- Messages
- 25,340
- Name
- Phil
- Edit My Images
- No
I would suggest that those of us that are currently paying NI do not fully fund the current pension payouts, remember there never was an existing pot that funded pensioners, what we pay today isnt funding our future payouts, it's not invested but paid out now. So, given that, the current payouts are probably funded by a mixture of Ni and tax, as a company he will have paid a large amount of Corporation Tax if he hasnt paid himself much salary, there is no personal allowance for Companies, so every penny of "profit" is taxed. Some of the companies earnings were then paid into a pension fund, which he will draw and pay tax on at a later date. I would suggest his payments into the "system" would not be significantly different had he been paye or working through a limited company, the only difference would have been timing of those payments. Also bear in mind as a company director he wouldnt be entitled to any form of unemployment benefit should his company see its work dry-up, so he took a risk, for him it paid off, for some it didnt/wouldnt.
In truth if he reduced his income tax/NI liability it may have given him more disposable income, but whatever he bought with that income would have attracted some form of tax (VAT etc) or he put it away for a rainy day (pension) thereby reducing his reliance on government payouts again.
I dont personally have a problem with his behaviour, it was/is legal and he'll pay tax at a later date anyway, he may think he wont but I think he will.
Partially correct; the current NI pot is as you say, funding current pension payments, but there’s no deficit being covered by taxes, there’s a surplus, some of which goes to the NHS, and some held against future liabilities.
So, yes your NI conts will be funding the people who haven’t paid their own.
Of course his payments into the system will be less than if he’d not put the effort in, otherwise why bother, why do financial advisors recommend this if it’s not ‘tax advantageous’?