Is anybody actually watching?

[MrGongGong]

What, when I'm totally surrounded on this beautiful planet by a multitude of idiots ... ?

You don't have to go to church you know

[mangerton]

the Tory Scottish secretary states the 'leak' was just one of those things - surprise surprise - the R4 correspondent's theory that Nicola's lack of enthusiasm for adenoidal kid meant she favoured Camerloon was something inserted by the Scottish office who it seems kept the memo on file for release as part of the Tory smear campaign (who honestly believes in civil service neutrality now they are full of political advisors etc)

I do realise it's a very nice distinction these days, but the Scottish Secretary Alistair Carmichael in the late unlamented coalition is a Lib Dem. After all, there is only one Scottish Conservative MP. Other than that, your post is spot-on.

[teamsaint]

Yes that's a good trick - it's always expressed as percentages, 1% of the population paying some very much larger percentage of the total tax take.

But we really are living a lot longer than when old-age pensions were first thought of...I aim to be drawing mine for at least 35 years, which wasn't what was envisaged. What is to be done?

According to the mail, Life expectancy has started to drop for women, and is static for men, so no doubt the next government will start reducing the retirement age.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3028113/Shock-fall-life-expectancy-women-60-Unhealthy-lifestyles-cuts-social-care-blamed-fall-decades.html

[MrGongGong]

I find this useful

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless/all

[ahinton]

I find this useful

http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/moreorless/all

A few days ago I heard Tim Harford interviewed on Today and he said - I imagine with some surprise - that the majority of statistics bandied about by politicians in the run-up to the General Election so far were actually broadly accurate...

[MrGongGong]

A few days ago I heard Tim Harford interviewed on Today and he said - I imagine with some surprise - that the majority of statistics bandied about by politicians in the run-up to the General Election so far were actually broadly accurate...

But not HIV, 75% of laws etc

Always worth checking (they are ALL at it)

[ahinton]

we really are living a lot longer than when old-age pensions were first thought of...I aim to be drawing mine for at least 35 years, which wasn't what was envisaged. What is to be done?

State retirement benefit is indeed being widely paid to people for far longer than was ever envisaged; it is therefore no wonder that the ability of the so-called National Insurance Fund to be able to fund this benefit indefinitely at or above its present real terms values is increeasingly being compromised. What was also never envisaged is that increasing numbers of people will become entitled to it and receive it for longer periods of time than they ever worked. The irony here is that the increasing longevity is arguably attributable at least in part to the successess of the National Health Service over the years.

What is to be done? Well, nothing much, I suspect. In order to ensure that hardly anyone ever receives such benefit for longer than they ever worked, the state retirement age would have to be increased on a more regular basis than has been the case so far, though if such increases come eventually to be applied anually I can envisage class action being brought against government in the form of judicial review for breach of contract, though how successful such litigation might be would obviously be open to question.

Increasing numbers of people are now working beyond state retirement age, some through choice and, I suspect, many more through necessity. Those who are employed generate NIC liabilities for their employers but none for themselves and those who are self-employed generate no NIC liability; this is different in France where, whilst I'm not sure what happens with employed people, the self-employed continue to pay social charges on their profits as long as they continue to work, with no age limit - indeed, the estates of composers, authors and the like who have received royalties as part of their profits will continue to be liable for social chargres on them until copyright runs out. Heaven forbid that such a scheme would be introduced in UK!

I hope that you will be entitled to draw your state retirement benefit for more than 35 years, although whether there will be the funds to pay it for that long remains to be seen.

[MrGongGong]

Those who are employed generate NIC liabilities for their employers but none for themselves and those who are self-employed generate no NIC liability.

Can you explain this ?
It reads to me as if you are suggesting that the self employed don't pay NIC?

[Frances_iom]

the NI fund is a myth - all money goes into + out of the same tax pot (basically a Gov run Ponzi scheme) thus if money is earned on royalties post death of the actual originator then yes such should indeed be taxed as copyright is a state funded licensing scheme that imposes a cost to run (eg hidden costs in law etc) - as usual the French are more rational

[ahinton]

Can you explain this ?
It reads to me as if you are suggesting that the self employed don't pay NIC?

No, not so; by "those", in the cases of both employees and the self-employed, I was referring specifically to people at or above state retirement age. Employees and the self-employed are no longer liable for NICs once they reach that age, although employers remain liable for them in respect of all their employees irrespective of their ages.

[ahinton]

the NI fund is a myth - all money goes into + out of the same tax pot (basically a Gov run Ponzi scheme) thus if money is earned on royalties post death of the actual originator then yes such should indeed be taxed as copyright is a state funded licensing scheme that imposes a cost to run (eg hidden costs in law etc) - as usual the French are more rational

I agree with the first part of this but not the second.

I have long sought to point out that the entire NI scheme is broadly akin to a Ponzi one because monies paid into it are paid out in benefits, including state retirement benefit, within days of receipt.

My point about royalty income is incidental to that about employees and self-employed people once they reach state retirement age; in UK, their NIC liability ceases at that point whereas, in France, it doesn't. One of the worst aspects of the French system is that some people fall liable to social charges beyond state retirement age even though they will never derive any state benefit entitlement as a consequence. EC is, however, looking in increasing depth into French social charges and are already pointing accusing fingers about certain levies thereof. With specific reference to royalty income, however, I did not state that it either is not or should not be subject to income tax liability; my point here was specific to NIC liability.

[MrGongGong]

No, not so; by "those", in the cases of both employees and the self-employed, I was referring specifically to people at or above state retirement age. Employees and the self-employed are no longer liable for NICs once they reach tht age, although employers remain liable for them in respect of all their employees irrespective of their ages.

Ok

That makes sense
A daft system if ever there was one

[ahinton]

A daft system if ever there was one

In what respect? Do you mean that it's daft because monies paid into it are paid out again in benefits almost immediately rather than being invested on the payer's behalf (hence Ponzi-type scheme as distinct from actual insurance)? or because - unlike the French system - those who derive incomes from employment and/or profits from self-employment are no longer liable for NICs from state retirement age onwards? or for some other reason/s?

[MrGongGong]

In what respect? Do you mean that it's daft because monies paid into it are paid out again in benefits almost immediately rather than being invested on the payer's behalf (hence Ponzi-typoe scheme as distinct from actual insurance)?

Yes

And most people seem to think that it's NOT like this
They really DO think that there is a 'pot' with their name on it
It's also based on the idea that there will be more and more money available and everyone wants to "grow" their career or business.
Personally speaking, I would quite like to spend more time writing esoteric chamber music for no money

[ahinton]

Yes

And most people seem to think that it's NOT like this
They really DO think that there is a 'pot' with their name on it

It's absurd, isn't it, that so many people seem to be taken in by this just because successive governments that have continued to promote it claim that it's nothing of the kind.

It's also based on the idea that there will be more and more money available and everyone wants to "grow" their career or business.

I'm not so sure about that; I don't even think that those governments have even given that much consideration to this particular aspect of the phenomenon, preferring instead to hoodwink themselves and those whom they govern into believing unquestioningly that it's "worked" for more than six decades and so will always work for the benefit of us all.

Personally speaking, I would quite like to spend more time writing esoteric chamber music for no money

So would I, but one has to live on something and state retirement benefit ain't it!