sandyf

Because you jumped in without any consideration to what was said.

You can dig up anything you want, at the end of the day "state pension" is a generic term and has to be defined in context. The ignorance make me think you participated in the fraudulent contracting out arrangement.

Indeed. In 1961 the term "State Pension" ceased to be a valid reference for the OAP. it became an umbrella term for payments that would be received at state pension age. Government statements on the frozen pension issue always refer to the state pension when they actually mean the basic component rather than the pension as a whole. This is a deliberate falsehood and many that are ignorant of the state pension structure go along with it. My state pension is made up of several components and quite obviously calculated on an individual basis. the letter that came with it even said so. It should be noted that the bottom component was based on contributions to the GRB scheme rather than NI.

You know what they say about sarcasm and obviously your wearing the cap.

That same singulat rhetoric. Why are some unprepared to accept that politicians have a vested interest in protecting their mismanagement of the legislation. Only the ignorant would think that the law has always been right. Your quote The State Pension is described in legislation as a “benefit” in order to root it within the existing social security framework as a statutory scheme paid out of monies in the National Insurance Fund. Despite what the quote may say, there is no statutory amount for the state pension and the Graduated Pension Scheme never had anything to do with National Insurance. The political rhetoric is false by omission and deliberately misleading, effectively Fraud by False Representation.

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.

More twists that a bowl of spaghetti. Nothing, regarding the state pension, has been "that way" for more than 70 years. A population that supports discrimination should be hanging it's head in shame.

The Labour Party have today formally announced that they will support the APPG in its efforts to annul the Social Security Benefit Up-rating Regulations. http://frozenbritishpensions.org/jeremy-corbyn-gives-labours-backing-pension-unfreezing/ Surprise! Surprise! Frozen British Pensions APPG First Registered: 29/09/2015 • Last updated on: 30/05/2024 Note: This APPG was last registered on 30th May 2024. The APPG was not registered in the latest release of the 9th October 2024 and may be defunct. Perhaps you are looking for the British Muslims APPG? https://www.parallelparliament.co.uk/APPG/frozen-british-pensions

That is not true. What the judge said was that there so many benefits paid from NI that an exclusive link between the pension and NI could not be established. The comment was made in 2009 and by that time the government had deliberately used NI to fund other benefits to try and break the link between NI and the pension. If the judge had done his own homework rather than listening to the UK government he would have seen that was not the case in the beginning. The Court did not consider that it sufficed for the applicants to have paid National Insurance contributions in the United Kingdom to place them in a relevantly similar position to all other pensioners, regardless of their country of residence. Claiming the contrary would be based on a misconception of the relationship between National Insurance contributions and the State pension. Unlike private pension schemes, National Insurance contributions had no exclusive link to retirement pensions. Instead, they formed a part of the revenue which paid for a whole range of social security benefits, including incapacity benefits, maternity allowances, widow’s benefits, bereavement benefits and the National Health Service. The complex and interlocking system of the benefits and taxation systems made it impossible to isolate the payment of National Insurance contributions as a sufficient ground for equating the position of pensioners who received uprating and those, like the applicants, who did not. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN01457/SN01457.pdf

That used to be the case but it did became automatic, possibly during covid.

Believe it or not, but there are several different circumstances that apply to pensioners in Thailand. From what you said, it is quite likely that he benefitted from a discriminatory policy within the state pension arrangement, losing much less than those in other circumstances.