sandyf

Indeed, but wouldn't that include legalised fraud perpretrated by the government. Like many others, ignorance leads to a fixation on the state pension being a single entity. "You are now making excuses," - what excuses you claim "state pensions" are a benefit yet the govenment describes them as "pension schemes" Who on earth should one believe?

The first reciprocal agreement was a blatant act of discrimation. Of course you are free to believe that it didn't create 2 classes of overseas pensioner, those that could and those that couldn't.

You are distorting that word "benefit" again, the term SERPS stands for State Earnings Related Pension Scheme. You are also missing the point. The first reciprocal agreement was an act of discrimination, creating 2 classes of overseas pensioner, those that can and those that can't. "that's why they can tell us" - what the govenment say is not always right. In light of current equality laws the government has been forced to address other discriminatory issues, why not the state pension. They claim it has been that way for over 70 years but GRB only started in 1961. Graduated Retirement Benefit (GRB) GRB was an early form of earnings-related pension, intended to top-up basic pension. It is based on graduated contributions paid on earnings between 1961 and 1975 and is paid to those people who paid into the graduated pension scheme. The entitlement is based on each unit of graduated contributions paid. Essentially every £7.50 contributed by a man, and every £9.00 contributed by a woman bought one unit. It will be paid when you claim your Basic State Pension, but can also be paid at State Pension Age even if you do not qualify for a Basic Pension. You can delay claiming it and earn increments in the same way as for other parts of the pension. A widow, widower or surviving civil partner can get half of any Graduated Retirement Benefit for which their spouse had qualified. Amounts of Graduated Retirement Benefit are generally very small and often paid as a lump-sum rather than weekly payments. https://www.rights4seniors.net/content/other-state-pension-payments

So you think that discrimination is selective, some should be addressed and some not. This thread is due to discrimination, and will continue until people like you open their eyes and see the discrimination that has been perpretrated by the government over the years.

The word "benefit" is arbitrary and needs a qualifying adjective for context. The government wants to push the view that the state pension is a social security benefit. Sometime after it's introduction the state pension came under the umbrella of the Social Security Act along with moves to break the link between NI and the state pension, leading to false claims by the government. The government publishes the rates for welfare benefits but there is no rate for the "state pension", it is an individual entitlement.

Friend of mine pops across into Laos for the day to do some shopping,where do you think he stays. A couple of years ago I went into Malaysia on the morning Hat Yai shuttle and came back on the afternoon one. About 4 hours in Malaysia but feel free to call it staying there if you want.

Why do some feel compelled to deviate from the point being made. When it all started there were no pensions paid overseas so there was no frozen aspect. When reciprocal arrangements were introduced it was pure discrimination but at that point in time the government gave no consideration to discrimination. Gay men were being put in prison, terms like "nixxers" and "quxxrs" were in common use and Robertsons had a "Goxxy" on the jam, pension discrimination never got a second thought. Other issues have been addressed over time but he government only bows to domestic public opinion, mention "trans" and they all jump, unfortunately the very nature of the frozen pension issue it is a case of out of sight, out of mind.

Not worded correctly, you mean staying for more than 90 consecutive days. Some leave the country regularly so may not be required for a significant length of time.

No, you paid for the pensioners at the time. Not for your own pensions. Indeed, the UK state pension introduced in 1948 as a "Pay as you go" pension scheme, where the workers of today pay the pensioners of today and the workers of tomorrow pay the pensioners of tomorrow. The scheme was to be funded by national insurance contributions with a percentage of that contribution going towards the health service. In a response to a petition in the House last year the following statement was made. "An individual’s contributions provide a foundation for calculating entitlement to future personal entitlements. The contributions do not actually pay for those entitlements directly. Twenty per cent. of national insurance contributions go towards the national health service, the remainder fund contributory benefits, the vast majority of which goes to the state pension. National insurance contributions are pooled and people do not have an individual pot which funds their own state pension." https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2024-02-19/debates/24021975000085/FrozenBritishPensions In order to defend the government position Mr Maynard referred to the circumstances of the day rather than as they were in 1948, when there were no other benefits being paid from NI. The government had deliberately distorted the NI arrangement in an attempt to remove the link between NI and the state pension. The long term aim has always been to merge NI into general taxation. The above statement is intended to deceive and as politicians have a vested interest in keeping the lid on, nothing was said. People have an NI record and as such have a "holding" in the national insurance fund, a bit like any other pension. It should be remembered it was the introduction of other benefits from NI that resulted in a shortfall from NI with the state pension being partially funded by income tax. The rhetoric above is similar to flawed assessment made by the court in the Carson case, which hinged on the link between NI and state pension.

No it hasn't. If the frozen aspect had been "that way" for over 70 years then all state pensions would be frozen. You can try and defend discrimination as much as you want, doesn't make it right. There were other discriminatory policies introduced over the years which you obviously fail to comprehend.

Obviously you have no idea how the UK state pension was structured. The government relies on the this ignorance to perpetrate thee discrimination.

Take it you believe he wrote the 2019 manifesto on his own as well.

Indeed, regular disruptions similar to Heathrow could be the way forward here.

They don't have to. Over 70s can come through the Thai passport channels and now they have the auto gates there is very few at the kiosks. When I came back a fortnight ago only one in front of me. Going out was even quicker, straight through an auto gate.

Indeed, thanks. I only had a look to see who was still participating and looks like the APPG has been discontinued.