MangoKorat

And just how would it be proved that the intention was not permanent? One guy I know did actually return to the UK and not in order to receive his pension increases. He lasted 4 months - until the November fog made him realise he was better off in Thailand.

And the death rate from guns is?

Why would anyone think their pension would be treated differently simply because they choose to live their retirement years in warmer climes?

Shouldn't UK police carry guns? No thanks, we don't want to end up like the USA. Guns breed guns.

Strong? That's a gentle breeze!

I have a regular taxi guy that takes me from Suvarnabhumi to Khao Yai. I'm pretty sure he'd be interested in taking you to Yasothon but its a hell of a drive - I've often done it. Much better to get a flight to Ubon and rent a car/take a taxi from there. If you still want a taxi from Bangkok to Yasothon - PM me.

Are you sure there is no fee for withdrawing outside your branch's area - as there are with card withdrawals?

Where have I heard this before?

Not sure which other countries have State Pension Schemes - it would be interesting to hear from those who's countries do have them - as to whether they can receive their full pension if they move abroad.

Oh really, if you were not an expat or connected with living abroad in some way, you'd have known about the Frozen Pensions policy would you? Funny how every single UK resident that lives in the UK and has no connections to living abroad that I've ever talked know nothing about this policy. Why would they? When you finish work, you simply expect your pension to be paid.

A couple of years ago the UK government said they were planning to reform the pension system and just give everyone the same amount (that would not prevent any private enhancements). There would be some people who would have been upset by such a proposal as those who have lived 'on the grey' and never paid in any contributions would get pensions. However, under UK law, they would have to be given money to live on whether they'd paid in or not. That proposal seemed far more sensible to me as all these schemes/benefits must cost a fortune to deliver. Quite what happend to that proposal I know not but I haven't heard anything about it since. Perhaps they realised that giving everyone the same amount would most likley involve cancelling the Frozen Pensions Policy. No government likes backing down - especially the current Tory Nationalist lot.

Fair enough, I am aware that pensions used to be a lot more complicated than they are now - superannuation ect. However, its still a fact that your average working bloke today will either receive a Basic State pension or Full State Pension and therefore will not be liable for any tax. Those on Basic State Pension (subject to savings limits etc.) can have that topped up through Pension Credit - I believe that top up brings their pension to Full State Pension level. Pension Credit is a means tested benefit and cannot be claimed by those living abroad. In fact there are rules that state the claimant can't spend more than four weeks per year outside the UK. I have no problem with that - its a means tested benefit that is there to reflect the cost of living in the UK.

As far as I know, there is no 6 month requirement, you simply have to establish that you are back in the UK permanently - i.e. have a checkable address, bank account, register with a doctor etc. However, there is no legal definition of 'permanent' - your plans can change as you so wish. I believe the 6 month thing is just something that's been kicked around and as with a lot of stories that are passed from person to person, it's become 'law' - law without foundation. Therefore, once you establish a degree of permanence and receive your pension increases, as far as I know, you can change your plans and move abroad again. You would of course, not receive any future increases after you leave.

Basic state pension is £169.50 per week - £8814 per year. Full state pension is £221.20 per week - £11502 per year. The current tax threshold is £12570 per year. If you receive over £12570 per year in pension you are clearly on an enhanced pension or have a private pension. I just don't see what is fair about the frozen pension rule or why it was ever enacted in the first place. However, given that the vast majority of MP's (of any flavour) are well off types - even billionaires, such a rule won't matter to them will it?

The answer to that lies in your sentence - because its illogical. Why would I think such a rule existed? Its unjustified and as I've stated throughout - pensioners who leave the UK actually save the country money. When I left school I began paying tax and national insurance on my wages. I don't ever think anyone told me why, its just something that is implied - that in return, the state will provide you with healthcare, finacial assistance should you fall out of work or become disabled. There will be many rules associated with those benefits and I doubt that most learn of them until they actually need a particular benefit. When you take out a private pension you are provided with reams of paperwork containing the terms and conditions applicable. No such paperwork is given when you begin paying national insurance, its just deducted from your wages or you pay in at your year end if you're self employed. Outside this forum and within the expat community that I know in Thailand, nobody that I've discussed this rule with was/is aware of it. Had it been something that was enacted recently, such 'terms and conditions' would be in the news and given the current UK government - I would be on the lookout for this type of thing. I cite for example, the current Conservative Party who have just enacted an immigration bill in Parliament that states that Rwanda is a safe country - because THEY SAY IT IS. I am 'on my guard' when the current government propose or bring out any new laws - no longer can you expect ot take British Justice for granted. Pension rules were brought about well before I was born, until discovering this rule, with a couple of clear exceptions, I have never discussed them, nor has anybody discussed them with me. As I say, its simply implied that once you reach retirement age, you will receive a pension. The exceptions I refer to are the changes to the retirement age and the amount of pension - both of which are brought to the public's attention through the news as and when they change.

Its quite simple really. You contribute to a pension scheme in order to provide an income when you retire. The cost of living goes up each year so in order for pensions to keep up with that, pensions are increased each year. How does it matter where you live? The likelihood is, you've paid in the same as those who stay in the UK and you might even have paid more. Refusing to pay pension increases is just another way of the government 'balancing the books'. Anyone who's been abroad fro any length of time and has missed out on the substantial recent increases would be well advised to return for a few months, visit some family, take in the rain and gain resident status again (6 months I think). Then leave with their increased pension.

So now you're a doctor? I had 3 mini strokes (TIA's) last year and my doctor tells me that provided I keep to the medication and check my blood pressure regularly, I will live a normal life. My granfather had high blood pressure most of his life, never had Alzheimers and died at 89 years old - despite smoking 60 Capstan Full Strength each day. Not everyone's the same. You are also a Fortune Teller too? Where did I say I was transfering my 'health burdens' onto Thailand? I said I will be paying myself. I am fully aware that I am not entitled to any free medical treatment in Thailand. I believed it was 30 but fair enough. Not that it makes any difference - the scenario I mentioned can still take place. A lot of people don't meet that requirement - there are ways and means. Provided you own a home, its a lot cheaper to live in Thailand than it is in the UK. Overall, there is no justification to refuse to allow those living abroad to receive annual pension increases. I heard a governemnt minister talking about 'Champagne Pensioners' - living it up on the beaches whilst getting a pension from the UK - but I guess it makes a good sound bite and helps get the UK population on side. I know of very few that are living it up. I do know of some that have a better standard of living abroad than they would in the UK - simply because the money they do get, goes further. Without looking back, wasn't it you who said that most pensioners also have a private pension? You may mix in more educated, higher earning, middle class circles but the majority of people in the UK at the moment are about 1 pay cheque away from skint. Lots of people would love to have saved for their retirement but the cost of living prevents them from doing so. I am fortunate in that I saw the way private pensions were going years ago, cancelled mine and invested in property. I will only get the basic state pension when I retire but I will make sure that I get every single penny of every increase.

I'm not saving them any money at all, I'm still in the UK, not retired yet and still receiving medical care. I have 4 blood tests every year and 1 hospital appointment to check that a previous cancer remains inactive. I also have medication every month to control my blood pressure. I will be leaving the UK later this year and will have all those things to pay for myself - that is my choice. However, when I am old enough to receive a state pension, I will not be letting anyone know where I am. I am fortunate in that I can maintain a UK address and I will make sure my bank account is used. Contrary to popular belief, there are ways of leaving and entering the UK without your final destination being known. In fact, you are wrong there too, I only became aware of this rule recently and only because I am a member of this forum. Whenever I mention this to people I know, they are also unaware of it and the vast majority of them thinks its unfair.

'Why does the UK government have to do anything about? Because its fair? Out of pity?' Clearly because its fair. Nothing you have said from thereon in makes any sense whatsoever - just a load of gobbledygook. You have not offered one single justification as to why a pensioner that chooses to live abroad should not receive pension increases. The plain and simple fact is that someone who is on basic state pension living in the UK costs the country much more than someone who has retired abroad. There is no justification at all for them to each be given a different amount of pension. I really can't understand why you can't see that. What difference does it make to the UK government where they live? Neither group make contributions any longer and as I've pointed out, pensioners living abroad cost the UK government far less as they don't get medical treatment. To be able to claim full state pension, a person has to have paid contributions for 30 years. A lot of people left school at 16 and currently are entitled to their pension at 66. The chances are that they have therefore, worked and paid NI contributions for 49 years (they currently stop at 65). However, for various reasons they, especially females, may not have paid in every year. So, there will be cases where a pensioner who has retired abroad may have paid in for 49 years and is no longer be entitled to any increases whereas his counterpart remaining in the UK may have only paid in for 30 years and receives every increase. I am not retired yet but I've already cost the NHS quite a lot due to cancer and mini strokes. I am now on medication for the rest of my life and I guess the cost is £50 per month. When I leave the UK on retirement, that cost will end and I'll have to pay it myself. A hell of a lot of the pensioners I know are on some form of medication. For the first 40 years or so of my life I hardly ever visited a doctor but its a lot more frequent now - and don't forget, the population is aging. They should bloody well pay us to leave - not refuse pension increases. Another thing you fail to be aware of is that many basic pensioners in the UK qualify for housing benefit, council tax benefit, winter fuel payments, etc. etc. My own mother lived rent free for about 20 years and was then looked after at the expense of the country in a care home for another 15 years or so until she died. Had she left the UK, the country would not have been paying for that and there are literally THOUSANDS like her.

I'd travelled with them for years, using the same suitcase and never been checked before. I'd been using it on other airlines prior to that and it complied. I was not aware that different airlines have different size allowances. Please remember that we are talking about 25/30mm here. My bag is in Thailand at the moment so I can't measure it but it just protruded over the size frame so I'm guessing its around 52/53cm. Clearly you don't work for Etihad and if you did, they'd probably loose a lot of customers. 25/30mm is nothing compared with the idiots who carry far more and seem to get away with it - as per the OP. Airlines need to (and often do) allow a little discretion as different carriers have different allowances. How would you go on if you booked with British Airways for Bangkok? Their carry on allowance is 56x45x25. However, the flight is operated by Qatar who's allowance is 50x37x25.

Complete twoddle! If you stay in the UK they have to pay out the full state pension. If you have no private pension you remain under the tax threshold. So a pensioner living in Thailand on today's full state pension would not pay tax nor would the same pensioner living in the UK. Both groups, provided they have no other income DO NOT PAY UK TAXES. Furthermore, pensioners living abroad don't cost the UK thousands of pounds each year in medication, hospital costs and doctor's appointments. The UK government should give people who choose to retire abroad more money, not less. 'Their isn't the money to pay for overseas pensioners' my ar5e, they'd have to pay it if you remained in the UK so what's the damned difference?

Firstly, a correction - I meant 25mm in my previous post. Of course, 25cm is quite a difference. My case on that occasion was indeed - around 25mm too big. The ground handling staff were adamant that if it was higher than the guide frame they use, no matter how slightly, it had to go in the hold. I already had 2 cases in the hold as I have Gold status with them and so I'm allowed extra luggage. I had to pay extra, there was no arguing with them. In fairness to Etihad, it wasn't their own staff, it was the outsourced ground handlers at Suvarnabhumi. This was on my return trip - I'd had no problem checking in at Manchester or when connecting at Abu Dhabi on my outbound journey. At that time, Etihad staff were employed at both of those locations (outsourced at Manchester now). I wrote to Etihad upon my return and pointed out that the suitcase was the same I'd used on my outbound trip and that I thought the ground handlers were over zealous and I was amazed to receive a voucher from them giving me 50% off my next flight but accompanied by a warning not to use the same suitcase again. Your standard hand luggage sizes are around the average but in fact Etihad's are 50x40x25 - 6cm lower than the figure you state and clearly enough for the ground handlers not to allow my case (53x40x25 approx) as hand luggage. In fact, Etihad's 50cm height limit is one of the lowest of all the mainstream long haul carriers. Most are 55cm/56cm. https://www.casesuk.com/carry-on-luggage-sizes.html I am aware that the class of a ticket can affect the weight and number of pieces you're allowed to carry but I don't ever remember it affecting the size.

That reminds me of what I've experienced twice with KLM. On both occasions they'd changed the aircraft type on the connecting flight from my local airport to Schiphol. I kid you not, both times they let us all through the gate and stood at the bottom of the aircraft steps inspecting passengers luggage. When I arrived I was told that due to the change, my bag had to go in the hold. As any sensible person would do, I'd put all my valuables in my hand luggage. I told the KLM staff that I'd be happy for them to put my bag in the hold as long as they gave me written assurance they would cover any losses if anything was missing. "No can do sir", "Well I'm sorry then, my bag stays with me, you've changed the aircraft without notice, you should either make arrangements of agree cover" Other passengers heard this and were of the same mind. A long standoff between passengers and crew ensued and then the airport manager arrived. Carried the one of the passenger's bags up the steps, tried it in the locked and it fitted. Private discussion took place and we were all (apart from one guy with the biggest piece of hand luggage I'd ever seen) suddenly allowed to put our luggage in the lockers.

I've noticed that on recent flights. I remember having to pay for my hand luggage to go in the hold because it wouldn't fit in the little 'size frame' Etihad used to use - something like 25cm too big, never chanced it since. All the damned airlines have different specs for their hand luggage sizes - seems you have to buy a different one depending on which airline you choose. However, as you say - some people are taking the p*ss. As for it being annoying - yes, much the same as those gits that have rucksacks on their backs and turn around in the aisle next to your seat - knocking you for six!

Probably written by AI. Guess we're going to have to get used to even more rubbish than we've had previously.