State pension

You missed the point - they’re not paying nic! That was the whole point of the comment. It’s insane that a pensioner on the same income as a worker pays less tax. And yes, nic IS a tax.

Which part of having to spend every earned penny on rent and inflated bills did you not get?
Following @Littlegreywolfcub , perhaps bring the cost of living expenses down to the same as they were in baby boomer days? Kick private landlords back out of the equation and the entire country would be richer and more economically stable again.

Women are particularly affected by the motherhood penalty. I used to have professional work with prospects. Thanks to the prejudice I faced and Britains sexism, plus tech change, plus the increase in minimum wage while nothing else moved, that is no longer possible post kids. I’m left in minimum wage or not much above it now - assuming I can stay in employment in a time when jobs are decreasing again - for the rest of my life. Nor will I ever be able to claim anything as dh earns too much. Stuck between a rock and a hard place.

I really don't know how we are expected to put aside £400 000 aside for our pension

Compound interest is a wonderful thing. It’s a very good reason to start investing in a pension when you’re young.

I'm 48. I have always worked in a stressful but not well paid job. I can not put lots of cash in my private pension which might give me £200/month according to my forecast. I really don't know how we are expected to put aside £400 000 aside for our pension ( it's a figure I saw somewhere, might not be completely accurate but close). Maybe people are relying more on inheritance than they may admit; as in "money goes to money"?. I agree the triple lock must go though.

You are taxed on your income once you're pensionable age if it goes over the 12K allowance - pensioners still pay tax at the normal rate.

Council tax is also reduced, and free prescriptions and glasses.

Gas and electricity no longer have social tarifs, but water and broadband do.

I would expect people on the minimum wage to get their childcare and housing largely paid for. Am I wrong?

Can you link to any policy or opinion where they say that? Thanks.

@strawberrybubblegum have you met the Reform party?

Yes yes to this - so true. The right wing rich b* always have a memory block around these issues.

And then start whining about how much tax they have to pay and how this is 'unsustainable' - well suck it up. You still enjoy a MUCH bigger monthly wage that many many people cannot dream of.🙄

Maybe actually make the living wage a living wage? That would be a start.

Don't be ridiculous. No one thinks of those as viable choices.

There's just so much 'you're suggesting...' hysteria that you've confused people accusing others of saying it with people actually saying it.

The scary thing is, I think some people would actually view those as viable choices...

There are practical and social limits to what they government can do to the state pension.

1. Abolish the triple lock. I think this is likely to be removed in the near future and the pension pegged to some other standard. There's no choice as both the amount given and the amount of people claiming is going up whilst the workers paying in are going down.
2. Keep everything as it is and hope we can cover the shortfall through productivity and migration. Productivity means more training which runs slap bang into the university debt wall. Migration could work if we had a selection policy similar to Switzerland or the UAE and aimed for migrants earning over £45, 000 a year - at that point they are net contributors. But instead, we've got a system where people apply as a student, jump on a boat, or overstay a tourist visa, then claim asylum and work for JustEat. Or criminals. It's the worst of all worlds.
3. If they up the age beyond 70, they will end up paying more in sickness and incapacity benefit. A non starter.
4. Restrict who gets it. If the government means test it, it will create a perverse incentive to stop people saving. That's apart from the outright protest they will get from the younger generations who will vote in the future.

It will stay, but the value will go down.

There was quite a lengthy transition period, but I believe they were finally phased out in the 1970s.

I got a plastic credit card sized national insurance card sent to me when I was 16, no stamps were ever attached though.

I didn't know that! Makes sense though, for a fixed rate insurance benefit.

Nic didn’t even vary according to pay. It used to be a fixed weekly amount, ie the “stamp” where the employer literally bought stamps and affixed them to the employees record card which is where the term “cards” came from. Over years it has morphed into just another tax.

Europe can’t afford their schemes either.

It wasn't even that long ago.

Historically, both employers and employees stopped paying National Insurance entirely once an employee’s salary hit the Upper Earnings Limit (UEL).

Nigel Lawson abolished the Upper Earnings Limit for employer contributions from 6 October 1985 - making it a fixed rate with no limit.

For employees, the hard cap continued until 2003 when Gordon Brown introduced a new "additional rate" which was initially 1%. Alistair Darling put it up to 2% from 2011.

That increase to 2% was part of an increase to all NI rates. NI main rate went up from 11% to 12%, additional rate (above the previous 'Upper Earnings Limit') went up from 1% to 2% and employers rate went up too.

The main employee rate has since been cut all the way down to 8%, but the additional rate remained frozen at 2%.

What a surprise. There's no balance in taxes these days. It's always taken from the same people, and always given to someone else. The UK gives an absolutely terrible deal to higher earners.

I expect most people don't realise that originally NI was capped - ie NI was only paid on income up to a certain income level - and income above that wasn't subject to NI at all.

That reflects the fact that pension is the same for everyone. Unlike other countries, in the UK you don't get a higher state pension to reflect having contributed higher amounts of tax and NI during your working life.

And jobseeker's allowance - the other insurance NI covers - is also a fixed amount, and doesn't reflect your previous pay or tax contributions. Again, this is in contrast to most countries, who give contribution-based jobseeker's support,to reflect that your outgoings will match your previous income, and also that it's only fair that you should be supported in proportion to how much you have previously supported others.

But guess what - taxes always go up, and always more so on the 'broad shouldered'. So limitless NI was added, despite the 'insurance' benefit being capped - worse than capped: flat rate.

Not very good terms for 'insurance' really - higher premiums but a fixed pay out.

But anyway, I’m sure lots of people who are not yet in receipt of a pension are not expecting to not pay NI as they don’t know that that’s what happens.

Not to mention. CBHIC, may as well ask for overtime to be called voluntary work

I’m not a higher rate tax payer any more but when I was (10 years ago), the difference was even higher. I didn’t know that was the case until
i started paying it - so the difference of combined tax and NI on a higher income was only 10% more even thought the tax was 20% more. I can see why this was the case as the higher rate tax rate isn’t particularly high (now, with frozen rates and fiscal drag) and that would be a low rate to lose over 50% of income, particularly when pension contribution, student loan repayment is also added.

Indeed.

But only on the higher rate portion, on the lower rate it’s exactly the same