.

Or have I got that wrong?

allule

Pension age should take into account life expectancy. People whose lives are likely to be shorter because of arduous work or poor environment should get more, sooner.

How would you calculate that?

I agree with you Maizie that it's nothing to do with paying pensions, benefits or social care/healthcare. People don't build up an individual pension pot.

It would be fairer to amalgamate direct taxes and NI, but I don't think that will happen because people only ever read about the "headline" taxes and governments manipulate that.

I think pensioners and people such as SAHMs should be paying towards their healthcare. Maybe it's time to have a separate pension insurance because there's very little fairness about the current system. That's what happens in Germany. People pay into separate state-backed insurance schemes for unemployment, pensions and healthcare. There's a safety net for those who fall through the holes.

Pension age should take into account life expectancy. People whose lives are likely to be shorter because of arduous work or poor environment should get more, sooner.

After starting work at age 15, and contributing for many years, and never being well off in my entire life, I would resent any suggestion of continuing to pay NI or any kind of tax whatsoever. I've earned my pension.

I carried on working until I was 3 years above the then pension age. I thought it was absurd that I stopped paying NI once I'd hit 60' I would have been happy to continue to pay it.

So, I think it reasonable that pensioners pay it if they are still employed. Otherwise, no.

It is only a tax, after all. It has nothing to do with paying our actual pensions or benefits.

Wyllow3

Where would you set the base line income to start paying, DaisyAnne?

As it is a graduated tax why not just raise income tax? although in theory NI pays for the NHS, in reality its just put in the same pot.

NI is composed of two elements, the employers contribution, and the workers contribution. So it wouldn't be a 'proper' NI as there is no employers contribution for pensioners.

It's the fact that it's not paid by everyone which isn't fair. At one time it was only a few pence in the pound. Now, some people pay as much in NI as they do in income tax.

Blossoming

No, it isn’t. It’s time we made sure rich companies paid their fair share of corporation tax and closed some loopholes.

You do seem to have a bee in your bonnet about making pensioners pay. We’re not all rolling in it.

"Rich companies" do not pay into the National Insurance. I can't follow your thinking.

I know a proportion of pensioners are not "rolling in it" but why should they not pay the same, from the equal income as those who are of working age? They are not "rolling in it" either.

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.

No, but many are.