When my wife, a retired Senior Staff Nurse of over 43 years, was working at BDGH she use to have to admit patients who had been in private hospitals and then thrown out when Insurance companies refuse to pay out.
NI is directly charged to pay for your pension and non means tested benefits. There's an allowable excess that can be spent on the NHS but nothing else - but the primary purpose of NI is benefits not the NHS.
Not at all true - just because you pay it in one cheque means nothing - you've sent details to HMRC of the details of what you've 'collected'. When one of those employees becomes unemployed, goes sick or retires - the records of their NI contributions are very important.
No-one, including Nigel Farage, wants to copy the American system, just like how no other country in the world wants to copy the NHS, they're both inadequate for completely different reasons, the best health systems are in France, Italy, Spain, Scandinavia and in other European countries and they all use a mixture of public and private money.
Almost as dangerous as the fact he is a climate change denier. All he is interested in is making more money for his rich friends.
Just for info... He's on record as saying that Doctors might have it wrong about the danger of smoking. Not someone I'd take advice about healthcare from.
To be clear, you pay NI to pay for the pensions for those that are retired now. Your NI payments are not saved up into a pot for your retirement, your pension will be paid by the people who are working when you retire. NI is just a large national Ponzi scheme that needs over 250,000 extra tax payers each year to pay for the extra people that are retiring.
I was looking for quotes for a potential move to Guernsey earlier this year. I'm late 40s, good health, wife mid-50s with type 2 diabetes and were looking *at the cheapest* over £500 per month. I think the top quote was over £2000 per month.
I never suggested you did. That’d be daft. I simply stated the fact your payment record is important, so it’s not just another form of taxation. it is ‘insurance’ just like your household insurance isn’t being saved up for when you get burgled. BTW the NI pot is currently running at quite a healthy surplus - probably due to all those foreign workers who’ll never get to claim any pension from it.
French is pay up front, but the state reimburses the cost. Italy is entirely state funded. Spain is entirely state funded. Norway is entirely state funded. Iceland is entirely state funded. Sweden is entirely state funded. Finland is nearly all state funded. Denmark is entirely state funded. Indeed the vast majority of countries with the best healthcare systems are state funded.
Where did you get that from? Actually Italy is NOT entirely state funded. Some elements of treatment have to be paid for by the patient and are provided by private enterprises e.g. laboratories and clinics (albeit those charges are subsidised and capped) - see my earlier post. I know because I live here in Italy and my wife and I use the system. The Italian system I have to say, based on experience in using both, is now superior to the NHS and if you speak to ex-pats in Italy they will confirm that to be true.
thats not quite true scoff, yes its obvious you are paying to provide a pension for people who are receiving the state pension now but anyone of that age group who has not paid (i think 30 years) their NI contributions will not be in receipt of the state pension,This also applies to you , me and everyone else, if you dont pay 30 years of NI contributions you will not recieve the state pension, although its not in a pot like a private pension you still have to pay the minimum term of 30 years to receive it
Wrong and right All deductions are paid into the same pot. NIC & PAYE The amount that is deducted if above the Lower Earnings level gets you a qualifying year for pensions. You need 35 to get a full state pension. The national insurance record also qualifies you for other state benefits. Actually you were mainly right
Or maybe because those that have paid contributions all their working lives dont live long enough to actually get to retirement age or if they do they dont live that many years to put a dint in the state pension pot
Not quite. For full state pension £168. pw) you need 35 qualifying years. The minimum qualifying years is 10 but for each year that you fall short of 35 the pension is reduced. For example, if you have 20 qualifying years when you retire then the calculation would £168 / 35 = 4.80 x 20 years = £96.00. I'd suggest that it's worthwhile for everyone get a state pension forecast, particularly anyone who has worked part time, self employed and parents who haven't worked to look after children. Once you have that you should get a copy of your National Insurance record to identify any gaps.
Oh dear This is one of those government rip-offs people incapable of thought re-post on facebook. When you're designing an 'insurance' scheme you simply pool the risks so with NI that'd look a bit like this... So that you're not charging everyone what it would cost if they were unemployed for 15 years and then they had a happy 30 year retirement - you analyse the data to find the average amount of sickness / unemployment and average life expectancy. From that you can calculate the appropriate premium. The variables would an influx of labour or a sudden drop in life expectancy (of Spanish flu proportions). Whilst i flippantly suggested the influx of foreign labour - I could also have pointed to the serious issue that austerity reduced life expectancy for the poorer areas of the country - life expectancy is dropping for the first time in modern history. There's an law which governs the fact that a surplus can't simply be added to the exchequer - with an annual agreement of how much of the surplus can be spent directly on the NHS (but nothing else).
government rip off?? facebook?? what are you waffling on about donny sorry for the edit... during the 1990's i was in a british coal staff superannuation scheme meeting and the average age of death was 60 years (and so many days of which i cant exactly remember how many), these figures showed that a substantial amount of men never got to draw their state pension, british steel and other heavy industry also had similar figures.. these men had paid their contributions all their working lives and in actual fact the figure was one year less when similar calculations were done ten years earlier i'm unsure what facebook has to do with this, maybe you were being sarcastic or trying to be clever,i dont know . i would also seriously question the governments own life expectancy figures in that i think they are more suited to the agenda of making us think we are all living so much longer in order to raise the state retirement age, have a walk around felkirk church if you dont believe me, theres far more dying before 70 than after it, infant mortality rates have dramatically reduced over the last 50 years and theres plenty of reasoning which suggests that these figures are helping in the states quest to make us all work longer
Whatever it is you’ve been inhaling, you should stop. Slowly; just like the superannuation, life expectancy is a known. Unlike the NCB superannuation scheme, your Retirement Pension isn’t only based on men who’ve lived in a toxic environment, so life expectancy levels will be much higher. Lastly. It’s a sealed scheme, they’re not out to rip you off, they can’t just choose to spend that money elsewhere, so there’s no real benefit in it having a massive surplus, though of course if it runs at a deficit it’ll need a top up from general taxation. Why you think this is controversial; god only knows, there’s no debate to be had, everything in my posts is available to you in the government’s accounts and published in Hansard. No code required, all published for you for free.