I don't trust any politician....am I paranoid or sensible?

grnglide

. If under the new rules you would get zero then 5 or 6 years under the old rules is bound to be higher.

That isn't the way it was done. The ten years contributions is required whether your calculation is on the new rules or the old rules.


Nine years gets you nothing.

randompenitent

jimi_man wrote: »

I just don't get this? Why would anyone pay more than they had to? If that's the case then where do you draw the line? Voluntarily pay more tax as well? Voluntarily carry on paying more NI after SPA? And then how much more should you pay and how long for?

If there is a desire to divest yourself of excess income then there are numerous charities that I feel would be more deserving.

Just playing Devil's advocate for a moment: You might pay more if you believe that the money that goes to the government is largely spent on worthwhile objectives, like providing education for those younger people we expect to look after us in our later life; paying for the operation of the legal system, the police, the armed services and the NHS. Then there's all the infrastructure that is provided by central government like trunk roads and sea defences.

Of course it's not perfect and government and the public sector it pays for isn't 100% efficient, but neither is any charity or commercial organisation I know. And it's subject to a level of scrutiny and accountability which means we often get to see how the sausage is made and fix things when they go wrong.

The results may not always be exactly what we would like, but given the choice between this and anarchy, I'll take this, please.