On 24/11/2017 02:46, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/11/2017 02:10, JNugent wrote:
On 23/11/2017 01:17, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/11/2017 01:07, JNugent wrote:
On 23/11/2017 00:50, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news On 22/11/2017 22:07, Rod Speed wrote:

snip

Nope, just provided with what they have paid for while they were
working.

Except they haven't paid enough.

Irrelevant. Its not a pool system. The current
amount coming in is close to what is going out.

And in any case, the NI contribution rate, at 12% of earnings over a
working life, is comparable to any private funded pension scheme.
Some people pay into more than one scheme, plus 12% NI.

It may be equivalent in percentage, but has a high threshold and has
never kept up with expenditure out of the 'fund'. Not enough has been
paid in.

The young are paying the price in so many ways, through increased
contributions and the delayed age at which they become eligible.

"increased contributions"?
Isn't the rate 12% for them as well?

Are you really suggesting it has always been 12%?

NI-as-income-tax started in 1974 at 9%, then eventually increased, one
percentage point at a time, to 12%. The last two 1% increases (under
Brown) nullified most of the headline 3% he knocked off the basic rate
of income tax for basic rate payers (sleight of hand).

So yes, when NI was converted from a mere contribution into another
income tax, it was "only" charged at 9%. But that was back in the days
when the *basic* rate of income tax was still *37.5%* (and I can
remember paying it at 42.5% under Wilson), but the total at the margin
was then 37.5% + 9% = 46.5%.

When Brown took over, 23 years later, the basic rate had been reduced
from 37.5% to 23% and the NI rate had been increased to 10% (a total of
33%, down from Callaghan's 46.5%).

Is that what you meant?

I had gained the impression that you were trying to make out that taxes
were lower for boomers. But they weren't.