The one "tax" rise we must have.

I agree. We are living much longer past our retirement age and there are not enough working people paying NI to support everyone. Older people are more likely to need healthcare and should have to pay for it if they are taxpayers.

Yes. I too agree

Completely happy to continue paying.

But with some thought given to the level at which people start paying or as part of a rethink of benefits as a whole.

It would be bad if this was another whammy to those with a small extra pension when they’re so much worse off than those who have none.

Thank you both for replying. It's not something most of us want but I believe it's something we need.

The current system of paying NIC as a percentage of earnings and the fact that many people work more years and therefore pay more than the 35 years necessary for full new State Pension, have already contributed more than their fair share into the National Insurance Fund.

At 31 March 2024, the latter had a credit balance of over £86 billion, a good £60 billion more than needs to be held as a working balance.

Reeves’ increase in employers NIC will raise £25 billion in the forecast period which can only go to the NHS as NI can only fund the NHS and contributory benefits.

I can see the argument for getting rid of employees NIC altogether and integrating it into income tax - it is just another tax on earnings - but how that could be made fair to those who have already contributed 50 years into the pot (as I did) would provide a challenge. Perhaps a reinstatement of the tax age allowance that George Osborne abolished.

Good point PoliticsNerd. Wealthy retirees do exist and could contribute.

"but how that could be made fair to those who have already contributed 50 years into the pot (as I did) would provide a challenge."

I don't think it's a problem. If, for instance, a benefit changes it's changed for new claimants, not existing ones. Or, in this case, it could start at a lower percentage for existing claiment with full tax for later entrants.

Good social care would offer good jobs, growth in the use of technology and, ultimately be part of improving the NHS.

If, for instance, a benefit changes it's changed for new claimants, not existing ones.

I don't understand. Can you give an example of that.

If someone receives say full new State Pension (paid from the National Insurance Fund which is funded from NIC) they will be receiving £221.20 at the moment. Someone reaching State Pension age tomorrow will also receive £221.20. They will both be paid £230.25 from April 2025. Someone reaching State Pension Age in May 2025 will receive £230.25.

Silverbrooks, you did misunderstand me. I'm sorry I didn't make it clearer. I'll try again.

In the instance you describe, both cases are the new State Pension, so no change has happened. However, when they brought in the new State Pension those receiving the basic State Pension - which became a legacy (closed) benefit - continued on that.

This is pretty irrelevant to the question. Shouldn't those not paying some level of NI be paying (or credited) it?

We all use the NHS at some time in our lives. I can see no reason why we, all, shouldn't contribute towards paying for it all our lives.