Discussion:
Older workers face paying Jeremy Hunt's 'care tax'
(too old to reply)
p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
2018-05-06 07:49:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Nearly 1.3m “silver strivers” — those working beyond the state pension
age — would have to start paying national insurance to prop up the
social care system, under plans being considered by the government.

At present, people stop paying national insurance when they reach state
pension age. But under the proposed “care tax”, the 12% charge would
continue to be levied, raising about £2bn a year."

How much more are the tories going to try and steal?

I already pay NI for no good reason. No additional pension. That has
already been stolen and is now being eroded.I sure a hell don't need
sick pay or unemployment benefit. It's so derisory anyway. I'd have to
move to India to live on it. I have way more years than I need to
qualify for the full pension. So I already get shag all benefit from
paying NI.

The truth is that it's an illusion that all these 'oldies' are stocking
shelves at B&Q. The reality is that many people who work past retirement
do so because they are needed. This will only encourage people with a
lifetime of experience and knowledge vital in all kinds of areas to say
'fuck it'.

Silver strivers, baby boomers, ippy doppy doomers. I can't keep up.

Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
--
p-0.0-h the cat

Internet Terrorist, Mass sock puppeteer, Agent provocateur, Gutter rat,
Devil incarnate, Linux user#666, BaStarD hacker, Resident evil, Monkey Boy,
Certifiable criminal, Spineless cowardly scum, textbook Psychopath,
the SCOURGE, l33t p00h d3 tr0ll, p00h == lam3r, p00h == tr0ll, troll infâme,
the OVERCAT [The BEARPAIR are dead, and we are its murderers], lowlife troll,
shyster [pending approval by STATE_TERROR], cripple, sociopath, kook,
smug prick, smartarse, arsehole, moron, idiot, imbecile, snittish scumbag,
liar, total ******* retard, shill, pooh-seur, scouringerer, jumped up chav,
lycanthropic schizotypal lesbian, the most complete ignoid, joker, and furball.

NewsGroups Numbrer One Terrorist

Honorary SHYSTER and FRAUD awarded for services to Haberdashery.
By Appointment to God Frank-Lin.

Signature integrity check
md5 Checksum: be0b2a8c486d83ce7db9a459b26c4896

I mark any message from »Q« the troll as stinky
johnny-knowall
2018-05-06 08:58:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
"Nearly 1.3m “silver strivers” — those working beyond the state pension
age — would have to start paying national insurance to prop up the
social care system, under plans being considered by the government.
At present, people stop paying national insurance when they reach state
pension age. But under the proposed “care tax”, the 12% charge would
continue to be levied, raising about £2bn a year."
How much more are the tories going to try and steal?
As much as they can. It is what Tories do.
I already pay NI for no good reason. No additional pension. That has
already been stolen and is now being eroded.I sure a hell don't need
sick pay or unemployment benefit. It's so derisory anyway. I'd have to
move to India to live on it. I have way more years than I need to
qualify for the full pension. So I already get shag all benefit from
paying NI.
The truth is that it's an illusion that all these 'oldies' are stocking
shelves at B&Q. The reality is that many people who work past retirement
do so because they are needed. This will only encourage people with a
lifetime of experience and knowledge vital in all kinds of areas to say
'fuck it'.
Silver strivers, baby boomers, ippy doppy doomers. I can't keep up.
Sent from my iFurryUnderbelly.
abelard
2018-05-06 09:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
"Nearly 1.3m “silver strivers” — those working beyond the state pension
age — would have to start paying national insurance to prop up the
social care system, under plans being considered by the government.
At present, people stop paying national insurance when they reach state
pension age. But under the proposed “care tax”, the 12% charge would
continue to be levied, raising about £2bn a year."
How much more are the tories going to try and steal?
As much as they can. It is what Tories do.
is that why you keep whining about 'austerity' and telling
how many more trillions you want to spend because
everything run by the unions is 'underfunded'?
Post by johnny-knowall
Post by p-0''0-h the cat (coder)
I already pay NI for no good reason. No additional pension. That has
already been stolen and is now being eroded.I sure a hell don't need
sick pay or unemployment benefit. It's so derisory anyway. I'd have to
move to India to live on it. I have way more years than I need to
qualify for the full pension. So I already get shag all benefit from
paying NI.
The truth is that it's an illusion that all these 'oldies' are stocking
shelves at B&Q. The reality is that many people who work past retirement
do so because they are needed. This will only encourage people with a
lifetime of experience and knowledge vital in all kinds of areas to say
'fuck it'.
Silver strivers, baby boomers, ippy doppy doomers. I can't keep up.
--
www.abelard.org
JNugent
2018-05-06 13:28:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by johnny-knowall
"Nearly 1.3m “silver strivers” — those working beyond the state pension
age — would have to start paying national insurance to prop up the
social care system, under plans being considered by the government.
At present, people stop paying national insurance when they reach state
pension age. But under the proposed “care tax”, the 12% charge would
continue to be levied, raising about £2bn a year."
How much more are the tories going to try and steal?
As much as they can. It is what Tories do.
When Blair came to power, the NI deduction rate was 10%.

Labour increased that to 12% - a 20% increase for no additional benefits
of any sort (except for increased Treasury revenue).

Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.

In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.

I could live with a deal like that.
m***@gmail.com
2018-05-06 16:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.

You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing to a pot is probably enough.

Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever increasing retirement age?

Where the fuck does all this money go?
JNugent
2018-05-06 17:04:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Oh, so do I.

So do I.

And I paid NI (on and off - obviously off when I was a student) for 52+
years!

But if it is brought in, and as long as National Insurance is only
levied on earnings (as at present), the measure won't affect most
retired people. Apart from anything else, it only kicks in for earnings
which come to more than £116 a week (at today's levels), which will
exclude and exempt the majority of retired people. Not all of them, but
most.

Come to think of it, my earnings last year (18/19) in the bit of
consultancy I still do wouldn't come to that much, so my liability would
be NIL.
Post by m***@gmail.com
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
Into the general taxation pot.

But don't forget that this, if enacted, will be part of a deal where the
citizen (and their family) does stand to get something out of it, if
they ever need it, that is.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-05-07 09:51:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.

I paid into BUPA for two decades and all I ever got was an £80 X-ray - and the cheque for that bounced the first time.
Norman Wells
2018-05-07 10:19:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common misconception.
R. Mark Clayton
2018-05-07 10:39:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one of its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the NHS.

Probably less than 1% of taxes in the UK are hypothecated.
Norman Wells
2018-05-07 11:11:00 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one of its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the NHS.
You might as well say it funds defence, education and roads as well if
you think that's the case. But it isn't.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Probably less than 1% of taxes in the UK are hypothecated.
"National insurance comes close to being hypothecated. The tax is
intended to fund contributory benefits, for example state pension and
contributions based employment support allowance. However, government
accounts show that the income received from national insurance
contributions is about £86.5 billion in 2015/16. This does not actually
cover the cost of pensions and benefits - about £95 billion - so the
fund has to be topped up with a substantial grant of £9.6 billion from
general taxation."

https://www.tax.org.uk/media-centre/blog/media-and-politics/we-assess-hyperbole-about-hypothecated-taxes

It doesn't even cover pensions and benefits. There's nothing left over
to fund the NHS, the expenditure on which alone heavily exceeds all NI
revenue.
MM
2018-05-09 07:51:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one of its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the NHS.
You might as well say it funds defence, education and roads as well if
you think that's the case. But it isn't.
So, does it fund the NHS, defence, education and roads, unemployment,
sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits, or doesn't it?

MM
Norman Wells
2018-05-09 08:15:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one of its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the NHS.
You might as well say it funds defence, education and roads as well if
you think that's the case. But it isn't.
So, does it fund the NHS, defence, education and roads, unemployment,
sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits, or doesn't it?
"National insurance comes close to being hypothecated. The tax is
intended to fund contributory benefits, for example state pension and
contributions based employment support allowance. However, government
accounts show that the income received from national insurance
contributions is about £86.5 billion in 2015/16. This does not actually
cover the cost of pensions and benefits - about £95 billion - so the
fund has to be topped up with a substantial grant of £9.6 billion from
general taxation."

https://www.tax.org.uk/media-centre/blog/media-and-politics/we-assess-hyperbole-about-hypothecated-taxes

It doesn't even cover pensions and benefits. There's nothing left over
to fund defence, education, roads or the NHS, the expenditure on which
alone heavily exceeds all NI revenue.
MM
2018-05-10 12:27:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one of its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the NHS.
You might as well say it funds defence, education and roads as well if
you think that's the case. But it isn't.
So, does it fund the NHS, defence, education and roads, unemployment,
sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits, or doesn't it?
"National insurance comes close to being hypothecated. The tax is
intended to fund contributory benefits, for example state pension and
contributions based employment support allowance. However, government
accounts show that the income received from national insurance
contributions is about £86.5 billion in 2015/16. This does not actually
cover the cost of pensions and benefits - about £95 billion - so the
fund has to be topped up with a substantial grant of £9.6 billion from
general taxation."
https://www.tax.org.uk/media-centre/blog/media-and-politics/we-assess-hyperbole-about-hypothecated-taxes
It doesn't even cover pensions and benefits. There's nothing left over
to fund defence, education, roads or the NHS, the expenditure on which
alone heavily exceeds all NI revenue.
So the government is lying to us?

MM
Norman Wells
2018-05-10 12:58:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one of its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the NHS.
You might as well say it funds defence, education and roads as well if
you think that's the case. But it isn't.
So, does it fund the NHS, defence, education and roads, unemployment,
sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits, or doesn't it?
"National insurance comes close to being hypothecated. The tax is
intended to fund contributory benefits, for example state pension and
contributions based employment support allowance. However, government
accounts show that the income received from national insurance
contributions is about £86.5 billion in 2015/16. This does not actually
cover the cost of pensions and benefits - about £95 billion - so the
fund has to be topped up with a substantial grant of £9.6 billion from
general taxation."
https://www.tax.org.uk/media-centre/blog/media-and-politics/we-assess-hyperbole-about-hypothecated-taxes
It doesn't even cover pensions and benefits. There's nothing left over
to fund defence, education, roads or the NHS, the expenditure on which
alone heavily exceeds all NI revenue.
So the government is lying to us?
About what? Where have you pulled that one from?
pamela
2018-05-10 14:58:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:15:45 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:11:00 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see...
£174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid
in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51
years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI
contributions and when you die those contributions die
with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single
penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever
increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and
maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common
misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one of
its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the NHS.
You might as well say it funds defence, education and roads as
well if you think that's the case. But it isn't.
So, does it fund the NHS, defence, education and roads,
unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity
benefits, or doesn't it?
"National insurance comes close to being hypothecated. The tax
is intended to fund contributory benefits, for example state
pension and contributions based employment support allowance.
However, government accounts show that the income received from
national insurance contributions is about £86.5 billion in
2015/16. This does not actually cover the cost of pensions and
benefits - about £95 billion - so the fund has to be topped up
with a substantial grant of £9.6 billion from general
taxation."
https://www.tax.org.uk/media-centre/blog/media-and-politics/we-
as
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
sess-hyperbole-about-hypothecated-taxes
It doesn't even cover pensions and benefits. There's nothing
left over to fund defence, education, roads or the NHS, the
expenditure on which alone heavily exceeds all NI revenue.
So the government is lying to us?
About what? Where have you pulled that one from?
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.

Whatever next? Hypothecated TV licence fee?
Norman Wells
2018-05-10 16:39:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:15:45 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:11:00 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see...
£174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid
in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51
years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI
contributions and when you die those contributions die
with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single
penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever
increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and
maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common
misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one of
its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the NHS.
You might as well say it funds defence, education and roads as
well if you think that's the case. But it isn't.
So, does it fund the NHS, defence, education and roads,
unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity
benefits, or doesn't it?
"National insurance comes close to being hypothecated. The tax
is intended to fund contributory benefits, for example state
pension and contributions based employment support allowance.
However, government accounts show that the income received from
national insurance contributions is about £86.5 billion in
2015/16. This does not actually cover the cost of pensions and
benefits - about £95 billion - so the fund has to be topped up
with a substantial grant of £9.6 billion from general
taxation."
https://www.tax.org.uk/media-centre/blog/media-and-politics/we-
as
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
sess-hyperbole-about-hypothecated-taxes
It doesn't even cover pensions and benefits. There's nothing
left over to fund defence, education, roads or the NHS, the
expenditure on which alone heavily exceeds all NI revenue.
So the government is lying to us?
About what? Where have you pulled that one from?
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from the
totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So, where is the
government lying, and about what?
Post by pamela
Whatever next? Hypothecated TV licence fee?
"A television licence or broadcast receiving licence is a payment
required in many countries for the reception of television broadcasts,
or the possession of a television set where some broadcasts are funded
in full or in part by the licence fee paid. The fee is sometimes also
required to own a radio or receive radio broadcasts. A TV licence is
therefore effectively a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding
public broadcasting,"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

What on earth makes you think it is not hypothecated?

Just what is the point you are struggling so hard to make?
pamela
2018-05-10 20:15:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:15:45 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:11:00 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see...
£174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have
paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51
years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI
contributions and when you die those contributions die
with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single
penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever
increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and
maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common
misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one of
its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the NHS.
You might as well say it funds defence, education and roads
as well if you think that's the case. But it isn't.
So, does it fund the NHS, defence, education and roads,
unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity
benefits, or doesn't it?
"National insurance comes close to being hypothecated. The tax
is intended to fund contributory benefits, for example state
pension and contributions based employment support allowance.
However, government accounts show that the income received
from national insurance contributions is about £86.5
billion in 2015/16. This does not actually cover the cost of
pensions and benefits - about £95 billion - so the fund has
to be topped up with a substantial grant of £9.6 billion
from general taxation."
https://www.tax.org.uk/media-centre/blog/media-and-
politics/we-
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
as
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
sess-hyperbole-about-hypothecated-taxes
It doesn't even cover pensions and benefits. There's nothing
left over to fund defence, education, roads or the NHS, the
expenditure on which alone heavily exceeds all NI revenue.
So the government is lying to us?
About what? Where have you pulled that one from?
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from the
totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So, where is
the government lying, and about what?
Post by pamela
Whatever next? Hypothecated TV licence fee?
"A television licence or broadcast receiving licence is a payment
required in many countries for the reception of television
broadcasts, or the possession of a television set where some
broadcasts are funded in full or in part by the licence fee paid.
The fee is sometimes also required to own a radio or receive radio
broadcasts. A TV licence is therefore effectively a hypothecated
tax for the purpose of funding public broadcasting,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
What on earth makes you think it is not hypothecated?
Just what is the point you are struggling so hard to make?
Ever since the referendum, we all know how so called experts can
arrive at the wrong conclusion.

Hypothecated. Ha ha. In name only.
Norman Wells
2018-05-10 20:20:37 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:15:45 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:11:00 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see...
£174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have
paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51
years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI
contributions and when you die those contributions die
with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single
penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever
increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and
maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common
misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one of
its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the NHS.
You might as well say it funds defence, education and roads
as well if you think that's the case. But it isn't.
So, does it fund the NHS, defence, education and roads,
unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity
benefits, or doesn't it?
"National insurance comes close to being hypothecated. The tax
is intended to fund contributory benefits, for example state
pension and contributions based employment support allowance.
However, government accounts show that the income received
from national insurance contributions is about £86.5
billion in 2015/16. This does not actually cover the cost of
pensions and benefits - about £95 billion - so the fund has
to be topped up with a substantial grant of £9.6 billion
from general taxation."
https://www.tax.org.uk/media-centre/blog/media-and-
politics/we-
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
as
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
sess-hyperbole-about-hypothecated-taxes
It doesn't even cover pensions and benefits. There's nothing
left over to fund defence, education, roads or the NHS, the
expenditure on which alone heavily exceeds all NI revenue.
So the government is lying to us?
About what? Where have you pulled that one from?
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from the
totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So, where is
the government lying, and about what?
Post by pamela
Whatever next? Hypothecated TV licence fee?
"A television licence or broadcast receiving licence is a payment
required in many countries for the reception of television
broadcasts, or the possession of a television set where some
broadcasts are funded in full or in part by the licence fee paid.
The fee is sometimes also required to own a radio or receive radio
broadcasts. A TV licence is therefore effectively a hypothecated
tax for the purpose of funding public broadcasting,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
What on earth makes you think it is not hypothecated?
Just what is the point you are struggling so hard to make?
Ever since the referendum, we all know how so called experts can
arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Hypothecated. Ha ha. In name only.
Care to explain, when you're a bit more sober perhaps?
pamela
2018-05-10 21:05:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:15:45 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:11:00 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Monday, 7 May 2018 11:19:15 UTC+1, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Sunday, 6 May 2018 17:34:29 UTC+1,
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see...
£174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have
paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51
years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI
contributions and when you die those contributions die
with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a
single penny of your pension because you haven't hit
the ever increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and
maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common
misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one
of its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the
NHS.
You might as well say it funds defence, education and
roads as well if you think that's the case. But it isn't.
So, does it fund the NHS, defence, education and roads,
unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity
benefits, or doesn't it?
"National insurance comes close to being hypothecated. The
tax is intended to fund contributory benefits, for example
state pension and contributions based employment support
allowance. However, government accounts show that the income
received from national insurance contributions is about
£86.5 billion in 2015/16. This does not actually
cover the cost of pensions and benefits - about £95
billion - so the fund has to be topped up with a substantial
grant of £9.6 billion from general taxation."
https://www.tax.org.uk/media-centre/blog/media-and-
politics/we-
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
as
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
sess-hyperbole-about-hypothecated-taxes
It doesn't even cover pensions and benefits. There's
nothing left over to fund defence, education, roads or the
NHS, the expenditure on which alone heavily exceeds all NI
revenue.
So the government is lying to us?
About what? Where have you pulled that one from?
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from
the totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So,
where is the government lying, and about what?
Post by pamela
Whatever next? Hypothecated TV licence fee?
"A television licence or broadcast receiving licence is a
payment required in many countries for the reception of
television broadcasts, or the possession of a television set
where some broadcasts are funded in full or in part by the
licence fee paid. The fee is sometimes also required to own a
radio or receive radio broadcasts. A TV licence is therefore
effectively a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding public
broadcasting,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
What on earth makes you think it is not hypothecated?
Just what is the point you are struggling so hard to make?
Ever since the referendum, we all know how so called experts can
arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Hypothecated. Ha ha. In name only.
Care to explain, when you're a bit more sober perhaps?
I don't acknowledge the expertise of the opinion you proferred in a
quotation. I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax even
if you choose to believe it. In fact, many do which is why they
habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid in and
what they get out as if there is some direct connection between the
two.
Norman Wells
2018-05-10 21:44:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from
the totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So,
where is the government lying, and about what?
Post by pamela
Whatever next? Hypothecated TV licence fee?
"A television licence or broadcast receiving licence is a
payment required in many countries for the reception of
television broadcasts, or the possession of a television set
where some broadcasts are funded in full or in part by the
licence fee paid. The fee is sometimes also required to own a
radio or receive radio broadcasts. A TV licence is therefore
effectively a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding public
broadcasting,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
What on earth makes you think it is not hypothecated?
Just what is the point you are struggling so hard to make?
Ever since the referendum, we all know how so called experts can
arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Hypothecated. Ha ha. In name only.
Care to explain, when you're a bit more sober perhaps?
I don't acknowledge the expertise of the opinion you proferred in a
quotation. I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax even
if you choose to believe it. In fact, many do which is why they
habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid in and
what they get out as if there is some direct connection between the
two.
Ah, I see now. Your problem is that you do not understand what a
'hypothecated tax' means.

If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
pamela
2018-05-10 22:05:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from
the totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So,
where is the government lying, and about what?
Post by pamela
Whatever next? Hypothecated TV licence fee?
"A television licence or broadcast receiving licence is a
payment required in many countries for the reception of
television broadcasts, or the possession of a television set
where some broadcasts are funded in full or in part by the
licence fee paid. The fee is sometimes also required to own a
radio or receive radio broadcasts. A TV licence is therefore
effectively a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding
public broadcasting,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
What on earth makes you think it is not hypothecated?
Just what is the point you are struggling so hard to make?
Ever since the referendum, we all know how so called experts
can arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Hypothecated. Ha ha. In name only.
Care to explain, when you're a bit more sober perhaps?
I don't acknowledge the expertise of the opinion you proferred in
a quotation. I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax
even if you choose to believe it. In fact, many do which is why
they habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid in
and what they get out as if there is some direct connection
between the two.
Ah, I see now. Your problem is that you do not understand what a
'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Troll on - but do it elsewhere please.
Norman Wells
2018-05-11 07:19:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from
the totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So,
where is the government lying, and about what?
Post by pamela
Whatever next? Hypothecated TV licence fee?
"A television licence or broadcast receiving licence is a
payment required in many countries for the reception of
television broadcasts, or the possession of a television set
where some broadcasts are funded in full or in part by the
licence fee paid. The fee is sometimes also required to own a
radio or receive radio broadcasts. A TV licence is therefore
effectively a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding
public broadcasting,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
What on earth makes you think it is not hypothecated?
Just what is the point you are struggling so hard to make?
Ever since the referendum, we all know how so called experts
can arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Hypothecated. Ha ha. In name only.
Care to explain, when you're a bit more sober perhaps?
I don't acknowledge the expertise of the opinion you proferred in
a quotation. I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax
even if you choose to believe it. In fact, many do which is why
they habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid in
and what they get out as if there is some direct connection
between the two.
Ah, I see now. Your problem is that you do not understand what a
'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Troll on - but do it elsewhere please.
I'm only pointing out your ignorance, and trying to enlighten. I'd have
thought you might have appreciated that.

On the other hand, I suppose I ought to take into account just how thick
Remainers are.
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
2018-05-11 00:04:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from
the totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So,
where is the government lying, and about what?
Post by pamela
Whatever next? Hypothecated TV licence fee?
"A television licence or broadcast receiving licence is a
payment required in many countries for the reception of
television broadcasts, or the possession of a television set
where some broadcasts are funded in full or in part by the
licence fee paid. The fee is sometimes also required to own a
radio or receive radio broadcasts. A TV licence is therefore
effectively a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding public
broadcasting,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
What on earth makes you think it is not hypothecated?
Just what is the point you are struggling so hard to make?
Ever since the referendum, we all know how so called experts can
arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Hypothecated. Ha ha. In name only.
Care to explain, when you're a bit more sober perhaps?
I don't acknowledge the expertise of the opinion you proferred in a
quotation. I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax even
if you choose to believe it. In fact, many do which is why they
habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid in and
what they get out as if there is some direct connection between the
two.
Ah, I see now. Your problem is that you do not understand what a
'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Oh you're so naive. Do you believe everything the government tells you?
--
The little boat gently drifted across the pond exactly the way a bowling ball wouldn't.
Norman Wells
2018-05-11 07:20:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Hypothecated NI.  Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from
the totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation.  So,
where is the government lying, and about what?
Whatever next?  Hypothecated TV licence fee?
"A television licence or broadcast receiving licence is a
payment required in many countries for the reception of
television broadcasts, or the possession of a television set
where some broadcasts are funded in full or in part by the
licence fee paid. The fee is sometimes also required to own a
radio or receive radio broadcasts. A TV licence is therefore
effectively a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding public
broadcasting,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
What on earth makes you think it is not hypothecated?
Just what is the point you are struggling so hard to make?
Ever since the referendum, we all know how so called experts can
arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Hypothecated.  Ha ha.  In name only.
Care to explain, when you're a bit more sober perhaps?
I don't acknowledge the expertise of the opinion you proferred in a
quotation.  I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax even
if you choose to believe it.  In fact, many do which is why they
habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid in and
what they get out as if there is some direct connection between the
two.
Ah, I see now.  Your problem is that you do not understand what a
'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Oh you're so naive.  Do you believe everything the government tells you?
What exactly has the government told me in the context of this thread
which you think I've believed?
The Peeler
2018-05-11 09:15:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 08:20:49 +0100, Norman Wells, the notorious
Post by Norman Wells
Oh you're so naive.  Do you believe everything the government tells you?
What exactly has the government told me in the context of this thread
which you think I've believed?
And the idiot takes the bait, instantly ...again! LOL
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
2018-05-11 17:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from
the totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So,
where is the government lying, and about what?
Post by pamela
Whatever next? Hypothecated TV licence fee?
"A television licence or broadcast receiving licence is a
payment required in many countries for the reception of
television broadcasts, or the possession of a television set
where some broadcasts are funded in full or in part by the
licence fee paid. The fee is sometimes also required to own a
radio or receive radio broadcasts. A TV licence is therefore
effectively a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding public=
broadcasting,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
What on earth makes you think it is not hypothecated?
Just what is the point you are struggling so hard to make?
Ever since the referendum, we all know how so called experts can
arrive at the wrong conclusion.
Hypothecated. Ha ha. In name only.
Care to explain, when you're a bit more sober perhaps?
I don't acknowledge the expertise of the opinion you proferred in a=
quotation. I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax eve=
n
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
if you choose to believe it. In fact, many do which is why they
habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid in and
what they get out as if there is some direct connection between the=
two.
Ah, I see now. Your problem is that you do not understand what a
'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Oh you're so naive. Do you believe everything the government tells y=
ou?
Post by Norman Wells
What exactly has the government told me in the context of this thread
which you think I've believed?
That the NI is hypothecated.

-- =

Health and Safety Officer required to start ASAP, circa =A335K:
Your main duties will include:
Hampering other staff and preventing them from carrying on with their du=
ties.
Handing out huge quantities of pointless paperwork consuming approx 1 ra=
inforest per year.
Norman Wells
2018-05-11 17:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Hypothecated NI.  Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from
the totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation.  So,
where is the government lying, and about what?
Ah, I see now.  Your problem is that you do not understand what a
'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Oh you're so naive.  Do you believe everything the government tells you?
What exactly has the government told me in the context of this thread
which you think I've believed?
That the NI is hypothecated.
No, the quote I gave earlier was from the totally independent Chartered
Institute of Taxation. Nothing to do with the government at all.
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
2018-05-11 18:11:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from
the totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So,
where is the government lying, and about what?
Ah, I see now. Your problem is that you do not understand what a
'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Oh you're so naive. Do you believe everything the government tells you?
What exactly has the government told me in the context of this thread
which you think I've believed?
That the NI is hypothecated.
No, the quote I gave earlier was from the totally independent Chartered
Institute of Taxation. Nothing to do with the government at all.
A quango?
--
Archimedes principle: When a body is fully immersed in water, the telephone rings.
Norman Wells
2018-05-11 20:24:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Hypothecated NI.  Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from
the totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation.  So,
where is the government lying, and about what?
Ah, I see now.  Your problem is that you do not understand what a
'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Oh you're so naive.  Do you believe everything the government tells you?
What exactly has the government told me in the context of this thread
which you think I've believed?
That the NI is hypothecated.
No, the quote I gave earlier was from the totally independent Chartered
Institute of Taxation.  Nothing to do with the government at all.
A quango?
No, a Chartered Institute of professionals. Since you clearly don't
understand, I suggest you look up what 'Chartered Institute' means.
The Peeler
2018-05-11 20:33:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 21:24:18 +0100, Norman Wells, the notorious
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
A quango?
No, a Chartered Institute of professionals. Since you clearly don't
understand, I suggest you look up what 'Chartered Institute' means.
Nope, you rare idiot: he will just keep "asking" YOU and baiting you! Gee!!!
<tsk>
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
2018-05-11 23:29:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from
the totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So,
where is the government lying, and about what?
Ah, I see now. Your problem is that you do not understand what a
'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Oh you're so naive. Do you believe everything the government tells you?
What exactly has the government told me in the context of this thread
which you think I've believed?
That the NI is hypothecated.
No, the quote I gave earlier was from the totally independent Chartered
Institute of Taxation. Nothing to do with the government at all.
A quango?
No, a Chartered Institute of professionals. Since you clearly don't
understand, I suggest you look up what 'Chartered Institute' means.
It's an organisation you believe and I don't.
--
There was a blackout in my neighborhood last night.
I had to shoot him before he stole everything.
Norman Wells
2018-05-12 07:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Ah, I see now.  Your problem is that you do not understand what a
'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Oh you're so naive.  Do you believe everything the government tells you?
What exactly has the government told me in the context of this thread
which you think I've believed?
That the NI is hypothecated.
No, the quote I gave earlier was from the totally independent Chartered
Institute of Taxation.  Nothing to do with the government at all.
A quango?
No, a Chartered Institute of professionals.  Since you clearly don't
understand, I suggest you look up what 'Chartered Institute' means.
It's an organisation you believe and I don't.
It's a free country

But they're the experts and you're not.
The Peeler
2018-05-12 09:41:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:08:51 +0100, Norman Wells, the notorious
Post by Norman Wells
It's a free country
But they're the experts and you're not.
He's just a troll, and you are just his troll-feeding idiot! That's all!
pamela
2018-05-12 11:49:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Peeler
On Fri, 11 May 2018 21:24:18 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Ah, I see now.  Your problem is that you do not understand
what a 'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Oh you're so naive.  Do you believe everything the
government tells you?
What exactly has the government told me in the context of
this thread which you think I've believed?
That the NI is hypothecated.
No, the quote I gave earlier was from the totally independent
Chartered Institute of Taxation.  Nothing to do with the
government at all.
A quango?
No, a Chartered Institute of professionals.  Since you clearly
don't understand, I suggest you look up what 'Chartered
Institute' means.
It's an organisation you believe and I don't.
It's a free country
But they're the experts and you're not.
I didn't hear Leavers say that in the referendum campaign. :)
Norman Wells
2018-05-12 12:20:05 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by The Peeler
On Fri, 11 May 2018 21:24:18 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Ah, I see now.  Your problem is that you do not understand
what a 'hypothecated tax' means.
If only you'd said at the start instead of pontificating.
Oh you're so naive.  Do you believe everything the
government tells you?
What exactly has the government told me in the context of
this thread which you think I've believed?
That the NI is hypothecated.
No, the quote I gave earlier was from the totally independent
Chartered Institute of Taxation.  Nothing to do with the
government at all.
A quango?
No, a Chartered Institute of professionals.  Since you clearly
don't understand, I suggest you look up what 'Chartered
Institute' means.
It's an organisation you believe and I don't.
It's a free country
But they're the experts and you're not.
I didn't hear Leavers say that in the referendum campaign. :)
About whom?

The Peeler
2018-05-11 19:39:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 18:41:13 +0100, Norman Wells, the notorious
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
That the NI is hypothecated.
No, the quote I gave earlier was from the totally independent Chartered
Institute of Taxation. Nothing to do with the government at all.
An idiot who can't get enough of another idiot! <VBG>
JNugent
2018-05-10 23:50:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On 10/05/2018 22:05, pamela wrote:

[ ... ]
... I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax even
if you choose to believe it. In fact, many do which is why they
habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid in and
what they get out as if there is some direct connection between the
two.
There is a connection, though it is rarely taken into account in
discussions such as this.

If you don't pay enough (years of) national insurance contributions,
whether by paying them in money or being "credited" them by HMRC (that
used to be by DHSS/DSS), you will not get a full Retirement Pension.
Brian Reay
2018-05-11 08:30:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
... I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax even
if you choose to believe it.  In fact, many do which is why they
habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid in and
what they get out as if there is some direct connection between the
two.
There is a connection, though it is rarely taken into account in
discussions such as this.
If you don't pay enough (years of) national insurance contributions,
whether by paying them in money or being "credited" them by HMRC (that
used to be by DHSS/DSS), you will not get a full Retirement Pension.
True BUT how many who haven't contributed go on to get benefits to 'make
up' the gap, if they don't have other sources of income?

Someone, I vaguely, knew happened to relate in my hearing their 'income
sources'. They'd had a 'less than full' employment history, at least
work 'on the books'. As a result they had a poor contribution record
(old pension). No private or company pension etc. They got a small
state pension, with a raft of benefits. So much so they ran a car and
had a pretty comfortable life.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
pamela
2018-05-11 08:48:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
... I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax even
if you choose to believe it.  In fact, many do which is why
they habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid
in and what they get out as if there is some direct connection
between the two.
There is a connection, though it is rarely taken into account in
discussions such as this.
If you don't pay enough (years of) national insurance
contributions, whether by paying them in money or being
"credited" them by HMRC (that used to be by DHSS/DSS), you will
not get a full Retirement Pension.
True BUT how many who haven't contributed go on to get benefits to
'make up' the gap, if they don't have other sources of income?
Someone, I vaguely, knew happened to relate in my hearing their
'income sources'. They'd had a 'less than full' employment
history, at least work 'on the books'. As a result they had a
poor contribution record (old pension). No private or company
pension etc. They got a small state pension, with a raft of
benefits. So much so they ran a car and had a pretty comfortable
life.
Perhaps the individual claimed unemployment benefits when not working
as they can, in many circumstances, make the equivalent of NI
contributions for the period involved.
JNugent
2018-05-11 14:57:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Brian Reay
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
... I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax even
if you choose to believe it.  In fact, many do which is why
they habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid
in and what they get out as if there is some direct connection
between the two.
There is a connection, though it is rarely taken into account in
discussions such as this.
If you don't pay enough (years of) national insurance
contributions, whether by paying them in money or being
"credited" them by HMRC (that used to be by DHSS/DSS), you will
not get a full Retirement Pension.
True BUT how many who haven't contributed go on to get benefits to
'make up' the gap, if they don't have other sources of income?
Someone, I vaguely, knew happened to relate in my hearing their
'income sources'. They'd had a 'less than full' employment
history, at least work 'on the books'. As a result they had a
poor contribution record (old pension). No private or company
pension etc. They got a small state pension, with a raft of
benefits. So much so they ran a car and had a pretty comfortable
life.
Perhaps the individual claimed unemployment benefits when not working
as they can, in many circumstances, make the equivalent of NI
contributions for the period involved.
That is indeed one of the circumstances covered by the phrase "being
"credited" [NI contributions] by HMRC" means.
JNugent
2018-05-11 14:56:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Brian Reay
Post by JNugent
[ ... ]
... I laugh at the notion that NI is a hypothecated tax even
if you choose to believe it.  In fact, many do which is why they
habitually comment (usually moaning) about what they paid in and
what they get out as if there is some direct connection between the
two.
There is a connection, though it is rarely taken into account in
discussions such as this.
If you don't pay enough (years of) national insurance contributions,
whether by paying them in money or being "credited" them by HMRC (that
used to be by DHSS/DSS), you will not get a full Retirement Pension.
True BUT how many who haven't contributed go on to get benefits to 'make
up' the gap, if they don't have other sources of income?
It is also true, as you say, that pensioners who don't have a full
pension (for whatever reason) may (but are not guaranteed to) be able to
get other payments - what used to be called Supplementary Pension - to
top up their income to a level which is actually in excess of the full
Retirement Pension.

But that also applies to full Pension recipients, because the
means-tested rate is higher than the ordinary full pension.

The important point, though, is that anyone on means-tested benefits,
including Pension Credit, is going to be on an overall low income. On
the other hand, those with (personal) pensions, or incomes, from other
sourcesn simply add the RP to their other income(s), which is the reaon
why pensioners are now so often said to have record high imncomes in
retirement.
Post by Brian Reay
Someone, I vaguely, knew happened to relate in my hearing their 'income
sources'. They'd had a 'less than full' employment history, at least
work 'on the books'.  As a result they had a poor contribution record
(old pension). No private or company pension etc.  They got a small
state pension, with a raft of benefits. So much so they ran a car and
had a pretty comfortable life.
Pension Credit, and assuming no premium components for disability, is
currently £163 a week for a single person and £248.80 for a couple.

That's £706 or £1078 a month.

Assuming no housing costs to be met (eg, mortgage paid off or full HB
in payment), I suppose you could run a car on that as well as meeting
living costs - just. It'd be easier with a non-dependent in the
household, contributing to bills.
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
2018-05-11 00:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:15:45 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Mon, 7 May 2018 12:11:00 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by Norman Wells
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see...
=C2=A3174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid
in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51
years contributing to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI
contributions and when you die those contributions die
with you? Even if you've never managed to draw a single
penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever
increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and
maternity benefits.
Except that it doesn't fund the NHS. It's a common
misconception.
It goes into the common treasury pot, and the NHS is one of
its biggest outgoings, so of course it does fund the NHS.
You might as well say it funds defence, education and roads as
well if you think that's the case. But it isn't.
So, does it fund the NHS, defence, education and roads,
unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity
benefits, or doesn't it?
"National insurance comes close to being hypothecated. The tax
is intended to fund contributory benefits, for example state
pension and contributions based employment support allowance.
However, government accounts show that the income received from
national insurance contributions is about =C2=A386.5 billion in
2015/16. This does not actually cover the cost of pensions and
benefits - about =C2=A395 billion - so the fund has to be topped u=
p
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
with a substantial grant of =C2=A39.6 billion from general
taxation."
https://www.tax.org.uk/media-centre/blog/media-and-politics/we-
as
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
sess-hyperbole-about-hypothecated-taxes
It doesn't even cover pensions and benefits. There's nothing
left over to fund defence, education, roads or the NHS, the
expenditure on which alone heavily exceeds all NI revenue.
So the government is lying to us?
About what? Where have you pulled that one from?
Hypothecated NI. Ha ha, good joke.
The quote I gave above is not a government quote, but one from the
totally independent Chartered Institute of Taxation. So, where is the=
government lying, and about what?
Post by pamela
Whatever next? Hypothecated TV licence fee?
"A television licence or broadcast receiving licence is a payment
required in many countries for the reception of television broadcasts,=
or the possession of a television set where some broadcasts are funded=
in full or in part by the licence fee paid. The fee is sometimes also
required to own a radio or receive radio broadcasts. A TV licence is
therefore effectively a hypothecated tax for the purpose of funding
public broadcasting,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence
What on earth makes you think it is not hypothecated?
Just what is the point you are struggling so hard to make?
The license fee is THEFT. We pay money into a pot which funds ONE of th=
e many broadcasters. Why cannot Sky, Channel 4 etc all sue the BBC as t=
hey never see any of this money?

-- =

Condoms should be used on every conceivable occasion.
tim...
2018-05-07 10:27:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing
to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you
die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to
draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever
increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
I paid into BUPA for two decades and all I ever got was an £80 X-ray - and
the cheque for that bounced the first time.
you had a free choice to do that.

if you weren't getting value for money you should have stopped paying the
premiums, and put the money in the pot to pay directly for private work as
necessary and you'd probably be better off.

will work for most people - like all insurance, though obviously you can't
try it where the maximum risk is catastrophic. Which it never is with
BUPA-like health cover.

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2018-05-07 10:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing
to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you
die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to
draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever
increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
I paid into BUPA for two decades and all I ever got was an £80 X-ray - and
the cheque for that bounced the first time.
you had a free choice to do that.
if you weren't getting value for money you should have stopped paying the
premiums, and put the money in the pot to pay directly for private work as
necessary and you'd probably be better off.
will work for most people - like all insurance, though obviously you can't
try it where the maximum risk is catastrophic. Which it never is with
BUPA-like health cover.
tim
It was effectively insurance, where the insurer bears the whole risk for a premium that is a fraction of the potential loss. The money went to paying out for treatment for those who did fall ill.

It is similar for NI, where some ostensibly goes towards ones pension, some to insure against being unable to work and some to pay for medical treatment if you need it.

So far NI has done well out of me - not claimed benefits since a teenager (and then only for a few weeks), only spent about ten hours in hospital beds, plus a couple of 'flu jabs. I had to pay for prescriptions until recently, and the few I have had were all for generic drugs (e.g. amoxicillin after a dog bite) where the dispense yielded a profit for the NHS!
tim...
2018-05-07 11:25:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years
of
tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing
to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you
die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to
draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever
increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
I paid into BUPA for two decades and all I ever got was an £80 X-ray - and
the cheque for that bounced the first time.
you had a free choice to do that.
if you weren't getting value for money you should have stopped paying the
premiums, and put the money in the pot to pay directly for private work as
necessary and you'd probably be better off.
will work for most people - like all insurance, though obviously you can't
try it where the maximum risk is catastrophic. Which it never is with
BUPA-like health cover.
tim
It was effectively insurance,
yes I know that (I think that was obvious from my reply)
Post by R. Mark Clayton
where the insurer bears the whole risk for a premium that is a fraction of
the potential loss.
except that you have claimed that it wasn't this fraction of potential loss.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The money went to paying out for treatment for those who did fall ill.
Well yes, that is how insurance works

but the point about BUPA-like insurance is that it doesn't cover you for
major trauma (the sort of things that might costs 100 grand), only for
getting you seen quicker for elective surgery

you can get yourself to the top of that list by just paying to go private on
a case by case basis, and 99 times out of 100 this will cost you under 5
grand

Unless you expect to be claiming frequently from your BUPA you will be
better off just paying this, once in blue moon, 5 grand.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
It is similar for NI, where some ostensibly goes towards ones pension,
some to insure against being unable to work and some to pay for medical
treatment if you need it.
except that NI isn't like that and hasn't been for decades. It's just money
that goes in the general pot
Post by R. Mark Clayton
So far NI has done well out of me
just wait until you get old
R. Mark Clayton
2018-05-07 11:40:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
SNIP
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
will work for most people - like all insurance, though obviously you can't
try it where the maximum risk is catastrophic. Which it never is with
BUPA-like health cover.
tim
It was effectively insurance,
yes I know that (I think that was obvious from my reply)
Post by R. Mark Clayton
where the insurer bears the whole risk for a premium that is a fraction of
the potential loss.
except that you have claimed that it wasn't this fraction of potential loss.
No I merely stated I hadn't made any claims, similarly on my house insurance (one set of locks after keys stolen).
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The money went to paying out for treatment for those who did fall ill.
Well yes, that is how insurance works
but the point about BUPA-like insurance is that it doesn't cover you for
major trauma (the sort of things that might costs 100 grand), only for
getting you seen quicker for elective surgery
Not quite true, but as I was working freelance getting something normally elective that prevented me from working was why I was paying in (plus I had the international option when working abroad).
Post by tim...
you can get yourself to the top of that list by just paying to go private on
a case by case basis, and 99 times out of 100 this will cost you under 5
grand
Unless you expect to be claiming frequently from your BUPA you will be
better off just paying this, once in blue moon, 5 grand.
I suppose I could manage without car insurance because I normally drive carefully, but then ten days ago white van man rear ended me.

What is wrong with BUPA is that it is a provident association so all members the same age pay the same for a pooled fund to cover the risk. When you are young this is advantageous as the risk is low and no profit is extracted, however as the members age, the 'premiums' go up. Healthy older members, less likely to claim and better able to weather some illness or injury financially or even pay private tend to leave. Big claimers with impaired health tend to stay, so by the time I quit (age ~50) the cost was about double the premium of straight private medical insurance for an unimpaired risk.
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
It is similar for NI, where some ostensibly goes towards ones pension,
some to insure against being unable to work and some to pay for medical
treatment if you need it.
except that NI isn't like that and hasn't been for decades. It's just money
that goes in the general pot
Post by R. Mark Clayton
So far NI has done well out of me
just wait until you get old
I know.
tim...
2018-05-07 17:31:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
SNIP
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
will work for most people - like all insurance, though obviously you can't
try it where the maximum risk is catastrophic. Which it never is with
BUPA-like health cover.
tim
It was effectively insurance,
yes I know that (I think that was obvious from my reply)
Post by R. Mark Clayton
where the insurer bears the whole risk for a premium that is a fraction of
the potential loss.
except that you have claimed that it wasn't this fraction of potential loss.
No I merely stated I hadn't made any claims, similarly on my house
insurance (one set of locks after keys stolen).
so you made a loss on the deal then.

Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The money went to paying out for treatment for those who did fall ill.
Well yes, that is how insurance works
but the point about BUPA-like insurance is that it doesn't cover you for
major trauma (the sort of things that might costs 100 grand), only for
getting you seen quicker for elective surgery
Not quite true, but as I was working freelance getting something normally
elective that prevented me from working was why I was paying in (plus I
had the international option when working abroad).
Your consequential loss is completely irrelevant

If the thing that you are insuring against can be paid for out of immediate
resources and costs less than the accumulation of premiums then you are in
the same position (re the consequential loss)
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
you can get yourself to the top of that list by just paying to go private on
a case by case basis, and 99 times out of 100 this will cost you under 5
grand
Unless you expect to be claiming frequently from your BUPA you will be
better off just paying this, once in blue moon, 5 grand.
I suppose I could manage without car insurance because I normally drive
carefully, but then ten days ago white van man rear ended me.
firstly you can't, because it's a legal requirement

and secondly the maximum claim againts you isn't the value of your car.
It's the million pound compensation payment to someone who you injure

tim
R. Mark Clayton
2018-05-07 19:00:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No I merely stated I hadn't made any claims, similarly on my house
insurance (one set of locks after keys stolen).
so you made a loss on the deal then.
Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
I'm not, but should the perils have occurred then I would not have done. e.g. I wrote a car off in 1985 - I had paid the insurer ~£300 they paid me over £5k.
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The money went to paying out for treatment for those who did fall ill.
Well yes, that is how insurance works
but the point about BUPA-like insurance is that it doesn't cover you for
major trauma (the sort of things that might costs 100 grand), only for
getting you seen quicker for elective surgery
Not quite true, but as I was working freelance getting something normally
elective that prevented me from working was why I was paying in (plus I
had the international option when working abroad).
Your consequential loss is completely irrelevant
Not to me - if you are freelance, then if you can't work you don't get paid. Something elective, like knee cartilage, hernia etc. would be sorted quickly in BUPA. Nowadays I could cope with the wait.
Post by tim...
If the thing that you are insuring against can be paid for out of immediate
resources and costs less than the accumulation of premiums then you are in
the same position (re the consequential loss)
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
you can get yourself to the top of that list by just paying to go private on
a case by case basis, and 99 times out of 100 this will cost you under 5
grand
Unless you expect to be claiming frequently from your BUPA you will be
better off just paying this, once in blue moon, 5 grand.
I suppose I could manage without car insurance because I normally drive
carefully, but then ten days ago white van man rear ended me.
firstly you can't, because it's a legal requirement
Yes, but only third party.
Post by tim...
and secondly the maximum claim againts you isn't the value of your car.
It's the million pound compensation payment to someone who you injure
Indeed, although thankfully that has never happened, although it has the other way around (two broken ankles).
Post by tim...
tim
tim...
2018-05-07 20:00:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
No I merely stated I hadn't made any claims, similarly on my house
insurance (one set of locks after keys stolen).
so you made a loss on the deal then.
Stop trying to pretend otherwise.
I'm not, but should the perils have occurred then I would not have done.
e.g. I wrote a car off in 1985 - I had paid the insurer ~£300 they paid me
over £5k.
we're talking BUPA "insurance" not car insurance
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The money went to paying out for treatment for those who did fall ill.
Well yes, that is how insurance works
but the point about BUPA-like insurance is that it doesn't cover you for
major trauma (the sort of things that might costs 100 grand), only for
getting you seen quicker for elective surgery
Not quite true, but as I was working freelance getting something normally
elective that prevented me from working was why I was paying in (plus I
had the international option when working abroad).
Your consequential loss is completely irrelevant
Not to me - if you are freelance, then if you can't work you don't get
paid.
the point is that when you pay for the treatment yourself you spend EXACTLY
the same amount of time off work as if BUPA paid
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Something elective, like knee cartilage, hernia etc. would be sorted
quickly in BUPA.
as it will, if you elect to pay for it yourself

your BUPA sub is giving you no advantage here.
pamela
2018-05-11 10:25:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by tim...
Post by R. Mark Clayton
The money went to paying out for treatment for those who did fall ill.
Well yes, that is how insurance works
but the point about BUPA-like insurance is that it doesn't
cover you for major trauma (the sort of things that might
costs 100 grand), only for getting you seen quicker for
elective surgery
Not quite true, but as I was working freelance getting
something normally elective that prevented me from working was
why I was paying in (plus I had the international option when
working abroad).
Your consequential loss is completely irrelevant
Not to me - if you are freelance, then if you can't work you
don't get paid.
the point is that when you pay for the treatment yourself you
spend EXACTLY the same amount of time off work as if BUPA paid
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Something elective, like knee cartilage, hernia etc. would be
sorted quickly in BUPA.
as it will, if you elect to pay for it yourself
your BUPA sub is giving you no advantage here.
You do in fact pay for it yourself as BUPA is essentially
indemnifying you against the costs you might incur. In practice,
BUPA often pays the bill direct but you are the private doc's
patient and you are responsible for paying his bill.

BUPA usually provides earlier treatment than the NHS which means you
are ill or even disabled for less time. On other words your full
working capacity gets restored sooner.

As an aside, another advantage of BUPA is you get to see a
consultant and not a lower grade, such as a registrar. You also get
longer with the doc so he can deal with all aspects of the illness.
A private doc usually shows far greater flexibility when handling
patient requests. On the other hand, private doctors are not great
at multi-member team work and some have poor secretarial support.
Ophelia
2018-05-08 08:32:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Post by JNugent
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... £174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 years of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contributing
to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when you
die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed to
draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever
increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
I paid into BUPA for two decades and all I ever got was an £80 X-ray - and
the cheque for that bounced the first time.
you had a free choice to do that.

if you weren't getting value for money you should have stopped paying the
premiums, and put the money in the pot to pay directly for private work as
necessary and you'd probably be better off.

will work for most people - like all insurance, though obviously you can't
try it where the maximum risk is catastrophic. Which it never is with
BUPA-like health cover.

tim

==

I had BUPA health cover from the company I worked for. I had 3 major
surgeries during that period so I guess I was lucky:))

One of the surgeries I had wasn't elective so I am not sure what happened
there.
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
2018-05-11 00:01:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
In 2017/2018, it would have cost me... let's see... =A3174.
I could live with a deal like that.
When I hit the State retirement age at 67 I will have paid in 51 year=
s of tax and NI.
You can "live with" whatever you want; me? I reckon 51 years contribu=
ting to a pot is probably enough.
Did you know that you can pay 40+ years of NI contributions and when =
you die those contributions die with you? Even if you've never managed =
to draw a single penny of your pension because you haven't hit the ever =
increasing retirement age?
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.=
I paid into BUPA for two decades and all I ever got was an =A380 X-ray=
- and the cheque for that bounced the first time.

And you chose to pay into BUPA. But we don't get a choice paying into t=
he thieving NHS.

-- =

Helpdesk: Click on the 'my computer' icon on the left of the screen.
Customer: Your left or my left?
Norman Wells
2018-05-11 07:23:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 07 May 2018 10:51:13 +0100, R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
I paid into BUPA for two decades and all I ever got was an £80 X-ray -
and the cheque for that bounced the first time.
And you chose to pay into BUPA.  But we don't get a choice paying into
the thieving NHS.
That depends on how much you earn and how much tax you can avoid.
The Peeler
2018-05-11 09:15:49 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 08:23:45 +0100, Norman Wells, the mentally deficient,
Post by Norman Wells
And you chose to pay into BUPA.  But we don't get a choice paying into
the thieving NHS.
That depends on how much you earn and how much tax you can avoid.
Yep, you are definitely on the same level as the idiotic troll you keep
feeding, idiot!
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
2018-05-11 18:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
On Mon, 07 May 2018 10:51:13 +0100, R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefit=
s.
Post by Norman Wells
I paid into BUPA for two decades and all I ever got was an =A380 X-r=
ay -
Post by Norman Wells
and the cheque for that bounced the first time.
And you chose to pay into BUPA. But we don't get a choice paying int=
o
Post by Norman Wells
the thieving NHS.
That depends on how much you earn and how much tax you can avoid.
But it's still stealing money from people. It should be up to each and =
every one of us if and how much medical insurance we have.

-- =

Sky have just won the rights to screen the first World Origami Champions=
hips from Tokyo.
Unfortunately it's only available on Paper View.
Norman Wells
2018-05-11 20:25:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
On Mon, 07 May 2018 10:51:13 +0100, R. Mark Clayton
Post by R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benefits.
I paid into BUPA for two decades and all I ever got was an £80 X-ray -
and the cheque for that bounced the first time.
And you chose to pay into BUPA.  But we don't get a choice paying into
the thieving NHS.
That depends on how much you earn and how much tax you can avoid.
But it's still stealing money from people.  It should be up to each and
every one of us if and how much medical insurance we have.
I thought we had that argument 70 years ago.
The Peeler
2018-05-11 20:36:52 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 11 May 2018 21:25:34 +0100, Norman Wells, the notorious
Post by Norman Wells
But it's still stealing money from people.  It should be up to each and
every one of us if and how much medical insurance we have.
I thought
Don't, senile idiot! It doesn't really suit you!
Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
2018-05-11 23:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Mon, 07 May 2018 10:51:13 +0100, R. Mark Clayton
Post by m***@gmail.com
Where the fuck does all this money go?
NHS, unemployment, sickness, industrial injury and maternity benef=
its.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
I paid into BUPA for two decades and all I ever got was an =A380 X=
-ray -
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
and the cheque for that bounced the first time.
And you chose to pay into BUPA. But we don't get a choice paying i=
nto
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
the thieving NHS.
That depends on how much you earn and how much tax you can avoid.
But it's still stealing money from people. It should be up to each a=
nd
Post by Norman Wells
every one of us if and how much medical insurance we have.
I thought we had that argument 70 years ago.
We've evolved since then.

-- =

Death is the number 1 killer in the world.
Norman Wells
2018-05-12 07:12:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
And you chose to pay into BUPA.  But we don't get a choice paying into
the thieving NHS.
That depends on how much you earn and how much tax you can avoid.
But it's still stealing money from people.  It should be up to each and
every one of us if and how much medical insurance we have.
I thought we had that argument 70 years ago.
We've evolved since then.
Perhaps we should ask Mr Darwin then.
The Peeler
2018-05-12 09:41:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 12 May 2018 08:12:08 +0100, Norman Wells, the notorious
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Jimmy Wilkinson Knife
We've evolved since then.
Perhaps we should ask Mr Darwin then.
No, senile troll-feeding idiot, you must ask the TROLL! That's what he and
you are here for! <tsk>
Joe
2018-05-07 08:24:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100
Post by JNugent
Post by johnny-knowall
"Nearly 1.3m “silver strivers” — those working beyond the state
pension age — would have to start paying national insurance to
prop up the social care system, under plans being considered by
the government.
At present, people stop paying national insurance when they reach
state pension age. But under the proposed “care tax”, the 12%
charge would continue to be levied, raising about £2bn a year."
How much more are the tories going to try and steal?
As much as they can. It is what Tories do.
When Blair came to power, the NI deduction rate was 10%.
Labour increased that to 12% - a 20% increase for no additional
benefits of any sort (except for increased Treasury revenue).
It was rather more than that: there was a ceiling at about £40,000
beyond which governments felt it was rather a cheek to go on collecting
'contributions', as there were no additional benefits on offer. There
is now 2% payable on all earnings over the limit, and the employer
goes on paying 13.8% on all earnings. That brought in quite a lot more
money. Brown was bugger all use for everything except thieving, he was
marvellous at that.
--
Joe
Norman Wells
2018-05-07 08:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe
It was rather more than that: there was a ceiling at about £40,000
beyond which governments felt it was rather a cheek to go on collecting
'contributions', as there were no additional benefits on offer. There
is now 2% payable on all earnings over the limit, and the employer
goes on paying 13.8% on all earnings. That brought in quite a lot more
money. Brown was bugger all use for everything except thieving, he was
marvellous at that.
Someone has to pay for what the government spends.

Or have you found that magic money tree?
R. Mark Clayton
2018-05-07 10:05:46 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Joe
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100
Post by JNugent
Post by johnny-knowall
"Nearly 1.3m “silver strivers” — those working beyond the state
pension age — would have to start paying national insurance to
prop up the social care system, under plans being considered by
the government.
At present, people stop paying national insurance when they reach
state pension age. But under the proposed “care tax”, the 12%
charge would continue to be levied, raising about £2bn a year."
How much more are the tories going to try and steal?
As much as they can. It is what Tories do.
When Blair came to power, the NI deduction rate was 10%.
Labour increased that to 12% - a 20% increase for no additional
benefits of any sort (except for increased Treasury revenue).
It was rather more than that: there was a ceiling at about £40,000
beyond which governments felt it was rather a cheek to go on collecting
'contributions', as there were no additional benefits on offer. There
is now 2% payable on all earnings over the limit, and the employer
goes on paying 13.8% on all earnings. That brought in quite a lot more
money. Brown was bugger all use for everything except thieving, he was
marvellous at that.
--
Joe
back in the 1960's one paid a fixed stamp and got fixed benefits. Unearned income (e.g. interest, dividends, royalties) were subject to the "investment income surcharge" meaning investors and pop stars were paying a marginal rate of 98%. Many went into 'tax exile', others like Ken Dodd kept cash in the attic.

in the 1970's Wilson IIRC brought in graduated contributions and benefits, so if you had been working in a well paid job and got laid off you received more UB [as of right] than if you had been in a poorly paid job.

in the 1980's Thatcher abolished the graduated benefits, but kept the graduated contributions, however it was capped at roughly where higher rate tax started so that the two did not accumulate to give a rate over 50%.

In the 1990's various perks were made liable to NI (NIa contributions).

in the 00's Labour tinkered a bit, removed the cap on NI for the employer*, and eventually brought in a 50% tax rate in 2010, however their main thrust was to prevent NI avoidance by paying dividends through companies (IR 35). Of course if you an underemployed company director you can't claim UB without dissolution, so personally I had no qualms about not paying the premiums.


* not sure what risk the employer gets covered - the DWP only pays a pittance towards sick pay (so the employer has to cover that) and provides nothing towards hiring a temporary replacement either.
MM
2018-05-09 07:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.

MM
Norman Wells
2018-05-09 08:09:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
'Guaranteed'? Where is it guaranteed? Do you think the government
could not reintroduce a charge on *all* prescriptions if it wanted to?
MM
2018-05-10 12:28:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
'Guaranteed'? Where is it guaranteed? Do you think the government
could not reintroduce a charge on *all* prescriptions if it wanted to?
If it wanted to commit harakiri, then it could do that, sure.

MM
Norman Wells
2018-05-10 13:00:02 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
'Guaranteed'? Where is it guaranteed? Do you think the government
could not reintroduce a charge on *all* prescriptions if it wanted to?
If it wanted to commit harakiri, then it could do that, sure.
You think every government policy decision is committing suicide.
Hasn't happened, though, has it?
pamela
2018-05-10 20:17:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:09:21 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National
Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65 (for
guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like an
absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
'Guaranteed'? Where is it guaranteed? Do you think the
government could not reintroduce a charge on *all* prescriptions
if it wanted to?
If it wanted to commit harakiri, then it could do that, sure.
You think every government policy decision is committing suicide.
Where does MM say that?
Post by Norman Wells
Hasn't happened, though, has it?
He never said it. It's in your mind only.
MM
2018-05-12 08:06:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:09:21 +0100, Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National
Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65 (for
guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like an
absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
'Guaranteed'? Where is it guaranteed? Do you think the
government could not reintroduce a charge on *all* prescriptions
if it wanted to?
If it wanted to commit harakiri, then it could do that, sure.
You think every government policy decision is committing suicide.
Where does MM say that?
Post by Norman Wells
Hasn't happened, though, has it?
He never said it. It's in your mind only.
This is typical of Norman's Kafkaesque world view. He invents
something, then attributes it to his opponent, and finally uses that
to accuse the latter. People's Court writ large, that's Norman all
over!

MM
MM
2018-05-12 08:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
'Guaranteed'? Where is it guaranteed? Do you think the government
could not reintroduce a charge on *all* prescriptions if it wanted to?
If it wanted to commit harakiri, then it could do that, sure.
You think every government policy decision is committing suicide.
Hasn't happened, though, has it?
Came pretty close with May's election in June last year. Right now,
the political knife is inches from her heart, with many hands grasping
the handle ready to plunge it in.

MM
Norman Wells
2018-05-12 08:08:19 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
'Guaranteed'? Where is it guaranteed? Do you think the government
could not reintroduce a charge on *all* prescriptions if it wanted to?
If it wanted to commit harakiri, then it could do that, sure.
You think every government policy decision is committing suicide.
Hasn't happened, though, has it?
Came pretty close with May's election in June last year. Right now,
the political knife is inches from her heart, with many hands grasping
the handle ready to plunge it in.
Whose hands? Do tell.

While you're about it, can you tell us why it hasn't happened before and
what has made it more likely now?
JNugent
2018-05-09 08:24:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
MM
<weary shake of the head>

You don't actually understand the terminology at all, do you?
MM
2018-05-10 12:29:58 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
MM
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why not
enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like me?

MM
Norman Wells
2018-05-10 13:04:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why not
enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
pamela
2018-05-10 14:57:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National
Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65 (for
guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like an
absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why
not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like
me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will take your
bait?
Norman Wells
2018-05-10 16:32:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National
Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65 (for
guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like an
absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why
not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like
me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will take your
bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National Insurance
contributions. In case you didn't know, they're what pay his State
pension, without which he'd be totally lost.
pamela
2018-05-10 20:16:22 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National
Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65 (for
guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like an
absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g.
free prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary.
Why not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working,
like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will take
your bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National Insurance
contributions. In case you didn't know, they're what pay his
State pension, without which he'd be totally lost.
That was the very point I made, when I spotted your troll. Glad you
'fessed up to it.
Norman Wells
2018-05-10 20:19:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National
Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65 (for
guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like an
absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g.
free prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary.
Why not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working,
like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will take
your bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National Insurance
contributions. In case you didn't know, they're what pay his
State pension, without which he'd be totally lost.
That was the very point I made, when I spotted your troll. Glad you
'fessed up to it.
I have no idea what you're on about. Neither, I suspect, does anyone
else. You make no sense.
pamela
2018-05-10 21:01:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying
National Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65
(for guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like
an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g.
free prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary.
Why not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without
working, like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will
take your bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National Insurance
contributions. In case you didn't know, they're what pay his
State pension, without which he'd be totally lost.
That was the very point I made, when I spotted your troll. Glad
you 'fessed up to it.
I have no idea what you're on about. Neither, I suspect, does
anyone else. You make no sense.
"But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?"
is cunningly written in way which would mislead into thinking about
non-retirement benefits.

Nice one but I spotted it a mile away. Seems MM did too. I don't
know why you keep trolling but I guess old habits die hard.
--
Brexit is a massive con job.
Now the wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car.
Norman Wells
2018-05-10 21:47:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying
National Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65
(for guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like
an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g.
free prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary.
Why not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without
working, like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will
take your bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National Insurance
contributions. In case you didn't know, they're what pay his
State pension, without which he'd be totally lost.
That was the very point I made, when I spotted your troll. Glad
you 'fessed up to it.
I have no idea what you're on about. Neither, I suspect, does
anyone else. You make no sense.
"But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?"
is cunningly written in way which would mislead into thinking about
non-retirement benefits.
Hardly. Everyone knows he's retired. He goes on enough about it.
pamela
2018-05-10 22:04:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying
National Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65
(for guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem
like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g.
free prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you
weary. Why not enjoy retirement if you can afford it
without working, like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will
take your bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National Insurance
contributions. In case you didn't know, they're what pay his
State pension, without which he'd be totally lost.
That was the very point I made, when I spotted your troll.
Glad you 'fessed up to it.
I have no idea what you're on about. Neither, I suspect, does
anyone else. You make no sense.
"But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could
you?" is cunningly written in way which would mislead into
thinking about non-retirement benefits.
Hardly. Everyone knows he's retired. He goes on enough about it.
That was the exact response you sought to troll by making it seem
you had got it wrong by using "State benefit payments" instead of
"pension". Nice one.

Trolls work like that. They try anything which generates a
response. You do it so often it almost comes naturally.
Norman Wells
2018-05-11 07:15:54 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying
National Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65
(for guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem
like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g.
free prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you
weary. Why not enjoy retirement if you can afford it
without working, like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will
take your bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National Insurance
contributions. In case you didn't know, they're what pay his
State pension, without which he'd be totally lost.
That was the very point I made, when I spotted your troll.
Glad you 'fessed up to it.
I have no idea what you're on about. Neither, I suspect, does
anyone else. You make no sense.
"But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could
you?" is cunningly written in way which would mislead into
thinking about non-retirement benefits.
Hardly. Everyone knows he's retired. He goes on enough about it.
That was the exact response you sought to troll by making it seem
you had got it wrong by using "State benefit payments" instead of
"pension". Nice one.
The State pension *is* a State benefit. The Department for Work and
pensions says it is and calls it such. There's no mistake.

So, what's the point you're trying to make?
Post by pamela
Trolls work like that. They try anything which generates a
response. You do it so often it almost comes naturally.
The point of participating in discussion groups is to have a discussion,
and discussions require responses. Just what is your problem?
pamela
2018-05-11 08:44:12 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying
National Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of
65 (for guaranteed cover against care costs) would
seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs,
e.g. free prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you
weary. Why not enjoy retirement if you can afford it
without working, like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments,
could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will
take your bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National
Insurance contributions. In case you didn't know, they're
what pay his State pension, without which he'd be totally
lost.
That was the very point I made, when I spotted your troll.
Glad you 'fessed up to it.
I have no idea what you're on about. Neither, I suspect, does
anyone else. You make no sense.
"But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could
you?" is cunningly written in way which would mislead into
thinking about non-retirement benefits.
Hardly. Everyone knows he's retired. He goes on enough about it.
That was the exact response you sought to troll by making it seem
you had got it wrong by using "State benefit payments" instead of
"pension". Nice one.
The State pension *is* a State benefit. The Department for Work
and pensions says it is and calls it such. There's no mistake.
That's the sleight of hand in your troll. Instead of using the
common term (which would be "pension" which you admit you know well
applies to MM) you used one ("state benefits") which suggested at
first sight that you had mad a mistake, thereby inviting the
predictable response to correct it. Then you repeat the same
apparent mistake. Yes, a pension is a state benefit but the term
state benefit is not used as the term of choice for a pension.

Your intention is for the whole thing to then devolve into a row
which means your trolling has achieved its purpose and you get your
satisfaction.

You do this so frequently it may now come as second nature, perhaps
under the self-denying notion of a "thorough discussion". In
reality you're trolling.
Post by Norman Wells
So, what's the point you're trying to make?
Post by pamela
Trolls work like that. They try anything which generates a
response. You do it so often it almost comes naturally.
The point of participating in discussion groups is to have a
discussion, and discussions require responses. Just what is your
problem?
You did not seek discussion in the normal sense of the word. You
sought to provoke and, usually, argue endlessly for it's own
purpose. Also you sought to needle other poster, such as MM, for no
good reason other than to create an argument where there was none
before. Yes, all that what would be one extreme and untypical
definition of "discussion". Normal discussions require responses
and, I guess, so do trolls but the primary aim of trolls is not to
discuss and that was not your aim either.

Move on, troll.
Ian Jackson
2018-05-11 09:21:34 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
The State pension *is* a State benefit. The Department for Work
and pensions says it is and calls it such. There's no mistake.
That's the sleight of hand in your troll. Instead of using the
common term (which would be "pension" which you admit you know well
applies to MM) you used one ("state benefits") which suggested at
first sight that you had mad a mistake, thereby inviting the
predictable response to correct it.
Indeed. If what I would call the 'old age pension' is considered a
'state benefit', then so is the construction of motorways.
--
Ian
Norman Wells
2018-05-11 09:49:33 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
The State pension *is* a State benefit.  The Department for Work
and pensions says it is and calls it such.  There's no mistake.
That's the sleight of hand in your troll. Instead of using the
common term (which would be "pension" which you admit you know well
applies to MM) you used one ("state benefits") which suggested at
first sight that you had mad a mistake, thereby inviting the
predictable response to correct it.
Indeed. If what I would call the 'old age pension' is considered a
'state benefit', then so is the construction of motorways.
'State benefits' is only shorthand for 'State benefits payments' though.
That means money paid out by the State to individuals because of some
characteristic they possess.

I don't think that includes roads.
JNugent
2018-05-11 14:42:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Ian Jackson
Post by pamela
The State pension *is* a State benefit.  The Department for Work
and pensions says it is and calls it such.  There's no mistake.
That's the sleight of hand in your troll. Instead of using the
common term (which would be "pension" which you admit you know well
applies to MM) you used one ("state benefits") which suggested at
first sight that you had mad a mistake, thereby inviting the
predictable response to correct it.
Indeed. If what I would call the 'old age pension' is considered a
'state benefit', then so is the construction of motorways.
That sounds reasonable enough. Public provision used to be referred to
(by the left) as "the social wage".
Norman Wells
2018-05-11 09:46:32 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
"But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could
you?" is cunningly written in way which would mislead into
thinking about non-retirement benefits.
Hardly. Everyone knows he's retired. He goes on enough about it.
That was the exact response you sought to troll by making it seem
you had got it wrong by using "State benefit payments" instead of
"pension". Nice one.
The State pension *is* a State benefit. The Department for Work
and pensions says it is and calls it such. There's no mistake.
That's the sleight of hand in your troll. Instead of using the
common term (which would be "pension" which you admit you know well
applies to MM) you used one ("state benefits") which suggested at
first sight that you had mad a mistake, thereby inviting the
predictable response to correct it. Then you repeat the same
apparent mistake. Yes, a pension is a state benefit but the term
state benefit is not used as the term of choice for a pension.
It's only not a State benefit to those in receipt of it who won't admit,
even to themselves, that they're on benefits. But they are. And it's
best if they accept that.

It's the only honest way.
JNugent
2018-05-11 14:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying
National Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of
65 (for guaranteed cover against care costs) would
seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs,
e.g. free prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you
weary. Why not enjoy retirement if you can afford it
without working, like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments,
could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will
take your bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National
Insurance contributions. In case you didn't know, they're
what pay his State pension, without which he'd be totally
lost.
That was the very point I made, when I spotted your troll.
Glad you 'fessed up to it.
I have no idea what you're on about. Neither, I suspect, does
anyone else. You make no sense.
"But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could
you?" is cunningly written in way which would mislead into
thinking about non-retirement benefits.
Hardly. Everyone knows he's retired. He goes on enough about it.
That was the exact response you sought to troll by making it seem
you had got it wrong by using "State benefit payments" instead of
"pension". Nice one.
The State pension *is* a State benefit. The Department for Work
and pensions says it is and calls it such. There's no mistake.
That's the sleight of hand in your troll. Instead of using the
common term (which would be "pension" which you admit you know well
applies to MM) you used one ("state benefits") which suggested at
first sight that you had mad a mistake, thereby inviting the
predictable response to correct it. Then you repeat the same
apparent mistake. Yes, a pension is a state benefit but the term
state benefit is not used as the term of choice for a pension.
Your intention is for the whole thing to then devolve into a row
which means your trolling has achieved its purpose and you get your
satisfaction.
You do this so frequently it may now come as second nature, perhaps
under the self-denying notion of a "thorough discussion". In
reality you're trolling.
Post by Norman Wells
So, what's the point you're trying to make?
Post by pamela
Trolls work like that. They try anything which generates a
response. You do it so often it almost comes naturally.
The point of participating in discussion groups is to have a
discussion, and discussions require responses. Just what is your
problem?
You did not seek discussion in the normal sense of the word. You
sought to provoke and, usually, argue endlessly for it's own
purpose. Also you sought to needle other poster, such as MM, for no
good reason other than to create an argument where there was none
before. Yes, all that what would be one extreme and untypical
definition of "discussion". Normal discussions require responses
and, I guess, so do trolls but the primary aim of trolls is not to
discuss and that was not your aim either.
Move on, troll.
Quote (quoting you): "Yes, a pension is a state benefit...".

So what's the problem in saying so?
MM
2018-05-12 08:16:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying
National Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65
(for guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like
an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g.
free prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary.
Why not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without
working, like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will
take your bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National Insurance
contributions. In case you didn't know, they're what pay his
State pension, without which he'd be totally lost.
That was the very point I made, when I spotted your troll. Glad
you 'fessed up to it.
I have no idea what you're on about. Neither, I suspect, does
anyone else. You make no sense.
"But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?"
is cunningly written in way which would mislead into thinking about
non-retirement benefits.
Hardly. Everyone knows he's retired. He goes on enough about it.
Sure, but I just like rubbing your nose in it. Fredxx probably has a
Kleenex permanently on his.

MM
Norman Wells
2018-05-12 08:18:31 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by Norman Wells
Hardly. Everyone knows he's retired. He goes on enough about it.
Sure, but I just like rubbing your nose in it.
Why?
MM
2018-05-12 08:15:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National
Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65 (for
guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like an
absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g.
free prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary.
Why not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working,
like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will take
your bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National Insurance
contributions. In case you didn't know, they're what pay his
State pension, without which he'd be totally lost.
That was the very point I made, when I spotted your troll. Glad you
'fessed up to it.
I have no idea what you're on about. Neither, I suspect, does anyone
else. You make no sense.
This is one of your standard responses when you have no idea how else
to respond. Surely you could have reached for your little Latin book
of famous phrases and sayings?

E.g. sic transit gloria mundi, which of course means Gloria was sick
in the Ford Transit last Monday.

MM
MM
2018-05-12 08:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pamela
Post by Norman Wells
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National
Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65 (for
guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like an
absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why
not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like
me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
Nice troll to include state pensions. Do you think MM will take your
bait?
This is a thread about proposed changes to National Insurance
contributions. In case you didn't know, they're what pay his State
pension, without which he'd be totally lost.
Are you not conveniently disregarding my German pension, plus my
private pensions?

MM
MM
2018-05-12 08:08:15 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why not
enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like me?
But you couldn't without your State benefit payments, could you?
That's like saying we'd die without air to breathe.

DUH!

MM
JNugent
2018-05-10 17:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
MM
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why not
enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like me?
I can easily afford not to work. I do the odd bit of consultancy because
I enjoy it and because it is exercise for the brain.
Yellow
2018-05-10 23:24:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
MM
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why not
enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like me?
I can easily afford not to work. I do the odd bit of consultancy because
I enjoy it and because it is exercise for the brain.
That is the bottom line - if you enjoy work then do it but if you don't
then don't.

Personally, having given up the institution 2 years ago, I cannot figure
out how I ever found the time.
JNugent
2018-05-10 23:53:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Yellow
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
MM
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why not
enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like me?
I can easily afford not to work. I do the odd bit of consultancy because
I enjoy it and because it is exercise for the brain.
That is the bottom line - if you enjoy work then do it but if you don't
then don't.
Personally, having given up the institution 2 years ago, I cannot figure
out how I ever found the time.
Don't misunderstand me: last year (2017/2018), I did work on exactly 13
days, plus a bit of preparation reading and doing my accounts.
Yellow
2018-05-11 03:03:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by Yellow
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Post by MM
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National Insurance on
*earnings* once past the age of 65 (for guaranteed cover against care
costs) would seem like an absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
MM
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why not
enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like me?
I can easily afford not to work. I do the odd bit of consultancy because
I enjoy it and because it is exercise for the brain.
That is the bottom line - if you enjoy work then do it but if you don't
then don't.
Personally, having given up the institution 2 years ago, I cannot figure
out how I ever found the time.
Don't misunderstand me: last year (2017/2018), I did work on exactly 13
days, plus a bit of preparation reading and doing my accounts.
I think also some people enjoy a little work for the social contact.
pamela
2018-05-10 23:48:45 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National
Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65 (for
guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like an
absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
MM
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why
not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like
me?
I can easily afford not to work. I do the odd bit of consultancy
because I enjoy it and because it is exercise for the brain.
What sort of consultancy?
--
Brexit is a massive con job.
Now the wheels are coming off the Brexit clown car.
JNugent
2018-05-11 00:17:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National
Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65 (for
guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like an
absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g. free
prescriptions.
MM
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary. Why
not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working, like
me?
I can easily afford not to work. I do the odd bit of consultancy
because I enjoy it and because it is exercise for the brain.
What sort of consultancy?
I wouldn't want to discuss that here.
pamela
2018-05-11 08:45:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by pamela
Post by JNugent
On Wed, 9 May 2018 09:24:04 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
On Sun, 6 May 2018 14:28:38 +0100, JNugent
Post by JNugent
Compared to a swingeing increase like that, paying National
Insurance on *earnings* once past the age of 65 (for
guaranteed cover against care costs) would seem like an
absolute bargain.
We already have guaranteed cover against care costs, e.g.
free prescriptions.
MM
<weary shake of the head>
Too much consultancy work in your old age can make you weary.
Why not enjoy retirement if you can afford it without working,
like me?
I can easily afford not to work. I do the odd bit of consultancy
because I enjoy it and because it is exercise for the brain.
What sort of consultancy?
I wouldn't want to discuss that here.
That's fair enough.

I was intrigued because I noticed in the past you seem to have a
reasonably good grip on housing policy and finance.
--
Brexit is a massive con job. Now the wheels are coming off the
Brexit clown car.
Loading...