workers paying taxes?

Question

Does anyone agree a person working all their lives paying their taxes in the UK up to retirement age should get more benifits than those that has not.
I am not counting people who through no fault of there own cannot work, such as severely disabled etc. It seems to me If you pay more into the pot surely you should get more out at the end.

Marty, I class N.I contributions as a form of tax too, but does it not apply the more contributions paid the higher the return

seems by the answers USA has the right system, why cant we have the same

I'm sure there are lots of people abusing our system thats why I say they should get less than the contributors.

I'm sure there are lots of people abusing our system thats why I say they should get less than the contributors.

I'm sure there are lots of people abusing our system thats why I say they should get less than the contributors.

Answer 1

I fully agree with you. It should be a "Pay-as-you-go society". You will find Labour are very much against this. If you are in a financial good position, Labour want to tax you to the hilt and give it to couch potatos and immigrants as benefits.

If immigrants did not get benefits, what would your pension be increased by. Vote BNP.

Answer 2

I am glad you said in the UK: In USA we have the Social Security Admistration (SSA), everyone that pays annual taxes pays into it. In this system the workers pay for the people that are retired, and disabled. When you reach that age or conditition, you are elgible for payments to go to you.

Your payments from the system is dependent on the age you start to draw payments and the amount of payment you have made during your work life. Although compared to the cost of living the payments are small, the main purpose of the program is support in your senior life.

It is expected that each person will save for their old age, by any means they choose. Those who can't make it on SSA payouts have violated this rule over and over all their life.

Their children and grand children, are kept in the dark and are told lies by THEM. One of the big lies is they had to spend the money so the next generation could get a good education. This causes the following generation to fall by the way side taking care of years on neglect that was the life of the parent or grand parent.

The other lie is the one we tell ourselves (we can do this finance things later, right now I have to enjoy life). We often arrive at old age and not have the resources that were expected to not be needed. It is expected that a 60 -70 -80 year old will not need to rent a roof over their head. The one they bought when they were young should be paid for at this time. SSA payments go a long way if this is true.

Answer 3

You are correct. I emigrated to the USA five years ago. I will get half a UK pension when I retire and whatever I earn by virtue of my contributions to the US system. That is fair and I defy anyone to say that it is not, subject to your qualifications regarding the "disabled."

Of course, directly relating pensions to earnings would mean that someone who works hard all their life but never earns very much would lose out in retirement. That is why I think the "credits" system employed in both the UK and the USA is appropriate. It recognizes work ethic more than it recognizes income.

Answer 4

The original point (allegedly) of NI contributions was to provide a safety net, backed up by good government, for working people who had no access to medicine, (all health care was private or voluntary), and a pension savings plan for people who had no ability to save during their working life due to poverty. The wealthier people also had to pay, as did companies, to provide the surplus that would provide the growth for the poorest.
It was aimed at being a wealth equalising measure.

Those who were wealthy enough could still save or invest to accrue extra wealth by 'retirement, if they needed to.

Unfortunately NI contributions are being used (and apparently always have been ) to cross subsidise other government spending.

So NO. It is not designed as a risky investment it is designed as a safety net, sadly it has been abused by all governments over the last 50 years at least.

Answer 5

Income tax is not taken to cover retirement pensions, that is why you pay National Insurance.

Answer 6

Of course! The social security benefit you get in the US is determined by the amount of SS covered wages you earn in your lifetime.

Earn more, get more.

Answer 7

Here in America, we don't care- were getting screwed either way. What makes the UK so special hmmmm?

Answer 8

have you researched your question cognitively, I seriously wonder if you have sailed up the Thames on a banana boat, your question defies all logic as evidenced by some of the answers from our American cousins.

Answer 9

In the US, you will get more than the non-worker, but it's about need and not rights. if you need more, you should get it. what about the millionaires collecting social security when they clearly don't need it?