Frozen pension policy turns British expat's dream into a nightmare

[sambum]

2 hours ago, Goat said:

Linz might find it easier with a younger Thai wife than old Jules.

Thai wives are a bit more frugal and know how to hunt out the bargains better.

 

Oh,give over trolling!!!

[MangoKorat]

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.

[MangoKorat]

6 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

If the rules existed 70 years ago already, you should have known.

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.

[MangoKorat]

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.

[Gknrd]

34 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

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.

From the US and have no restrictions. I really feel for retiree's from countries that freeze the pensions like this. I am sure there are work arounds. Such as keeping an address, and bank in the UK , but I really don't know. I can say ,with the inflation it is tearing a hole in my pension from the government, and I have the luxury of getting all the increases. I am fortunate to not have to rely 100% on my pension, but before inflation I could almost live on mine. Now , not an option. 

Edited April 29 by Gknrd

[VBF]

11 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

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.

I can see your point, and obviously, sympathise, however the onus is still on all of us to do our "due diligence" even though that should not be the case.

Would i have done as you did? Quite possibly.

[VBF]

10 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

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.

That may be the case, but if one made a short visit to UK and couldn't prove that the intention to return was permanent then one may not keep the increase. Tbh, I cannot find any law on this, as you say, "legal definition of 'permanent' "

[Wiggy]

18 hours ago, Expat68 said:

The problem is the NHS is free(ISH) people coming into the UK who have not contributed, is a drain, does not take much working out

Source?

[jacko45k]

15 hours ago, PremiumLane said:

 

Nice strawman, never said that - so what is the cost and how is it bankrupting the UK? 

Look it up.... I don't want to go more off topic. 

[FritsSikkink]

15 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

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.

If you plan to live in another country, it would be wise to do some research and not "expect" things. 

[PremiumLane]

7 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Look it up.... I don't want to go more off topic. 

 

hahaha the classic, you do the research 

[PremiumLane]

20 hours ago, sambum said:

 

From a UK Parliament Hansard article regarding The Illegal Migration Bill - essentially not taking into account the legal migrants:- 

 

"The Illegal Migration Bill is critical to stopping the boats. ...........................The asylum system currently costs £3.6 billion a year and £6 million a day in hotel accommodation, but that is not the true cost of doing nothing. As this impact assessment shows, the cost of accommodating illegal migrants has increased dramatically since 2020. If these trends continued, the Home Office would be spending over £11 billion a year, or £32 million a day, on asylum support by the end of 2026. In such a scenario, the Bill would only need to deliver a 2% deterrence in arrivals to enable cost savings."

 

I looked at the official government figures, why have yo doubled them? "The current asylum system is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades." And you think that figure is bankrupting the country? Shall we talk about not letting asylum seekers work? There are plenty of jobs UK citizens don't want to do that they would do, for example, look at what happened after Brexti with immigrants leaving, and farmers not being able to get workers. Also, what about the economic benefits of immigration? Funny how you never hear about that is the main stream media of the <deleted>-rags. 

 

You know how you can cut this cost down? Set up a processing center and streamline it, it ain't rocket science. The government have already said the system is broken - but they waste more money on that dumbass Rwanda scheme. And please define an "illegal migrant" you know if they are claiming asylum they are not illegal, right? 

Edited April 30 by PremiumLane

[MangoKorat]

4 hours ago, FritsSikkink said:

If you plan to live in another country, it would be wise to do some research and not "expect" things. 

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

[MangoKorat]

10 hours ago, VBF said:

That may be the case, but if one made a short visit to UK and couldn't prove that the intention to return was permanent then one may not keep the increase. Tbh, I cannot find any law on this, as you say, "legal definition of 'permanent' "

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.

[Conno]

Not much chance of staying under the radar either for anyone trying to avoid the freeze by using a UK address. I know a couple of people who have done so for years, looks like the digital surveillance state will be potentially catching up with them soon.

 

  

 

[VBF]

7 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

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.

The government case would be that he had to prove it WAS permanent. 

For example... Takes a long-term lease on a property or sets up financial arrangements that only a resident would need.

Something that shows one's intent to stay for more than a short holiday even if that intent changes later.

 

I'm neither defending nor opposing this - it's just what I might do if I was a suspicious official looking to establish the situation.

Edited April 30 by VBF

[MangoKorat]

40 minutes ago, VBF said:

The government case would be that he had to prove it WAS permanent. 

For example... Takes a long-term lease on a property or sets up financial arrangements that only a resident would need.

I think they would find it difficult to prove otherwise. Anyone who knows about this as I now do, shouldn't find it too difficult to provide such evidence.

 

I for example, have an apartment in the UK that I rent out.  The girl who rents that apartment has been there for years and I know her very well - she loves it and doesn't want to move. I'm pretty sure she'll agree to facilitate what I need so when I move to Thailand, that will become my address and it will be me that pays the council tax.  I will also make sure that I use my UK bank account regularly and leave and enter the UK by the back door when I return to visit family etc.

 

I would prefer not to do any of that really but it seems I will be forced to if I want my pension increases.

Edited April 30 by MangoKorat

[Mike Teavee]

10 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

I think they would find it difficult to prove otherwise. Anyone who knows about this as I now do, shouldn't find it too difficult to provide such evidence.

 

I for example, have an apartment in the UK that I rent out.  The girl who rents that apartment has been there for years and I know her very well - she loves it and doesn't want to move. I'm pretty sure she'll agree to facilitate what I need so when I move to Thailand, that will become my address and it will be me that pays the council tax.  I will also make sure that I use my UK bank account regularly and leave and enter the UK by the back door when I return to visit family etc.

 

I would prefer not to do any of that really but it seems I will be forced to if I want my pension increases.

I'm not sure how you would leave the UK by the "Back Door" but even if you could, do you really want to rely on that "Door" still being there & the same tenant staying in your apartment for the 10, 20+ years of retirement? 

 

Currently I'll get my State Pension in 9 years & by that time I fully expect there to be no "work arounds" to make it look like I'm still living in the UK (not that I would use one anyway as I'm financially better off being Non-UK Tax Resident), I certainly don't expect there to be in 20 or 30 years so can either accept that my Pension will be frozen or move to somewhere where it's not.  

 

Edited April 30 by Mike Teavee

[MangoKorat]

13 minutes ago, Mike Teavee said:

I'm not sure how you would leave the UK by the "Back Door" but even if you could, do you really want to rely on that "Door" still being there & the same tenant staying in your apartment for the 10, 20+ years of retirement? 

That door is not likely to move - I'm not going to advertise it but its regularly used by tax exiles etc.  Neither is it illegal or does it require any subtifuge. Most that need it, know where it is and how to use it.

 

I don't rely on my tenant staying there but she's been there a long time already and I see no reason why that should change.  I don't though, think it will be difficult to find another similar tenant should she wish to leave.  There are other options too.

[VBF]

37 minutes ago, MangoKorat said:

I think they would find it difficult to prove otherwise. Anyone who knows about this as I now do, shouldn't find it too difficult to provide such evidence.

 

I for example, have an apartment in the UK that I rent out.  The girl who rents that apartment has been there for years and I know her very well - she loves it and doesn't want to move. I'm pretty sure she'll agree to facilitate what I need so when I move to Thailand, that will become my address and it will be me that pays the council tax.  I will also make sure that I use my UK bank account regularly and leave and enter the UK by the back door when I return to visit family etc.

 

I would prefer not to do any of that really but it seems I will be forced to if I want my pension increases.

The fact that you rent the apartment out on a long term basis pretty much shows that you do not live there.

If there is both a rental agreement and you then state it as your address might raise interest and cause an enquiry. That might also raise interest from HMRC as to your exact status and tax liabilities.

I have no idea whether either of those scenarios is likely but would tread carefully it it was me.

 

As for the "back door",  I tend to agree with @Mike Teavee comments above.

[sandyf]

21 hours ago, MangoKorat said:

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.

 

That is not a fact, you are way off track.

The fact is that the average working bloke of today will only receive a post 2016 state pension which may or may not be adjusted due to "Contracting Out".

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has received a Full State pension. Full State pensions are adjusted to individual circumstances based on the pre 2016 basic pension or based on the new state pension.

 

Pension credit has absolutely nothing to do with pensions, I was on pension credit before I reached retirement age. The government has a vested interest in keeping pensions low and creating a benefits dependent society.

There is nothing new, years ago companies gave workers luncheon vouchers which turned into a form of currency.  Won't be long before you see social security food vouchers being traded with pensioners not far behind.

[MangoKorat]

3 minutes ago, VBF said:

The fact that you rent the apartment out on a long term basis pretty much shows that you do not live there.

If there is both a rental agreement and you then state it as your address might raise interest and cause an enquiry. That might also raise interest from HMRC as to your exact status and tax liabilities.

I have no idea whether either of those scenarios is likely but would tread carefully it it was me.

 

As for the "back door",  I tend to agree with @Mike Teavee comments above.

All that was taken care of a long time ago. My tenant does not have a current agreement.  That apartment has always been an 'insurance policy' for me and if I was staying in the UK, I would be moving there when I retire.

 

Think of it like this - I currently live in a tourist area of the UK and a couple of weeks ago I spoke to a couple who were in a camper van in a local car park.  We get literally hundreds of them every year and their season seems to get longer and longer.  This couple told me that since they retired, they've spent every year travelling around the entire UK with a few visits to Europe.

 

Provided they didn't have access to my passport details, how would anyone know my whereabouts and that I was any different to the couple I mention above?

 

Travel and passport details can be shared between countries but as far as I know, other that names on 'arrest lists' cropping up or a court request, there is no routine sharing of travel details in that way. 

 

The main thing here is not to raise any suspicions in the first place - therefore not triggering any more detailed investigations.  I very much doubt that HMRC simply go though pensioner's details randomly and think..........hmm let's check if that pesky pensioner is really living in the UK.  You would need to do something to raise that suspicion in the first place.

 

You might not be aware but HMRC are having serious staffing problems at the moment -as has been reported in the national news.  I don't think their main attention is focused on pensioners.

[BigBruv]

On 4/26/2024 at 2:38 PM, nauseus said:

Most pensioners in the UK don't pay tax either.

 

 

They do though - VAT of 20% on pretty much everything.

 

 

[BigBruv]

1 hour ago, Mike Teavee said:

I'll get my State Pension in 9 years & by that time I fully expect there to be no "work arounds" to make it look like I'm still living in the UK (not that I would use one anyway as I'm financially better off being Non-UK Tax Resident), I certainly don't expect there to be in 20 or 30 years so can either accept that my Pension will be frozen or move to somewhere where it's not.  

 

 

Agreed.  AI (which most boomers don't understand), will no doubt be introduced into the pubsec soon soon and, once implemented, will have many in a 'computer says no' scenario.

 

 

Edited April 30 by BigBruv

[sambum]

2 hours ago, PremiumLane said:

 

I looked at the official government figures, why have yo doubled them? "The current asylum system is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades." And you think that figure is bankrupting the country? Shall we talk about not letting asylum seekers work? There are plenty of jobs UK citizens don't want to do that they would do, for example, look at what happened after Brexti with immigrants leaving, and farmers not being able to get workers. Also, what about the economic benefits of immigration? Funny how you never hear about that is the main stream media of the <deleted>-rags. 

 

You know how you can cut this cost down? Set up a processing center and streamline it, it ain't rocket science. The government have already said the system is broken - but they waste more money on that dumbass Rwanda scheme. And please define an "illegal migrant" you know if they are claiming asylum they are not illegal, right? 

So, you are saying that I falsified my figures? Calling me a liar? OK - here is the Header page and date of the UK Government Hansard, and all text up to the relevant figures that I quoted previously from the statement. (I have underlined the figures in question.)

If you have any trouble in reconciling them, I suggest you take it up with the Minister for Immigration, Mr Robert Jenrick the MP responsible for the statement:-. 

 

 

Hansard

 

• UK Parliament 
•  
• Hansard
•  
•  
•  
• Commons Chamber
•  
• Illegal Migration Bill: Economic Impact Assessment

Illegal Migration Bill: Economic Impact Assessment

Volume 735: debated on Tuesday 27 June 2023

JUN

27

2023

Download text

Back to top Previous debate Next debate

 

 

 

 

Column 149is located here

12.38pm

Yvette Cooper 

(Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford) (Lab)

Sharethis specific contribution

(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if she will make a statement on the publication of the impact assessment on the Illegal Migration Bill.

The Minister for Immigration 

(Robert Jenrick)

Sharethis specific contribution

The Illegal Migration Bill is critical to stopping the boats. Its intent is clear: if someone comes to the UK illegally, they should be detained and swiftly returned to their home country if safe, or relocated to a safe third country such as Rwanda. The impact assessment published yesterday makes clear that inaction is simply not an option. The volumes and costs associated with illegal migration have risen exponentially, driven by small boat arrivals. Unless we act decisively to stop the boats, the cost to the taxpayer and the damage to society will continue to grow.

 

The asylum system currently costs £3.6 billion a year and £6 million a day in hotel accommodation, but that is not the true cost of doing nothing. As this impact assessment shows, the cost of accommodating illegal migrants has increased dramatically since 2020. If these trends continued, the Home Office would be spending over £11 billion a year, or £32 million a day, on asylum support by the end of 2026. In such a scenario, the Bill would only need to deliver a 2% deterrence in arrivals to enable cost savings.

 

 

[MangoKorat]

11 minutes ago, sandyf said:

That is not a fact, you are way off track.

The fact is that the average working bloke of today will only receive a post 2016 state pension which may or may not be adjusted due to "Contracting Out".

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has received a Full State pension. Full State pensions are adjusted to individual circumstances based on the pre 2016 basic pension or based on the new state pension.

 

Pension credit has absolutely nothing to do with pensions, I was on pension credit before I reached retirement age. The government has a vested interest in keeping pensions low and creating a benefits dependent society.

There is nothing new, years ago companies gave workers luncheon vouchers which turned into a form of currency.  Won't be long before you see social security food vouchers being traded with pensioners not far behind.

I am not way off track at all - you fail to realise just how many people are only entitled to a basic pension.

 

If you have been receiving Pension Credit before your pension age, then you'd better be expecting a letter shortly requesting repayment.  Pension credit is there to top up the pensions of those who for whatever reason do not have enough contributions to enable them to get a full pension.  It is therefore - EVERYTHING to do with pensions. You should get your facts straight:

 

https://www.ageuk.org.uk/information-advice/money-legal/benefits-entitlements/pension-credit/

 

https://www.gov.uk/pension-credit/eligibility

 

I suspect that you have actually been receiving Universal Credit.

 

Everyone has received a Full State Pension have they?  Well then perhaps you can tell me why my sister has just been notified that she will be only be getting £539.68 every 4 weeks from June when she retires because she doesn't have enough contribuitions?

[transam]

I find it amusing how those here on the fiddle have it all worked out, they have the answers, noooo ploblems.............................🤭

[MangoKorat]

Just now, transam said:

I find it amusing how those here on the fiddle have it all worked out, they have the answers, noooo ploblems.............................🤭

Its the UK government that are on the fiddle.

[transam]

1 minute ago, MangoKorat said:

Its the UK government that are on the fiddle.

Well, every Gov. of every persuasion has been the same, so I don't think a fiddle, it is their common ground........🤗

[Phulublub]

3 hours ago, PremiumLane said:

 

I looked at the official government figures, why have yo doubled them? "The current asylum system is costing the taxpayer £1.5 billion a year, the highest amount in over two decades." And you think that figure is bankrupting the country? Shall we talk about not letting asylum seekers work? There are plenty of jobs UK citizens don't want to do that they would do, for example, look at what happened after Brexti with immigrants leaving, and farmers not being able to get workers. Also, what about the economic benefits of immigration? Funny how you never hear about that is the main stream media of the <deleted>-rags. 

 

You know how you can cut this cost down? Set up a processing center and streamline it, it ain't rocket science. The government have already said the system is broken - but they waste more money on that dumbass Rwanda scheme. And please define an "illegal migrant" you know if they are claiming asylum they are not illegal, right? 

I thought I was a lone voice in the wilderness and all I could hear was an echo...seems it was you 😀😀😀

 

PH