Is the State Pension enough to live on if you are single !!

pseudodox

Not everyone who pays tax & NI through their working life lives to receive the SP.  Some get more benefit from the welfare system than others with NHS, tax credit, HB, unemployment support etc.  Just as we all pay council tax but may use schools or local services to differing degrees.  And we all pay motor or travel insurance but only a minority ever make a claim.  It's a collective system where we look after those who do make a claim.  My car insurance is only a fraction of what I might have to claim for an accident, theft or damage to another vehicle/person I may injure.  The money will come from the communal pot.

If I live into my 90s I will draw more in SP alone than I paid in.  To date I have never had a serious medical issue & not had any free prescriptions.  But I am happy that I am helping (by my past payments into the system) others who are in need.  I have known many people who did not live to SP age, or died early in retirement.  I am grateful that their past  contributions are helping me receive my SP & will help me if I do face health problems.

MK62

Linton said:

Another good idea in my view is to move  most of NI into income tax.  This would reduce the tax paid by the poorest and increase the load on the rich who can afford it, in particular the millionaire pensioners, 

The problem is that this will catch poorer pensioners too who also pay no NI, but do pay income tax........unless you raise the personal allowance sufficiently to compensate at the lower end........

An easier step, if you want to increase the load on the "rich" that is, is to simply move the employee NI UEL upwards.....perhaps even remove it altogether eventually.

As for millionaire pensioners, especially those who are asset rich with low incomes........perhaps a wealth tax on those assets?.......

Exodi

MK62 said:

Linton said:

Another good idea in my view is to move  most of NI into income tax.  This would reduce the tax paid by the poorest and increase the load on the rich who can afford it, in particular the millionaire pensioners, 

The problem is that this will catch poorer pensioners too who also pay no NI, but do pay income tax........unless you raise the personal allowance sufficiently to compensate at the lower end........

An easier step, if you want to increase the load on the "rich" that is, is to simply move the employee NI UEL upwards.....perhaps even remove it altogether eventually.

As for millionaire pensioners, especially those who are asset rich with low incomes........perhaps a wealth tax on those assets?.......

The NI UEL is intended to align with the higher tax rate, to mitigate the effects of going from 20% income tax to 40%. Originally it was an effective basic tax rate of 32% (20% income + 12% NI) going up to an effective higher tax rate of 42% (40% income + 2% NI), though now it's 28% moving to 42%. If you moved the UEL without moving the higher tax threshold, you'd have people jumping from 28% to 48% effective tax rate, then back down to 42% when they reach the UEL. We see all the sorts of problems these awkward high marginal tax rates make (e.g. child benefit, additional rate tapering the personal allowance, etc).

I like the idea of removing NI, maybe I buy into the Tory rhetoric around it, but it does seem odd to have a double tax on workers, while someone renting out their second home or those living off income from investments or wealthy pensioners, etc don't pay.

Currently I can salary sacrifice myself into oblivion, significantly reducing the amount of NI I pay over my life, build a vast pension pot and then when I eventually draw it in retirement, chuckle that I still would not need to pay any NI on it (maybe that's an argument against salary sacrifice, who knows).

MK62

Exodi said:

MK62 said:

Linton said:

Another good idea in my view is to move  most of NI into income tax.  This would reduce the tax paid by the poorest and increase the load on the rich who can afford it, in particular the millionaire pensioners, 

The problem is that this will catch poorer pensioners too who also pay no NI, but do pay income tax........unless you raise the personal allowance sufficiently to compensate at the lower end........

An easier step, if you want to increase the load on the "rich" that is, is to simply move the employee NI UEL upwards.....perhaps even remove it altogether eventually.

As for millionaire pensioners, especially those who are asset rich with low incomes........perhaps a wealth tax on those assets?.......

The NI UEL is intended to align with the higher tax rate, to mitigate the effects of going from 20% income tax to 40%. Originally it was an effective basic tax rate of 32% (20% income + 12% NI) going up to an effective higher tax rate of 42% (40% income + 2% NI), though now it's 28% moving to 42%. If you moved the UEL without moving the higher tax threshold, you'd have people jumping from 28% to 48% effective tax rate, then back down to 42% when they reach the UEL. We see all the sorts of problems these awkward high marginal tax rates make (e.g. child benefit, additional rate tapering the personal allowance, etc).

None of which have ever stopped the government before   ........but to be honest you could tinker with the numbers and thresholds ad infinitum and always find some who didn't like this or that change.

Ideally we'd move toward a truly progressive tax system without the big step changes and marginal rate anomalies, but any such change would have to be managed gradually......

michaels

Exodi said:

MK62 said:

Linton said:

Another good idea in my view is to move  most of NI into income tax.  This would reduce the tax paid by the poorest and increase the load on the rich who can afford it, in particular the millionaire pensioners, 

The problem is that this will catch poorer pensioners too who also pay no NI, but do pay income tax........unless you raise the personal allowance sufficiently to compensate at the lower end........

An easier step, if you want to increase the load on the "rich" that is, is to simply move the employee NI UEL upwards.....perhaps even remove it altogether eventually.

As for millionaire pensioners, especially those who are asset rich with low incomes........perhaps a wealth tax on those assets?.......

The NI UEL is intended to align with the higher tax rate, to mitigate the effects of going from 20% income tax to 40%. Originally it was an effective basic tax rate of 32% (20% income + 12% NI) going up to an effective higher tax rate of 42% (40% income + 2% NI), though now it's 28% moving to 42%. If you moved the UEL without moving the higher tax threshold, you'd have people jumping from 28% to 48% effective tax rate, then back down to 42% when they reach the UEL. We see all the sorts of problems these awkward high marginal tax rates make (e.g. child benefit, additional rate tapering the personal allowance, etc).

I like the idea of removing NI, maybe I buy into the Tory rhetoric around it, but it does seem odd to have a double tax on workers, while someone renting out their second home or those living off income from investments or wealthy pensioners, etc don't pay.

Currently I can salary sacrifice myself into oblivion, significantly reducing the amount of NI I pay over my life, build a vast pension pot and then when I eventually draw it in retirement, chuckle that I still would not need to pay any NI on it (maybe that's an argument against salary sacrifice, who knows).

Lots of the money that has bene put into pensions was subject to NI when earned.  Seems a bit unfair to hit those responsible enough to save into a pension with double taxation.  Currently a basic rate taxpayer who saves in a pension and pays tax on their pension benefits by a whole 6.25% (as a result of the tax free lump sum).  If you charge a second batch of NI (at 8% currently) on the way out a well as the way in then they are worse off having save in a pension than taking the money as income at the time and saving it in an ISA or simply spending it.  I thought the general idea was to incentivise people to make provision for retirement.  Taxing them extra (retrospectively) for doing so seems a bit counter productive....

Mustbeananswer??

Senior citizens are protected from eviction

Senior citizens are protected from eviction based on age or disability under the federal Fair Housing Act. It is important for seniors to understand their rights and seek legal assistance if facing eviction. There are organizations and programs available to provide support, assistance, and financial aid to elderly tenants at risk of eviction(copied and pasted)....I wondered why the main Homeless People seemed to be of a lower age.

JoeCrystal

This is the United Kingdom, not the United States. Landlords can evict older renters at short notice even when they've done nothing wrong. *shrugs*  Mind you, people on regulated tenancies from before 1989 get increased protection against evictions. And no doubt there will be changes in tenancies at some point in the future.

Mustbeananswer??

Renting is more popular than in our day Joe...There will be lot more renters turning State Pension Age in the next 20 years without a property of their own.

And the rental rates are wow.Near me (Calderdale) there are loads of flats which look cheap enough to buy ....but then they clank the Service Charge and Ground Rent and they dont look cheap.