government looking after those without?...

grey_gym_sock

margaretclare wrote: »

It has been shown that many older people do not like the idea of means-testing and, from that, many do not apply when they would probably qualify.

yes. so i think it's a good idea to have more income as a right, and less via means-testing.

FatherAbraham

rpc wrote: »

Well that depends on whether you consider NI to be a tax.

Well, one really shouldn't, because it's very little like a tax at all.

It's more like a income-related workers' insurance scheme (which is of course exactly what it was set up as, and there's a big clue in its name).

In particular (for employees), it builds entitlement to low-value unemployment insurance (contribution-based job-seekers' allowance), as well as to the basic state pension, and (until any potential reform) to the additional state pension.

People over retirement age don't get to build additional entitlement to those things, so it makes no sense for them to pay into the insurance scheme.

Warmest regards,
FA

FatherAbraham

martinsurrey wrote: »

wrong

...

http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/ni/intro/basics.htm

older people pay no national insurance.

these 2 differences mean

in 2012/13 a 75 year old with £20k of income had £18,132 after tax

a 21 year old on £20k had £16,131 after tax

Meaning the 75 year old paid £1,868 of tax while the 21 year old paid £3,869, or 107% more tax.

National insurance is not tax, it's compulsory insurance; claiming that it is tax has severely biased your figures.

Warmest regards,
FA

grey_gym_sock

well ... NI is unlike an insurance scheme, in that:

1) the "premiums" are not matched with the "claims". an insurance scheme would set aside this year's premiums to cover the corresponding claims (which go a long way into the future). instead, NI supposedly matches this year's premiums with this year's claims. but they don't even have to match - when they don't, it's just a theoretical debt owed by 1 part of public finances to another.

2) there is no contractual right to claim anything in return for paying NI. it is all a matter of laws which can be, and sometimes are, changed.

NI is a bit like an insurance scheme, but it's really a tax.

bigadaj

Also the manipulation by all parties over the recent past of claiming not to increase tax but increasing NI shows how it is being manipulated as a tax, which you can then claim isnt a tax.

Going back to the OP s point, the interesting issue here is interest rates. You apparently can't cut pensioner benefits, but the elderly are the main group to have suffered from the near zero rates currently set. This is of course the price being paid for avoiding mass repossessions which is a balancing argument, but in the wider scheme of things the difference to business in a base rate of 0.5% rather than 2% is minimal. This obviously ignores the wider impacts, and the desperation of the UK as well as us and euro zone to devalue currency as much as they can, but for many pensioners this will be costing them thousands a year.

mania112

It's highly unlikely, but not impossible.

But either way, it's not something that should cause you to consider not paying in contributions to your pension.

JoeCrystal

james3333 wrote: »

hi all,
just wondering opinion here. im 35, been paying into a pension since i was 20. whats the likleyhood that when i get to retirement age the government will take on the stance of : you have loads of money in a pension so you wont recieve anything from us
and the people who have never bothered to pay into one will get a nice handout

thoughts?

*shrugs* I actually believe that the state pension will always exist. However the amount that people get will be highly reduced in order to save money.

Surely you would rather be a person with considerable pension income from other sources without state than a person solely reliant on the state? I know what I rather choose!

Cheers,
Joe

atush

I think the SP will always be linked to increased LE (so could get pushed out, but not indefinitely die to the poor diet of many) and could be limited.

But, the govt doesn't want a load of old poor peeps to support, so I am not seeing a lot of support for further attacking of private pensions.

Sure the limits have been reduced (but if you were going to have 1.2 Million in a pension you would not be asking) and yearly limits have been reduced (can you afford to contribute more than 40K per year?).

These limits were to reduce pensions for the well paid/wealthy, not for you I think?