The potential of no longer paying National Insurance.

Whitewavemark2

Another ridiculous announcement that thankfully won’t happen.

It would mean a cut in government revenue of £46bn - all unfunded.

That is on a par with Truss’s insanity and look where that took us!

No, it wouldn't be "unfunded". It needs a big rethink.

growstuff

Whitewavemark2

Another ridiculous announcement that thankfully won’t happen.

It would mean a cut in government revenue of £46bn - all unfunded.

That is on a par with Truss’s insanity and look where that took us!

No, it wouldn't be "unfunded". It needs a big rethink.

I really hope the rethink into funding takes account of the generations (ie most of us on here) who have based their plans on the unwritten contract under which we lived and worked for most of our lives, and are now unable to change horses midstream.

I've just heard a rant from Narinder Kaur, who believes that paying non-means-tested pensions is taking money from hungry children. She insists (loudly and without drawing breath) that it is morally wrong to 'pay taxpayers' money' to people with no mortgages who have enough to eat, and that many pensioners see pensions as 'pocket money', forgetting the fact that most older people are or have been taxpayers since before she was born.

She would also like to see house value taken into account when assessing the 'means' of older people, so that we are encouraged to move somewhere cheaper and free up our palaces for young people with families. Why does she think that young people want mortgages, if not to have security in older age? Using the fact that we are rent-free against us, after decades of paying off a mortgage is idiotic, IMO. The fact that we haven't worked for the profit made by our homes is neither here nor there, really. We live in them, so it's our children who are likely to benefit from that profit - the very people she claims to want to support. Fair enough - tax profit when people sell, but it's very unfair to tax a hypothetical profit on the roof over someone's head!

Also, many of us paid into work pensions so that we could be 'comfortable' in older age. What would the incentive be to do that if any extra income is also used against us? Would the next generations decide not to bother paying in, as means-testing would be yet another tax, on top of income tax and NI?

She also said that the poorest pensioners should get more than those who have provided for themselves. Why should someone who hasn't worked get more than someone who has paid tax all their lives? How is that fair?

I am beginning to understand why people used to say it made sense to put their money in a box under the bed. As soon as 'ordinary people' make provision for themselves there is someone waiting to take it from them. Is it any wonder that so many people don't trust politicians?

I had to Google the name. An actress. I wouldn’t be worried about whatever she said.

Doodledog Is it any wonder that so many people don't trust politicians?

Indeed. ^^

Germanshepherdsmum

I had to Google the name. An actress. I wouldn’t be worried about whatever she said.

I've never seen her acting. She was in a very early Big Brother (I know your views on that, but it's not really relevant) and she is now a political pundit who is trotted out on news-based talk shows and the like. I guess she's about 40, but I'm hopeless at getting ages right. Anyway, I suspect she'd prefer to be referred to as a journalist, but won't have any qualifications to back that up.

She's a loudmouth who shouts down anyone who doesn't agree, but the point is that there are definitely those who share her views. I've seen them voiced on here and elsewhere, and it worries me that if enough people go along with the idea then politicians might actually do it. I've never understood the idea that older people shouldn't ever have more than a basic standard of living after a lifetime of work, and that it's somehow immoral for those who could to have saved. To me, it is more important to improve conditions for everyone, so that nobody who works a full week is unable to live and put a bit aside for the future. What does seem immoral to me is to pull the rug from under people who are too old to turn things round. It happened with the extension to the SPA, which showed that the government isn't troubled by impoverishing older women, and having got away with that they may well do it again.

nanna8

Don’t do what we do here- a mixture of private and public health. It’s not the best , it either costs a fair bit but is quick( you have to pay the ‘gap’ between what the insurance companies refund and the balance) or you have to wait forever for treatment. Worst of both worlds really. The Docs are very skilled but there is a shortage. We poach from all over, including the UK, because the pay is pretty good.

Even with private healthcare in Australia, I understand that waiting lists in some instances are long. DGS has to wait until June to see a private specialist but the NHS waiting list for a similar specialist here is shorter.

M0nica

NICS is already just an extra tax.

Yes, it is but one which those of pension age do not pay.

JenJenT

Has nobody considered the fact that, if NI, that no one over retirement age pays, goes and those levies are subsumed into general taxation, increasing all our taxes to cover it, then most pensioners will magically have to pay the equivalent of NI for the rest of our lives - crafty!

Oh, missed your post, JenJen but yes!

Of course, motor vehicle tax doesn't go towards the roads either, it goes into general taxation as we can see by all the potholes that wreck our vehicles.

I've seen an argument about pensioners having to pay "more taxes" to explain why successive governments have backed away from changing the system. It would be reasonable for pensioners to pay a reduced rate because they're no longer contributing to a pension. It would be a vote loser amongst pensioners for whichever party introduced it. However, I don't accept the argument that pensioners shouldn't contribute towards healthcare.

It wasn't so bad when it was only a few percent of gross salary, but when it jumped to 13%, it was a major chunk taken out of pay.

I agree, growstuff. Many people live for upwards of 50 years after retiring, and few are without health issues. The NICs they paid whilst working pale into insignificance - especially if they paid the ‘married women’s stamp’.

I have no objection to contributing via taxes, but as I keep saying, I don't think that it should be only those with an income who are taxed. (I'm not talking about purchase taxes spend out of money that has already been taxed via the earner's tax bill.)

It seems to me deeply unfair that people can choose not to work so don't pay tax, are subsidised by those who do, and then to add insult to injury, those who have paid in are threatened with means-testing in order to further subsidise non-contributors who don't have enough pension or savings.

None of that is directed at people who are unable to work, or unable to afford (as opposed to simply opting out of) private or occupational pensions. To me, it should go without saying that they should be subsidised in a fair society. Also, I don't particularly care whether people work or not if they can afford to both keep themselves and contribute financially to the society they live in, but education, health, pensions and housing, along with things like defence, roads and law and order should be paid for collectively, not just by those who also make things, provide services etc through going to work.

If a household wants to structure itself around having only one taxpayer, that's up to them, but the bill should cover the earner's tax (based on his or her earnings) as well as a rate for non-working adults based on average earnings.

That is a very blunt instrument, and ways would have to be found to make sure it was fair and enforceable, but if everyone paid in, there would be more money to spend, so there could be holidays for parents of very young children, cheaper rates for all parents, or for people returning to study - there are all sorts of possibilities - but the principle should be that we all pay in so we can all take out, and any extra provision we make as individuals should be protected from means tests - as that is already done at source.

But we are not being threatened with means testing !

Maybe not, but I feel threatened by the way it keeps being introduced to discussions on pensions, by the fact that people in receipt of SP will soon have their privacy invaded when their bank accounts can be scrutinised, and by the fact that there is clearly something afoot as regards NI.

It’s posters here that keep on introducing it, absolutely without foundation. I don’t buy this fear of pensioners’ bank accounts being scrutinised, unless they are claiming pension credit and the more that can be done to detect false claims, the better. As regards NI, yes there is something afoot - an aim to get rid of what is now a pointless second tax on employees and also an unfair tax on employers. I really, truly, don’t feel threatened by any of this. It feels very much like adding 2+2 and making 5+.

Doodledog

Maybe not, but I feel threatened by the way it keeps being introduced to discussions on pensions, by the fact that people in receipt of SP will soon have their privacy invaded when their bank accounts can be scrutinised, and by the fact that there is clearly something afoot as regards NI.

Doodledog I'm not eligible for Pension Credit, so I don't know what checks are already carried out. However, I do receive Housing Benefit and have a fair idea what checks are done.

I have to submit two months' bank statements every six months. Not only that, but the council "communicates" with HMRC and the DWP. I know that because the council already knows the figures I'll be entering for taxable pensions in January 2025 (even before I'd checked them myself). The council has also populated my form with the amount I'll be receiving in state pension next month - I haven't even been notified officially by DWP.

My guess is that similar checks are already being done for people receiving Pension Credit. I can't honestly see that the DWP would have the time or resources to access the bank accounts of anybody who isn't receiving some kind of means-tested benefit.

Exactly - even with AI, they don’t have the resources to check accounts of anyone who isn’t receiving means-tested benefits.

Germanshepherdsmum

I agree, growstuff. Many people live for upwards of 50 years after retiring, and few are without health issues. The NICs they paid whilst working pale into insignificance - especially if they paid the ‘married women’s stamp’.

Fifty years? Most people retire at 65/66, but some are able to retire at 60. Even assuming a person retired at 60, they would then have to live to 110 if they were to live a further fifty years.
Perhaps you meant thirty years. That would be more realistic.

I don’t accept the argument that pensioners shouldn’t contribute towards health care

They do. They pay tax.

Germanshepherdsmum

But we are not being threatened with means testing !

Yet!

I’m thinking our children will be.

A lot of centenarians have retired before the age of 60. Many at 55, or they may have opted to retire even earlier. Police officers, teachers years ago - you have to think back to the 70s. Reaching 100 used to be newsworthy - not so nowadays. A former policeman who retired at 55 and who is now 100 would have retired 45 years ago. He may be over 100 - not uncommon. He would receive a nice pension in addition to his SP.

Many other countries means test benefits, you have to prove your assets before you get the state pension or ANY other benefits, they might even restrict the tax relief on pensions. I’m sure this will be phased in in stages but there is a massive amount of untaxed wealth, restricting state pensions is one way to access it, more of us will have pay the living costs of later life.

I can't honestly see that the DWP would have the time or resources to access the bank accounts of anybody who isn't receiving some kind of means-tested benefit.

So why is the right to scrutinise accounts of pensioners and others in their households being brought in? The new powers will also extend to the scrutiny of bank accounts of child benefit claimants.

I wrote to my MP (Labour) to ask if the LP would oppose this legislation and he replied to say that yes, both he and the LP were against it, and he agreed with me that there was no obvious reason why the accounts of State Pensioners not in receipt of means tested benefits should be scrutinised. I don't think that those in receipt of such benefits should be scrutinised either, unless there is reason to suspect fraud, in which case existing legislation would cover it.

growstuff

I've seen an argument about pensioners having to pay "more taxes" to explain why successive governments have backed away from changing the system. It would be reasonable for pensioners to pay a reduced rate because they're no longer contributing to a pension. It would be a vote loser amongst pensioners for whichever party introduced it. However, I don't accept the argument that pensioners shouldn't contribute towards healthcare.

It wasn't so bad when it was only a few percent of gross salary, but when it jumped to 13%, it was a major chunk taken out of pay.

I did suggest ages ago that perhaps those of pension age should pay a reduced rate of NUPI but only one other poster agreed with me (and I don't think she's on here any more).

Of course, many pensioners do not receive the high rates of pension if they retired the old State Pension and those who paid the Married Women's Stamp do not get a pension in their own tight.

Many people live for upwards of 50 years after retiring, and few are without health issues. The NICs they paid whilst working pale into insignificance - especially if they paid the ‘married women’s stamp’.
The PM was on the West Country News this evening and if I heard him say that the State Pension had gone up by £900 once, he must have said it 5 times. No, it hasn't, for many if not most pensioners.

As for health issues, younger people needn't worry about pensioners being a drain on society, 'voluntary' euthanasia is in the planning.

NUPI NI

Germanshepherdsmum

A lot of centenarians have retired before the age of 60. Many at 55, or they may have opted to retire even earlier. Police officers, teachers years ago - you have to think back to the 70s. Reaching 100 used to be newsworthy - not so nowadays. A former policeman who retired at 55 and who is now 100 would have retired 45 years ago. He may be over 100 - not uncommon. He would receive a nice pension in addition to his SP.

Nobody gets their State Pension before 66 today and Occupational Pensions have been significantly reduced in most professions but were paid for in one way or another either through poorer working conditions or by giving up a percentage of salary. Only 0.2% of people live until they are 100 and the average age of death in the UK is under 82 years. The life expectancy in the UK is also falling. Looking at the facts seems to demonstrate that 50 years of claiming pensions are quite limited!