Discuss !!!!

pollypenny

zygurat789 wrote: »

So if you have a high income then you don't notice the charge and your firm pays for you to go BUPA, and if you have a low income then it hits you really hard. Still better than having to pay a prescription charge on 3 items a week for weeks on end if you have a chronic condition.

Three points:

firstly, anyone whose firm pays for would still be contributing to the NHS.

Secondly, if you're on a low income you are already paying the full wack of NI.

Thirdly, prescription charges are a completely different issue, one we've discussed many times.

PennyForThem_2

I am still working as a 'pensioner' and am not contributing to NI and also deferring state pension which is more than benefical t me.

I cannot understand if working beyond pension age why NI stops.

moneyistooshorttomention

Errata wrote: »

How high is 'high enough'?

Precisely!

My fear would be that a low income level would be deemed "high enough" to pay out (all over again!) NI contributions for this.

That's the thing though....the tendency to promise that those on low income won't have to pay and then not uprate the set level properly in line with inflation and the next thing you know...bingo...= you are paying out.

I remember when student "loans" didn't have to be repaid until a reasonable income level was reached and it wasn't long at all before £15,000 was deemed to be "reasonable income level" and "loans" correspondingly became repayable.

zygurat789

pollypenny wrote: »

Three points:

firstly, anyone whose firm pays for would still be contributing to the NHS.

Secondly, if you're on a low income you are already paying the full wack of NI.

Thirdly, prescription charges are a completely different issue, one we've discussed many times.

Firstly this thread is about pensioners, most of whom are not employed
Secondly, what a load of old b

---

s, if you're on a low income you probably won't pay any NI
Thirdly I always thought that prescription charges were to do with the NHS, sorry if I got that wrong

zygurat789

moneyistooshorttomention wrote: »

Precisely!

My fear would be that a low income level would be deemed "high enough" to pay out (all over again!) NI contributions for this.

That's the thing though....the tendency to promise that those on low income won't have to pay and then not uprate the set level properly in line with inflation and the next thing you know...bingo...= you are paying out.

I remember when student "loans" didn't have to be repaid until a reasonable income level was reached and it wasn't long at all before £15,000 was deemed to be "reasonable income level" and "loans" correspondingly became repayable.

Students don't start repaying their loans until they earn £21,000, that's a 40% increase over £15,000.

pollypenny

zygurat789 wrote: »

Firstly this thread is about pensioners, most of whom are not employed
Secondly, what a load of old b

---

s, if you're on a low income you probably won't pay any NI
Thirdly I always thought that prescription charges were to do with the NHS, sorry if I got that wrong

You were the one who mentioned low income re NI contributions.


Anyone earning £154 a week will pay NI at the full rate.That's pretty low in my my book.

However, once you hit £805pw, you only pay 2% on that. It would be fairer to pay the full rate on all one's salary.

whodathunkit

zygurat789 wrote: »

Students don't start repaying their loans until they earn £21,000, that's a 40% increase over £15,000.

But the threshold for repaying the original "mortgage style" loans is very much higher, even now.

At one point the threshold went from well over £20K to £10k, which was something of a shock to the system.

Roger1

zygurat789 wrote: »

The state should be a last resort, all benefits should be means tested ...

Let's make you dictator.

You could then add up the 'benefits' I have received over the 53 years I have been paying tax and NI, deduct them from my contributions and reimburse the substantial difference.

I'm not advocating that, but it seems to be a logical consequence of your statement.

zygurat789

pollypenny wrote: »

You were the one who mentioned low income re NI contributions.


Anyone earning £154 a week will pay NI at the full rate.That's pretty low in my my book.

However, once you hit £805pw, you only pay 2% on that. It would be fairer to pay the full rate on all one's salary.

Actually it was you who mentioned low income re national insurance saying that people who had a low income paid the full whack,
This is totally incorrect.

First of all you need to go back and read the letter from Frank Field. Nowhere does it mention earnings, what he is proposing in the letter is charging income to national insurance, this is a big change. It means that anyone who will be on the basic £147pw flat rate pension will not pay NI because they are, as you now agree with me, on a low income. However, if they have interest income of £7 pw then they would have to pay NI!
For the record NI starts at £153.01 and someone earing mind you not income, earning £154 pw pays 12p NI.
Also the "full whack" of NI is unquantifyable as there is no upper maximum.