Over 65 year olds to pay NI?

Graham_Devon

Been described as an attack on the pensioner....

Older workers who choose to stay in their jobs beyond 65 should pay national insurance to support young workers, a group of Tory MPs has said.

Up to £2 billion a year could be raised by imposing National Insurance on the income of Babyboomers who are still in work.

The money would be used to give young, low paid workers a National Insurance ‘holiday’ to allow them to get ahead.

The recommendation is on the back of studies showing that this generation of young workers is likely to end up worse off than their parents.

At the moment, older workers are not required to pay National Insurance - although their bosses have to pay 13.8 per cent - because the money is perceived as being for pensions and benefits.

The tax break means that the over-65s get a significant pay rise just for choosing to work longer.

I actually think this is a good idea. Not so sure about the holiday aspect for the young though, I'm not quite sure what that achieves. Should be just extra taxation in my view.

Comments in highest rated order appear to suggest "why should I pay, I've paid in".

Worst rated is a comment that states ALL workers should pay NI, regardless of their age.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article-2170731/Staff-work-65-pay-National-Insurance-help-younger-workers.html

purch

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Been described as an attack on the pensioner....

I think there is more than just one :eek:

abaxas

Ditch NI and call it all income tax.

ukcarper

Is that 2 billion correct seems a lot to me.

chewmylegoff

employees national insurance is just income tax anyway, so i agree, if you're over 65 and in a job you should pay the same tax as someone who is under 65 and in the same job.

i should think all resistance to this proposal will be based on the argument that NI is really a form of insurance which you pay for X years in order to receive Y benefits. "i have paid for my state pension, why should i pay any more" etc.

this completely ignores the fact that NI is not a form of insurance, it is an income tax, and the receipts of NI (including employers NI) do not amount to anywhere near the cost of the services that they supposedly cover.

the easiest way to implement this would just be to scrap NI and make the basic rate of income tax about 30%. could leave the rate on interest income at 20%.

mystic_trev

Edit - What he said ^^^^^^^^


I've nothing against it, no reason why Pensioners should pay less tax.It'll probably happen anyway, as a simplification of the Tax system,which is all NI is.

nollag2006

mystic_trev wrote: »

Edit - What he said ^^^^^^^^


I've nothing against it, no reason why Pensioners should pay less tax.It'll probably happen anyway, as a simplification of the Tax system,which is all NI is.

While I agree it should happen, the political will isnt there to do it. I can hear the wails of "Granny Tax" right now.

There is a lot of simplification that needs to be done. I would welcome scrapping tax reliefs for the elderly, and all the freebies around TV licences and phones - as long as it resulted in a higher basic standard pension for all.

bugslet

I employed my other half for 12 years, that last 5 of which he had reached retirement age.

As he was earning, and a good wage to boot, I could not understand why he should be exempt from NI ( nor for that matter why he should get winter fuel allowance either).

I'd certainly be in favour of changing the tax system and making it purely an income tax.

johnmorgan89

The reality is this will never happen.

- Old people vote
- Young people don't

It's that simple, older people are also far more likely to read the daily mail et all and will be easily swayed to vote one way or the other next election. If the papers decide to make NI for pensioners an election issue you can forget it.

Until young people decide to vote in numbers nothing will happen to help them, especially with a tory government in power. The problem is of course how you get youngsters interested in something that seems to boring and so corrupt.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Been described as an attack on the pensioner....

Fairly typical right of centre media reaction. Think back to the point above, how do you get old people out to vote? Create a scary environment where they feel they are under attack. They might want to try being black for a day or perhaps gay? That's the problem though, people like to believe they are the victim and it's someone else's fault. That's where things like "the silent majority" come from.

Graham_Devon

How much of this "pensioner vote" is just scare mongering?

Would pensioners really switch their vote just because they have to pay the same as any other worker? These provides some questions....who would they vote for? No one would U-Turn on it once it's been done. Which party would canvas voters on the basis that they will provide preferential treatment to a select few individuals? Could this party ever gain power with such intentions?

It sounds much like the bankers threatening to leave. As far as I'm aware, no bank has left.

CLAPTON

as baby boomers are in the age range 46 to 66 I would be absolutely amazed if making the over state aged boomers subject to NI would raise 2 billion

reducing the NI on the young would be yet another complication of the tax system
and anyway although they might introduce NI for the old working they certainly wont reduce it for the young

an other 'mad' idea but one intended to set the way for NI to be introduced on all people.