To think we shouldn’t have to contribute to soch if we don’t intend to use it?

[slozenger]

For example, I don’t want a state pension - so I should surely be able to opt out of soch based contributions percentage. And just pay a lesser amount to cover anything I do take advantage of.

What an utter twat the OP is. From the nonsensical "soch", which was quite frankly embarrassing because so few people got it, to their childish views of the state pension & welfare generally.

Guess someone was just bored today.

And presumably engaged in some kind of education at school.

What's soch?

To save you the agony of ploughing through the OP's replies, we think it's short for "social" as in "social security payments" and might be pronounced "sosh" or "soash" and what she actually means is National Insurance contributions.

No one, regardless of age, knew what Soch was.

Apparently it was "self explanatory" though...

You have no choice. You have to pay for people currently receiving the state pension whether you are going to get it or not.

It is quite possible that the state pension will be means-tested in future, so a lot of us will paying for other people's state pensions when we won't get a pension ourselves.

It's not fair, but that's how it is.

I don't really get the "it's not fair" argument.

Isn't the whole welfare state & pension system there for anyone when/if they may need it?
Who knows what will happen to anyone over their lifetime and none of us knows if we will need things like the state pension at some point or not?
People get ill, fortunes change.

It's a safety net and that's the point surely?

So everyone who happens to be born within a certain time period is exactly the same, they all have the same expectations and attitudes do they?

You sound spectacularly ignorant - no doubt a trait of whichever generation you belong to!

Are y’all STILL banging on about this

You do acknowledge that the term "Boomer" exists - right? Even if you don't think it's a valid term?

A previous poster was talking about the word as if it meant anyone in their 60s / 70s at any point in the future. My post here was clarifying that it doesn't refer to that - it refers to people who were born in the post-war years and now happen to be that age. So you cannot be born in - for example - the 80s or 90s and become a Boomer when you hit your 60s.

But... I don't think it's at all ignorant to observe that generational attitudes are shaped by a shared economic and social environment. Of course, every individual has unique experiences, but there are objectively observable trends in behaviour, voting patterns and values across generations.

As I said further up the thread -

The second world war would be a good (albeit extreme) example. Did every individual have the same wartime experience? No. Was the generation still shaped overall by it, leading to attitudes that made the creation of the NHS possible? Yes.

Similarly - has every boomer enjoyed the benefits free access to higher education and a housing market that rewarded them with decades of appreciation - unearned wealth that they attribute to "sensible choices"? No. But enough of them have experienced this overall that it shapes the general attitudes and voting patterns of their generation - leading to a situation in which the NHS has been allowed to crumble.

Hope that clears it up.

definitely american

yall?

Yup. American troll.

There may be trends but you need to beware of stereotyping people and making assumptions. As for OP - no further comment.

Says Whiney reform snowflake.

A straight up wind-up then?

Glad you enjoyed yourself but equally glad there was zero support for you on here.

It's almost as if most reasonable people understand why we pay tax and believe in a government safety net. Which is quite reassuring really.

Oh have you not referred to it as "soch" for your ENTIRE life like op?!

She has litterally said she is 4 years from retirement!

MAGA, more like

For ops entire American life!

Trust me, no-one 4 years from retirement is moaning about wanting to stop paying NI and giving up the state pension. They are too close to the payout for everything they have put in over many years.

The OP has just enjoyed winding us all up with their nonsense.

Is it referred to as soch in USA or in politics here? Because I’ve never heard it called that

For anyone new to this thread:
No, it is not referred to as 'soch' (or even 'sosh') anywhere. Not here, not in the USA, not in anyone's head except our deranged/ semi-illiterate OP..
Not now, not "before 2001", not at any point during the 20th century...
People have popped up to share a variety of words used to describe the benefits system through the years and in different parts of the UK, but not a single one has recognised this word....

wrong as someone else commented earlier that in London they say ‘on the sosh’ so TAKE THAT

I’m finding it hard to believe OP is 4 years from retirement. The language is of a stroppy teenager, makes no sense, and certainly not someone sufficiently wealthy to spout nonsense they don’t need the NHS or pension in old age.

Is this where I go SO THERE.

Well I appreciate the compliment as I’ll be saying I am younger now