You havn"t a clue , I worked from 16 to 65 with not even a days break in employment & now I am retired I am still paying dues so do not patronise me , someone who has paid all their lives & are still contributing are not spouting nonsense
Contributing as in paying income tax? Why would you not if your income was above the threshold. Your NI contributions should have stopped though aged 65.
That ought to change though. No reason at all why we shouldn't pay NI beyond 65 if we have the income, in my view.
Not sure about controversial, you’re just repeating what is said on every building site in the land as the lads go in the snap cabin doused in sweat at break time.
Let's not give the government another way of taking off the ordinary bloke. 2 or 3 major companies and thousands who avoid paying tax in the first place would likely more than cover any deficit this country ever makes.
It’s a fairly simple thing as far as I’m concerned. Our genuinely needy in society don’t get enough and the shyster get too much. Readdress that balance in a calculated, ruthless and proper way and the taxpayers would never mutter the word scrounger again.
Thats correct , I have no problem with that , what I do not get is this opinion that retired people take out of the pot & have not put in . I paid in for a full 50 years & I am one of the lucky ones as some poor buggers pay in for nearly as long & then do not make it to retirement . I actually think the days of paying in for so long have almost gone as a lot of todays workers do not actually start work until they are in their twenties whilst in my day for the majority you left school at 15/16 on the friday & started work on the monday
Its pk to speak but I have recently been a victim to universal credit after loosing a job (It makes we question if I can either afford to work or need to .there are that many benefits now that I had to be earning nearly £400 p/w just to cover the Universal credit. How can that be right .It was only the pride and boredom that made me get a job and now its like I'm earning £1.75 an hour after U/C is stopped How can a man working 40 plus hours a week be worse off than someone on benefits I think all claims should come with a bin bag and a litter picker with the condition that when you fill the bag you can have some money .......ya can have as many bags as you want and can get paid for every full one but no more free money and don't get me started on the migrants
If you have been in a well paid job in a professional capacity taking a low paid job can actually be detrimental to getting back in to the Rat Race. The problem I have with low paid jobs is that they expect you to half kill yourself to make someone else richer and they treat you like scum. I speak as someone who has been on £40K all the way down to NMW. The hardest work was always the lowest paid. I'm glad I'm retired and out of the Rat Race. What would you have done with the £6.49 I had in my last period of unemployment? The most I had a week was £9. My wife asked me why I bothered with all the hassle of going into the job centre but I paid in and will take out what I put in. The Job Centre staff didn't know what to do with me.
Most retired people will take more than they have ever put in. As the number of retired people increases, so will the burden on the young. Incidentally, one of the groups that does put more in than they take are young migrants, and the elderly voted by a large majority to get rid of them in the Brexit referendum. Now I'm not saying that the elderly are parasites, but we should certainly look at cutting off free NHS access once they hit 70. Their generation greatly benefited from the boom in housing prices, which has left large numbers of young people unable to afford their own home. They deserve no sympathy and hopefully we'll cut them off sooner rather than later. Sources: https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopula...sthanpaidintaxes1977tofinancialyearending2016 https://www.theguardian.com/business/2011/mar/15/babyboomers-welfare-politics-tax
I think a better system for 65+ and NHS would be for it to be means tested. For example, why should someone who has potentially tens or hundreds of thousands in savings have free prescriptions when people working full time on low incomes have to pay for them?
Because they’ve paid for it? The system has to have something for everyone otherwise the richest wouldn’t pay for it
I'm sure they have put their fair share in and don't dispute that, but if we are to save the NHS changes such as this may need to happen.
If you alienate the contributors it will become worthless anyway . The poorest majority cannot keep the nhs or other govt funded institutions whilst the richest few look after themselves . It’s a sad reflection on society but true
I don't understand the problem? We pay for prescriptions which are heavily subsidised as it is in the first place, all I am suggesting is that the wealthiest pensioners continue to pay towards their scripts. For example, a month's supply of certain antidepressants cost the NHS over £100 per couple of month's supply... the working age person pays about £8.40 for that (havent had a prescription for a while so may be more). It isn't too much to ask of the wealthiest pensioners. It's a bit like giving child benefit to people with huge combined salaries... completely unnecessary in the scheme of things and ways in which savings could be made. I suspect the reason it isn't in force is perhaps the cost of having an organisation means test everyone.