The potential of no longer paying National Insurance.

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.

But we are not being threatened with means testing !

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.

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'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.

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.

M0nica

NICS is already just an extra tax.

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

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.

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.

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

Indeed. ^^

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

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?

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 agree with you MOnica. The whole thing needs long-term planning. It's far too important to leave to the whims of the government of the day. It needs some kind of cross-party consensus/agreement and a long lead-in time.

And one which hits employers too.

NICS is already just an extra tax.

The intention to phase out NICs in years to come was announced - it is not going to happen in the near future so it can’t be classed as ‘unfounded’. Obviously the loss of revenue from NICs would have to be covered by an increase in other taxes.

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, the money paid in NI doesn't go into a separate pot. It is just put in the general government bank account together with every other source of tax.

State pensions are paid from revenue, not from money set aside for that purpose, so whether people pay separately into a NI fund is entirely irrelevant.

What bothers me is the way government play fast and loose with NI. I think it should be a hypothocated tax and, over the years it should be built up so that, may be in 50 or 60 years, there is a capital invested fund that produces enough income to pay state pension, that uses revenue taxes as a fall back in bad investment return years, but little less.

Birthrates are declining. The number of people in the workforce - unless we allow massive immigration - will fall as well, while the number of older people grows and this imbalance in the age distribution may mean that pensions will have to shrink in value because younger people will be unwilling to cope with ever rising taxation to pay pensions.

Do we wish to impose an impoverished old age on our children and grandchildren, where they will look back and think we lived in clover?

RVK1CR

Lovetopaint037

I don’t trust them. Yes we know it all goes into a pot which has been pilfered over the years but the huge loss of revenue must affect the NHS and Pensions.

Agree with you ^^. I have always thought that NI contributions should be divided into Pension, NHS and unemployment/sick pay and these three should be ring fenced. Householders have to budget in this way so why can't the government?

If pensions, NHS and unemployment/sickness/disability benefits were only financed by NI payments, we'd have to get used to paying much more in NI.

In 2022/23, the government received approx £176bn from NICs.

The NHS cost approx £169bn and the state pension (without pension credit or extras like the winter fuel payment) cost approx £124bn.

£169bn + £124bn = £293bn, so it's obvious that National Insurance doesn't pay for the NHS and state pensions, quite apart from the other benefits people think are funded by NICs.

Amalegra

Tax burden is at its highest in decades! The scrapping of NI, while I think it’s a good idea, is just a way for the government to distract us from that and many other issues which are equally pressing. That being said, I don’t actually trust ANY political party to work for the good of the majority anymore. All have axes to grind over their own obsessions and try to manipulate the voters with pretty promises like the latest thoughts on NI. What we REALLY need is a determined and visionary leader to pull us back from the brink. There’s not a single one on the horizon and the latest attempted enticements from the government are simply not going to improve life for the foreseeable future.

We need the NI to pay for the nhs, pensions and sick/unemployment payments. It should be ring fenced and not used like a "rainy day fund". What about all the contributions people have paid for 45 years? I don't think I trust ANY MP's now..

Lovetopaint037

I don’t trust them. Yes we know it all goes into a pot which has been pilfered over the years but the huge loss of revenue must affect the NHS and Pensions.

Agree with you ^^. I have always thought that NI contributions should be divided into Pension, NHS and unemployment/sick pay and these three should be ring fenced. Householders have to budget in this way so why can't the government?

I opted to pay an into my pension fully and not the reduced married women’s stamp. Then as I worked in the nhs we were opted out,but I paid extra value contributions hoping it would help when the time came,but we found out a few years earlier that I’d not paid enough into the state pension even though I’d paid avc’ so paid an extra £68 per month for my last two years.still not enough for a full state pension!
I took it early at 56 which was allowed and encouraged.
What poor pensions they are.Just above the pension credit,and we thought we were doing right.Its a minefield

BlueBelle

Mae exactly back door established to make us pay for private health care and dentistry
It’s what the Tories have worked for during their long reign

Sadly I thought you’re right BlueBelle.

When my friend requested a pension forecast, she was informed she was so many contributions short. She paid the shortfall (with difficulty) and thought all was well. Shortly afterwards she was diagnosed with cancer and was extremely ill, necessitating being signed off work for a year. She tried to claim sickness benefit(not sure of the proper name) and was told she was ineligible as she was so many contributions short. When she tried to tell them that she had already paid the shortfall in her NI contributions, she was told she had only repaid the pension portion, not the NHS portion. We all thought it was one pot. Who knew?