Forums
Posted By: chriskay National Insurance - 3rd Jun 2008 3:34pm
I'd always thought that the National Insurance scheme started after the end of the war, with the Beveridge Report. It turns out I was wrong. I've recently bought on e-bay some wartime stuff, including some National Health & Pensions Insurance cards. The earliest reference I can find to this scheme is 1927 & it seems it was compulsory if you earned less than £250 p.a. If you earned more, you could make voluntary contributions.

The attached scans give an insight into the wartime life of
Mr. Hugh T. Swinstead. As I read it, he became a "man" (I'm guessing that was age 16 years)on 2/1/1939. He then worked & paid contributions until week 26 of 1940, when he went into the forces. He was de-mobbed in week 35 of 1946 & went back to work. Glad to see he survived the war.

Sorry this isn't local history, but the local history would have been the same.

Attached picture National Insurance1small.jpg
Attached picture National Insurance2small.jpg
Posted By: BMW Joe Re: National Insurance - 3rd Jun 2008 6:58pm
Originally Posted by chriskay
it was compulsory if you earned less than £250 p.a. If you earned more, you could make voluntary contributions.


Thats a bit crap isn't it?!

Looks like it's always been the way - take more money from the poor than from the rich.

Thanks for posting thumbsup
Posted By: chriskay Re: National Insurance - 4th Jun 2008 9:16am
Originally Posted by BMW Joe

Thats a bit crap isn't it?!

Looks like it's always been the way - take more money from the poor than from the rich.

Thanks for posting thumbsup


Seems a fair scheme to me, Joe. If you earned over £250 & didn't contribute, you had to pay your own medical bills; doctor, hospital, dentist, medicines. Also, the contribution covered the state pension. What I don't know & am trying to find out is whether the man's contribution covered his wife & kids too.
To put the figures into context, £250 in 1939 = £11,100 in 2007 and the contribution of 1s-8d = £3.70 in 2007. Looking at the figures, & balancing the risk, I think I'd choose to be in the scheme even if I earned more than £250.

Cheers, Chris.
Posted By: chriskay Re: National Insurance - 4th Jun 2008 3:52pm
Quick update. It seems that Lloyd George introduced National Health Insurance in 1911. I'm really curious to learn more about this scheme, if anyone can give me a lead.
Posted By: MattLFC Re: National Insurance - 4th Jun 2008 4:18pm
Originally Posted by chriskay
Originally Posted by BMW Joe

Thats a bit crap isn't it?!

Looks like it's always been the way - take more money from the poor than from the rich.

Thanks for posting thumbsup


Seems a fair scheme to me, Joe. If you earned over £250 & didn't contribute, you had to pay your own medical bills; doctor, hospital, dentist, medicines. Also, the contribution covered the state pension. What I don't know & am trying to find out is whether the man's contribution covered his wife & kids too.
To put the figures into context, £250 in 1939 = £11,100 in 2007 and the contribution of 1s-8d = £3.70 in 2007. Looking at the figures, & balancing the risk, I think I'd choose to be in the scheme even if I earned more than £250.

Cheers, Chris.

withthat - just a bit weird how it was compulsary for people who were the lowest earners.
Posted By: chriskay Re: National Insurance - 4th Jun 2008 7:59pm
Originally Posted by MattLFC

just a bit weird how it was compulsary for people who were the lowest earners.


Yeah, point taken Matt, but wasn't it ever thus? the poor don't know what's good for them, so they have to be forced. thumbsdown
Posted By: MattLFC Re: National Insurance - 4th Jun 2008 8:03pm
Originally Posted by chriskay
Originally Posted by MattLFC

just a bit weird how it was compulsary for people who were the lowest earners.


Yeah, point taken Matt, but wasn't it ever thus? the poor don't know what's good for them, so they have to be forced. thumbsdown

Thats a bit harsh tbh; id say the poor know much better than the rich as a result of their situation; a poor person is less likely to be ripped off and more likely to spot a bargain than a rich person who does not know the value of money (at least certainly not as much as someone with limited money).

smile
Posted By: MattLFC Re: National Insurance - 4th Jun 2008 8:06pm
Aha just realised the context of how you made that point, yeah it is stupid frown
Posted By: chriskay Re: National Insurance - 4th Jun 2008 9:36pm
Yeah, Matt; we need a smiley for irony.
Posted By: MattLFC Re: National Insurance - 4th Jun 2008 9:37pm
Lol we sure do smile
© Wirral-Wikiwirral