The problem with NIC or the stamp is most people did not understand what they were paying for. Most thought they were saving stamp for their own retirement when (originally) they were paying for current pensioners on a very short “just in time “window, a couple of weeks I think. Obviously, this money is now just subsumed within the general tax burden.

As such perhaps pensioners should pay NIC or get rid of NIC and add into an adjusted income tax, which would be my preference.

You could remove the triple lock, or means test the basic state pension, or even remove the state pension and replace it with the stakeholder scheme, but contributions would require increasing shifting the burden of pension provision entirely onto the private sector, there would be some form very basic state net for those who did not contribute, but not for those who opted out.

I think it is probably too late to solve this solely by taxing pensioners and probably requires general taxation over the short-term to medium term (60 years); typical of a mixed economy, whilst the falling rate of birth and added longevity stabilise.

You bring in young temporary workers who could contribute to the tax yield from the rest of the EU, but that has been kyboshed mainly due to racism.

Some good news is that demographic trends have shown a slight worsening in longevity which should be encouraged, laws and taxation against smoking, drinking should be relaxed to draw maximum tax return against mortality. Recreational drugs should be legalised and taxed.

The baby boomers have had the best gold-plated pensioners, free education, the best of the NHS, perhaps we should treat them like the under 30s who have loans to pay off for state services. Perhaps the elderly should have a loan account on which they can draw upon (not just for a Dementia Tax but increased income, for example, and offset against all assets. An IFA would perhaps call this an enhanced nationalised equity release scheme. I would envisage that inter-generational responsibility would be a must.

You could always take their house and savings.

For Becky – During employment NIC was taken on standard pension contributions but not salary sacrifice, a loop hole HMRC is ready to close.

The problem with NIC or the stamp is most people did not understand what they were paying for. Most thought they were saving stamp for their own retirement when (originally) they were paying for current pensioners on a very short “just in time “window, a couple of weeks I think. Obviously, this money is now just subsumed within the general tax burden.

As such perhaps pensioners should pay NIC or get rid of NIC and add into an adjusted income tax, which would be my preference.

You could remove the triple lock, or means test the basic state pension, or even remove the state pension and replace it with the stakeholder scheme, but contributions would require increasing shifting the burden of pension provision entirely onto the private sector, there would be some form very basic state net for those who did not contribute, but not for those who opted out.

I think it is probably too late to solve this solely by taxing pensioners and probably requires general taxation over the short-term to medium term (60 years); typical of a mixed economy, whilst the falling rate of birth and added longevity stabilise.

You bring in young temporary workers who could contribute to the tax yield from the rest of the EU, but that has been kyboshed mainly due to racism.

Some good news is that demographic trends have shown a slight worsening in longevity which should be encouraged, laws and taxation against smoking, drinking should be relaxed to draw maximum tax return against mortality. Recreational drugs should be legalised and taxed.

The baby boomers have had the best gold-plated pensioners(1), free education (2), the best of the NHS (3), perhaps we should treat them like the under 30s who have loans to pay off for state services. Perhaps the elderly should have a loan account on which they can draw upon (not just for a Dementia Tax but increased income, for example, and offset against all assets. An IFA would perhaps call this an enhanced nationalised equity release scheme. I would envisage that inter-generational responsibility would be a must.

You could always take their house and savings.

For Becky (4)– During employment NIC was taken on standard pension contributions but not salary sacrifice, a loop hole HMRC is ready to close.

Plenty of people end up in old age care without dementia due to less fatal conditions, such a frailty etc. The point is, that we have accepted the idea of 'taxing people' who live unhealthy life styles without actually thinking of those costs that healthy lifestyles entail.

We encourage the idea of living as 'long as possible' and then financially try to fund that by targeting people who won't.

Not a question of correctness.

The system serves the people not the reverse. Encouraging people to a premature death is not what a society is about.
The real cause of our current problems is the short sighted, self serving nature of politicians and the greed of financial institutions. The public should not have to pay the cost with mass immigration, poor care in old age or being encouraged to slowly kill themselves.

(1) Only some- especially those in the public sector, who are probably the biggest drain on public finances to this day. The rest of hard-working Joe-public just get by on what's available.

(2) Far, far fewer went to university in those days - it was a privilege reserved for the genuinely academic. Others went to a polytechnic and gained a 'useful' qualification that had a practical purpose in the workplace. Turning every poly into a university so any halfwit could get a degree in 'meeja
studies' increased the cost of those places immeasurably, so far less would have been spent on our generation, and probably to a greater level of usefulness and ultimate financial return from their future employment.

(3) For our generation the NHS was for sick people. Cosmetic surgery was not heard of, expensive stuff like premature baby units had not been developed, diagnostics were manually made assessments by the 'specialists' rather than millions of pounds worth of machinery, and hospitals were staffed by medical professionals rather than accountants and managers ( yeh, I'll allow that we did have the best there), so diagnostics and treatment was much pooer for us who had the 'best' of the service.....

(4) I have no idea what 'salary sacrifice' is - did not exist in my working time - you earned and you paid tax and National Insurance - the latter on your private pension annuity, whether you liked it or not!

No, I believe that people should be made aware of current thinking on what is good for them and what is not. To deliberately withhold that information and at the same time allow products to be sold that harm is unacceptable.

People still have a choice but it can be an informed choice. The government already allows smoking and drinking for the purpose of taxation, which in itself is already pushing the boundaries of common sense in my view.