PRESS RELEASE: End Frozen Pensions For British Ex-Pats In Thailand

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Wobblybob said:

This guy makes some interesting points on how to navigate around certain obstacles.

 

 

Some of the bits are interesting and useful but you NEED to be in a country with a reciprocal agreement.

 

Thailand is NOT one of those countries.

 

I think he is talking about a single person with no family attachments anywhere. For a family I think it may cost more in the long term than the gain you will get.

 

I have no idea of the cost of flights or accommodation but I think that if I could do that I would not make any extra money out of it.

 

A couple of things he did not mention were what happens to your family while you are away as they will also need money to live on. Also if you have more than one pension you will be paying extra tax at the basic rate of 20% on your extra income.

 

This is only my thoughts and opinion.

 

For some people it may work but again, IMHO for a lot of us it won't be worth it.

 

If it was that simple and that easy many people would already be doing it.

[Wobblybob]

1 minute ago, billd766 said:

Some of the bits are interesting and useful but you NEED to be in a country with a reciprocal agreement.

 

Thailand is NOT one of those countries.

 

I think he is talking about a single person with no family attachments anywhere. For a family I think it may cost more in the long term than the gain you will get.

 

I have no idea of the cost of flights or accommodation but I think that if I could do that I would not make any extra money out of it.

 

A couple of things he did not mention were what happens to your family while you are away as they will also need money to live on. Also if you have more than one pension you will be paying extra tax at the basic rate of 20% on your extra income.

 

This is only my thoughts and opinion.

 

For some people it may work but again, IMHO for a lot of us it won't be worth it.

 

If it was that simple and that easy many people would already be doing it.

I need to study it in greater detail as I watched it a while ago and came away without a informed opinion one way or the other, it was just pie in the sky but I put it out there to see what other members thought of his ideas and to whether there was any merit in trying it out.

But thanks for your thoughts and feedback, appreciated. ????

[samtam]

4 hours ago, sandyf said:

You were wrong on more than one point, not everyone is on £203.85. Many that got pensions under the pre 2016 arrangement will be receiving a good bit more than that with some over £300 a week.

Sorry, I thought it was clear "I missed out", and qualified it. And I was referring to people who legally state to HMRC they are living in Thailand.

[kickstart]

On 7/27/2023 at 1:47 PM, BritManToo said:

My UK state pension brings in 10,500GBP/year (40kbht/month).

Don't know why you say it's worth <deleted>.

The UK State Pension is set to increase by 10.1% from April 2023¹²³. This increase is part of an annual uprating each financial year and is linked to inflation through the government's 'triple lock' promise³⁴⁵. The new rates will take effect from April 2023, and the full new state pension will increase by £19 a week, while the full basic state pension will increase by £14 weekly⁴. The former will be £10,600 a year or £203.85 per week for 2023/24, and the latter will be £8,100 a year or £156.20 per week⁴⁵. Pensioner benefits such as Pension Credit and Attendance Allowance will also increase by 10.1% in line with CPI inflation

How are you getting the present rate, have you been back to the UK for 3 months ? over the past year?, that is the only way you can get the  increase , and of cause have it paid into a UK bank?

[samtam]

4 hours ago, Thaindrew said:

£203 x 52 weeks its £10,500

Replied already, as below:

 

Posted yesterday at 03:04 PM

  On 7/27/2023 at 2:14 PM, BritManToo said:

203.85 x 52 = 10,600 GBP

 

  On 7/27/2023 at 2:14 PM, Liverpool Lou said:

UK state pensions are paid weekly/4-weekly, not monthly.  £203.85 x 52 = £10,600.20. 

I stand corrected. [But as a non resident whose 66th birthday was on 31 March 2023, I missed out on the 203.85 and will now forever get the 185.15 per week, or 9,627.80 pa.]

Still, based on my miscalculation (8887.20❌), I now realise I get 9,627.80✔️, so that's nice. 10,600.20 would have been nicer, but so far the rise in GBP to THB has improved it.

[BritManToo]

10 hours ago, kickstart said:

The UK State Pension is set to increase by 10.1% from April 2023¹²³. This increase is part of an annual uprating each financial year and is linked to inflation through the government's 'triple lock' promise³⁴⁵. The new rates will take effect from April 2023, and the full new state pension will increase by £19 a week, while the full basic state pension will increase by £14 weekly⁴. The former will be £10,600 a year or £203.85 per week for 2023/24, and the latter will be £8,100 a year or £156.20 per week⁴⁵. Pensioner benefits such as Pension Credit and Attendance Allowance will also increase by 10.1% in line with CPI inflation

How are you getting the present rate, have you been back to the UK for 3 months ? over the past year?, that is the only way you can get the  increase , and of cause have it paid into a UK bank?

I pay tax in the UK, I have no right to live in any other country, so as far as I'm concerned I live in the UK.

[Foxx]

12 hours ago, Neeranam said:

Can't avoid IT by living abroad, can you?

It's a bit more than just living abroad.  One needs to intend to stay in the foreign country for the rest of one's life and cut ties to the UK.  Google "domicile of choice" for more info..

[Neeranam]

1 hour ago, Foxx said:

It's a bit more than just living abroad.  One needs to intend to stay in the foreign country for the rest of one's life and cut ties to the UK.  Google "domicile of choice" for more info..

Interesting, thanks.

Maybe, with becoming a Thai citizen, I can avoid paying this tax in the UK.

[sandyf]

13 hours ago, samtam said:

Sorry, I thought it was clear "I missed out", and qualified it. And I was referring to people who legally state to HMRC they are living in Thailand.

I don't know what you are trying to say. Your original post tried to imply an annual state pension based on £203.85/week.

There is no common amount and for many older people the pension can be much higher.  I have known people that paid a phenominal amount of SERPS and when they retired at 65 would have drawn a state pension a great deal higher than the amount introduced in 2016.

My comment was directed at your assumption rather than where anyone lived.

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, Greenhill said:

Please could someone enlighten me.    I do not understand why any 'reciprocal agreement' is necessary between Govt's!    The UK doesn't need Thailand's permission , to pay their own pensioners whatever they like, or does it?????

In a nutshell it is a "yes and no" situation, with the government favouring the yes position.

The problem stems from the fact that the legislation to uprate state pensions is embedded in the Social Security Act. The government can if it chooses override that legislation as they were prepared to do with brexit, I indicated that in a previous post.

Every year the Social Security Act gets changed as benefits change. When the Act comes before the House, as the government control business in the House they will only allow time to debate the changes they propose, no time is allowed to debate any other aspect.

Over the years some politicians, two that come to mind are Jeremy Corbyn and Ian Blackford, have tried to introduce debate on frozen pensions but it has always been blocked by the government.

Until the legislation is removed from the Social Security Act the government will use recipricol agreements on social security to defend their policy. 

[stratocaster]

On 7/27/2023 at 6:25 AM, billd766 said:

There are NO dedicated MPs for pensioners who are affected by this. There are NO votes in it for any MP, so why would they vote to spend even more of the taxpayers money to increase our pensions?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament#:~:text=MPs normally receive a pension,accrual rate of 1%2F40th.

 

Basic salary
The basic annual salary of an MP in the House of Commons is £86,584.[1] That is more than 10 times my annual frozen pension rate.

 

Pension
MPs normally receive a pension of either 1/40th or 1/50th of their final pensionable salary for each year of pensionable service depending on the contribution rate they chose. Members who made contributions of 13.75% of their salary gain an accrual rate of 1/40th.[24]

If an MP stands down during the course of a Parliament due to ill health, an ill health retirement grant is payable, calculated in the same way as the Resettlement Grant (as well as an immediate pension based on the service the MP would have accrued if they had continued to serve until age 65).

 

There is a lot more information in the link including 

Resettlement Grant

Winding-up Allowance

Office expenses

Housing, second home, and travel

 

 

And last year Nadine Dorries claimed 161,234 pounds in expenses.

[Greenhill]

4 minutes ago, sandyf said:

In a nutshell it is a "yes and no" situation, with the government favouring the yes position.

The problem stems from the fact that the legislation to uprate state pensions is embedded in the Social Security Act. The government can if it chooses override that legislation as they were prepared to do with brexit, I indicated that in a previous post.

Every year the Social Security Act gets changed as benefits change. When the Act comes before the House, as the government control business in the House they will only allow time to debate the changes they propose, no time is allowed to debate any other aspect.

Over the years some politicians, two that come to mind are Jeremy Corbyn and Ian Blackford, have tried to introduce debate on frozen pensions but it has always been blocked by the government.

Until the legislation is removed from the Social Security Act the government will use recipricol agreements on social security to defend their policy. 

Thanks for that BUT it still doesn't answer my question of WHY the Govt. needs any other country's permission to pay its own citizens whatever they like?!!!    I understand the UK blocks pension increases for most of its foreign based nationals but this 'reciprocity' nonsense is just an excuse.    If the UK Govt. wanted to pay it's nationals 1,000GBP per month, it could do, without any other country's permission - couldn't it???

[cracker1]

On 7/27/2023 at 10:41 AM, simon43 said:

P*ssing in the wind!  You have more chance if you lobbied the Thai government to implement a reciprocal agreement with the UK, as did The Philippines.

You would still need the UK Government to agree to reciprocate with Thai pensioners living in the UK.

[samtam]

1 hour ago, sandyf said:

I don't know what you are trying to say. Your original post tried to imply an annual state pension based on £203.85/week.

There is no common amount and for many older people the pension can be much higher.  I have known people that paid a phenominal amount of SERPS and when they retired at 65 would have drawn a state pension a great deal higher than the amount introduced in 2016.

My comment was directed at your assumption rather than where anyone lived.

I was talking about my own case. "I" refers to me.

My comment about my circumstances referred to where I live, and that I told HMRC and DWP that I reside in Thailand. The OP is about British expats living in Thailand and being paid their state pensions.

[samtam]

4 hours ago, BritManToo said:

I pay tax in the UK, I have no right to live in any other country, so as far as I'm concerned I live in the UK.

So long as HMRC agree that you're a UK resident, then you are acting correctly. They make and interpret the rules, we follow them, (or not as the case may be, reading a number of posts in this thread). 

[superal]

On 7/27/2023 at 1:39 PM, bkk6060 said:

Wow, a USA govt pension max is around $4500 now.

The UK around $1,000?

How sad, anyone ever inquire what they have done with all the money?

The facts is , there is no pension pot but there is a pension fund which is diminishing year on year and whilst now it is the National Insurance Contributions that pay out the pensions ,  the fund will be unable to do so alone by next year and then the income tax revenue will have to be dipped into . The state O.A.P. is financed by those who are currently employed . 

There is a calculation that the under 35s will not see a state UK pension because it may be scrapped . The under 45s will face a tax hike and a delayed retirement age .

Indeed the UK state pension is frugal when compared with many other countries e.g. Switzerland which has a top pay out of 2450 Swiss Francs a month or 2190 UK pounds a month for a single person or 3675 Swiss francs (3287 pounds ) per married couple . 

It would appear that the UK pension scheme is poorly crafted and needs to be overhauled . The only sensible way is to set up a reliable private pension that has no restrictions such as getting frozen because you opt to spend your retirement in warmer climates .  The frozen pension saga will never be amended because of the costs involved , no matter which party is in power . 

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, Greenhill said:

Thanks for that BUT it still doesn't answer my question of WHY the Govt. needs any other country's permission to pay its own citizens whatever they like?!!!    I understand the UK blocks pension increases for most of its foreign based nationals but this 'reciprocity' nonsense is just an excuse.    If the UK Govt. wanted to pay it's nationals 1,000GBP per month, it could do, without any other country's permission - couldn't it???

You are correct that the UK does not need to have another states permission.

However the UKs position is the uprating as a general rule is not exportable outside the UK.

In addition over the years the UK have entered into agreements with other states on Social Security provisions. These agreements can  require that the uprating is to be applied.

[JayClay]

21 hours ago, 747man said:

There are no illegal immigrants in the UK. Certainly not enough costing the government 7 million pounds per day, anyway........Yer Havin' A Giraffe There My Friend......WHY Do MOST of them enter Via a Rubber Dinghy Then ?? After Paying Traffickers up to 40,000 GBP !!! Not as IF The Can't Apply for Visas & Enter LEGALLY Is it ??

Claiming asylum is not illegal.

 

If a claim is accepted, they are a legal immigrant.

 

If a claim is rejected, they are returned to their home country.

 

Therefore the people coming on the boats are never illegal immigrants.

 

If the UK chooses not to bother processing claims, then so be it. They therefore have to pay to 'house" them instead. And they publish the huge figures on how much all this costs, precisely to make people like you angry. Just have a go at doing something positive and channel your anger at the people who really deserve it.

[superal]

14 minutes ago, JayClay said:

Claiming asylum is not illegal.

 

If a claim is accepted, they are a legal immigrant.

 

If a claim is rejected, they are returned to their home country.

 

Therefore the people coming on the boats are never illegal immigrants.

 

If the UK chooses not to bother processing claims, then so be it. They therefore have to pay to 'house" them instead. And they publish the huge figures on how much all this costs, precisely to make people like you angry. Just have a go at doing something positive and channel your anger at the people who really deserve it.

They are seeking illegal entry to the UK . Why ? because the UK is a soft touch and the social security benefits that are much better than other European countries are the main reason they cross the channel rather than settle in France or Italy etc . Its about time the UK gov; considered their own nationals first and paid a decent pension . No wonder there is anger when a UK tax payer all of his life is treated so poorly and illegal entrants are given all they need for free .

[JayClay]

7 minutes ago, superal said:

 . No wonder there is anger when a UK tax payer all of his life is treated so poorly and illegal entrants are given all they need for free .

Yes it must be such a fantastic life fleeing half way across the continent from war or persecution to then be stuck in a "hotel" (and I can guarantee you that word doesn't mean what you think it does), boat or tent for months and months complety unable to function as part of any kind of society.

 

The anger the tax payer feels should be directed to the government who are letting the backlog pile up.

 

Just try to think logically for a few minutes.... If the government processed the claims then they could send failed applications back, thus not needing to "house" them. And the successful applicants could be making themselves useful by filling some of the thousands of low-wage jobs that are currently going un-filled. Thus creating taxable income, and bolstering the economy.

 

Quote

No wonder there is anger

And so there should be. But do your research, apply some basic logic, and channel the anger where it belongs; rather than where the Daily Mail tell you it should be focused.

[superal]

43 minutes ago, JayClay said:

Yes it must be such a fantastic life fleeing half way across the continent from war or persecution to then be stuck in a "hotel" (and I can guarantee you that word doesn't mean what you think it does), boat or tent for months and months complety unable to function as part of any kind of society.

 

The anger the tax payer feels should be directed to the government who are letting the backlog pile up.

 

Just try to think logically for a few minutes.... If the government processed the claims then they could send failed applications back, thus not needing to "house" them. And the successful applicants could be making themselves useful by filling some of the thousands of low-wage jobs that are currently going un-filled. Thus creating taxable income, and bolstering the economy.

 

And so there should be. But do your research, apply some basic logic, and channel the anger where it belongs; rather than where the Daily Mail tell you it should be focused.

Blaming the gov; for the backlog of unannounced illegal entrants ? you having a laugh . You say " stuck in a hotel " where they are fed , clothed and bedded like they have never had before and then they complain about the poor internet , WT?. They will have known about the slow processing , yet still are arriving in their hundreds , daily , having paid thousands to people smugglers . most are without skills and will rely on handouts / benefits , will not integrate , rarely speak English and are well versed to living a life of crime . The official immigration test to aspiring legal immigrants is to have an historical knowledge of the UK along with a reasonable skill of the English language in order to become employable and self supporting but these so called asylum seekers are bypassing the rules .  The UK is already suffering from a housing shortage but local councils have to find accommodation  for them and they leapfrog the queues  . If I was a young UK national I would be emigrating and that is now happening with many professional skills leaving and causing a brain drain . It is true that there are many UK jobs available but they are not just laboring / unskilled jobs . Suella Braverman has got my backing .

[JayClay]

3 hours ago, superal said:

Blaming the gov; for the backlog of unannounced illegal entrants ? you having a laugh . You say " stuck in a hotel " where they are fed , clothed and bedded like they have never had before and then they complain about the poor internet ,

You are talking bull locks. There's no point debating with you on this matter.

[747man]

6 hours ago, JayClay said:

Claiming asylum is not illegal.

 

If a claim is accepted, they are a legal immigrant.

 

If a claim is rejected, they are returned to their home country.

 

Therefore the people coming on the boats are never illegal immigrants.

 

If the UK chooses not to bother processing claims, then so be it. They therefore have to pay to 'house" them instead. And they publish the huge figures on how much all this costs, precisely to make people like you angry. Just have a go at doing something positive and channel your anger at the people who really deserve it.

 precisely to make people like you angry.....Do YOU Think I'm the only ANGRY One ?? If You Do Your a <deleted> Dipstick !!!

[sandyf]

22 hours ago, Greenhill said:

Thanks for that BUT it still doesn't answer my question of WHY the Govt. needs any other country's permission to pay its own citizens whatever they like?!!!    I understand the UK blocks pension increases for most of its foreign based nationals but this 'reciprocity' nonsense is just an excuse.    If the UK Govt. wanted to pay it's nationals 1,000GBP per month, it could do, without any other country's permission - couldn't it???

It is not a question of permission from another country, A section of the UK Social Security Act gives the government permission to pay the increases and if said Act does not apply in the country concerned then there is no increase.

There is a reciprocal agreement in place with Canada but they do not get the increases. When the agreement was made a Canadian pension could not be exported so the increases were not allowed in Canada. Since then the Canadian government have changed the rules and Canadian pensions can be exported but the UK government have refused to amend the agreement.  

If the piece of  legislation in question were to be removed from the Social Security Act and recreated as stand alone legislation there wouldn't be a problem

[sandyf]

21 hours ago, superal said:

The facts is , there is no pension pot but there is a pension fund which is diminishing year on year and whilst now it is the National Insurance Contributions that pay out the pensions ,  the fund will be unable to do so alone by next year and then the income tax revenue will have to be dipped into .

The fund is no longer used, It reached the level that it cannot fall below a long time ago. For many years approx 12% of income tax has been used to meet the state pension liability as there has been insufficient NI contributions.

From day one the UK state pension has been a pay as you go arrangement, the workers of day pay the pensioners of the day.

You can only hope that when your turn comes there is enough workers.

[Henryford]

It will never happen but makes you mad when you see how the Government just throws money away. Buffoon Bailey's QE experiment will cost 150 BILLION.

[spidermike007]

And it is likely one of the dumbest policies in the history of the nation. The UK saves a fortune on it's expat population. On so many levels. 

 

It is likely sour grapes. We are so great. You can't leave. That is not right! 

[p414]

THE Court of Human Rights ruled a long time ago that the British state pension is 'A government benefit'..

[Pumpuynarak]

17 hours ago, p414 said:

THE Court of Human Rights ruled a long time ago that the British state pension is 'A government benefit'..

I believe it was that little rat George Osborne who initiated  the change of the state pension from an entitlement to a benefit.

[superal]

22 hours ago, sandyf said:

The fund is no longer used, It reached the level that it cannot fall below a long time ago. For many years approx 12% of income tax has been used to meet the state pension liability as there has been insufficient NI contributions.

From day one the UK state pension has been a pay as you go arrangement, the workers of day pay the pensioners of the day.

You can only hope that when your turn comes there is enough workers.

Thanks . I just checked my statement that said N.I.C.s were the main fund provision for the UK state pension but income taxes will be used soon as there were not enough people working to support the fund . I was correct , however I failed to notice that the article I quoted from was published in October 2014 . So your up to date info applies . Thanks for the correction .