Re:He who pays the pension calls the tune?

[Javert]

Ironically, if what Lord Haw Haw has been telling everyone over the years is to be believed, he's probably got more money stashed away in property and pensions than the rest of the forum put together. Yet he's always the first to use his skin colour to underline the "disadvantage and discrimination" that's always held him back. All I can say to that is I wish I'd been as disadvantaged as Pat.

No Javert, the bottom line has been put to you repeatedly, yet you continue to argue a point no one is contesting. Whether you are now doing this purely to be purposely annoying, or because you haven't actually got an argument beyond it is now the question.

SRB claimed that he was "paying Barry's pension". Apart from being factually incorrect (he is paying NI contributions to the government), the reverse of this claim is that Barry ISN'T paying, and that somehow, he is getting something to which he is not entitled.

There are a dozen different ways he could have chosen to engage the argument of postal voting (which was their original subject), but he chose instead to make a personal and frankly spiteful comment about how he cannot vote in person, because he is too busy funding another posters retirement.

The bottom line is that Barry (or anyone receiving the SP) has the required number of qualifying years to receive it.

So for the most part, today's workers are paying the pensions of today's pensioners.

Once again here is the quote from the fullfact article - it's very simple in plain English.

I understand that it makes you very angry and upset to accept that your future pension will be funded by those who are still working when you are retired, but it's an economic fact of life.

If you prefer to think of it that it's the money you have paid in and will be paid back to you, you are of course entirely free to maintain this fantasy if it makes you happy.

It's not surprising that right wing individualists get riled up when discussing the topic of national insurance.  If we discussed it in too much detail they might have to face the fact that National Insurance is a highly successful scheme, but it's based on entirely socialist principles where people pay in according to their means, and at the end everybody gets the exact same thing out regardless of their class or privilege, or even whether they've been a criminal, or a lefty liberal, or transgender, or whatever.

The reality is that some of the money that pays your pension when you retire might come from me, or someone who likes to be addressed as "they", or whatever. 

This does not mean you are not entitled to it, but it does mean that we live in a society where the working people pay for the state pensions of retired people.  This will be true for me when I'm retired.

You can get around this if you don't like it by refusing to accept your state pension, and only relying on personal savings and pension savings that have remained entirely in your own name in a segregated account throughout.  Funnily enough, almost nobody does that, no matter how right wing they seem to be.

@Thomas makes the argument that paying NI contributions legally entitles you to a pension.  This is true at a point in time, but there are a couple of issues.

First, the amount of state pension you get is entirely divorced from the amount of money collected.  NI contributions are set by political parties in government based on their tax policy.  Pension amounts are currently set as a mainly fixed amount per person with a triple lock increase each year.  NI contributions are not going up at the same rate. 

If you want to think they are inextricably linked, have at it, but, the government has routinely tinkered with things by, for example, increasing the age at which you should get the pension, without giving you any of your contributions back. 

The next issue is that unfortunately, the concept of "you get out what you pay in" is somewhat spoiled by the fact that if I was unemployed or disabled for my whole life, I could claim NI credits which would still entitle me to the same pension as you.  Oops.

Further, even if I had not made any NI or entitlements, I would still be entitled to payments in old age from other benefits.

Then there is the common concept that everyone pays in their share to get their state pension at the end, making this unlike normal income tax.  This concept was removed by Gordon Brown when he changed the rules so that there was no longer a maximum cap on the amount of NI you pay - it's now just like income tax in that the more you earn, the more you pay.  I await with baited breath to get my higher state pension based on the fact that I've paid more NI than many other people.

Then we have the issue that even if the accounts show the NI as notionally in credit in 2018, it will most certainly be in deficit in future years as the proportion of pensioners to working people is expected to continue rising until near the end of this century, mainly due to simple demographics changes, and will rise even more than previously expected as many of those older people have decided they don't like immigrants coming in paying lots of taxes and NI contributions into the system.

So you can spin it in whatever way you want, but if you are a person who only gets the state pension, your (plural general person) Daily Mail and pint of beer is paid for by the people who are currently working, as you (plural general person) pontificate about the fecklessness of the lazy young today.

Then, we haven't even touched on the point that many people won't have paid enough actual NI in real terms to cover their pension during their working life, but they will still get the full amount.  What is this lefty liberal socialist nonsense?  Nor the point that if you die before retirement, your NI contributions are not returned to your next of kin.

I don't begrudge the fact that some of my taxes pay for the pensions of other people who are retired - I'm fine with it, but I don't neither fool myself that my state pension will be the same money I paid in or that I don't need to rely on a healthy functioning economy to fund those payments.  Not to mention, a significant amount of the other tax I pay goes towards paying the pensions of public service people like teachers, nurses, doctors, council workers etc.

[DeppityDawg]

^^ what Patman said.

Ironically, if what Lord Haw Haw has been telling everyone over the years is to be believed, he's probably got more money stashed away in property and pensions than the rest of the forum put together. Yet he's always the first to use his skin colour to underline the "disadvantage and discrimination" that's always held him back. All I can say to that is I wish I'd been as disadvantaged as Pat.

what deppity is missing it that it doesn't matter is you can show a notional paperwork that the money wasn't used to pay for jet fighters,

The bottom line is that the money Barry paid in was already used up to pay for the pensions and benefits of the people who were retired when he was working .

No Javert, the bottom line has been put to you repeatedly, yet you continue to argue a point no one is contesting. Whether you are now doing this purely to be purposely annoying, or because you haven't actually got an argument beyond it is now the question.

SRB claimed that he was "paying Barry's pension". Apart from being factually incorrect (he is paying NI contributions to the government), the reverse of this claim is that Barry ISN'T paying, and that somehow, he is getting something to which he is not entitled.

There are a dozen different ways he could have chosen to engage the argument of postal voting (which was their original subject), but he chose instead to make a personal and frankly spiteful comment about how he cannot vote in person, because he is too busy funding another posters retirement.

The bottom line is that Barry (or anyone receiving the SP) has the required number of qualifying years to receive it.

[Borg Refinery]

Not only that, NHS workers contribute maby times their value in pay and as someone noted earlier, the measley state pension is a joke compared to private pensions.

Trying to insinuate that others haven't done enough for their pension is kind of wrong.

[Thomas]

The bottom line is that the money Barry paid in was already used up to pay for the pensions and benefits of the people who were retired when he was working .

javert you are as ever sitting on here arguing fuckin semantics.

The bottom line is that barry has paid into a system all of his life which then means he is legally entitled to a pay out from that system.

Doesnt matter how the administrators of that system use his and everyone elses money , doesnt matter how the administrators of that system collect that money and wether they ring fence it  or blow it as they collect it on lapdancers and alcohol.

The fact of the mattter is steve made out barry is beholden to him for a state pension which isnt correct. The government , the middle man in all this , are the ones who need steve , not barry.

Barry is entitled to a pay out from the gov for all the contributions he has made .Thats the governments problem how they pay out their obligations to barry  , not feckin barrys problem.

As ever its just more empty point scoring and idiotic debating.

[Borchester]

[Borchester]

[Borchester]

[Borchester]

[Javert]

^^ what Patman said.

What deppity is missing it that it doesn't matter is you can show a notional paperwork that the money wasn't used to pay for jet fighters,

The bottom line is that the money Barry paid in was already used up to pay for the pensions and benefits of the people who were retired when he was working .

[patman post]

The NI "fund" is an accounting procedure rather than a real fund. It pays out each month almost as much in state pensions and benefits as it receives.
Anything bookkeeping shows is left at the end of the year is a fraction of what it will be expected to payout over the next 12 months.
A few years ago, the fall in income from NI collected from employees, employers, gilts, etc, was predicted to have fallen short of commitments already. This could be remedied by topping up from general taxation, or by deferring the greatest payouts. Guess which course was chosen — the age at which the state pension could be claimed was raised, and it likely to be raised again in future. Among other money saving changes could be the stopping of the "Triple Lock"
There are also other interesting asides — eg, transgender claimants my find their applications for state pension depends on when they first notified the pension authorities of their change of gender.
Currently, the state pension is regarded as only the basis of income in old age, not the total. Private pensions are encouraged. It's probable under-45 face tax hikes in the next few budgets and a later retirement age. Under-35s can expect the state pension to be scrapped altogether.
Those who can will be wise to make their own arrangements for their old age...

[Borchester]

^^ Direct quote from the full fact article.



The main point we were making is, what do you think would happen to that graph if all UK taxpayers went on strike and stopped paying tax for a long time, or emigrated?

Probably not a lot.

Income tax (which is about the only tax most folk have any control over) accounts for barely 30% of the total yield. And 80% of that is collected via the PAYE system, so that leaves 6% from the self employed. And about half of those are on SC60s, which leaves 3%. My state pension is about £140 a week. 3% of £140 is £4.20.

I have a chap who comes round and helps with the garden and every week I give him a few bob and a 4 pack of Thatcher's cider. £4.20 is about the price of a 4 pack.

So if you go on a tax strike you won't hurt me. But you will take a few pints out of the mouth of a hard working man.

Shame on you Javie

[DeppityDawg]

The main point we were making is, what do you think would happen to that graph if all UK taxpayers went on strike and stopped paying tax for a long time, or emigrated?  I assume you think your pensions would merrily carry on getting paid.

What do you think would happen? There wouldn't be a country left, let alone a fecking National Insurance Fund, you clown. I just as well start talking to you as if you are stupid since thats your preferred style.

The "point" you claim you are making is NOT IN DISPUTE for feck sake. How many times? NO ONE is disputing that the funds in the NIF are contributions from the current workforce, but that does not mean SRB "pays Barry's pension" for crying out loud. The FUND pays Barrys pension, to which SRB (and you and I and uncle Tom Cobbley) contributes, and will in time pay HIS pension too. This is the case for everyone who has the required number of National Insurance qualifying years

Everyone else seems to have no difficulty understanding this, but you keep revolving around a cloud cuckoo land scenario where "all the taxpayers suddenly emigrate to Australia". Its not going to happen, Javert, and if it did, the least of our issues would be a National Insurance Fund

Also as regards your point 2, this is ridiculous, unless you are stating that national insurance payers are not taxpayers which is semantics.  In my world, national insurance is a tax, and it's paid by taxpayers - as such, obviously taxpayers pay the pensions.

What are you talking about? Point 2 is the function of point 1. Its the precise reason WHY there is a separate fund for NI, so that it is kept separate from general taxation. Because general taxes might be used to build roads, buy fighter jets or for foreign aid as just a few examples. These things are not necessarily direct or personal to you, but National Insurance is used to fund benefits which are of direct benefit to you the individual, ie the State Pension. The fund is kept separate to avoid precisely this....

but  in terms of facts the money he paid in was treated as tax income by the governments he helped elect throughout his working life and immediately spent as part of current government expenditure

...which another complete falsehood which seems to escape the pair of you. Its already been pointed out to you that the fund cannot be raided for other expenses, and if that were not the case, there would be no point in having a separate fund in the first place.

This exchange is going around in a never ending circle that is basically you supporting the claim that SRB pays Barrys pension because he is a tax and National insurance payer, and me repeatedly telling you that's bullshit. You can write about imaginary scenarios of taxpayers all leaving for Timbuktoo tomorrow as much as you like. But it still won't mean some Supermarket Manager has "paid" Barry's pension because Barry has paid for it himself by his own contributions. Is that clear enough for you?

[Javert]

Even you OWN evidence proves you wrong Javert.

So for the most part, today's workers are paying the pensions of today's pensioners.

^^ Direct quote from the full fact article.

I admit I was wrong that NIC funds are not kept notionally in a separate bank account.  You were correct about that.  However, for all practical purposes it's irrelevant because as the article explains, government's of all persuasions have NOT used any surplus amounts and given them out to taxpayers as benefits or pensions, and they have used the surplus to invest in other areas to pay down general debt, and they have on occasions transferred taxpayer money back into the fund.

Nor do they make a calculation each year to say - here's all the money in the fund, how much pension can we afford to pay out with this amount of money?

The main point we were making is, what do you think would happen to that graph if all UK taxpayers went on strike and stopped paying tax for a long time, or emigrated?  I assume you think your pensions would merrily carry on getting paid.

Also as regards your point 2, this is ridiculous, unless you are stating that national insurance payers are not taxpayers which is semantics.  In my world, national insurance is a tax, and it's paid by taxpayers - as such, obviously taxpayers pay the pensions.

If you are working on the basis that national insurance is not a tax, then it's a terminology difference.  To all intents and purposes national insurance is a form of income tax as it applies to the individual citizen.  Giving it a different name doesn't change that.

[DeppityDawg]

But you have now admitted 3 times that our original claim was correct, but then you still insist that we are still wrong.   

As you say, there's not much further to say then, other than that I posted the fullfact article to you which clearly showed how in some years the NI fund did not cover the payments that needed to be paid out, and it had to be topped up from taxpaer funds, so your assertion that it's always in credit is plain wrong.

I've "admitted" no such thing, Javert. Its been put to you clearly half a dozen times, and you are still going around in a circle, addressing arguments that nobody made, attributing comments nobody said, and still conflating tax revenue with NI payments. The claims made once again

1) That there is no fund for National insurance - false
2) That the State Pension is paid for by the taxpayer - false
3) That SRB claims he "pays Barrys pension" - false

Nobody has said that the NIF is "always in credit" or that it doesn't sometimes run a deficit, what was said was that "the fund can (and frequently does) have a surplus and that it is kept at a level of at least a years benefits" - that was what the HRMCs report says, and the reasons for that are also in the report - this is you yet again changing what was said, which you do frequently.

You clearly don't even understand the figures in your own Full Fact link, that the terms deficit and surplus apply to annual spending, and not the "fund balance", which is the funds remaining in the account at each accounting year end. The blue line in their link indicates that balance, and it has not fallen below zero on the entire graph scale (eg since 1975). That there is a positive balance is shown again in your own full fact link -

The House of Commons Library says in its briefing on National Insurance, "Since 2007 the Fund has been invested in the Government's 'Call Notice Deposit Account', administered by the Debt Management Office... It is worth emphasizing that these funds are being held in this account on loan... there is no question of the Government being in a position to use this facility to extract money from the Fund as an extra source of revenue."

Even you OWN evidence proves you wrong Javert.

[Javert]

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

But you have now admitted 3 times that our original claim was correct, but then you still insist that we are still wrong.   

As you say, there's not much further to say then, other than that I posted the fullfact article to you which clearly showed how in some years the NI fund did not cover the payments that needed to be paid out, and it had to be topped up from taxpaer funds, so your assertion that it's always in credit is plain wrong.