sandyf

You seem to have missed the point. The comment on being "irresponsible" was in respect of National Insurance contributions. The UK retirement pension was born from the 1948 National Insurance Act and no government should have been allowed to reduce NI contributions. Why do you think the UK retirement pension is the lowest in the major economies.

So nothing to do with the author.

They have already been there and moved on, if you want to think they will go back up to you.

They already thought they could do that, but it cannot be done. Airline taxes apply to all passengers, they can only be varied by ticket class, not personal detail such as nationality. Attaching the payment to the online TM6 would resolve the problem in respect of air passengers, land borders may still be problematic. People should be thankful it is not being collected by accommodation providers like many other countries.

Is it DWP or pension provider, a significant difference in mentality. A couple of years ago mine from pension provider went astray and pension stopped. I phoned them up and asked if they would be sending out another one. The guy said " WHY? - are you calling from the grave."

Bit of a generalised and misleading headline. Water and sewage in the UK is regional and the rise will depend on where you live, there are no water bills in NI and in England the utility is privately owned. As for protesting, you should remember the people voted for a manifesto that advocated privatisation, making many of the general public shareholders for the first time in their life. People wanted a better service than the government was providing and that was always going to come at a cost. I am all in favour of public ownership, but it needs a government you can trust.

Canada is a different kettle of fish to other countries in that there is a reciprocal agreement in place. When the agreement was drawn up the Canadian pension wasn't portable so pensions weren't included. Since then the Canadian pension was amended and made portable, the Canadian government approached the UK with a view to revise the reciprocal agreement but the UK was not prepared to renegotiate. I think there has been more than one attempt to bring it back to the table.

In a word yes, I was clarifying how HMRC put into effect what you were trying to say. On first looking at the summary it can be a bit confusing as the first line is termed "Personal Allowance" but that shows zero, The £12,570 PA is on the second line "Additions", mine actually showed "£12,591 as they gave me an estimated £21 for bank interest. The third line is the "Deductions" which is your state pension, and the fourth line the numerical total. With my state pension being greater than the allowances the difference is then added to other income to be taxed. It would be wrong for anyone to say there is no tax on the state pension.

It is only unclear because the government have deliberately made it so. It is exactly what the poster was entitled to when he became eligible for a retirement pension, aged 75 that would have been under section 30 of the 1965 National Insurance Act. 30 Retirement pension by virtue of own insurance. (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a person shall be entitled to a retirement pensionat the appropriate weekly rate specified in relation thereto in column 2 of Schedule 3 to this Act if— (a) he is over pensionable age and has retired from regular employment; and (b) he satisfies the contribution conditions set out in paragraph 4(1) of Schedule 2 to this Act. The DTA makes government occupational pensions non assessable in Thailand, but not the retirement pension which the government would prefer to call a social security benefit.

What you are referring to is a Social Security Reciprocal Agreement. The first one agreed on was a blatent act of discrimination in that it created 2 classes of overseas pensioner, those that could and those that couldn't. At the time that was done, early 50s, "discrimination" was not in the government's vocabulary, that came much later, and how many times have you heard a PM saying they must right the wrong's of the past. The Brexit agreement brought the reciprocal agreement with the EU to an end so in line with government policy pensioners in the EU should have stopped receiving uprated pensions. In Sept 2019 this came from the government Work and Pensions Secretary Dr Thérèse Coffey said: Pensioners in Europe who have paid into the system for years deserve peace of mind over their future finances. Not only are we providing much-needed reassurance for hundreds of thousands of retirees, we’re ensuring we are fully prepared for leaving the EU on 31 October. No matter the circumstances of Brexit, we’ve made sure that pensioners do not need to take any action to continue receiving their hard-earned State Pension.” In his statement last year Paul maynard said State pensions are, however, up-rated overseas where there is a legal requirement to do so, such as a reciprocal social security agreement. What he really meant was if there is no agreement in place we will create a legal requirement if it suits our agenda. It wouls appear that "their hard-earned State Pension." only applies to those in the EU.

There was a similar petition heard in parliament on 19th Feb last year and Paul Maynard made a statement on behalf of the DWP. The full text of the statement can be seen if google Frozen British pensions Volume 745: debated on Monday 19 February 2024 The statement was flawed and misleading on several points but went unchallenged as there is no political or public will to make change, that will only ever happen through the courts. In his statement, he used the words "and has been approved by Parliament and the courts." That is in fact a lie, the policy has never been approved by the courts. There has been a case, initiated in 2002, where the courts ruled in favour of the government, basically on how the case was brought about. The policy has never been tested in court on other factors or current legislation. In the statement he also said "This long- standing policy has been supported by successive Governments of all political persuasions for over 70 years." If historical precedance was a legal requirement then women wouldn't be able to vote and gay men would be going to prison. It wasn't until the 60s, under a labour government that the first discrimination legislation appeared. Since then legislation has expanded to any group with a loud enough voice. Unacceptable that politicians can pick and choose which discrimination they choose to respect. A government that chooses to deny some miliary veterans a full state pension should be hanging it's head in shame.

On your tax summary, HMRC list the personal allowance as a "Tax Free Addition" and the state pension is listed as a "Tax Free Deduction". Any difference between the two, positive or negative, would then be applied to any other income. Any personal savings allowance is also included in the "Additions" along with the personal allowance.

Indeed it was,on Page 76. For some strange reason I always thought the manifesto was a political party document that senior members had signed up to. Nobody seems to want to challenge Starmer on the U turn.

Indeed, but as some clarification, in recent years immigration going to peoples home has become a lot more routine. My first home visit was in fact for a retirement extension. I had to go to marriage extensions following the withdrawal of the embassy letter and when I go to immigration, I don't talk to anyone and the only time i approach the desk is for the photo. On the basis immigration is going to come to the home anyway and take photos, my presence at immigration isn't entirely necessary. On a visit in 2020 the boss lady came over and said to my wife that due to my age it wasn't necessary for me to be there, that she could come alone if anything else came up. I acknowledge it was covid but the point is that they are not as inflexible as many would want to make out.

Wrong. The truncated post, again!!, you quoted "Created a 2 year gap otherwise home visits would have been every year." was in response to a question by @Maestro The ambiguity in the original post by @Thingamabob had already been addressed and acknowledged. "Forgive me, I was referring to visits by Immigration to people who are sick or disabled but who needs extensions etc." You really should refrain from looking at pieces of text in isolation.

If you had paid attention you would have seen my post was a response to a question.

Quite. I had been to Koh Chang a couple of times without a problem, then went one year and all the bars on the main drag were shut. I bought a small breakfast in the Monkey bar along with a few beers. A bit p'd off when i walked back to the resort and the bar at the pool was open and a good bit cheaper. There is always a way, no complaints in about 26 years for me.

Whether you like it or not, therein lies the problem, how do the banks know if funds from an an agent are legitimate or are going to be used legitimately or not. Only those with their head in sand would think that every agent application is from people with sufficient funds to make the application. This time last year my under consideration was about a week over. My wife was told to ring up every day and see if it had come back. After a couple of day she asked the IO why the delay and was told Immigration was backed up because they had to scrutinise agent applications more thoroughly for the financial requirements. Take that as read no need for some BS comment.

The 2-5 rule is more of an inconvenience than anything, not going to generate a great deal. Most that want to buy will buy at some other time or settle for the mom & pop shop. We normally go to the supermarket in the evening so can include the beer, would be a bonus to go at other times. The greatest revenue would be from tourist specific entertainment on holy days and elections. A friend of mine has just been over for a month and got caught for 2 dry days, in Pattaya 2-5 is not a problem.

My understanding the PIN is embedded on the card (Chip & PIN) and nothing to do with a sales person. It is down to the card reader to check number entered against that stored on the card. Older card readers were Chip and Signature and they cannot read the PIN so you would be asked to sign. That is quite common in Thailand. I have used cards with 4 digits and 6 digits at the same ATM without a problem, my Thai card is 6 digits and the UK ones are 4 digits. It could be that the card readers you encounter have been specifically set up for 6 digits which would effectively exclude other cards. A while back I lost my Thai card which was 4 digit but when I got the replacement I had to set up 6 digits so that may now be the Thai standard.

Fairly common abreviation for Multi Entry. Having home visits would be fairly obvious I was on 12 month stays. When embassy stopped the letter had to get ME for a year until I had the 12 months of transfers lined up. No home visit on ME and no home visit following year because of covid. Created a 2 year gap otherwise home visits would have been every year.

It is certainly not the same. Checking in and clearing immigration are essential processes, getting a re-entry pemit is not. Time constraints at the airport would mean the essential requirements take priority. If you come back without a re-entry permit it is entirely of your own doing.

Nobody ever wins a war, you would have thought the US learned that from Vietnam. If the UN had not be neutered at birth they should have stopped Russia in the beginning. In a civilised society disputes over ownership should be settled in court. Unfortunately those with eyes on the prize have little interest in a civilised society.

What on earth has that got to do with it? Parliament is dissolved prior to an election, you cannot run a war with a caretaker government.

And the US has lived in fear of "Reds under the bed" ever since, maybe your too young to know of Senator McCarthy. Now they voted to get into bed with the reds in the hope that will lead to global dominance, but they have to win WW3 first.