Should 1950s WASPI women be compensated?

Seabee42

nigelbb wrote: »

NI is currently 12%. My proposal would increase NI &/or income tax by 6p equivalent to raising NI to 18% ie an increase of 50%. For someone on an average salary that's around £20 per week.

I have no issues with this as long as pensioners also have to pay an additional tax equivalent.

nigelbb

LHW99 wrote: »

For many people retiring at 60 may be possible, for the country paying the SP at 60 is not.

My calculations contradict your view. Provided the pension is paid for by contributions there is no reason not to pay the state pension at 60. Many contributing to this forum are proud they have been prudent enough to save enough to retire in their fifties or even forties. The principle is just the same.

Paul_Herring

The principle is just the same.

Not even close. Someone retiring early using their own 'pension,' is funded from their own voluntary contributions.

Everyone retiring early on a state pension would be funded from mandatory contributions from (nearly) everyone else younger than them.

nigelbb

Seabee42 wrote: »

I have no issues with this as long as pensioners also have to pay an additional tax equivalent.

Whether that is necessary or not would depend on calculating the fine details but those only receiving state pension of around £8K/year would pay no income tax in any case.

NI contributions are that rare example of a hypothecated tax. The National Insurance Fund pays out pensions & employment benefits like ESA. NI contributions are currently too low so there is a 10% shortfall made up out of general taxation. This is why Boris Johnson’s promise of a reduction in NI contributions is both idiotic & deceitful.

nigelbb

Paul_Herring wrote: »

Not even close. Someone retiring early using their own 'pension,' is funded from their own voluntary contributions.

Everyone retiring early on a state pension would be funded from mandatory contributions from (nearly) everyone else younger than them.

They in turn will have funded the retirement of pensioners when they were in work. That’s the way the state pension has always worked.

In any case it wouldn’t be retiring early it would be retiring at an age that was affordable & full funded. It’s so difficult to get people to save for their retirement but who wouldn’t exchange a compulsory extra £20/week for the promise of a pension at 60?

Seabee42

nigelbb wrote: »

Whether that is necessary or not would depend on calculating the fine details but those only receiving state pension of around £8K/year would pay no income tax in any case.

NI contributions are that rare example of a hypothecated tax. The National Insurance Fund pays out pensions & employment benefits like ESA. NI contributions are currently too low so there is a 10% shortfall made up out of general taxation. This is why Boris Johnson’s promise of a reduction in NI contributions is both idiotic & deceitful.

This is why I talked about an equivalent tax. State pensions are unfunded you want to increase it by paying it for longer, for the generation that has done best out of general taxation. Does this seem in anyway fare? So no it does not fly unless the people receiving it pay for it.

nigelbb

Seabee42 wrote: »

This is why I talked about an equivalent tax. State pensions are unfunded you want to increase it by paying it for longer, for the generation that has done best out of general taxation. Does this seem in anyway fare? So no it does not fly unless the people receiving it pay for it.

That is exactly what I proposed. NI contributions should have been increased in the 1970s to allow those retiring today to reap the benefits of retiring at 60.

Seabee42

Time machines don't seem like a good solution to the problem.

Malthusian

fred246 wrote: »

They are a way of committing suicide slowly.

In a very real sense, so is life.

How is that a 'means of survival'?

I already answered that question and you just said exactly what you'd said already using different words because you can't be bothered to view the question from the unemployed cigarette-smoker's point of view.

LHW99

nigelbb wrote: »

My calculations contradict your view. Provided the pension is paid for by contributions there is no reason not to pay the state pension at 60. Many contributing to this forum are proud they have been prudent enough to save enough to retire in their fifties or even forties. The principle is just the same.

1) This thread is about those who have already reached / passed 60 - no time for them to make additional contributions, so why are any of that cohort entitled to increased payment
2) At age 60, a person would have worked for probably an average of 40 years. Given the current SP arrangements, and autoenrollment, we are told that in April total contribution levels will be 8% but still not adequate to give a good lifestyle. Many people find even that level difficult, adding to NI as well would likely reduce private provision which IMO is the wrong way to go.
3) Those on this forum are not typical, and many have saved considerable proportions of their salaries to enable very early retirement. The majority in the country can only dream of that.