The potential of no longer paying National Insurance.

My mother paid the reduced stamp. As I mentioned above, she was one of the women who was never asked if that was what she wanted to do, she was simply automatically put on the married woman’s stamp, without the consequences ever being explained to her. She was paid a reduced pension when she retired, it was about £60 I think, because there was no longer a Married Couple’s Pension. Dad therefore claimed his full pension plus some extra for some reason. When Dad died, Mum claimed his pension through his stamps paid, not her own.
We lived in a very misogynistic society back in the 60/70s.

Thankfully the married woman’s stamp was phased out in the seventies, but we are still paying full pensions to many women who paid the reduced stamp, but whose husbands have died. These women can then claim the full state pension, often plus SERPS, by claiming on the stamps their husbands paid.

As can any widow including those who paid the full stamp.

maddyone

I know a huge number of women who paid the married woman’s stamp, including my own mother. Many women were put on it automatically when they went back to work, without the wider implications being explained to them, which left them at a disadvantage later on if they became divorced. Thankfully the married woman’s stamp was phased out in the seventies, but we are still paying full pensions to many women who paid the reduced stamp, but whose husbands have died. These women can then claim the full state pension, often plus SERPS, by claiming on the stamps their husbands paid.

Yes, when I returned to work I told my new employer I didn't want to pay the Married Women's Stamp (there had been more publicity about it by then, and employers were probably not allowed to lie about it either!).

Germanshepherdsmum

NI is supposed to pay for the NHS but of course it doesn’t. How much have women who paid the married women’s stamp contributed towards the care they receive?

When I worked in the public sector I knew only one woman who didn’t pay the full contribution - and how she boasted about that when we were paid each month. She divorced, and became ill and unable to work so I suspect she regrets her decision.

Why do you keep persisting in this myth?

The Married Women's Stamp dud not mean no NI stamp was paid at all.
It meant they did not pay the amount which supposedly went towards a state pension, being told that would be paid by their husband.

It saved the employer money too. In my case that was the NHS.

I know a huge number of women who paid the married woman’s stamp, including my own mother. Many women were put on it automatically when they went back to work, without the wider implications being explained to them, which left them at a disadvantage later on if they became divorced. Thankfully the married woman’s stamp was phased out in the seventies, but we are still paying full pensions to many women who paid the reduced stamp, but whose husbands have died. These women can then claim the full state pension, often plus SERPS, by claiming on the stamps their husbands paid.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s not just about a pension, Callistemon - healthcare, benefits …

The Married Women's Stamp:
Did not mean no stamp was paid at all, just the part which paid for a future pension.

I can't remember exactly the percentage of salary the small stamp was, but NI contributions were certainly paid.

NI is supposed to pay for the NHS but of course it doesn’t. How much have women who paid the married women’s stamp contributed towards the care they receive?

When I worked in the public sector I knew only one woman who didn’t pay the full contribution - and how she boasted about that when we were paid each month. She divorced, and became ill and unable to work so I suspect she regrets her decision.

However, healthcare cost about a sixth of national GDP and I really don't see why those who can afford it (whether that money is coming from earned or unearned income) should pay so much less towards it, based on age.
At what level of income or wealth would you decide that someone ‘can afford’ to pay? Yet again, a means-tested approach would drag down those who have always had low to middle incomes, and reduce their chances of being comfortable in older age.

If someone is not working then presumably their income or wealth is from money they have saved when they did work. Why should that be used against them in retirement?

Would this be a household expense or would those who didn’t contribute in their ‘working’ lives be exempt again? If it is to be included in general taxation would this represent a cut in the State Pension in real terms, and is that ok?

I’m not saying that I don’t agree with pensioners paying NI however it is badged - I pay it myself- but it should be the same rule for everyone.

Germanshepherdsmum

It’s not just about a pension, Callistemon - healthcare, benefits …

Healthcare?

However, healthcare cost about a sixth of national GDP and I really don't see why those who can afford it (whether that money is coming from earned or unearned income) should pay so much less towards it, based on age.

Health care isn't just funded from National Insurance, in fact, only a very small proportion indeed comes from NI contributions.
It is funded from general taxation which a good proportion of people of pension age pay either Income tax, purchases. Also funded in small part by payments for prescriptions, dental charges, etc.

It’s not just about a pension, Callistemon - healthcare, benefits …

TinSoldier

Quoting Martin Lewis: ^National Insurance is a Ponzi scheme. ^

It is, isn't it!

Germanshepherdsmum

Even those who paid the married women’s stamp’? Was that ‘paying a fair share’?

But they don't get a pension!

Just as WASPI women were lied to, so were those who paid the Married Women's Stamp. I think public service employees were made to sign for thst because it saved their employer money.

Quoting Martin Lewis: National Insurance is a Ponzi scheme.

Whatever the reason, that's the law and people can't just ignore a law because they don't agree with it.
Who is suggesting that anyone should break the law?? I most certainly am not - I am simply questioning the logic of the law as it stands. Rather as you seem to be when you say the pensioners shouldn’t be ’let off’ paying NI. Are you going to write to your MP or campaign about that, or are you also just joining in a conversation with your thoughts on a situation?

Why are you so determined to be confrontational?

LizzieDrip

“Surely they pay tax at the same rate?
It's just that they don't pay NI.”

Pensioners have paid tax AND NI throughout our working lives - for many that is over 40 years! Surely we can be ‘let off’ paying NI in our aging years. We have contributed our fair share!

No, I don't think they should be let off. Until relatively recently, NI was only a few percentage of gross income (and less for those who had opted out). Until the recent reduction, NI had increased to 13% of gross income once the threshold (quite low) had been reached. That's a significant deduction for those of working age. As the money ends up in the same place as income tax, it means people of working age are being taxed considerably more than those who no longer work.

The idea that NI is an insurance is meaningless these days. It no longer funds pensions, unemployment, ill health, all of which rely on billions of pounds from general taxation (or money creation - in case Maizie is reading).

No, people who no longer work haven't necessarily paid a fair share. The truth is that they're being subsidised by working age people. Obviously older people don't need to insure against unemployment (because they're not expected to work) and they's already receiving the pensions they contributed towards. However, healthcare cost about a sixth of national GDP and I really don't see why those who can afford it (whether that money is coming from earned or unearned income) should pay so much less towards it, based on age.

Even those who paid the married women’s stamp’? Was that ‘paying a fair share’?

“Surely they pay tax at the same rate?
It's just that they don't pay NI.”

Pensioners have paid tax AND NI throughout our working lives - for many that is over 40 years! Surely we can be ‘let off’ paying NI in our aging years. We have contributed our fair share!

There’s no point at all in contacting our MP (apart from the fact that she doesn’t bother to answer letters) because I know the law and we as a family are not seeking any NHS treatment here for our grandchild. All visitors to the UK are eligible to have any emergency treatment that is needed on the NHS should such a situation arise when they are visiting us. I was comparing what we are doing as a family for a family member who hasn’t lived here for two and a half years, with pensioners who go to live abroad permanently but come back to get treatment and drugs on the NHS by registering their address as being at a relative’s house, and presumably not ever de registering with their GP.
I can see that they may have paid into the system whilst they were working, but when someone goes to live abroad, they need to consider all the costs and disadvantages as well as the advantages, and health care is something that should be very carefully considered and looked into before making that decision.
Actually I think this discussion has helped me make up my mind. I think now that the rule should apply to one and all and should be enforced. If that takes looking at where people are spending most of their money to confirm where they are living, so be it. No one is above the law, including pensioners who have paid taxes here but but choose to live abroad.

Doodledog

growstuff

Doodledog

I agree that pretending is dishonest, but I don't think that moving away is immoral. Coming back to use the NHS they have helped pay for is fair enough too, I think. They won't have contributed to the system in their new country, so why should they be able to use that?

Some people living in certain countries aren't eligible for state pension increases.

I know.

And I know it doesn't matter what I think (thanks for pointing that out). I was responding to maddie's saying that she wasn't sure what she felt about it by giving my opinion. You know, conversation. Discussion. I'm not remotely bothered whether people choose to live abroad or not, so if it's ok I won't be campaigning. Jeez.

Not sure of your point. Of course moving abroad isn't immoral Why would it be?

maddyone

The rules are, if you live out of the country for two years, you are no longer eligible to receive NHS care. People who move abroad, including pensioners, know this. That is why some use a relative’s address. In any case, they no longer live here, so have no address here.

My grandson, who has lived in New Zealand for less than three years, and is a British citizen with no other citizenship, desperately needs his tonsils out and grommits in both ears because his hearing is quite seriously affected. He is not eligible to have this treatment on the NHS in the UK, even though he has only been out of the country for two and a half years and the intention is to return. The waiting lists in New Zealand are long, much like here. He would have to wait for two years and all the time his learning is being affected. With this in mind, my husband and I have offered to pay for his surgery to be done privately. It will be done in the Easter school holidays. We are in the lucky position of being able to afford to do this.

People are supposed to de-register with their GP, if they're going to spend more than three months abroad.

Doodledog

I wonder what the logic is of that? I suppose there is no minimum number of contributions to qualify for NHS care, so no maximum to keep you in the system. It does seem tough that someone who has paid in from 15 to 65 then retires loses the right to use it, but maybe it's seen as swings and roundabouts.

I hope your grandson's op goes well, maddie. Is he having it done here or in NZ?

Contact your MP and ask that question.

Whatever the reason, that's the law and people can't just ignore a law because they don't agree with it.

I've been thinking about why HMRC might want access to pensioners' bank accounts and I can think of quite a few.

As an example, most people seem to think that people (whether they're pensioners or not) shouldn't be able to hide or squirrel away assets in non-UK accounts. I've lost count of the calls to target non-doms and some others.

I don't know whether people know how expensive it is to investigate people like Michelle Mone. In her case, there are two issues: squirreling money away and allegations of fraud. There is no way in the world that HMRC or the National Crime Agency would use its resources to micro-manage the accounts of the vast majority of pensioners. However, technology can flag up concerns automatically and save HMRC billions of pounds on dead end investigations.

Thank you Doodle.
In NZ, no point in adding fares to the cost as well. They’re coming home at Christmas for a holiday providing our daughter’s ex agrees.
And we’ve just spent six weeks out there with them. We keep in close touch.

I wonder what the logic is of that? I suppose there is no minimum number of contributions to qualify for NHS care, so no maximum to keep you in the system. It does seem tough that someone who has paid in from 15 to 65 then retires loses the right to use it, but maybe it's seen as swings and roundabouts.

I hope your grandson's op goes well, maddie. Is he having it done here or in NZ?

The rules are, if you live out of the country for two years, you are no longer eligible to receive NHS care. People who move abroad, including pensioners, know this. That is why some use a relative’s address. In any case, they no longer live here, so have no address here.

My grandson, who has lived in New Zealand for less than three years, and is a British citizen with no other citizenship, desperately needs his tonsils out and grommits in both ears because his hearing is quite seriously affected. He is not eligible to have this treatment on the NHS in the UK, even though he has only been out of the country for two and a half years and the intention is to return. The waiting lists in New Zealand are long, much like here. He would have to wait for two years and all the time his learning is being affected. With this in mind, my husband and I have offered to pay for his surgery to be done privately. It will be done in the Easter school holidays. We are in the lucky position of being able to afford to do this.