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

[NoshowJones]

On 7/28/2023 at 2:36 PM, brianthainess said:

TTBOMK Not on claiming the pension only on the cost of living rises, that you'll pay back out of your pension, so I have been told, and read about. 

What does TTBOMK mean?? Please get of your smartphone.

[NoshowJones]

On 7/28/2023 at 2:37 PM, brianthainess said:

They rely on other people to dob them in. 

To dob them in, I think you would need to know their full name. address and date of birth.

[noobexpat]

On 11/11/2023 at 10:42 AM, proton said:

 

Full pension is still under the tax free allowance, so not taxed yet on state pensions

 

Thats not how your state pension is calculated. You don't lose the accrued benefit on the older systems.

[treetops]

3 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

What does TTBOMK mean?? Please get of your smartphone.

Please use your computer to the best of its abilities.  Google found this:

 

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TTBOMK

 

[NoshowJones]

17 minutes ago, champers said:

So the Conservatives have had more opportunity to right the wrong - but haven't. 

I don't particularly favour either Labour or the Tories but the fact is Labour had a manifesto commitment at the last election. Anyway, that was in 2019. No manifestos issued yet for 2024.

Neither do I back in Scotland I used to vote SNP, but I would not vote for them today due to having a Musllim First Minister and allowing same sex marriages.

[champers]

9 minutes ago, NoshowJones said:

Neither do I back in Scotland I used to vote SNP, but I would not vote for them today due to having a Musllim First Minister and allowing same sex marriages.

Very interesting, I am sure, but you have veered way off topic.

Is Jimmy Krankie doing pantomime this Christmas?

 

[billd766]

1 hour ago, NoshowJones said:

What does TTBOMK mean?? Please get of your smartphone.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TTBOMK

 

I had no idea either so I did an internet search.

 

TTBOMK (not comparable)

(Internet slang) Initialism of to the best of my knowledge, indicating uncertainty in spite of having some knowledge on the subject.

[brianthainess]

1 hour ago, NoshowJones said:

What does TTBOMK mean?? Please get of your smartphone.

I'm not on my smart phone To The Best Of My Knowledge.

[NoshowJones]

2 minutes ago, billd766 said:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/TTBOMK

 

I had no idea either so I did an internet search.

 

TTBOMK (not comparable)

(Internet slang) Initialism of to the best of my knowledge, indicating uncertainty in spite of having some knowledge on the subject.

I just wish posters would stop this nonsense, it is happening so often now that I just do not have the inclination to google this. Could someone in charge of this forum not consider disallowing initials of more than three words? I just wish I could read posters opinions etc without always wondering what xxxxxx stands for.

[sandyf]

On 9/1/2023 at 4:51 PM, scottiejohn said:

Actually UK pensions started much earlier!

The beginning of the modern state pension was the Old Age Pensions Act 1908, which provided 5 shillings (£0.25) a week for those over age 70 whose annual means did not exceed £31 10s. (£31.50).

That is a distortion, the modern state pension satrted in 1948 as a contributory scheme, whereas the Old Age Pension was a non-contributory scheme.

 

[sandyf]

On 9/1/2023 at 1:34 PM, billd766 said:

The blame for that can be traced back to Clem Attlee and the Labour government back in 1948 when the state pension was brought in. 

The blame  lies with every government that has been in power since 1948.

The legislation in respect of the increases is embedded in the Social Security Act which comes before parliament every year but the government controls house business and will only allow debate on the changes it puts forward, nothing else. For all his faults Jeremy Corbyn tried several times to bring up the issue but was shut down by the government. The argument put forward by the government can be seen in the briefing paper.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01457/

When the scheme started there were no reciprocal agreements so the first one that was put in place was an act of discrimination. I think it was about 45 years ago now it became government policy not to create any more reciprocal agreements, unless of coarse it suited the brexit agenda.

In 2019 Therese Coffey made this statement

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.”

Another blatant act of discrimination.

The government also claim issue was subject to an unsuccessfull legal challenge. That isn't quite the case, the ECHR only concluded it was not in breach of "Human Rights" legislation, not that it wasn't in breach of any other legislation, such as discrimination.

Unfortunately the issue does not command much support among the UK population and a challenge under the Equality Act would require resources well beyond those concerned.

[billd766]

2 hours ago, sandyf said:

The blame  lies with every government that has been in power since 1948.

The legislation in respect of the increases is embedded in the Social Security Act which comes before parliament every year but the government controls house business and will only allow debate on the changes it puts forward, nothing else. For all his faults Jeremy Corbyn tried several times to bring up the issue but was shut down by the government. The argument put forward by the government can be seen in the briefing paper.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01457/

When the scheme started there were no reciprocal agreements so the first one that was put in place was an act of discrimination. I think it was about 45 years ago now it became government policy not to create any more reciprocal agreements, unless of coarse it suited the brexit agenda.

In 2019 Therese Coffey made this statement

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.”

Another blatant act of discrimination.

The government also claim issue was subject to an unsuccessfull legal challenge. That isn't quite the case, the ECHR only concluded it was not in breach of "Human Rights" legislation, not that it wasn't in breach of any other legislation, such as discrimination.

Unfortunately the issue does not command much support among the UK population and a challenge under the Equality Act would require resources well beyond those concerned.

Sandy, I am 79 and I have no hope or expectation that it will be changed in my lifetime.

[strikingsunset]

11 minutes ago, billd766 said:

Sandy, I am 79 and I have no hope or expectation that it will be changed in my lifetime.

it will never change

[noobexpat]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

The blame  lies with every government that has been in power since 1948.

The legislation in respect of the increases is embedded in the Social Security Act which comes before parliament every year but the government controls house business and will only allow debate on the changes it puts forward, nothing else. For all his faults Jeremy Corbyn tried several times to bring up the issue but was shut down by the government. The argument put forward by the government can be seen in the briefing paper.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01457/

When the scheme started there were no reciprocal agreements so the first one that was put in place was an act of discrimination. I think it was about 45 years ago now it became government policy not to create any more reciprocal agreements, unless of coarse it suited the brexit agenda.

In 2019 Therese Coffey made this statement

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.”

Another blatant act of discrimination.

The government also claim issue was subject to an unsuccessfull legal challenge. That isn't quite the case, the ECHR only concluded it was not in breach of "Human Rights" legislation, not that it wasn't in breach of any other legislation, such as discrimination.

Unfortunately the issue does not command much support among the UK population and a challenge under the Equality Act would require resources well beyond those concerned.

 

Discrimination also with unequal state pension ages for men and women.

Was 60 for women, and got increased to 65, back then.

So sometimes its addressed.

Then there's the barber judgement.

 

[JayClay]

On 11/11/2023 at 1:56 PM, steve187 said:

do you believe what you posted,  if so you must be a Politian

 

It depends on what my motive as a politician was.

 

If I was a failing home security, desperate to stoke culture wars in a pathetically transparent bid to be the next Tory leader I'd certainly be using the term "illegal immigrant" as opposed to the correct definition of "asylum seeker".

 

As you yourself have proven that you either don't care about the difference, or chose to use the incorrect terminology, I have no interest in engaging in further debate with you on the subject.

[JayClay]

19 hours ago, Bangkok Barry said:

It isn't going to cost them votes

 

Unfortunately it probably would cost a party some votes. We can see, in this thread alone, how selfish and protective of "thier own" that some people are.

 

You know that the opposition (assuming it's Tory) will kick up a fuss about how these people "chose to live abroad" so "why should we fund their lavish luxuary beachfront lifestyle?". It doesn't matter that most pensioners abroad don't have anything like such a lifestyle... When has the truth ever mattered?

 

If Labour do ever propose it, retired expats will become the latest target of a hate campaign for the Tories and their client media. And some people will fall for it. And some votes will be lost. Now, whether it would be a significant number, and whether they would be voters in target seats, I don't know.

[Bangkok Barry]

37 minutes ago, JayClay said:

 

Unfortunately it probably would cost a party some votes. We can see, in this thread alone, how selfish and protective of "thier own" that some people are.

 

You know that the opposition (assuming it's Tory) will kick up a fuss about how these people "chose to live abroad" so "why should we fund their lavish luxuary beachfront lifestyle?". It doesn't matter that most pensioners abroad don't have anything like such a lifestyle... When has the truth ever mattered?

 

If Labour do ever propose it, retired expats will become the latest target of a hate campaign for the Tories and their client media. And some people will fall for it. And some votes will be lost. Now, whether it would be a significant number, and whether they would be voters in target seats, I don't know.

 

Thanks for the comments. But I disagree.

[mikebell]

23 hours ago, maxcorrigan said:

Could you elaberate on that Mike, i've often thought of doing the same but did'nt know where to start TIA

i have another private pension as well as the DWP pittance so get taxed on the total of the 2 pensions i receive

 

My daughter discovered this by accident when she inexplicably received a notice of coding sent to her address in Yorkshire.  (This after NOT receiving anything for years either there or in Thailand.)  So I checked the YouGov site to find they had credited me with a full State Pension of 10K & not what I was receiving (nearer 5000!)

On my next UK visit we phoned up; endured the hour waiting for a human.  We were told the fault lay with the DWP.  Again with the wait only to be told in no uncertain terms that they had sent the reduced rate HMRC every year as it never varied for 15 years (I am 81.)  So back we went & eventually got through to an operative who went the extra mile.  He confirmed my worst fears: I have been taxed on money I never received.

 

You could start here - www.gov.uk/complain-about-hmrc

 

I have received over 5K in back tax for two years with a promise of some more for one other year tho' this has not been forthcoming nor anything for the previous dozen or so years!

[mikebell]

23 hours ago, maxcorrigan said:

Could you elaberate on that Mike, i've often thought of doing the same but did'nt know where to start TIA

i have another private pension as well as the DWP pittance so get taxed on the total of the 2 pensions i receive

PS

My friend has just started drawing his State Pension (he's 67 so 10K pa). They've not taxed any of it so he phoned HMRC and DWP from T/land via Skype. One was free, the other cost him.

 

aseannow.com/topic/1301846-press-release-end-frozen-pensions-for-british-ex-pats-in-thailand/page/6/#comment-18486747

[superal]

On 8/5/2023 at 5:22 PM, AhFarangJa said:

I agree in part, however, It appears to me that the government want these masses in to keep wages and costs down in order to increase profits. I know the whole subject is a powder keg, and we can all bat figures from one side to the other. The fact remains that they are housing these people in 4 star hotels, while we have British nationals living on the streets. Also, why does a migrant get 45 pounds a week to spend on incidentals, when my late father was given 20, the rest of his pension stolen by the government to pay for health care that he had paid into for all his life. one reason I do not live there anymore, as it makes me sick, and sad to see the Country go down the toilet like it is.

Not want to digress from the topic but I have to agree with your comment on " down the toilet " . Just returned to Thailand after 2 months in the UK which gives the impression of being over populated , very expensive cost of living and a noticeable amount of non indigenous people in the towns and country . The cost of housing/ renting has erupted to a level that young people - first time buyers cannot enter the market . The full UK state pension is poor even for those who made the full contributions and find themselves unable to claim any monetary benefits as opposed to those who did not plan for their old age and receive a lower pension and so  qualify for a lot of benefits . If I was a young man I would seriously consider emigrating . Many UK pensioners cannot afford to heat their homes  and visit day centers and libraries to keep warm . I say charity begins at home and so take care of the indigenous Brit as a priority , not as it is at the moment with the UK pensioners being treated unfairly and at the back of the queue . Shame on the UK government and benefits system .  

[superal]

16 hours ago, billd766 said:

Sandy, I am 79 and I have no hope or expectation that it will be changed in my lifetime.

I would not bet on that . Why ? the emphasis is growing on convincing  the employed workers to invest for their retirement with commercial pension companies . The current UK state pension funding is creaking and unsustainable with suggestions from some politicians that it be scrapped in the  future . Elevated tax concessions for private pension contributions has been suggested . 

[noobexpat]

43 minutes ago, superal said:

I would not bet on that . Why ? the emphasis is growing on convincing  the employed workers to invest for their retirement with commercial pension companies . The current UK state pension funding is creaking and unsustainable with suggestions from some politicians that it be scrapped in the  future . Elevated tax concessions for private pension contributions has been suggested . 

 

Emphasis ....its law already. Mandatory workplace schemes and minimum employee & employer contributions.

[sandyf]

21 hours ago, billd766 said:

Sandy, I am 79 and I have no hope or expectation that it will be changed in my lifetime.

Same here Bill, but one thing is that since the debate over the triple lock arose I have seen more talk of the frozen pension issue in the UK media than ever before.

[sandyf]

20 hours ago, noobexpat said:

 

Discrimination also with unequal state pension ages for men and women.

Was 60 for women, and got increased to 65, back then.

So sometimes its addressed.

Then there's the barber judgement.

 

Discrimination will always be addressed when it suits the government of the day.

What nobody ever wants to mention is that many people living in jurisdictions without a reciprocal agreement are in receipt of a private pension that has been partially funded by NI contributions. Surely that part of their private pension should also be frozen.

The discrimination is a bit more than skin deep.

[noobexpat]

3 minutes ago, sandyf said:

 

What nobody ever wants to mention is that many people living in jurisdictions without a reciprocal agreement are in receipt of a private pension that has been partially funded by NI contributions. Surely that part of their private pension should also be frozen.

 

 

Which part? 

[sandyf]

6 hours ago, mikebell said:

My friend has just started drawing his State Pension (he's 67 so 10K pa). They've not taxed any of it so he phoned HMRC and DWP from T/land via Skype. One was free, the other cost him.

The state pension is not taxed per se.  It is included in the personal allowance and tax is collected from another source.

If your state pension is over the personal allowance and no other income you have to pay the inland revenue directly.

[sandyf]

1 minute ago, noobexpat said:

 

Which part? 

The part funded from NI contributions.

[noobexpat]

Just now, sandyf said:

The part funded from NI contributions.

 

I used to do pensions actuarial work in my younger days. 

No point stating something if you don’t have the knowledge - then you are just guessing, right?

 

 

[sandyf]

2 minutes ago, noobexpat said:

 

I used to do pensions actuarial work in my younger days. 

No point stating something if you don’t have the knowledge - then you are just guessing, right?

Not guessing anything, for all your past experience there appears to be a lack of understanding on how the system evolved.

In 1975 when pension contributions changed from Graduated Pensions to SERPS,  anyone that had an occupational pension was automatically contracted out of SERPS and part of their NI contibution was allocated the occupational pension. This arrangement was denied to those of us that didn't work for a company with an occupational pension.

I think it was in 1989 that the law was changed and the option to contract out of SERPS became available to all. Individuals could set up a private pension that was funded by them and part of their national insurance collected by employers. Until the reform in 2016 the NI contribution had 3 components, National Health, State pension and Additional state pension. It was the Additional  component that was directed into other pensions.

So today we have people drawing non state pensions that have been partially funded from NI contributions. At the time the law changed I was over 40 and the advice was not to contract out so 100% of my NI contributions went to the state system. My state pension comprises the basic state pension and 4 other components reflecting the changes over the years. 

[noobexpat]

12 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Not guessing anything, for all your past experience there appears to be a lack of understanding on how the system evolved.

In 1975 when pension contributions changed from Graduated Pensions to SERPS,  anyone that had an occupational pension was automatically contracted out of SERPS and part of their NI contibution was allocated the occupational pension. This arrangement was denied to those of us that didn't work for a company with an occupational pension.

I think it was in 1989 that the law was changed and the option to contract out of SERPS became available to all. Individuals could set up a private pension that was funded by them and part of their national insurance collected by employers. Until the reform in 2016 the NI contribution had 3 components, National Health, State pension and Additional state pension. It was the Additional  component that was directed into other pensions.

So today we have people drawing non state pensions that have been partially funded from NI contributions. At the time the law changed I was over 40 and the advice was not to contract out so 100% of my NI contributions went to the state system. My state pension comprises the basic state pension and 4 other components reflecting the changes over the years. 

 

Lol ...first sentence. Wrong! as part of my studies i had to learn every pension and social security act.

 

When graduated ended in 1975 ...but serps started in 1978. What happened in between those 3 years? That can be your homework.