On 22/11/2017 16:35, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

JNugent wrote:

That certainly is often erroneously supposed to be the case. National
"Insurance" is not an insurance scheme - and you know it isn't. If it
were, it would cost more the greater the risk of unemployment or
sickness because that's the way that insurance works.

That may be the way profit making insurance works. But not a terribly good
idea for social insurance. Perhaps you'd be delighted to pay more for the
health side if your family had a history of some sorts of conditions?

"Social insurance" is simply mis-named.

One has to admit that as a title, it *sounds* good (andcertainly better
than "extra income tax", which is all it is*), but it isn't insurance,
which works on the actuarial principle (calculating the odds).

Renamimg "National Insurance" as the extra income tax it is would be the
honest way to proceed.

[* I can remember when NI was a flat tax charged at so much a week
irrespective of earnings and could not be regarded as an income tax, but
for the last forty-plus years, an income tax is what it has been, as was
evidenced by the fact that in the mid-1970s, responsibility for
collecting it passed from the DHSS (as was) to the Inland Revenue (as was).]

On 22/11/2017 16:42, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
JNugent wrote:
It could well be an adequate stop gap for the reasonably well healed.
Who can manage to exist on savings etc until any benefits come
through. They might well be able to exist for a short term without
running ups debts.

You don't need to be rich (or anywhere near rich) for that. You just
need a way of balancing out liabilities, with an overdaraft, credit
card, etc. Such facilities do not necessarily lead to extraindebtedness
medium to long term. They just allow you spend at a normal rate without
worrying about exactly when pay-day is. I did it for years.

That's exactly how I managed during a prolonged strike, with no strike
pay. Held out long enough to get a massive pay rise. Not what you want to
read, though. ;-)

Fine by me, I assure you.

Thanks for the confirmation that a little bit of forethought and forward
planning, of the sort that everyone should exercise, helps with
money-management in the short term.

"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:02:55 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 20/11/2017 00:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

How is this a stop-gap, since it's not enough to live on?
What if they get evicted from their home and become homeless because
they can't afford their rent, for example? It would become even more
difficult for them to get a job, without somewhere to live.

It could well be an adequate stop gap for the reasonably well healed.
Who
can manage to exist on savings etc until any benefits come through. They
might well be able to exist for a short term without running ups debts.

You don't need to be rich (or anywhere near rich) for that. You just
need a way of balancing out liabilities, with an overdaraft, credit
card, etc. Such facilities do not necessarily lead to extraindebtedness
medium to long term.

Wrong. You would almost certainly be clobbered for huge amounts of
interest plus, of course, the amount borrowed.

I don't quite see how having to pay back the amount borrowed equates to
"being clobbered"

tim

"pamela" wrote in message
...
On 09:34 19 Nov 2017, soup wrote:

On 19/11/2017 00:46, Fredxxx wrote:

I was also thinking of this article:
 https://www.rt.com/uk/357676-literac...n-adults-oecd/

1 in 20 is not 25% .

Clearly you have your own reading difficulty,

We'll see who has the reading difficulty.

so let me pick out the bit you didn't find.....

"Some 23 percent of 16- to 18-year-olds are at literacy level 1
or below, while the same figure is 19 percent for the older age
group."

IIRC Fredxxx mentioned 20 to 25% which seems accurate.

His 20-25% was of native adults WHO CANT READ OR WRITE,
not those with a literacy level of 1 or below.

On 22/11/2017 16:59, tim... wrote:


"Mark" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:02:55 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 20/11/2017 00:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Â*Â*Â* Mark wrote:

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

How is this a stop-gap, since it's not enough to live on?
What if they get evicted from their home and become homeless because
they can't afford their rent, for example?Â* It would become even more
difficult for them to get a job, without somewhere to live.

It could well be an adequate stop gap for the reasonably well
healed. Who
can manage to exist on savings etc until any benefits come through.
They
might well be able to exist for a short term without running ups debts.

You don't need to be rich (or anywhere near rich) for that. You just
need a way of balancing out liabilities, with an overdaraft, credit
card, etc. Such facilities do not necessarily lead to extraindebtedness
medium to long term.

Wrong.Â* You would almost certainly be clobbered for huge amounts of
interest plus, of course, the amount borrowed.

I don't quite see how having to pay back the amount borrowed equates to
"being clobbered"

Exactly.

And the charges won't break the bank either. A few weeks' borrowing of a
few hundred quid will attract charges of (literally) a few quid.

https://www.hsbc.co.uk/1/2/overdrafts

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 16:59:05 -0000, "tim..."
wrote:



"Mark" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 14:02:55 +0000, JNugent
wrote:

On 20/11/2017 00:06, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Mark wrote:

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

How is this a stop-gap, since it's not enough to live on?
What if they get evicted from their home and become homeless because
they can't afford their rent, for example? It would become even more
difficult for them to get a job, without somewhere to live.

It could well be an adequate stop gap for the reasonably well healed.
Who
can manage to exist on savings etc until any benefits come through. They
might well be able to exist for a short term without running ups debts.

You don't need to be rich (or anywhere near rich) for that. You just
need a way of balancing out liabilities, with an overdaraft, credit
card, etc. Such facilities do not necessarily lead to extraindebtedness
medium to long term.

Wrong. You would almost certainly be clobbered for huge amounts of
interest plus, of course, the amount borrowed.

I don't quite see how having to pay back the amount borrowed equates to
"being clobbered"

It's the additional interest and charges.

--
insert witty sig here

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:09:17 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:57:37 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , JNugent
wrote:

And neither is NI invested in a pension pot on behalf of the
contributor. You also know that but choose to ignore the fact.

Which is how it ought to work. Then the pension liability is off the
government's books. Equally, final-salary, defined-benefit, and company
pensions should all be illegal.

Why do you believe they should be illegal?

Because pensions are hardly the core business of the likes of BT etc
etc. Why, then, should they be running a pension scheme - for which
they continue to have liability, whether or the company does well or
not. What was the issue with Green and BHS? Pensions. What did Maxwell
raid? The company pension pot. The main thing I seem to keep hearing
about company pension schemes is whether they are solvent or not.

True. But even given that pension schemes are not the core business
of many companies making them illegal is a major change and not in
keeping with financial competition. I believe that the legislation
has been tightened up so that company pensions cannot be raided any
more.

If each person has their own pension pot, into which they contribute,
they can then decide at retirement how and when what to do with it.

True. But with these it is much harder to predict how much pension
you are likely to get.

They can get a pensions cpy to manage it or a fund manager if they want
to have it as a SIPP. Each employer they have during their working
career can choose whether or not to contribute into the employee's pot
- perhaps as an incentive for the employee to work for that cpy instead
of another.

Clearly some people might find it too hard to deal with - there'd have
to be provision for them too.

Or not have enough spare income to contribute enough to the scheme,
even assuming that they know how much is "enough".

--
insert witty sig here

On 22/11/2017 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2017 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

Pension is a lifelong thing.

Really? To most it's for the last part of their life.

That's right, the rest of their life, or are you now retreating into
pointless semantics as thogh you couldn't possibly work out the meaning?

You want me to work out what you should have said rather than did?

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

Bit like saying when your insurance company pays for a repair to
your car
it is only a stop gap until you get a new one.

Not even a little bit like it. No-one wants ever to have to make a
car insurance claim. Everyone hopes
and expects to claim and receive Retirement Pension, preferable for a
very long time.
But car insurance claims may, I suppose, be slightly likened to
unemployment benefit. One hopes never to have to claim and with good
luck, never will.

The idea of national insurance is to provide for times when you are
unemployed or unable to work for other reasons. And to provide for old
age.

That certainly is often erroneously supposed to be the case. National
"Insurance" is not an insurance scheme - and you know it isn't. If it
were, it would cost more the greater the risk of unemployment or
sickness because that's the way that insurance works. But in the UK,
national insurance contributions are lowest (and can be zero) for those
who spend the longest periods on benefits and those who are least likely
to claim, are more likely to be paying 12% of their income for a
lifetime, in National "Insurance".

And neither is NI invested in a pension pot on behalf of the
contributor. You also know that but choose to ignore the fact.

National Insurance benefits have never been enough to replace earned
income. When the average male industrial earnings were about £18 a week
gross, UK was £3 a week (both figures approximate for 1969/1970, but
very close either way).

That's why there is a separate scheme of (higher) means-tested benefits
(and there isn't even the pretence of tyhat being predicated upon
insurance, even though many pundits frequently claim that people "pay
in" for their means-tested benefits (they don't - they get them even if
they've never contrinuted a bean).

The means testing is the issue. It encourages many not to work. Many say
they won't work for 50p per hour and I don't blame them.

But for some reason, it seems to be OK to become old. but not out of work
for any other reason.

You treat being retired and being unemployed as the same thing. There's
your error.

They seem very similar to me. One seems to get a lot of stick and the
other is pandered to. Everyone should get a wage and be damned, means
testing discourages meaningful work.

I guess you being 'retired' will say ageism rules.

Not many people think it morally wrong to claim for a dent on your car -
no matter how it was caused.

And?

I might have thought there were personal economic reasons, but hey!

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 22/11/2017 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2017 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

JNugent wrote:

Pension is a lifelong thing.

Really? To most it's for the last part of their life.

That's right, the rest of their life, or are you now retreating into
pointless semantics as thogh you couldn't possibly work out the
meaning?

You want me to work out what you should have said rather than did?

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

Bit like saying when your insurance company pays for a repair to your
car
it is only a stop gap until you get a new one.

Not even a little bit like it. No-one wants ever to have to make a car
insurance claim. Everyone hopes
and expects to claim and receive Retirement Pension, preferable for a
very long time.
But car insurance claims may, I suppose, be slightly likened to
unemployment benefit. One hopes never to have to claim and with good
luck, never will.

The idea of national insurance is to provide for times when you are
unemployed or unable to work for other reasons. And to provide for old
age.

That certainly is often erroneously supposed to be the case. National
"Insurance" is not an insurance scheme - and you know it isn't. If it
were, it would cost more the greater the risk of unemployment or sickness
because that's the way that insurance works. But in the UK, national
insurance contributions are lowest (and can be zero) for those who spend
the longest periods on benefits and those who are least likely to claim,
are more likely to be paying 12% of their income for a lifetime, in
National "Insurance".

And neither is NI invested in a pension pot on behalf of the contributor.
You also know that but choose to ignore the fact.

National Insurance benefits have never been enough to replace earned
income. When the average male industrial earnings were about £18 a week
gross, UK was £3 a week (both figures approximate for 1969/1970, but very
close either way).

That's why there is a separate scheme of (higher) means-tested benefits
(and there isn't even the pretence of tyhat being predicated upon
insurance, even though many pundits frequently claim that people "pay in"
for their means-tested benefits (they don't - they get them even if
they've never contrinuted a bean).

The means testing is the issue. It encourages many not to work. Many say
they won't work for 50p per hour and I don't blame them.

But for some reason, it seems to be OK to become old. but not out of
work
for any other reason.

You treat being retired and being unemployed as the same thing. There's
your error.

They seem very similar to me.

More fool you. The obvious difference is that the aged pension
is something you are entitled to for the rest of your life. Being
unemployed is supposed to be a temporary thing until you
get another job, particularly in a full employment economy
like Britain has now. The unemployed should only be those
moving between jobs, not for the rest of your 'life'

One seems to get a lot of stick

And so it should when you are choosy about what work you
will do and expect the state to provide you with benefits when
you have been too stupid to get qualified for the better jobs.

and the other is pandered to.

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

Everyone should get a wage

Nope, not those who refuse to do the work available.

and be damned,

Only some like you deserve to be damned.

means testing discourages meaningful work.

Bull****. Means testing discourages those
who can can provide for themselves from
putting their hands out to the state for what
they can provide for themselves, both with
unemployment and the aged pension.

We arent actually stupid enough to pay the aged
pension to millionaires and others with lots of assets.
Or unemployment or disability benefits either.

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.

"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.

On 22/11/2017 21:34, Fredxxx wrote:

On 22/11/2017 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2017 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

Bit like saying when your insurance company pays for a repair to
your car it is only a stop gap until you get a new one.

Not even a little bit like it. No-one wants ever to have to make a
car insurance claim. Everyone hopes
and expects to claim and receive Retirement Pension, preferable for a
very long time.
But car insurance claims may, I suppose, be slightly likened to
unemployment benefit. One hopes never to have to claim and with good
luck, never will.

The idea of national insurance is to provide for times when you are
unemployed or unable to work for other reasons. And to provide for
old age.

That certainly is often erroneously supposed to be the case. National
"Insurance" is not an insurance scheme - and you know it isn't. If it
were, it would cost more the greater the risk of unemployment or
sickness because that's the way that insurance works. But in the UK,
national insurance contributions are lowest (and can be zero) for
those who spend the longest periods on benefits and those who are
least likely to claim, are more likely to be paying 12% of their
income for a lifetime, in National "Insurance".
And neither is NI invested in a pension pot on behalf of the
contributor. You also know that but choose to ignore the fact.
National Insurance benefits have never been enough to replace earned
income. When the average male industrial earnings were about £18 a
week gross, UK was £3 a week (both figures approximate for 1969/1970,
but very close either way).
That's why there is a separate scheme of (higher) means-tested
benefits (and there isn't even the pretence of tyhat being predicated
upon insurance, even though many pundits frequently claim that people
"pay in" for their means-tested benefits (they don't - they get them
even if they've never contrinuted a bean).

The means testing is the issue. It encourages many not to work. Many say
they won't work for 50p per hour and I don't blame them.

The other way round, surely? It's hard to see how a scheme which pays
out up £20,000 a year (£384.62 pw net) for an indefinite period (outside
London, more in London) provides less incentive to get a job than a
scheme which pays about £72 a week for 26 weeks max.

But for some reason, it seems to be OK to become old. but not out of
work for any other reason.

You treat being retired and being unemployed as the same thing.
There's your error.

They seem very similar to me.

Do they? They're nothing like the same thing.

Unemployment is supposed to be a misfortune which no-one seeks and which
they will tell you they wish to be out of, asap.

Retirement is something for which everybody wishes (for themselves and
everyone to whom they are related or with whom they are acquainted) and
hopes it will go on for as long aspossible.

One seems to get a lot of stick and the other is pandered to.

Ask yourself why that is (and whether "pandered to" is the correct way
to think about retirement).

We should encourage unemployed people to find work. They will usually
tell you they want work.

Everyone should get a wage and be damned,

You can only get a wage for working. Wages are not appropriate for the
retired OR for the unemployed, for that reason.

means testing discourages meaningful work.

See above.

I guess you being 'retired' will say ageism rules.

I'm not sure what you might mean by that. Ageism is very prevalent in
society, but I don't intend to be a complainant.

Not many people think it morally wrong to claim for a dent on your car -
no matter how it was caused.

And?

I might have thought there were personal economic reasons, but hey!

There are plenty of reasons not to claim for damage to your car even
though it is covered. Sometimes those reasons prevail; sometimes they
don't. It has little or nothing to do with pensions, benefits,
unemployment or retirement.

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.

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.

So they haven't paid enough in and rely upon others to subsidise their
income.

A bit like the unemployed.

It may be irrelevant to the likes of you parasitically living off
others, but very relevant for the likes of me.

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.

On 23/11/2017 01:05, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2017 21:34, Fredxxx wrote:

On 22/11/2017 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2017 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

Bit like saying when your insurance company pays for a repair to
your car it is only a stop gap until you get a new one.

Not even a little bit like it. No-one wants ever to have to make a
car insurance claim. Everyone hopes
and expects to claim and receive Retirement Pension, preferable for a
very long time.
But car insurance claims may, I suppose, be slightly likened to
unemployment benefit. One hopes never to have to claim and with good
luck, never will.

The idea of national insurance is to provide for times when you are
unemployed or unable to work for other reasons. And to provide for
old age.

That certainly is often erroneously supposed to be the case. National
"Insurance" is not an insurance scheme - and you know it isn't. If it
were, it would cost more the greater the risk of unemployment or
sickness because that's the way that insurance works. But in the UK,
national insurance contributions are lowest (and can be zero) for
those who spend the longest periods on benefits and those who are
least likely to claim, are more likely to be paying 12% of their
income for a lifetime, in National "Insurance".
And neither is NI invested in a pension pot on behalf of the
contributor. You also know that but choose to ignore the fact.
National Insurance benefits have never been enough to replace earned
income. When the average male industrial earnings were about £18 a
week gross, UK was £3 a week (both figures approximate for 1969/1970,
but very close either way).
That's why there is a separate scheme of (higher) means-tested
benefits (and there isn't even the pretence of tyhat being predicated
upon insurance, even though many pundits frequently claim that people
"pay in" for their means-tested benefits (they don't - they get them
even if they've never contrinuted a bean).

The means testing is the issue. It encourages many not to work. Many
say they won't work for 50p per hour and I don't blame them.

The other way round, surely? It's hard to see how a scheme which pays
out up £20,000 a year (£384.62 pw net) for an indefinite period (outside
London, more in London) provides less incentive to get a job than a
scheme which pays about £72 a week for 26 weeks max.

What?

It's very nice for those can get that much, but have you ever considered
the figure associated with claw-back of tax-credits and reduction of
other benefits?

I know many stick to working 16 hours at minimum wage as it maximises
income / effort expended.

Lets take a family paying basic rate tax, quite possible at minimum wage
for 35 hours a week.

Lets increase their income by £10 by working harder.
They lose £2.00 from IT, and £1.20 NI. They lose £3.80 from reduction of
tax credits.

With the £3 they have left they go to their local council, who reduce
their HB by £1.80 and CTB by 75p.

If you can do simple arithmetic, you might start to understand why it's
not 'the other way round'.

But for some reason, it seems to be OK to become old. but not out of
work for any other reason.

You treat being retired and being unemployed as the same thing.
There's your error.

They seem very similar to me.

Do they? They're nothing like the same thing.

Unemployment is supposed to be a misfortune which no-one seeks and which
they will tell you they wish to be out of, asap.

For many, not working is a life-style choice.

Retirement is something for which everybody wishes (for themselves and
everyone to whom they are related or with whom they are acquainted) and
hopes it will go on for as long aspossible.

Of course, as long as the individual makes their own provision, I don't
have any issue with that.

One seems to get a lot of stick and the other is pandered to.

Ask yourself why that is (and whether "pandered to" is the correct way
to think about retirement).

They are more likely to vote and are therefore treated differently. You
only have to look at the application of the bedroom tax to see an
example. Free TV license is another.

We should encourage unemployed people to find work. They will usually
tell you they want work.

We should encourage everyone to work, I repeat encourage and not hit
them with a stick when they do.

Everyone should get a wage and be damned,

You can only get a wage for working. Wages are not appropriate for the
retired OR for the unemployed, for that reason.

Wages are very appropriate for someone in their later stages of life and
able to work without making any provision for retirement.

means testing discourages meaningful work.

See above.

Quite

I guess you being 'retired' will say ageism rules.

I'm not sure what you might mean by that. Ageism is very prevalent in
society, but I don't intend to be a complainant.

Sadly - yes, it advantages the elderly.

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?

The only way they can pay more is to earn more.

On 23/11/2017 01:13, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/11/2017 00:50, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote
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.

So they haven't paid enough in..

....there's something in that. There was a time when NI for an employee
was less than £1 a week, flat rate, irrespective of earnings. But that
was more than forty years ago. Sonce 1974, NI cotrinbutions have
effectively been an extra income tax, constituting (for the average
earner) a band which was 9%, raised progressively to 10%, then 11% and
now 12%.

and rely upon others to subsidise their income.

"subsidise" isn't the correct term.

The word you were looking for was "pay".

A bit like the unemployed.

It may be irrelevant to the likes of you parasitically living off
others, but very relevant for the likes of me.

If you are lucky, you will never be unemployed.

If you are unlucky, you will never be a pensioner.

On 23/11/2017 01:27, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/11/2017 01:05, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2017 21:34, Fredxxx wrote:

On 22/11/2017 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2017 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Â*Â*Â* JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

Bit like saying when your insurance company pays for a repair to
your car it is only a stop gap until you get a new one.

Not even a little bit like it. No-one wants ever to have to make a
car insurance claim. Everyone hopes
and expects to claim and receive Retirement Pension, preferable for a
very long time.
But car insurance claims may, I suppose, be slightly likened to
unemployment benefit. One hopes never to have to claim and with good
luck, never will.

The idea of national insurance is to provide for times when you are
unemployed or unable to work for other reasons. And to provide for
old age.

That certainly is often erroneously supposed to be the case.
National "Insurance" is not an insurance scheme - and you know it
isn't. If it were, it would cost more the greater the risk of
unemployment or sickness because that's the way that insurance
works. But in the UK, national insurance contributions are lowest
(and can be zero) for those who spend the longest periods on
benefits and those who are least likely to claim, are more likely to
be paying 12% of their income for a lifetime, in National "Insurance".
And neither is NI invested in a pension pot on behalf of the
contributor. You also know that but choose to ignore the fact.
National Insurance benefits have never been enough to replace earned
income. When the average male industrial earnings were about £18 a
week gross, UK was £3 a week (both figures approximate for
1969/1970, but very close either way).
That's why there is a separate scheme of (higher) means-tested
benefits (and there isn't even the pretence of tyhat being
predicated upon insurance, even though many pundits frequently claim
that people "pay in" for their means-tested benefits (they don't -
they get them even if they've never contrinuted a bean).

The means testing is the issue. It encourages many not to work. Many
say they won't work for 50p per hour and I don't blame them.

The other way round, surely? It's hard to see how a scheme which pays
out up £20,000 a year (£384.62 pw net) for an indefinite period
(outside London, more in London) provides less incentive to get a job
than a scheme which pays about £72 a week for 26 weeks max.

What?

Good question. I think I missed out a crucial word, using its opposite
instead. Well-spotted.

It should have read:

[in response to your:]

The means testing is the issue. It encourages many not to work. Many
say they won't work for 50p per hour and I don't blame them.

I wrote (or should have written):

The other way round, surely? It's hard to see how a scheme which pays
out up £20,000 a year (£384.62 pw net) for an indefinite period (outside
London, more in London) provides more incentive to get a job than a
scheme which pays about £72 a week for 26 weeks max.

It's very nice for those can get that much, but have you ever considered
the figure associated with claw-back of tax-credits and reduction of
other benefits?

It does not impinge on what I wrote.

I was mainly describing the effect of out-of-work benefits.

I know many stick to working 16 hours at minimum wage as it maximises
income / effort expended.

That is a silly rule which has a perverse effect. Tax Credits for
workers should only be available to those in full time work (let's say
30 hours plus per week).

Those in part-time work (for whatever reason) should have to sign on as
being (mainly) unemployed.

Lets take a family paying basic rate tax, quite possible at minimum wage
for 35 hours a week.
Lets increase their income by £10 by working harder.
They lose £2.00 from IT, and £1.20 NI. They lose £3.80 from reduction of
tax credits.
With the £3 they have left they go to their local council, who reduce
their HB by £1.80 and CTB by 75p.
If you can do simple arithmetic, you might start to understand why it's
not 'the other way round'.

I am not generally sympathetic to arguments which treat means-tested
benefits as a basic right, to be clung to even when other income rises.
I'm sure you know why.

But for some reason, it seems to be OK to become old. but not out
of work for any other reason.

You treat being retired and being unemployed as the same thing.
There's your error.

They seem very similar to me.

Do they? They're nothing like the same thing.

Unemployment is supposed to be a misfortune which no-one seeks and
which they will tell you they wish to be out of, asap.

For many, not working is a life-style choice.

Yes, I am well aware of it. The system needs to be tweaked so that it
does not pay.

Retirement is something for which everybody wishes (for themselves and
everyone to whom they are related or with whom they are acquainted)
and hopes it will go on for as long aspossible.

Of course, as long as the individual makes their own provision, I don't
have any issue with that.

You don't agree with payment of pensions promised over five decades per
working lifetime, then? I started making NI contributions (flat rate)
when I was 15.

One seems to get a lot of stick and the other is pandered to.

Ask yourself why that is (and whether "pandered to" is the correct way
to think about retirement).

They are more likely to vote and are therefore treated differently.

Of course pensioners are treated differently from non-pensioners. They
get pensions. Non-pensioners don't.

You
only have to look at the application of the bedroom tax to see an
example.

That doesn't apply to me.

Free TV license is another.

Neither does that. Is it supposed to? When did that start and why wasn't
it advertised?

We should encourage unemployed people to find work. They will usually
tell you they want work.

We should encourage everyone to work, I repeat encourage and not hit
them with a stick when they do.

What form does your vsion of "encouragement" take?

Everyone should get a wage and be damned,

You can only get a wage for working. Wages are not appropriate for the
retired OR for the unemployed, for that reason.

Wages are very appropriate for someone in their later stages of life and
able to work without making any provision for retirement.

That's too vague to have meaning.

means testing discourages meaningful work.

See above.

Quite

I guess you being 'retired' will say ageism rules.

I'm not sure what you might mean by that. Ageism is very prevalent in
society, but I don't intend to be a complainant.

Sadly - yes, it advantages the elderly.

You are 180 degrees wrong in that.

On 22/11/2017 15:34, JNugent wrote:


Credit cards, used carefully and responsibly, can give the holder up to
six weeks credit and incur *no* interest at all. I spend about £13,000 a
year on my Amex card (which I signed up for in 2000) and I have never
paid a penny to American Express for any reason whatsoever.

Not even to settle your monthly account?

--

Paul Hyett, Cheltenham

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
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.

So they haven't paid enough in and rely upon others to subsidise their
income.

Thats very arguable with the govt system on the relys.

Those with even half a clue have a hell of
a lot more than just what NI pays them.

A bit like the unemployed.

Nothing even remotely like in fact.

It may be irrelevant to the likes of you parasitically living off others,

I dont. I havent even bother to do the paperwork
to get mine, for more than a decade too.

but very relevant for the likes of me.

Your problem, as always.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 22/11/2017 21:34, Fredxxx wrote:

On 22/11/2017 01:28, JNugent wrote:
On 22/11/2017 00:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
JNugent wrote:

[ ... ]

UB is a stop-gap until things get better by other means (a job).

Bit like saying when your insurance company pays for a repair to your
car it is only a stop gap until you get a new one.

Not even a little bit like it. No-one wants ever to have to make a car
insurance claim. Everyone hopes
and expects to claim and receive Retirement Pension, preferable for a
very long time.
But car insurance claims may, I suppose, be slightly likened to
unemployment benefit. One hopes never to have to claim and with good
luck, never will.

The idea of national insurance is to provide for times when you are
unemployed or unable to work for other reasons. And to provide for old
age.

That certainly is often erroneously supposed to be the case. National
"Insurance" is not an insurance scheme - and you know it isn't. If it
were, it would cost more the greater the risk of unemployment or
sickness because that's the way that insurance works. But in the UK,
national insurance contributions are lowest (and can be zero) for those
who spend the longest periods on benefits and those who are least likely
to claim, are more likely to be paying 12% of their income for a
lifetime, in National "Insurance".
And neither is NI invested in a pension pot on behalf of the
contributor. You also know that but choose to ignore the fact.
National Insurance benefits have never been enough to replace earned
income. When the average male industrial earnings were about £18 a week
gross, UK was £3 a week (both figures approximate for 1969/1970, but
very close either way).
That's why there is a separate scheme of (higher) means-tested benefits
(and there isn't even the pretence of tyhat being predicated upon
insurance, even though many pundits frequently claim that people "pay
in" for their means-tested benefits (they don't - they get them even if
they've never contrinuted a bean).

The means testing is the issue. It encourages many not to work. Many say
they won't work for 50p per hour and I don't blame them.

The other way round, surely? It's hard to see how a scheme which pays out
up £20,000 a year (£384.62 pw net) for an indefinite period (outside
London, more in London) provides less incentive to get a job than a scheme
which pays about £72 a week for 26 weeks max.

But for some reason, it seems to be OK to become old. but not out of
work for any other reason.

You treat being retired and being unemployed as the same thing. There's
your error.

They seem very similar to me.

Do they? They're nothing like the same thing.

Unemployment is supposed to be a misfortune which no-one seeks and which
they will tell you they wish to be out of, asap.

Retirement is something for which everybody wishes

Plenty dont and keep working because they prefer that to retirement.

(for themselves and everyone to whom they are related or with whom they
are acquainted)

Ditto.

and hopes it will go on for as long as possible.

Plenty dont and top themselves when they decide
that they dont like what they are stuck with.

One seems to get a lot of stick and the other is pandered to.

Ask yourself why that is (and whether "pandered to" is the correct way to
think about retirement).

We should encourage unemployed people to find work. They will usually
tell you they want work.

But when offered work, choose not to do that work.

Everyone should get a wage and be damned,

You can only get a wage for working.

Thats not true either. Some get a wage stay
out of the way of those doing the real work.

Wages are not appropriate for the retired OR for the unemployed, for that
reason.

True.

means testing discourages meaningful work.

See above.

I guess you being 'retired' will say ageism rules.

I'm not sure what you might mean by that. Ageism is very prevalent in
society, but I don't intend to be a complainant.

Not many people think it morally wrong to claim for a dent on your
car -
no matter how it was caused.

And?

I might have thought there were personal economic reasons, but hey!

There are plenty of reasons not to claim for damage to your car even
though it is covered. Sometimes those reasons prevail; sometimes they
don't. It has little or nothing to do with pensions, benefits,
unemployment or retirement.

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
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.

First you claim that not enough has been paid in,
then you howl when the contributions are increased
and the age at which you can claim is delayed.

You can't have it both ways.

"JNugent" wrote in message
...
On 23/11/2017 01:13, Fredxxx wrote:

On 23/11/2017 00:50, Rod Speed wrote:
"Fredxxx" wrote
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.

So they haven't paid enough in..

...there's something in that. There was a time when NI for an employee was
less than £1 a week, flat rate, irrespective of earnings. But that was
more than forty years ago. Sonce 1974, NI cotrinbutions have effectively
been an extra income tax, constituting (for the average earner) a band
which was 9%, raised progressively to 10%, then 11% and now 12%.

and rely upon others to subsidise their income.

"subsidise" isn't the correct term.

The word you were looking for was "pay".

A bit like the unemployed.

It may be irrelevant to the likes of you parasitically living off others,
but very relevant for the likes of me.

If you are lucky, you will never be unemployed.

Nothing to do with luck, I have never been unemployed.

If you are unlucky, you will never be a pensioner.

I'm not a pensioner and that has nothing to do with luck.

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 17:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Yellow wrote:
I would love a pensioner's bus pass but am not old enough
unfortunately, and was wistfully thinking about them only the other
day.

I concluded I would be prepared to pay a couple of hundred quid, if
not more, for such a wonderful perk that cannot actually be purchased
at any price.

You can buy a pass that gives unlimited travel in London - similar to
the Freedom pass.

But a bus pass is free and covers London buses 24/7.

If you mean a Freedom pass, it covers more than buses.

Do you ever read posts before replying?

--
*It ain't the size, it's... er... no, it IS ..the size.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
You don't need to be rich (or anywhere near rich) for that. You just
need a way of balancing out liabilities, with an overdaraft, credit
card, etc. Such facilities do not necessarily lead to extraindebtedness
medium to long term.

Wrong. You would almost certainly be clobbered for huge amounts of
interest plus, of course, the amount borrowed.

I don't quite see how having to pay back the amount borrowed equates
to "being clobbered"

Exactly.

And the charges won't break the bank either. A few weeks' borrowing of a
few hundred quid will attract charges of (literally) a few quid.

You really think all poor have access to cheap credit in the same way as
many of us do?

You really do need to get out more.

--
*Why is the word abbreviation so long?

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Why do you believe they should be illegal?

Because pensions are hardly the core business of the likes of BT etc
etc.

You want every company restricted to its core business by law? Have you
even thought about the implications of this?

Why, then, should they be running a pension scheme - for which
they continue to have liability, whether or the company does well or
not. What was the issue with Green and BHS? Pensions.

You think the reason BHS failed was its pension liability?


What did Maxwell
raid? The company pension pot. The main thing I seem to keep hearing
about company pension schemes is whether they are solvent or not.

Moving pensions to an independant provider is a guarantee of solvency?
After all, that would be a core business of the likes of RBS. ;-)

--
*Friends help you move. Real friends help you move bodies.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 18:09:15 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 17:09:17 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Mark
wrote:

On Wed, 22 Nov 2017 09:57:37 +0000, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , JNugent
wrote:

And neither is NI invested in a pension pot on behalf of the
contributor. You also know that but choose to ignore the fact.

Which is how it ought to work. Then the pension liability is off the
government's books. Equally, final-salary, defined-benefit, and company
pensions should all be illegal.

Why do you believe they should be illegal?

Because pensions are hardly the core business of the likes of BT etc
etc. Why, then, should they be running a pension scheme - for which
they continue to have liability, whether or the company does well or
not. What was the issue with Green and BHS? Pensions. What did Maxwell
raid? The company pension pot. The main thing I seem to keep hearing
about company pension schemes is whether they are solvent or not.

True. But even given that pension schemes are not the core business
of many companies making them illegal is a major change and not in
keeping with financial competition. I believe that the legislation
has been tightened up so that company pensions cannot be raided any
more.

I agree it couldn't be an overnight change.

If each person has their own pension pot, into which they contribute,
they can then decide at retirement how and when what to do with it.

True. But with these it is much harder to predict how much pension
you are likely to get.

They can get a pensions cpy to manage it or a fund manager if they want
to have it as a SIPP. Each employer they have during their working
career can choose whether or not to contribute into the employee's pot
- perhaps as an incentive for the employee to work for that cpy instead
of another.

Clearly some people might find it too hard to deal with - there'd have
to be provision for them too.

Or not have enough spare income to contribute enough to the scheme,
even assuming that they know how much is "enough".

Perhaps that is where the NI comes in: the gumment's NI "take" is
divided equally and added to everyone's pot (not the NHS part,
obviously).

NI isn't hypothecated. It's just another tax.

Anyway, the above is more really in the guise of a serving suggestion:
pensions are a problem and something needs to be done.

Agreed.

--
insert witty sig here

On 23/11/2017 07:15, Vidcapper wrote:

On 22/11/2017 15:34, JNugent wrote:

Credit cards, used carefully and responsibly, can give the holder up to
six weeks credit and incur *no* interest at all. I spend about £13,000 a
year on my Amex card (which I signed up for in 2000) and I have never
paid a penny to American Express for any reason whatsoever.

It might have been 2001, now I think of it.

Not even to settle your monthly account?

That money goes to the suppliers (to whom I would otherwise owe the
money), not to Amex for anything they've done for me.

The relationship between the suppliers and Amex is not a matter of
concern for me.

Annually, I also get ‰ƒ1% of my Amex spend back, credited to my account
in July (the anniversary of contracting for the card back in 2000 or
2001). The Amex account saves money, effectively off the purchase price,
as well as by affording the cardholder up to six weeks' interest-free
credit.

On 23/11/2017 10:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 17:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Yellow wrote:

I would love a pensioner's bus pass but am not old enough
unfortunately, and was wistfully thinking about them only the other
day.

I concluded I would be prepared to pay a couple of hundred quid, if
not more, for such a wonderful perk that cannot actually be purchased
at any price.

You can buy a pass that gives unlimited travel in London - similar to
the Freedom pass.

But a bus pass is free and covers London buses 24/7.

If you mean a Freedom pass, it covers more than buses.

It isn't a Freedom Pass and only covers buses.

Do you ever read posts before replying?

:-)

Have you realised the difference between a bus pass (issued by councils
in England outside London) and a Freedom Pass yet?

How would the PP (living on the south coast) ever be entitled to a
Freedom Pass?

On 23/11/2017 10:38, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

JNugent wrote:

You don't need to be rich (or anywhere near rich) for that. You just
need a way of balancing out liabilities, with an overdaraft, credit
card, etc. Such facilities do not necessarily lead to extraindebtedness
medium to long term.

Wrong. You would almost certainly be clobbered for huge amounts of
interest plus, of course, the amount borrowed.

I don't quite see how having to pay back the amount borrowed equates
to "being clobbered"

Exactly.

And the charges won't break the bank either. A few weeks' borrowing of a
few hundred quid will attract charges of (literally) a few quid.

You really think all poor have access to cheap credit in the same way as
many of us do?

This is not the opinion page of the Guardian and most of us are not
seeking to use hypocrital virtue-signalling terms at every opportunity.

We were not discussing "the poor".

We were discussing people who (temporarily) claim Universal Credit
because they are (temporarily) unemployed.

You really do need to get out more.

Have you ever thought of applying reason and logic to discussions?

Or do you prefer to apply your bull-in-china-shop tactics to everything?

Not everyone on benefits (temporarily) is or will remain poor.

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%?

On 23/11/2017 08:55, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
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.

First you claim that not enough has been paid in,
then you howl when the contributions are increased
and the age at which you can claim is delayed.

You can't have it both ways.

Have you deliberately misunderstood that those currently paid pensions
started at an earlier age than those currently paying NI contributions?

And that those currently paying NI are doing so at a higher rate than
current pensioners paid?

"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
On 23/11/2017 08:55, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
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.

First you claim that not enough has been paid in,
then you howl when the contributions are increased
and the age at which you can claim is delayed.

You can't have it both ways.

Have you deliberately misunderstood that those currently paid pensions
started at an earlier age than those currently paying NI contributions?

Nope.

And that those currently paying NI are doing so at a higher rate than
current pensioners paid?

Nope.

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.

On 24/11/2017 02:51, Fredxxx wrote:
On 23/11/2017 08:55, Rod Speed wrote:


"Fredxxx" wrote in message
news
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.

First you claim that not enough has been paid in,
then you howl when the contributions are increased
and the age at which you can claim is delayed.

You can't have it both ways.

Have you deliberately misunderstood that those currently paid pensions
started at an earlier age than those currently paying NI contributions?

And that those currently paying NI are doing so at a higher rate than
current pensioners paid?

Only if you discount the fact that the basic rate of income tax (which
serves exactly the same function and is charged over a wider slice of
income) was, at 37.5%, 63% higher than the 23% Mrs Thatcher reduced it to.

Additionally, this pensioner made his first NI contributions (it was
then still an updated flat rate, as introduced in the late forties) in
1966 at the age of 15.

Do I get any credit or advantage for starting so early and for paying NI
for 50 years in total?

No, I didn't think I would.

On 24/11/2017 09:47, Huge wrote:

On 2017-11-24, JNugent wrote:
On 24/11/2017 02:46, Fredxxx wrote:

[40 lines snipped]


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%).

Are you including the employers "contribution", too? It's been a while
since I operated PAYE (and 27 months since I paid any NIC) so I'm totally
adrift with the numbers.

No. The employer's levy is on top of those figures.

On Mon, 20 Nov 2017 12:09:07 -0000, Terry Casey
wrote:

In article ,
lid says...



I am 99.999999% sure you are wrong. Everyone gets the £155 (if you are
paid up on NI) but if you have SERPS you can get more and it is
calculated under the old scheme in that case.

There is no way of getting less than the £155


Oh yes there is!

Cutting a few words from a entire discussion about how much you get
under the new scheme to point out that you only get this under the new
scheme doesn't really contribute, but thanks anyway. :-p



It depends when you reached retirement age. If it was on or
after 6 April 2016, you will get £155 BUT if it was before
that date, you only get £122.30.

https://www.gov.uk/new-state-pension
https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/eligibility
https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/what-youll-get

In article ,
JNugent wrote:
On 23/11/2017 10:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 17:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Yellow wrote:

I would love a pensioner's bus pass but am not old enough
unfortunately, and was wistfully thinking about them only the other
day.

I concluded I would be prepared to pay a couple of hundred quid, if
not more, for such a wonderful perk that cannot actually be purchased
at any price.

You can buy a pass that gives unlimited travel in London - similar to
the Freedom pass.

But a bus pass is free and covers London buses 24/7.

If you mean a Freedom pass, it covers more than buses.

It isn't a Freedom Pass and only covers buses.

What else would it cover? Most places don't have an underground or local
train services.

Do you ever read posts before replying?

:-)

Have you realised the difference between a bus pass (issued by councils
in England outside London) and a Freedom Pass yet?

How would the PP (living on the south coast) ever be entitled to a
Freedom Pass?

There aren't any tubes on the south coast. Local services are only buses.

--
*I don't know what your problem is, but I'll bet it's hard to pronounce

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 25/11/2017 00:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

JNugent wrote:
On 23/11/2017 10:36, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
JNugent wrote:
On 18/11/2017 17:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Yellow wrote:

I would love a pensioner's bus pass but am not old enough
unfortunately, and was wistfully thinking about them only the other
day.
I concluded I would be prepared to pay a couple of hundred quid, if
not more, for such a wonderful perk that cannot actually be purchased
at any price.

You can buy a pass that gives unlimited travel in London - similar to
the Freedom pass.

But a bus pass is free and covers London buses 24/7.

If you mean a Freedom pass, it covers more than buses.

It isn't a Freedom Pass and only covers buses.

What else would it cover? Most places don't have an underground or local
train services.

Well, quite.

Do you ever read posts before replying?

:-)
Have you realised the difference between a bus pass (issued by councils
in England outside London) and a Freedom Pass yet?
How would the PP (living on the south coast) ever be entitled to a
Freedom Pass?

There aren't any tubes on the south coast. Local services are only buses.

Exactly. Which is why the only benefit ever available will be a bus pass
(unless a government extends the bus pass to a public transport pass).