Over 65 year olds to pay NI?

Sapphire

BobQ wrote: »

They are blocking opportunities for the young and so any incentive to retire should be encouraged.

That's not the case in many professions. When it comes to my own, it would take many years for someone to learn to do the job to a high standard. There is no way a college leaver could simply waltz into my job and be able to do it.

Rather than try to introduce measures that would impoverish many 'ordinary' working people who have worked very hard for 40–50 years, the government should look to changing the law when it comes to the various (immoral) ways extremely wealthy individuals and companies avoid paying tax. They are costing the country billions. But of course the government will not do this because it is not in its members' interest – and what's to bet many MPs and their families/cronies take advantage of tax loopholes. The level of corruption there is in 'high' places is sickening. I mean, how can you have people who are themselves hugely into tax avoidance (and have been in the past) sitting at the top of the HMRC?

I would have no objection to pensioners earning more than around £26,000 p.a. being means tested – and at the same time MPs' pensions should perhaps be adjusted to the 'new reality'?

I had high hopes for this government after it came in following the disastrous labour years, but am reaching the conclusion that it is weak and out of touch. There is little chance that it would be voted in again if measures such as those suggested by that woman were brought in.

nicko33

Sapphire wrote: »

That's not the case in many professions. When it comes to my own, it would take many years for someone to learn to do the job to a high standard. There is no way a college leaver could simply waltz into my job and be able to do it.

They don't have to go straight in at the top.

They go in at the bottom, you jump off the top, and everyone in between goes up a level.

Otherwise how would any company survive when people do retire?

Pennywise

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I think that everyone [STRIKE]who works and earns enough[/STRIKE] should pay NI, whatever their age.

I've corrected that for you (in my opinion!)

Why should only "workers" pay NI? Why should it be a tax on the people who are actually helping to grow the economy. NIC needs to be abolished and basic rate income tax increased instead, so that EVERYONE with a high enough income (regardless of where it's from) pays the same amount of tax on their total taxable incomes.

Sapphire

nicko33 wrote: »

They don't have to go straight in at the top.

They go in at the bottom, you jump off the top, and everyone in between goes up a level.

Otherwise how would any company survive when people do retire?

In smallish organizations you often need only people with considerable experience – you don't actually need juniors. Losing people with a great deal of experience in favour of today's college (or school) leavers could actually be detrimental to a company.

CLAPTON

funny how we are facing a demographic timebomb where there are not enough workers to support all those retired people

but we are trying to ban older people from working because there are not enough jobs

all makes a lot of sense.

StevieJ

Pennywise wrote: »

I've corrected that for you (in my opinion!)

Why should only "workers" pay NI? Why should it be a tax on the people who are actually helping to grow the economy. NIC needs to be abolished and basic rate income tax increased instead, so that EVERYONE with a high enough income (regardless of where it's from) pays the same amount of tax on their total taxable incomes.

Pensioners who have plan for retirement, take into account the higher allowance (gone), state pension, and no NI, if your plans were implemented they may as well not bother especially when you consider what is happening to the rest of their efforts.

Annuity rates which determine the retirement income of millions of pension savers keep falling.
The latest findings from the MGM Advantage Annuity Index, which tracks the income paid on enhanced and conventional annuities on a quarterly basis, reveals average conventional and enhanced rates fell by 2.13pc and 2.29pc respectively in just three months.
The 2.1pc drop in overall average annuity rates between March and June 2012 also means that rates have fallen by 14pc since June 2009, when the Index was started.

http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/misery-pensioners-annuity-rates-fall-145409128.html

Kennyboy66

StevieJ wrote: »

Pensioners who have plan for retirement, take into account the higher allowance (gone), state pension, and no NI, if your plans were implemented they may as well not bother especially when you consider what is happening to the rest of their efforts.

Pennywise is dead right - and like most things IBT (I Blame Thatcher ) who started the move to increasing employment taxes (NI) while reducing income tax.

As most pensioners are relatively poor and don't pay tax, the obvious beneficiaries are those who get most of their income from dividends, rent, interest etc.

Its utter insanity.

Graham_Devon

Having viewed the comments, can anyone against this sort of proposal give reasons (apart from it's not fair, paid in etc) as to why a certain section of society should be relieved of paying NI?

What's the just reasoning for this?

Put 3 people side by side. All work in a shop. All work on the shop floor filling shelves.

Person 1, aged 25 no children, pays NI
Person 2, aged 34, 2 reliant children, pays NI
Person 3, aged 66, no children, doesn't pay NI purely based on their age

What's just, or fair about that scenario?

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Having viewed the comments, can anyone against this sort of proposal give reasons (apart from it's not fair, paid in etc) as to why a certain section of society should be relieved of paying NI?

What's the just reasoning for this?

Put 3 people side by side. All work in a shop. All work on the shop floor filling shelves.

Person 1, aged 25 no children, pays NI
Person 2, aged 34, 2 reliant children, pays NI
Person 3, aged 66, no children, doesn't pay NI purely based on their age

What's just, or fair about that scenario?

If they are working and earning enough to pay NI I have no problem with that providing it is solely on their earnings. I have no problem paying tax at the given rates.

If they have a pension provision and unearned income, from investments then this shouldn't be subject to NI or additional tax unless they breach the higher tax threshold.

If we intend to blanket tax everyone then we may as well take away tax relief on pension contributions too unless some relief is built in for unearned income. Otherwise the only incentive to save would be through pension schemes and that cannot be right. Savings are already taxed twice, from source income and unearned income.

Quite frankly I don't see it as healthy to have all of your savings and pension all in one basket. The events unfolding over the last 4 years demonstrate that the providers of these instruments cannot be trusted or that they will actually be available when you need them at the rates you expect. this will only get more uncertain as we (well the most of us) transfer wholly to DC plans.

grizzly1911

Kennyboy66 wrote: »

Pennywise is dead right - and like most things IBT (I Blame Thatcher ) who started the move to increasing employment taxes (NI) while reducing income tax.

As most pensioners are relatively poor and don't pay tax, the obvious beneficiaries are those who get most of their income from dividends, rent, interest etc.

Its utter insanity.

I usually blame Thatcher;) but you could argue she was trying to switch the balance in favour NI funding toi acknowledge the increasing cost of pensions and health care with an aging population.

At the same time as that switch VAT increased to 15% from single figures.

Richer pensioners pay proportionally more VAT than poorer pensioners (they can buy more luxuries) so continue to pay more through consumption.

So not only will richer pensioners pay income tax on savings they also pay more consumption tax. They will also be more likely to have a car and pay the duties associated with it and probably take more holidays, enjoy a drink etc.

If we take more tax off them to replace NI they will inevitably consume less luxuries reducing consumption taxes.