The problem is how NI was handled at the end of the baby boomer era
Bare with me:
Obviously the idea of NI is that you pay in when you can, and take out when you need.
Mostly, this means people will pay in when they're younger and working, and take out when they are old, retired and have more health care costs.
My parents' generation are now retired and taking out, but that generation never paid enough in to cover the obviously, predicted cost they would need.
Instead, during the 80s and 90s, they were only paying in enough to cover the costs of the older folks who were taking out then. The ratio of payers in to takers our was pretty good - lots of workers and not so many pensioners to put it over simply - so they didn't need to pay much NI, for the pensioners at that time to get a good deal.
Fast forward 40 years, and the ratio has flipped: in comparison there's now loads of pensioners and few workers.
Because the government is still forced to rob Peter to pay Paul (there's no other option now) there just isn't money to go round. Today's workers are taxed at a higher rate, and yet there's not enough money to look after our old folks.
I say no other option. The other way of improving the payers in to takes out ratio is mass immigration of working age people, but we all know how that has played out...
It didn't have to be this way. It was already clear 40 years ago what the demographics were looking like. The government knew how many babies were being born and would end up shoulding the cost.
Other countries, like Germany, planning ahead, got the workers in the 80s to pay more tax and saved / invested that money, which it is now using to fund better service for their older people.
So in conclusion, I blame my mum and dad's generation for voting for Thatcher's economically illiterate tax cuts! 🤦♀️