to resent paying Ni when my generation won't get a state pension

[clutchpearl]

Just about every think tank that does a report on the state pension says it won't exist for people under 40 and we won't have the luxury of a couple of decades supported by the state. Aibu to feel like its all some ponzi con?

Handsoff7 The biggest change in lending practice was including "secondary" income and we all know whose that was.

Would you prefer it if that had not happened?

I DO have sympathy for anyone starting out today, but don't heap the blame on us - we have been there and done that too!

No you haven't. Houses have never been so unaffordable and jobs are also much harder to get.

The uncomfortable truth is baby boomers are the biggest scroungers in society but they are the ones most likely to support ukip and moan about imigration and the young.

Yes, because paying you're taxes like you're supposed to, paying into a pension like you're supposed to, and buying a home that appreciates in value through nothing you have done, and being inconvenient enough to be born at a time that will get your free university tuition should you want it and then having had a job when in the future younger people would have fewer jobs to choose from, all that makes you a scrounger.

You still haven't answered why it's so terrible that pensioners may recieve more state money than they have paid in but that others who do the same are perfectly acceptable non scroungers in your book.

Really OP, you sound completely irrational.

Clutch that is a load of shit and fucking disgusting.

Yes, I agree jobs are harder to get, but DO NOT tell me that we did not struggle. Our rent was 50% of our pay. 'Meals' consisted of tinned pilchards with loads of mashed potato on top, corned beef with lots of mashed potatoes. We both needed to get buses to work, DH regularly walked 8 miles to work and back on a Friday morning because we did not have the bus fare. Thursday nights saw us emptying pockets to find copper to buy a small loaf of bread for toast. We struggled and we struggled hard. So piss off with your attitude - not one older person on here has heaped abuse on your generations plight, we have been sympathetic, but you are ignorantly spouting crap.

Biggest scroungers???? The only 'benefit' I will ever have had is child benefit and a pension, oh and DH got married mans tax allowance many years ago.
Support UKIP, moan about immigration??? Piss off, generalising as usual. I have found more complaints about immigration from my son's generation - have been quite astounded by some of them.

I am off here now because I am getting over involved. As I have said in all my posts, I do sympathise, but God, do I take offence with the crap spouted in response.

WooWoo

As a group Pensioners are much richer than working age people. They don't pay NI and so are taxed less.

The issue I have with that and I think the OP agrees is that whereas in most of our taxation system the wealthy subsidise the less well off, the NI of the poor subsidises a wealthier group.

But people on low incomes don't pay tax, so that is a non issue.

The poor will be getting their own support from the state, so any tax they do pay is just helping themselves, and paying for the hospitals, schools, police service etc that we all benefit from.

There is more to paying tax than just the cash benefits you can take out.

And it doesn't really matter if pensioners as a group are wealthier than working age people. Plenty of working age people are subsidised through benefits anyway, but what matters is individuals. There are also plenty of working age people who are comfortable enough not to claim benefits, just as there are some pensioners that are comfortable.

Pensioners have no ability to increase their earnings, working age people have that massive advantage over them, and one day, they will be pensioners too! People seem to forget that.

And when the poor stop paying NI they will be subsidised in the same way.

People of independent wealth can draw the state pension which they paid for, and most of the cost falls on much poorer people. So what?

The NHS has given me literally hundreds of thousands of pounds of cancer treatment. For free. I know that if any of my friends need the NHS, it will be there. So no, I don't resent NI. At all.

I'm 27.

The issue I have with that and I think the OP agrees is that whereas in most of our taxation system the wealthy subsidise the less well off, the NI of the poor subsidises a wealthier group.

Yes, this is the issue. The tax system needs to change so that people are taxed based only on how much income they have. How old they are or where the income came from (employment, self-employment or pensions and investments) should make no difference. Currently, for income falling in the basic rate band, employment income is taxed at roughly 40%, self employment 30%, pension and investment income 20%.

(For employment you need to include employer's NI in both the numerator and denominator to get my figure. It is economically irrelevant that the employer is legally liable for it.)

George Osborne has hinted that he wants to merge NI and tax, which would be a first step towards equalising tax rates, but it's difficult to see how any politician is going to get re-elected after revealing to every employee that their income in the basic-rate tax band is already taxed at 40%.

NI and tax should be rolled into one. It's a myth that NI pays for pensions and the NHS. Otherwise OP YABU. Previous governments should have had the guts to link life expectancy and pensionable age more closely but they didn't. The reforms now will force this through and whilst it's likely we'll all work well into our 70s we're still likely to retire several years before we die given increases in life expectancy.

Anyone on a final salary pension scheme should however realise how lucky they are however.

Andrew, sorry I didn't answer you.

As a whole, I'd have preferred it if lending criteria had not been relaxed. It would have greatly reduced the UK banking crisis and would have meant housing was more affordable for everyone.

I object to paying NI per se in that it should be lumped in with Income Tax and they should admit that I pay 50% tax (or more). I do see the need for where that tax goes but not the illogical splitting.

Thanks Handsoff and I admire your courage!

So what would you like us all to do, OP, eat Soylant (sp) Green at 80?

course there will be a state pension

it might not be called that but there will be provisions for the old and infirm

what are they gonna do let the elderly starve and be homeless, erm don't think so

Toooldtobearsed I was going to reply to that stupid ignorant post but you beat me to it and I agree with every thing you said.

My Mum started work at 15 and when she retires at 66 she will have paid in for more than 51 years my dad got his pension at 65 after 50 years of work, so between them they will have paid in for over a hundred years

Even if a person works until they are 70 but started worked at say 25 after uni they still wouldn't have worked more than my parents had to (or in my Mums case will have to) before they got their pensions

I do not in anyway at all begrudge todays pensioners what they have so yes clutch fuck off with your nasty entitled attitude

WooWoo, NI is paid on weekly earnings over about £150.

So someone earning £100 per week whose employer decided to give a "winter fuel" bonus of £300 would pay NI on that.

Personally I would view NMW as low earnings and someone working full time on NMW would certainly pay quite a bit of NI.

Looking at individuals, no one wealthy of working age gets a penny from the state - not even child benefit. Wealthy pensioners still take the state pension and winter field payment and free bus pass etc etc and they pay 12% less tax on their income.

One thing that should be put to bed is the idea that people have paid for their own state pension.

We don't - it's not funded. You pay for your parents pension. As for the baby boomers, there were few parents to support per person (high birth rate spreads the cost) and the older generation suffered from high mortality rates it wasn't too expensive.

Paying for the baby boomers will be collossally expensive.

Luckily, they have the cash themselves (as a group) and so by reversing the policies designed around a smaller and more impoverished elderly, we could raise the funds.

A good start would be to level the field on NI.

I know it was originally billed as its purpose, but NI doesn't pay for the NHS as it's all gone (and then some) paying for pensioners.

Personally I don't begrudge tax per-se. I love that we live in a country with medical care free at the point of delivery and a safety net for the poor (hate that it's being eroded).

To pay for these nice things we need to pay our tax. Yes the baby-boomers paid what was asked but it was nowhere near enough to cover their costs and now they've retired they pay much lower tax than they should (due to the inequity of NI). It's overdue time to reverse that.

Merging NI and tax would not affect people on just the state pension so those people with stories of hardship throughout life to earn the state pension would be unaffected.

I too would like to know what the OP wants to happen.

This weird idea of blaming people for living in the wrong time and for living too long is another spoof isn't it? Like the DA one?

If it isn't for pensions then why does it make a difference when women have gaps in their NI payments from having children and get less pension?
I think it should be reduced if it isn't going to be used for pensions. Obviously if it's paying for other things then keep that.

People on low incomes do pay tax! A minimum wage full time worker is taxed and that wage is not enough to sustain a household.

I do sort of agree, my dad benefitted from free state education, then free university tuition, then bought at a time of low house prices, retired at sixty on a final salary pension. My mum did the same. They will hopefully spend twenty years drawing a generous government final salary pension, receiving all the pensioner benefits and receiving free health care.

DH and I had student debts, skyrocketing house prices have meant we had to sell a move into rented when our child with SN was born who needed round the clock care (I couldn't go back to work so we couldn't pay the mortgage) and we will be lucky if we receive any kind of pension at all once we retire at seventy.

Of course I don't begrudge my parents their comfortable retirement but it is depressing knowing that DH and I won't have one and will be lucky if we retire at 70.

I pay NI and tax, and don't begrudge a penny. It is to provide that safety net that any one of us could need any time in the future.

I am 50 and will retire at 60 - I have the luxury of that choice because I have saved enough (15-20% of my salary from age 16) to enable me to do so. I am aware I will not be able to claim my state pension for some years after, but see it as a bonus if I do get it - because I have planned for my own retirement.

when I was growing up I was fully aware of the political situation - the fact that the population was booming, the fact that there would be too many oldies living longer and needing money spent on them from our taxes - so there would be consequences to MY PERSONAL retirement age and pension amounts. People aged 20+ must be aware of these things yet shove their heads in the sand and think we will be ok, will be provided for in our old age... No - we invest in a house, a car, whatever for our current comfort - but need to invest in our own future too.

sorry - will calm down and stop ranting now...

Velo Your DPs are not getting generous government pensions. They are getting what they contracted for and paid for.

Andrew they worked for the government for 20+ years so their final salary pensions are actually being paid by the government. I am very happy for them, I just wish we had the same opportunities.

So many people say don't bother with a private pension either as the companies go just go bust and you lose it all. I'm not sure what I'm meant to do.