.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
- Popular Post
MangoKorat
-
Posts
2,270 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Downloads
Posts posted by MangoKorat
-
-
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.
-
44 minutes ago, MicroB said:
If you had multiple TIAs and strokes, at least you won't be drawing pension for that long. My dad got through 10 extra years after a TIA, and that likely triggered the Alzheimers he had for the last 5 years.
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.
44 minutes ago, MicroB said:So you think its ok to transfer the health burdens from a country like the UK to a country like Thailand.
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.
44 minutes ago, MicroB said:I'm aware of all the other stuff you referred to. And its 35 qualifying years, not 30 years that you confidently stated, to get a full pension.
I believed it was 30 but fair enough. Not that it makes any difference - the scenario I mentioned can still take place.
44 minutes ago, MicroB said:Even on a full pension, your mum would have failed to meet Thailand's retirement visa requirements of a minimum income of 65,000 baht per month.
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.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, MicroB said:
Right now, you are saving them money apparently (an interesting position; I don't use the NHS much. Should I get a rebate for the money saved?
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.
1 hour ago, MicroB said:If you want your full pension, its pretty simple. Go back home. Otherwise, this is a life choice you made, that you knew about when you retired, and what pensioners have known about since 1955. Its a policy they effectively supported in all those elections they voted in before they retired.
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.
-
- Popular Post
35 minutes ago, MicroB said:Why does the UK government have to do anything about? Because its fair? Out of pity?
320,000 pensioners in the UK, out of about 13 million, exist on a State pension. 66% of UK pensioners pay tax.
What percentage of expatriate pensioners only have a State Pension? Vanishingly small I suspect.
Right now, you are saving them money apparently (an interesting position; I don't use the NHS much. Should I get a rebate for the money saved? I've never been in prison either, so I should get a refund there. Not been on the dole, so some more money back. Maybe I don't own a car, more money I am owed etc etc). So why should they change anything? While expats who have been out of the UK for more than 15 years cannot vote, of the numbers that can, a pitifully small number bother to register. It peaked in the run up to the Brexit vote, then has declined since. Generally Expatriates don't want to exercise their right to vote.
If you want your full pension, its pretty simple. Go back home. Otherwise, this is a life choice you made, that you knew about when you retired, and what pensioners have known about since 1955. Its a policy they effectively supported in all those elections they voted in before they retired.
What would you say to UK voters, who have no intention to retire overseas, or who can only dream about retiring to some beach, why they should vote to improve your lot? When apparently all that money that you gave up because of a life choice, could be used, for instance, to establish a National Social Service (proper residential care that doesn't involve emptying someone's estate) (because you believe there is a magic pot of cash).
I suspect if UK pensioners decided to stop emigrating, and all expatriate pensioners were repatriated, then the entire system will collapse; both pensions, the NHS and Adult Social Services.
'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.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
7 minutes ago, Nick Carter icp said:
If I worked for Etihad and you sent me that letter , I would send you a bill for when you took your too big luggage on a flight without paying .
You should have paid extra on both legs of the journey , you shouldn't have gotton anything free for breaking the rules .
My bags are the correct size, why should you be allowed to carry bags that break the rules and also get a a discounted flight ?
Its just not fair
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.
-
1
-
-
- Popular Post
On 4/26/2024 at 1:18 PM, MicroB said:William Hague pointed out that todays NI contributions pays for today's pensioner, not your future pension. So arguments about paying into a system for future entitlement falls fat on its face. There isn't the money to pay for overseas pensioners, who mostly don't vote, who mostly don't pay taxes, to have their pension increased.
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?
-
2
-
1
-
3
-
2
-
21 hours ago, Hummin said:
Standard hand luggage is
56 x 45 x 25 cm
22 x 14 x 9 inches
Carry on under seat
18 x 14 x 8 inches
45 x 36 x 20 cm
All depending on your ticket and what you paid for to bring onboard
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.
-
7 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:
'Gate checked'... when there is no more room in the overhead bins, some passengers are then forced to put their luggage in the hold.
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.
-
1
-
-
On 4/26/2024 at 1:21 PM, Lacessit said:
If they all meet airline specifications for carry-on luggage, I will bare my bum in Times Square.
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!
-
12 hours ago, IamNoone88 said:
The figures quoted in this article makes no sense. In fact the whole article is frankly ridiculous.
Probably written by AI.
Guess we're going to have to get used to even more rubbish than we've had previously.
-
1
-
1
-
-
11 minutes ago, Nemises said:
Suggest you replace your so-called “easily unlocked” Samsung with an iPhone because not even the FBI could unlock an old (1995) 5C iPhone with a 4 digit passcode in this famous case where the iPhone’s owner shot and killed 14 people and injured another 22.
Fully aware of that - as you say, it was a famous case at the time. But no thanks, I don't want an iphone.
However, and I have no intention of getting into an argument on this but just as the FBI couldn't crack that iphone, Whatsapp claim their messaging is 100% end to end encrypted. Yet there are reports that the Mossad, the Israeli Intelligence agency, gained access to Whatsapp messages on over 1400 phones.
-
Am I right in saying that if you don't tax your car for 3 years, its de-registered?
-
18 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:
This, I'm interested in - the idea that all of the security, face ID, numbers, two tier identification etc is a complete sham and all phones are readily accessible to anyone with a special code..... If this is true I'm taking all the crypto and banking apps off my phone !!!
Its absolutely true - it was done as I stood there. The phone was a fairly basic Samsung - around a 2020 model with a 6 digit lock code. I'm presuming he entered some sort of code, he wouldn't let me see but he had my phone for less than 2 minutes. This was at the Samsung Repair Centre in Leeds UK.
Think about it though - if thieves couldn't gain access to phones or they had to re-install software, the phones they steal would be worth very little.
Look at the software that car thieves have now - many keys can be copied as long as they're close enough to the computer with the software on it. They also have devices that can 'read' car keys from just outside your house and then relay that reading to another device being used to start your car. Each time security of any sort is upgraded, the bad guys find a way around it.
-
On 4/25/2024 at 3:43 AM, Klonko said:
I plan to import front and rear shocks for my motorcycle which parts are not available in Thailand, value < THB 100'000. I would prefer to use a shipping company such as DHL if the customs clearance can be handled by them or an agent and I do not have to travel to customs. Else I could bring the shocks with me when my wife and myself will return from Switzerland. Our main domicile is Thailand. What is your recommendation (I will not gamble on the green customs channel).
Just bring them in yourself. You would not believe what I've brought in.......................including a 5 ring gas burner, TV, full house worth of electric plug sockets and back boxes, roll of copper gas pipe, front and rear seats for my bike, set of brake and clutch levers, full CCTV system, vintage hifi separates system and speakers......................never been checked. All in checked luggage/oversize baggage.
If you do, just to be on the safe side make sure you have an invoice with you which I'd suggest is for a much lower price. Nobody's going to question a set of shocks at 1/4 of the price your paying.
-
12 hours ago, Nemises said:
If the victim’s phone was locked (like most are) then any banking data on her phone would not have been available to the thieves.
Hardly, are you not aware of how these people operate? They choose people who are on their phones at the time so they're not likely to be locked.
In addition, a guy in a phone shop opened my locked phone in a few seconds - he wouldn't show me how he did it. Probably by entering some code or other and you can bet your bottom dollar that phone thieves will have access to that information.
-
7 minutes ago, kwilco said:
555 So now they're moving their entire operations to Thailand.
Breaking News!
Putin annexes Phuket.
-
1
-
1
-
-
19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:
I absolutely agree with your revenue dept comment - for sure people will want to fly below the radar...
I won't rattle on about that too much as we're way off topic but I've seen clear evidence of Thai's hiding their actual income.
A few years ago I bought some jewellery at a gold shop and when I attempted to pay with my Thai debit card, I was told they'd have to charge me an extra 3% (I think 3) for using my card. I questioned this because that usually only applies to credit cards. I ended up paying cash.
A few days later whilst at my local Kasikorn branch, I asked the assistant manager if they charged businesses for debit card transactions. I was told that they don't. I raised the matter of what happened at the jewellery shop, he told me that's normal - "they do under the table sir". As it happens, the jewellery shop also banked with Kasikorn and he told me that the man in question regularly comes in to the branch and deposits large amounts of cash into his personal account. So he actually records his potentially (almost certainly) tax evading income but thinks its safe in his personal account...........bah mak!
They clearly aren't checked (yet) like we are in the UK - black money is black money and must stay that way. If the RD gets serious, and I suspect they will - as I say, I suspect cash will start to become more popular again.
-
- Popular Post
2 hours ago, khaowong1 said:Kind of cracks me up, 7 fully armed Thai police against a guy in flip flops. ha ha ha
If you were sending officers to arrest someone under suspicion of gun running, who would you send?
-
1
-
2
-
- Popular Post
12 hours ago, spidermike007 said:they're creating oligarchs out of thin air from state enterprises, they have a leader who's one of the richest men in the world from extortion and pure corruption,
Yes, I wonder if 'ordinary' Russian people ever questioned just how many millionaires were created, almost overnight when the supposedly almost bankrupt communist system collapsed. They were most likely gangsters before that event and it seems a relatively small number of them carved up previously national assets.
I doubt many Oligarchs have decided to move their 'Superyachts' to Thailand but as with all gangsters, they have their lieutenants who carry out their dirty work. I think its a fair bet that its those lieutenants that are flocking to Thailand - the outcome is predictable.
Great move from the inept, cash is king Thai government - give Russians longer visas, lay on special flights for them, etc. etc. They complain about the number of Western criminals that make Thailand their home - they ain't seen nothing yet!
-
1
-
2
-
19 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:
Where are you that has clean air and convenience ?
When I'm in Thailand, between Pak Chong and Khao Yai - currently on and off but I'll be making the move later this year.
Currently far enough away from Mitraphap not to smell the petrol and diesel fumes but near enough for Lotus and Makro to be 10 minutes away. However, I'm within 500m of the new M6 motorway and I will reconsider things when that opens - I have a potential move under consideration.
When I bought my current home, a major consideration was that its well South West of Pak Chong and the prevailing wind is also South West. I'm rarely exposed to any air pollution from the city area. Its also not a big Sugar Cane/Cassava area, I've never seen any crop waste burning locally.
The downside of that its that Bangkok is also South West and I have on occasion noted a slight yellow haze. As I say, its a compromise, if I wanted the cleanest air possible, I probably wouldn't choose Thailand at all. As with many things, the Thai government does a lot of talking about air quality but in reality, does very little.
-
9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:
although the biggest concern I have if getting my phone snatched is the value of the Phone Itself
The value of my phone is very little, I believe I paid 5500 baht for mine and it does all I want it to. A friend always buys the latest iphone and pays a gazillion baht for them. I'm yet to see him do something with his phone that I can't do with my cheapie.
We all, to a greater or lesser extent, rely on our phones for so many things these days. I choose to keep that to a minimum but even then, losing the content on my phone would be a major inconvenience. I periodically transfer photos and documents from my phone to my laptop but it would still give me major hassle if I lost it or it was stolen.
For now, I think I can live without things like Google wallet although I'm aware things are changing fast. I doubt that cash will become obsolete in Thailand in my lifetime. The Revenue Department is currently looking for additional income and if/when they start looking closely at the financial activities of the millions of Thai's that claim to earn less than the tax threshold, I think cash will see a resurgence.
-
9 hours ago, Nemises said:
No thanks.
Thought so.
-
9 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:
Interesting outlook - apart from the fact that a lot of the time to countryside is more polluted than the cities due to all the burning...
Careful where you cherry-pick your arguments, its not as binary as you assume and there is often a contradiction to be made....
Air quality comes close to the top of the list when choosing where I live. However, as with many things, it can be wise to compromise. For me, the compromise is between pollution and convenience. I don't want to be miles away from shops and facilities etc. but I certainly would want to breathe the air in Bangkok for example. I'm not keen on carbon monoxide.
-
2 minutes ago, Nemises said:
Rather than hijack this thread, please create a new thread about “cloud electricity consumption” and share your knowledge about it. Looking forward to it!
Almost certainly sarcasm but on the off chance that you are serious, just Google it.
Frozen pension policy turns British expat's dream into a nightmare
in Thailand News
Posted · Edited by MangoKorat
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.