Please Answer No One Is Answering
Family & Relationships3 mins ago
National Insurance
Could somebody tell me why when I've paid National Insurance all my working life can somebody from "Europe" be entitled to the same in this joke of a country without paying a penny? Sure Boris did a good job of advertising our "free" service to the rest of the world at the Olympics but why should I pay for it?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dibble1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
The whole NI game is strange. You pay NI for a state pension so you get a state pension if you pay enough. If you don't you don't get a state pension but you get a load of other benefits that amount to the same thing. NI does not get ring fenced it's all from the same pot. Now I know where Dribble is coming from, immigrants do not get a "pension" but they do get other benefits that amount to the same. At retirement in this country you do a lot better if you've skived your whole life that if you have contributed. Add in the foreign benefit scroungers that we tolerate because we are the softest touch in the world and bingo, that's where we are today.
Ni has long since ceased to directly pay for benefits and a state pension, which was what William Beveridge proposed in his report in 1942.
It is now just best considered as yet another tax on income, the proceeds of which go straight into Tresury coffers. Paying the tax may entitle you to 'privileges' (contribution-based JSA, basic and second state pension) but then again it makes so little difference, since those who didn't pay the 'tax' get a different means-tested benefit if they are that needy, which makes us their income to pretty close to the same figure anyway.
Barking mad, but there you go.
It is now just best considered as yet another tax on income, the proceeds of which go straight into Tresury coffers. Paying the tax may entitle you to 'privileges' (contribution-based JSA, basic and second state pension) but then again it makes so little difference, since those who didn't pay the 'tax' get a different means-tested benefit if they are that needy, which makes us their income to pretty close to the same figure anyway.
Barking mad, but there you go.
In fact, bm, they will get a hefty wedge more than someone who has made full NI contributions.
Single people with no other income are guaranteed a minimum income from the State of £142.70 a week once they reach pensionable age. This is regardless of how much tax or NI they have paid. Meantime people who have worked for perhaps forty years or more paying large sums in Income Tax and NI are only guaranteed to receive from the State £107.45 and this will be added to any other income they may have to calculate their tax liability.
Yes it is barking mad. But it’s also a bloody scandal.
Single people with no other income are guaranteed a minimum income from the State of £142.70 a week once they reach pensionable age. This is regardless of how much tax or NI they have paid. Meantime people who have worked for perhaps forty years or more paying large sums in Income Tax and NI are only guaranteed to receive from the State £107.45 and this will be added to any other income they may have to calculate their tax liability.
Yes it is barking mad. But it’s also a bloody scandal.
-- answer removed --
ZebUK, yours is a different question, but one which is straight-forward to answer.
If you have gaps in your 'contribution years', it is standard practice for the NI Contributions people to write to you, advising that you are missing individual weeks within a particular year, and would you like to make up the missing amounts so that year will 'count'.
What they don't tell you is that you only need 30 complete years for a full Basic Pension, and with the rise in state pension age there are an awful lot of people who are going to have to keep working for longer.
All you need to do is work out for yourself how many complete years you will have by the time you reach 60. You will automatically get credits for the 5 (or more) years once you reach 60 until you reach 65 (or higher) when you get our state pension paid.
But as NJ has correctly pointed out, people with even the full basic state pension get their earnings brought up to a higher figure - so any missing weeks may be irrelevant anyway.
As I said earlier, its a barking mad system.
Provided the magic number will reach 30 by your state retirement age, you are home and dry. There is absolutely no danger that the 30 required years will be increased back up again - there would be a public outcry.
If you have gaps in your 'contribution years', it is standard practice for the NI Contributions people to write to you, advising that you are missing individual weeks within a particular year, and would you like to make up the missing amounts so that year will 'count'.
What they don't tell you is that you only need 30 complete years for a full Basic Pension, and with the rise in state pension age there are an awful lot of people who are going to have to keep working for longer.
All you need to do is work out for yourself how many complete years you will have by the time you reach 60. You will automatically get credits for the 5 (or more) years once you reach 60 until you reach 65 (or higher) when you get our state pension paid.
But as NJ has correctly pointed out, people with even the full basic state pension get their earnings brought up to a higher figure - so any missing weeks may be irrelevant anyway.
As I said earlier, its a barking mad system.
Provided the magic number will reach 30 by your state retirement age, you are home and dry. There is absolutely no danger that the 30 required years will be increased back up again - there would be a public outcry.
"Examples? Walk into any A&E at night and count the Eastern Europeans being stitched up. A bit like the natives really"
When out baby was born in August, one of the maternity nurses told us that what is happening now is that Eastern European girls are coming over at 36-38 weeks pregnant, waiting to go into labour and then calling an ambulance to take them to hospital where the hospital has a duty of care to treat them. They will receive complimentary care for their labour and are then entitled to pop down the benefits office and 'earn' more than the minimum wage in benefits.
The hospital in question is set up to deal with 2,500 deliveries a year, but last year they had over 5,000.
It was these 'emergency' cases that kept my wife out of a delivery suite for three days despite having been booked in for an induction at 42 weeks.
When out baby was born in August, one of the maternity nurses told us that what is happening now is that Eastern European girls are coming over at 36-38 weeks pregnant, waiting to go into labour and then calling an ambulance to take them to hospital where the hospital has a duty of care to treat them. They will receive complimentary care for their labour and are then entitled to pop down the benefits office and 'earn' more than the minimum wage in benefits.
The hospital in question is set up to deal with 2,500 deliveries a year, but last year they had over 5,000.
It was these 'emergency' cases that kept my wife out of a delivery suite for three days despite having been booked in for an induction at 42 weeks.
Dibble asks a reasonable question and is then asked for examples. Once the examples are given he is accused of being bitter (although, surprisingly, not of being racist - which is the normal default of some to stifle debate about an issue such as this).
This confuses me.
Is Friedgreentomato really so naive that he/she isn't aware that our NHS does treat the world's sick, and indeed there are many thousands who come to our shores simply to receive treatment, which often comprises lengthy and expensive treatment, completely gratis at our expense?
Is Friedgreentomato really so naive the he/she isn't aware that many thousands of people come to our shores each year and are housed and provided with benefits and their children are educated completely gratis at our expense?
Clearly Friedgreentomato is happy to fund this - but I, and I strongly suspect the vast majority of my fellow taxpayers, are not happy with this situation.
I find it galling enough to have to fund the lifestyles of our home bred wastrels, and having to fund the lifestyles of foreigners who come here simply to receive benefits really does rub salt in to the wound.
Perhaps Friedgreentomato thinks I am also bitter - although he/she couldn't be more wrong if they tried.
This confuses me.
Is Friedgreentomato really so naive that he/she isn't aware that our NHS does treat the world's sick, and indeed there are many thousands who come to our shores simply to receive treatment, which often comprises lengthy and expensive treatment, completely gratis at our expense?
Is Friedgreentomato really so naive the he/she isn't aware that many thousands of people come to our shores each year and are housed and provided with benefits and their children are educated completely gratis at our expense?
Clearly Friedgreentomato is happy to fund this - but I, and I strongly suspect the vast majority of my fellow taxpayers, are not happy with this situation.
I find it galling enough to have to fund the lifestyles of our home bred wastrels, and having to fund the lifestyles of foreigners who come here simply to receive benefits really does rub salt in to the wound.
Perhaps Friedgreentomato thinks I am also bitter - although he/she couldn't be more wrong if they tried.
Okay flip_flop - but isn't that just a disadvantage of having a free NHS and being in the EC (or is it EU). Would you rather have an NHS where everyone pays at the point of delivery? I'm not sure how we can stop it happening while we are part of the EU. Should we refuse to deliver their babies, for example?
