The K M Links Game - November 2024 Week...
Quizzes & Puzzles21 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.
“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”
Just to expand on bm’s information a little. You only get your basic state pension of £107 increased up to £142 if you have no other form of income in retirement, or insufficient income to take your total to that higher level.
Two examples:
Person A. Worked for forty years, paid full tax and NI (currently 12% of their pay) for all that time. Also contributed to a company pension which gives them (say) a modest £10,000pa. Being “rich” (because they have been responsible enough to provide a little extra to fund their retirement) they get just £107 in State pension. This makes their annual income £15,587. This will be subject to Income Tax. Using today’s allowances and rates they will pay £1,496 in tax leaving them with £14,090. Put another way their net benefit in State pension from 40 years of full contributions is £4,090pa.
Person B. Never worked, or at least hardly worked at all, or perhaps spent much of their earlier life elsewhere. Never earned enough to pay income tax or NI. Perhaps drew considerable sums in benefits throughout their “working” life. Being “poor” (because they did not trouble themselves with anything so tiresome as work) they receive £7,420 in “pension“, no tax. Put another way, their net benefit in State Pension from no contributions whatsoever is some 81% more than Person A. And I won't even begin to get started on Housing and Council Tax Benefits to which they will also be entitled.
And that’s the bloody scandal. I'm not saying the State should not fund the poor and destitute from everywhere (although I would in a separate argument.) I'm saying they should not fund them to a far more lavish degree than those who have contributed so heftily.
So there’s the “examples” you craved, fried green You just need to sit down and do a few simple sums such as those above.
Just to expand on bm’s information a little. You only get your basic state pension of £107 increased up to £142 if you have no other form of income in retirement, or insufficient income to take your total to that higher level.
Two examples:
Person A. Worked for forty years, paid full tax and NI (currently 12% of their pay) for all that time. Also contributed to a company pension which gives them (say) a modest £10,000pa. Being “rich” (because they have been responsible enough to provide a little extra to fund their retirement) they get just £107 in State pension. This makes their annual income £15,587. This will be subject to Income Tax. Using today’s allowances and rates they will pay £1,496 in tax leaving them with £14,090. Put another way their net benefit in State pension from 40 years of full contributions is £4,090pa.
Person B. Never worked, or at least hardly worked at all, or perhaps spent much of their earlier life elsewhere. Never earned enough to pay income tax or NI. Perhaps drew considerable sums in benefits throughout their “working” life. Being “poor” (because they did not trouble themselves with anything so tiresome as work) they receive £7,420 in “pension“, no tax. Put another way, their net benefit in State Pension from no contributions whatsoever is some 81% more than Person A. And I won't even begin to get started on Housing and Council Tax Benefits to which they will also be entitled.
And that’s the bloody scandal. I'm not saying the State should not fund the poor and destitute from everywhere (although I would in a separate argument.) I'm saying they should not fund them to a far more lavish degree than those who have contributed so heftily.
So there’s the “examples” you craved, fried green You just need to sit down and do a few simple sums such as those above.
Dealing with the NHS aspect: I have just established that a British citizen, born here to British parents, holding a full British citizen's passport, is not entitled to NHS care and treatment (save in some specified instances such as having a contagious disease). She left this country, aged 7 months, when her parents emigrated to Canada. She is now 25.
If that is true of her, how true is it that foreigners, foreign in every sense, are entitled to such treatment? EU citizens are entitled to treatment under reciprocal arrangements in any EU state.
I'm intrigued by the OP putting "Europe" in inverted commas. Why? Are we not in Europe? Or is "Europe" meant to mean the EU ?
If that is true of her, how true is it that foreigners, foreign in every sense, are entitled to such treatment? EU citizens are entitled to treatment under reciprocal arrangements in any EU state.
I'm intrigued by the OP putting "Europe" in inverted commas. Why? Are we not in Europe? Or is "Europe" meant to mean the EU ?
