Re:He who pays the pension calls the tune?

[DeppityDawg]

None of this changes the fact that if all UK taxpayers, 100% of them, all decided to emigrate to Australia tomorrow and stopped paying tax, there would be no money to pay Barry's state pension.  That is the point that he was originally making, and from that perspective he is currect that Barry's state pension is paid from current tax revenues, not from the money that Barry paid in, which is what also you have admitted.

Javert, how many times does this have to be said? - No...one...is...making...that...claim. FFS!

Barry has PAID for and is entitled to his state pension because he has paid the required number of qualifying years. SRB isn't paying it. You aren't paying it. The taxpayer isn't paying it. The FUND which he contributed to is PAYING IT. That is how the scheme works. You are a contributor until you reach SP age, when you become one of its net liabilities by claiming the entitlement.

This might be a different argument if we were talking about vocational or civil services pensions, some of which were non contributory or unfunded, and may be underwritten by the "taxpayer". But we aren't talking about workplace, civil service or personal pensions, we are talking about the State Pension and the National Insurance Fund. Tax and National Insurance are not the same thing no matter how much you try to pretend one is the other - its been shown to you where NI revenues go, and that they are used to pay the State Pension.

The argument is not about "pots of cash in the BoE", it is about where the money comes from - and it comes from the National Insurance Fund, to which we all contribute. SRB claiming he "pays" someone elses pension simply because he is working and Barry isn't is a false and frankly shitty comment to make, as if to suggest that somehow, Barry only has a state pension because of the good offices of "everso nice" people like Steve. Feck off. What he means is he currently pays NI contributions into the NI Fund, because he hasn't yet reached SP age, while Barry has. That is the simple truth. Thats how it works. Barry isn't claiming he "paid the pension" of the generation before his, because he's respectful enough to know they earned it for feck sake

If you want to make silly comments about 100% of taxpayers emigrating, carry on, but if that is the level your argument has sunk to, then I'd give up before you make yourself look even more foolish

It's worth noting that in the olden days hundreds of years ago, banks had to keep an amount of gold or silver to the full amount of all their customer deposits, so if Barry had saved up 1000 pounds for his old age, the bank would have had to have 1000 pounds worth of gold in their vault in Barry's name - all that went by the wayside about 150 years ago, and even more so in recent decades.

You are going around in circles repeating an answer to a claim no one made. What's the next Javertism? Perhaps Barry suggested that he gets all the £10 notes that he paid in National Insurance back, and they'd better all have the correct serial numbers?

Actually, you turning his comments into that claim wouldn't surprise me at all.

[Sheepy]

Stop squirming Javert it is embarrassing to watch. Bullshit don't baffle brains.

[Javert]

The magic secret adjustment? What, you mean like in "Brexit" discussions, where you and the likes of BeelBeeb frequently tell people off for not having an evidenced argument or for relying on anecdotes in place of facts and figures?

You really are pure comedy some days, Javert. In another thread, there you are warning all and sundry about the dangers of "undemocratic voices", when you appear to have little idea of the meaning of the word democracy - and here you are now flailing around without anything resembling evidence of an argument and an anecdotal friend with a spreadsheet

This is what you said -

You are now conceding that the "NI fund" you argument says shouldn't exist, actually had a "surplus" in 2018, thus accepting that actually, it does exist, and disproving your statement that the State Pension is paid from "current budgets". Still, this climb down has only come about because to continue arguing about "imaginary funds" and current budgets would mean that HRMC are lying about the existence of an NI fund

Look Javert, for the second time, no one is arguing that there are pots of money lying around in the BoE, or that the National Insurance fund isn't operated as a pay as you go system. What the argument is about is you and SRB falsely claiming that the State Pension is funded by the taxpayer, and that SRB, for some reason known only to him, falsely claims that he pays Barrys pension

I've given you the solid evidence that

1) There is a National Insurance Fund
2) It is kept separate from other taxation and revenue streams
3) That it is comprised of employee and employer NI contribution and earned interest
4) That the State Pension (and some other benefits) are paid from that fund, and NOT from general taxation
5) That the fund can (and frequently does) have a surplus and that it is kept at a level of at least a years benefits

Now. The State Pension is paid from the National Insurance Fund, which is comprised of peoples NI contributions. The State Pension is NOT paid from general taxation. That means the money is kept separate from tax, even if it is only in accounting terms, which in turn means no one "pays" your State Pension, it is paid by those who contribute to it.

If you can find some evidence to show that any of the above are untrue, then by all means post it. Thats what a forum is for. Your only other option is to continue with your claims, but that would mean HRMC are lying and that the whole NI system is made up

None of this changes the fact that if all UK taxpayers, 100% of them, all decided to emigrate to Australia tomorrow and stopped paying tax, there would be no money to pay Barry's state pension.  That is the point that he was originally making, and from that perspective he is currect that Barry's state pension is paid from current tax revenues, not from the money that Barry paid in, which is what also you have admitted.

As we've also said, if it's a company or private pension, it may or may not be fully funded for future liabilities depending on the company.

I've also pointed to the fullfact article which states the find is not ringfenced in any real sense, even if it's documented in a way to make it look like it is to those who wish to believe that.

It's worth noting that in the olden days hundreds of years ago, banks had to keep an amount of gold or silver to the full amount of all their customer deposits, so if Barry had saved up 1000 pounds for his old age, the bank would have had to have 1000 pounds worth of gold in their vault in Barry's name - all that went by the wayside about 150 years ago, and even more so in recent decades.

[DeppityDawg]

As usual @DeppityDawg has missed the magic secret adjustment.

I used to know a guy in our management accounting group who was well known for his huge complicated spreadsheets, which magically reconcile to the correct expected result at the bottom.

NI is nothing different - fundamentally there is no particular money saved up for us and if the government decided to cut our pensions there is nothing we can do about it legally - we could only vote in a government who pledged to raise them again next time.

The letter you showed was that the NI fund had a surplus in 2018 - there are some years when it is surplus and some not, but in the end it doesn't matter because someone just plugs in a magic number to balance it as it's all lumped into other government figures.

The magic secret adjustment? What, you mean like in "Brexit" discussions, where you and the likes of BeelBeeb frequently tell people off for not having an evidenced argument or for relying on anecdotes in place of facts and figures?

You really are pure comedy some days, Javert. In another thread, there you are warning all and sundry about the dangers of "undemocratic voices", when you appear to have little idea of the meaning of the word democracy - and here you are now flailing around without anything resembling evidence of an argument and an anecdotal friend with a spreadsheet

This is what you said -

However other than that (for example UK state pension), the pension paid to UK citizens is covered from current budgets each year

You are now conceding that the "NI fund" you argument says shouldn't exist, actually had a "surplus" in 2018, thus accepting that actually, it does exist, and disproving your statement that the State Pension is paid from "current budgets". Still, this climb down has only come about because to continue arguing about "imaginary funds" and current budgets would mean that HRMC are lying about the existence of an NI fund

Look Javert, for the second time, no one is arguing that there are pots of money lying around in the BoE, or that the National Insurance fund isn't operated as a pay as you go system. What the argument is about is you and SRB falsely claiming that the State Pension is funded by the taxpayer, and that SRB, for some reason known only to him, falsely claims that he pays Barrys pension

I've given you the solid evidence that

1) There is a National Insurance Fund
2) It is kept separate from other taxation and revenue streams
3) That it is comprised of employee and employer NI contribution and earned interest
4) That the State Pension (and some other benefits) are paid from that fund, and NOT from general taxation
5) That the fund can (and frequently does) have a surplus and that it is kept at a level of at least a years benefits

Now. The State Pension is paid from the National Insurance Fund, which is comprised of peoples NI contributions. The State Pension is NOT paid from general taxation. That means the money is kept separate from tax, even if it is only in accounting terms, which in turn means no one "pays" your State Pension, it is paid by those who contribute to it.

If you can find some evidence to show that any of the above are untrue, then by all means post it. Thats what a forum is for. Your only other option is to continue with your claims, but that would mean HRMC are lying and that the whole NI system is made up

[Nick]

No. They paid a tax called National Insurance which was immediately spent by the government. All they bought was the right to a state pension later. They never paid for it. Pensions are paid by existing taxpayers and always have been.

Listen to what people say for once. They have paid for their entitlement, where the money comes from is immaterial.

[Javert]

As usual @DeppityDawg has missed the magic secret adjustment.

I used to know a guy in our management accounting group who was well known for his huge complicated spreadsheets, which magically reconcile to the correct expected result at the bottom.

NI is nothing different - fundamentally there is no particular money saved up for us and if the government decided to cut our pensions there is nothing we can do about it legally - we could only vote in a government who pledged to raise them again next time. 

The letter you showed was that the NI fund had a surplus in 2018 - there are some years when it is surplus and some not, but in the end it doesn't matter because someone just plugs in a magic number to balance it as it's all lumped into other government figures.

[Borchester]

No, they paid a premium called "National Insurance", which we all pay, and which goes into the National Insurance Fund (NIF), the fund you claim doesn't exist. It is NOT "spent immediately by the government", it is used to pay the current years pensions due, and each year there is a currently a surplus after all pensions and benefits are paid. The documents from HMRC, including the last years (2019) balance, payments in and payments out, and size of the surplus, are all there for you to read.

Pensions are NOT paid by the "taxpayer", they are funded by these National Insurance contributions. Be too lazy to look if you like, but don't fecking lie outright on the forum in front of everyone when the evidence is there in black and white

If they were "truths", then you'd have an argument, but they are not truths and the evidence is there to categorically prove it. Claiming you "pay Barrys pension" is bullshit, you pay NI contributions like everyone else does (even those who aren't working get NI credits).

Actually you are both right, although Steve will be getting the short end of the stick and you can't say fairer than  that 

When Anuerin Bevin decided that the NHS should be centrally funded he realised that taxes would have to be raised. He also realised that if he slapped an additional 11%-!3% onto the income tax he would not be very popular. So he called it the National Insurance. It was supposed to cover the bills of the welfare system but sadly it was not to be as the system became a victim of its own success. More and more treatments became available and the population began living longer and the governments starting to did into other revenue streams.

The fun bit is that the more that Steve demands better treatment for, well, every one, the more it will cost and the longer he will have to work.

[DeppityDawg]

No. They paid a tax called National Insurance which was immediately spent by the government. All they bought was the right to a state pension later. They never paid for it. Pensions are paid by existing taxpayers and always have been.

No, they paid a premium called "National Insurance", which we all pay, and which goes into the National Insurance Fund (NIF), the fund you claim doesn't exist. It is NOT "spent immediately by the government", it is used to pay the current years pensions due, and each year there is a currently a surplus after all pensions and benefits are paid. The documents from HMRC, including the last years (2019) balance, payments in and payments out, and size of the surplus, are all there for you to read.

Pensions are NOT paid by the "taxpayer", they are funded by these National Insurance contributions. Be too lazy to look if you like, but don't fecking lie outright on the forum in front of everyone when the evidence is there in black and white

If you think such truths make me a nasty whatever, would you prefer fairy tales about magic money trees instead?

If they were "truths", then you'd have an argument, but they are not truths and the evidence is there to categorically prove it. Claiming you "pay Barrys pension" is bullshit, you pay NI contributions like everyone else does (even those who aren't working get NI credits).

[srb7677]

In real money terms, ie the money paid from todays wage packet/salary, they HAVE paid for the right to their state pension, full entitlement currently 35 years NI contributions. Have you looked at your NI deductions lately, Mr "only man in the world that ever had a f**king job"?

As for anyones private pensions/employer contributions, they are none of your business, they are "paid for".

God, you are a really nasty **** sometimes.

They have paid for the right to a pension of course. That is explicit in the conditions. But the state pensions themselves for all pensioners are paid by current taxpayers. Everyone knows that or ought to.

If you think such truths make me a nasty whatever, would you prefer fairy tales about magic money trees instead?

[srb7677]

And they would be correct, they have paid for their pension. It's called 31 years of continuous contributions.

No. They paid a tax called National Insurance which was immediately spent by the government. All they bought was the right to a state pension later. They never paid for it. Pensions are paid by existing taxpayers and always have been.

[johnofgwent]

Are you telling me that the HRMC are lying?

Cmon DD.

That's a bit harsh even for you.

I've handed those fuckers money for nearly 48 fucking years and I've yet to have a truthful answer from a single one of the scum.

I don't think they know how to tell the truth

[DeppityDawg]

The point is that this fund is run on a cash flow basis, and not on a savings basis - in other words, it doesn't hold sufficient cash reserves for all future liabilities.  It is done on a cash basis each year.

I'm beginning to suspect you are being deliberately contrary Javert. No one is suggesting that accountants sit in the BoE counting out money and saying "...this is Javerts money...this is Deppity Dawgs money...this is Barrys money...". Neither is anyone suggesting (that I can see) that all the money paid in to the NIF is "saved for a rainy day" and covers all liabilities

The paper is quite clear about how it is run, stating clearly that it is "pay as you go", and that it has no borrowing powers

The National Insurance scheme is financed on a pay as you go basis with contribution rates set at a level broadly
necessary to meet the expected benefits expenditure in that year, after taking into account any other payments and
receipts, and to maintain a working balance. Changes in contribution levels, in response to the needs of the Fund, take
time to implement, therefore a working balance is necessary as the NIF has no borrowing powers.

SRBs claim was that he was "paying Barry's pension", which is both nasty and factually incorrect. SRB is contributing to the NI fund, from which he will draw HIS pension when he reaches state pension age, as will you and I if you aren't already receiving it.

The "fund" from which it is paid is currently in surplus, and although in theory it could get topped up from the Taxpayer, it is in its current form self supporting, at least as long as its outgoings do not exceed its incomings. So to suggest that anyone or anything other than NI contributions (which we ALL pay) and the investment income earned by them is paying "Barrys pension" is wrong - EVERYONE who has contributed the minimum amount of NI contributions is included in the scheme and is ENTITLED to their State Pension from it.

Now, the fund that you claimed does not exist, does exist, and SRB does not "pay" Barrys pension. Barrys NI contributions qualify him for payment from that fund. Just as it is for everyone else who pays National Insurance.

[Javert]

Jesus wept.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/839411/Great_Britain_National_Insurance_Fund_Account_-_2018_to_2019.pdf

NO ONE is saying they are getting their actual contribution, or that their money is "ring fenced". What it is saying is that Employee and Employer NI is paid into it, and that the State Pension and other benefits are paid from it each year. It is also telling you that currently each year there is a SURPLUS, not a deficit.

The surplus (the fact that there is one proves that more is paid in than paid out) is not used to pay down the National debt, it used to offset the interest payable on it - what part of "Receipts paid into the NIF are kept separate from all other revenue raised by national taxes and are used to pay social security benefits such as contributory benefits and the State Pension" are you having difficulty with?

Are you telling me that the HRMC are lying?

https://fullfact.org/economy/money-national-insurance-contributions/

Even though there's a specific pot of money for NI funds to flow into and out of, it's not helpful—as the Insitute for Fiscal Studies has argued in the past— to think of this as a ring-fenced sum that's separate from the rest of the government's money.

That's because when the fund runs low (after, say, years of deficits in a row), the Treasury steps in and injects new money into the fund. And as mentioned above, the surpluses in the fund are also invested in the national debt.

That means, in practice, some money flows into the fund that doesn't come from NI contributions and some money flows out that doesn't go to pensions or contributory benefits.

In other words, whatever the amount of NI contributions the government raises in a given year, it always finds a way to pay the pensions and benefits it has to.

The point is that this fund is run on a cash flow basis, and not on a savings basis - in other words, it doesn't hold sufficient cash reserves for all future liabilities.  It is done on a cash basis each year.

So, if unemployment went up to 50% due to an ecomonimic recession and the fund was massively underfunded, and the government wasn't getting other tax revenues for the same reason, they would have problems to pay the pensions, regardless of the fact that you have paid in for 45 years or whatever.

However in reality they could possibly get around this by simply printing money (which also causes other economic effects on everyone else as well).

If a government was elected with a policy of cutting all state pensions by 10% (unlikely), they could pass legislation and do that, and it wouldn't be possible for you to take them to court and say, well, there is money left in the NIC pot so you have to give it to me as originally "promised".

[Thomas]

FFS i bet barry wishes he had never opened his mouth.

Javert and srb seem to be out on a limb as ever.

[DeppityDawg]

No it doesn't because the money is not ring fenced - it is used to pay down the national debt and other purposes.

Jesus wept.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/839411/Great_Britain_National_Insurance_Fund_Account_-_2018_to_2019.pdf

The National Insurance Fund (NIF) holds National Insurance Contributions (NICs), paid by employees, employers and the
self-employed. Voluntary contributions are also paid into the fund. Receipts paid into the NIF are kept separate from
all other revenue raised by national taxes and are used to pay social security benefits such as contributory benefits
and the State Pension.

The NIF Account presents the receipts and payments for the financial year, as well as the balance on the Fund at the
end of the year.

NICs also help finance the National Health Service (NHS). NICs are paid into the NIF net of money allocated to the NHS.

NO ONE is saying they are getting their actual contribution, or that their money is "ring fenced". What it is saying is that Employee and Employer NI is paid into it, and that the State Pension and other benefits are paid from it each year. It is also telling you that currently each year there is a SURPLUS, not a deficit.

The surplus (the fact that there is one proves that more is paid in than paid out) is not used to pay down the National debt, it used to offset the interest payable on it - what part of "Receipts paid into the NIF are kept separate from all other revenue raised by national taxes and are used to pay social security benefits such as contributory benefits and the State Pension" are you having difficulty with?

Are you telling me that the HRMC are lying?