British Pensioner Struggles with Frozen Pension in Thailand

[MrPhysio]

Some feedback to those with negative comments about this lady and her family's situation.

 

1. None of us can predict the future.

2. Few of us know how long we are going to live.

3. The older we get, the more difficult it gets to take on new knowledge.

4. We do our best to make decisions within our knowledge base.

5. Life is not fair, is mostly unpredictable, and in very many respects out of our control.

6. Government officials and politicians ultimately impact us more than our own decision-making, is beyond our control (voting power is an illusion, more or less dependent on the country and those in power. (See a few episodes of Yes, Minister/Yes, Prime Minister, or even Fawlty Towers! - have a laugh through tears of recognition).

Given the above,

7. Countries should prioritize birthright citizens and the military for basic pensions and healthcare before non-citizens, no matter where they choose to live out their retirement, with cost-of-living increments added via inflationary changes.

8. If the politicians manage the economy well, then the increased GDP could support humanitarian assistance in rare circumstances - carefully avoiding assistance to non-citizens above that of citizens.

9. Until politicians can implement the above, previous and current politicians should have their special perks such as company appointments, superannuation, pensions, and overseas postings after stepping down from government, suspended indefinitely to rescind being rewarded for poor performance at the expense of the voting population, taxpayers, and pensioners (included armed service members).

10. A version of the monetary freeze of accounts applied to oligarchs and other international reprobates, where accrued interest can be reassigned toward the economy where people have been progressively disregarded could be implemented.

 

The above is a quick response from me and obviously details and other nuances would need to be included for a first-world approach, not only for Britain, but other commonwealth countries.

 

Basically, I do not believe some of the comments about this lady and her family are fair at face value, but I admit that I do not know the family nor any of the people on this forum.

[freeworld]

1 hour ago, ronster said:

When I went back I had to register with a GP. Ended up taking 2-3 months before I was in the system.

When on the phone to DWP offices while asking why I couldn't claim benefits for disability I said to the guy I bet if I rocked up in a dinghy at Dover I would have no problem getting everything I said. 

He said we'll no it doesn't quite work like that . I pointed out all the claims I had made took me 2 weeks to find and send off applications as most were not in plain sight to apply. Yet people in dinghies would have someone filling out every form possible to apply for asylum seekers. Where I as a UK citizen was left to my own devices . 

Needless to say I have zero intention of returning to the UK apart from visiting family.

This is what asylum seekers are entitled to claim in the UK.

https://www.gov.uk/asylum-support/what-youll-get

 

This Daily Mail infogram shows what is affordable on different levels of pension

 

Edited June 1 by freeworld

[atpeace]

4 hours ago, freeworld said:

Sorry sounds harsh but while one sympathises and that they could return to the UK where the govt should take care of them at that age the conditions they are in are solely of their choice.

 

The govt is one thing but one has a personal responsibility to also make private financial arrangements for health and retirement and has a choice to not have ventured to Thailand to reside without considering longetivity and future health and financial requirements.

True in a sense but why would the UK require her to reside in the UK?  Sure there is a good reason but I just don't see it.  When you return to England is it unfrozen retroactively?  If not, $300 won't cut it and the government will pay more to keep her fed and a roof over her head. The medical costs also paid by the government.  Seems like a lose lose situation.

[Expatwannabee]

7 minutes ago, Presto said:

If I read the article correctly, she left the country at an older age than I did. So she must have lived in the UK longer than I lived in NL. That makes it a little mysterious.

The article says she is 87 yrs old and left 24 yrs ago at age 63.( women qualified for their pension at age 60 then. Men at 65). The article does not tell us if she was getting a full state pension or not. Only that it was frozen at £300. If she remained in the UK she might also have claimed a supplementary means tested benefit to help her survive. Also she would have been able to claim help with her rent and council tax. So while it does seem small it could easily be correct. You also have to factor in that the UK state pension is one of the least generous of the main European economies. So losing all her extra help (if any) and getting no increase on her pension for 24 years leads to where she is now. It's not right but it is the case for many.

[billd766]

1 hour ago, Blueman1 said:

Isn't the new pension increase £898?...Have YOU been Smoking Something Again ??

According to the UK SWP site here https://www.gov.uk/new-state-pension/what-youll-get#:~:text=The full rate of new,Insurance qualifying years you have

 

the basic weekly pension rate is

 

he full rate of new State Pension is £221.20 a week. Your amount could be different depending on:

if you were contracted out before 2016
the number of National Insurance qualifying years you have
if you paid into the Additional State Pension before 2016

 

Which comes to 884.80 every 4 weeks so he wasn't far off.

 

Still, if you know differently, just put the link up.

[BobBKK]

41 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, but she would not get any further increases.

 That can't be right or we'd all go back to UK periodically - get the increase - then come back to Thailand - then rinse and repeat.

[csmith]

https://sites.google.com/view/frozenpensions/what-else-do-we-not-get

 

What Else Do We Not Get

Because we are overseas not only do 500,000 of us not get the Annual Pension Adjustments all 1,150,000 of us also do not get the following ....

Edited June 1 by csmith

[Iforbach]

I just find it not right ..if we went back we would b a burden on the gov ..as a pensioner I don't get full one but luckily I hv bit saved but who knows one day hv nip across France on a ferry n act stupid 

[OneMoreFarang]

16 minutes ago, 10baht said:

Because it is not (or should not be) government's role to tell someone where they may decide to live as long as they are not tapping into the healthcare system or whatever other freebies a socialist government provides.

She can live where she wants to live - with the restrictions from the countries where she wants to live.

 

My point was/is, that from the point of view of the UK government, they want that the pension is spent within the UK.

[Presto]

4 minutes ago, Expatwannabee said:

The article says she is 87 yrs old and left 24 yrs ago at age 63.( women qualified for their pension at age 60 then. Men at 65). The article does not tell us if she was getting a full state pension or not. Only that it was frozen at £300. If she remained in the UK she might also have claimed a supplementary means tested benefit to help her survive. Also she would have been able to claim help with her rent and council tax. So while it does seem small it could easily be correct. You also have to factor in that the UK state pension is one of the least generous of the main European economies. So losing all her extra help (if any) and getting no increase on her pension for 24 years leads to where she is now. It's not right but it is the case for many.

Thanks. Very different from NL. My (reduced) 'state pension', the AOW, hasn't been adjusted to inflation since I got it, four years ago. Until this year, 2024. A slight rise! Yoopee! 

[Surasak]

4 hours ago, sidneybear said:

That's sad. There's no reason, other than cruelty, for the British government to freeze overseas pensions of people who have paid National Insurance all their lives.

Yes, it is cruel, but unfortunately has been like this for many, many years. The cost to the UK exchequer would be in the billions of ponds to upgrade those living outside Europe. Due to the spendthrift governments of all colours, to increase all pensions on a yearly basis would bankrupt the country.

[atpeace]

42 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Yes, but she would not get any further increases.

Now I get why my friend returned to England.  He has money but the trip the year trip was basically paid for by his his new pension value.  Odd system and making citizens jump through hoops seems cruel.  

[Blueman1]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Maybe you could suggest one to help her out?

Well it won't be The Titanic 

 

[Blueman1]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Maybe you could suggest one to help her out?

Well it won't be The Titanic 

 

[malibukid]

2 hours ago, OneMoreFarang said:

There is no reason, or you don't want to see the obvious reason?

a) If she spends the money in the UK then this is part of the UK economy.

b) If she spends money in Thailand the money is lost for the UK.

Why should the UK government support b)?

 

 

because she is not a burden on thee NHS

[Blueman1]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Maybe you could suggest one to help her out?

Well it won't be The Titanic 

 

[csmith]

Unfortunately these posts are not read by influencers or politicians or journalists.

 

How do we get this in front of their eyes.

 

Please forward some of the graphics you see here to people that can influence the Government.

[atpeace]

2 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

Maybe you're a chump and don't care but it's your money so why shouldn't you get it back unconditionally? if your answer is "because they said so" then you're a chump.

But it isn't their money as the rules clearly stipulate.  Chumps ignore the rules and expect an impossible outcome.  The rules though SUCK.  

[csmith]

[Surasak]

3 hours ago, DaLa said:

Would it make more sense to lobby the Thai government to enter into a reciprocal social security agreement with the UK government. An increase in all those 'frozen' pensions would result in £ entering the country and ฿ in the economy. If the Philippines have the facility/legislation then it can't be rocket science for it to be introduced here.

You forget the one most important fact in your statement. TIT, even the thought of rocket science here is an illusion.

[csmith]

[10baht]

15 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

My point was/is, that from the point of view of the UK government, they want that the pension is spent within the UK.

What they want and what's morally right will not fill a tea cup.

[SiSePuede419]

10 hours ago, webfact said:

Christine Gloria Fox relocated to Thailand’s east coast near Pattaya 24 years ago to be closer to her family.

Ahhh, I see the problem. 😄

[prakhonchai nick]

1 hour ago, Liverpool Lou said:

I do not think that is the case, her pension would be updated to the current level, that is all.

Totally correct.  There is no payment of lost pension payable just because you return permanently.

[off road pat]

3 hours ago, prakhonchai nick said:

 

An 87-year-old British woman is grappling with her move to Thailand as she struggles to survive on a UK state pension frozen at just £300 per month, equivalent to approximately 14,000 baht.

 

In reality it is likely £300 every 28 days.

 

Up here in Isaan, most labourers earn less than 14,000bt/month, but manage to support a wife and family on that!

 

Healthcare problems affect us all.............that is why it is essential that every foreigner contemplating a full time move to Thailand has adequate health insurance

 

 

 

..."Up here in Isaan, most labourers earn less than 14,000bt/month, but manage to support a wife and family on that!",...??? And how many are in debt with lone sharks to support there family! ??

 

[khunjeff]

3 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

1955 - Pensions became payable anywhere in the world, but without uprating, without a reciprocal agreement.

 

I've read this a few times before, but I still don't understand it. I'm not British, so I have no background other than what I've seen in the media.

 

So, could someone explain this idea to me like I was five years old? Why would a payment which comes entirely from the UK government, and is based on contributions to the UK pension system made while working in the UK, have any "reciprocity" angle at all? Why would any foreign country have to sign off on UK citizens getting increased payments from the UK? What exactly is "reciprocal" here? 

[oxo1947]

3 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

So in 99 years of the pension, there has never been any uprating in Thailand, and before 1955 there would be nothing paid.

 

Thanks for the history-----I haven't read every single post--so if been already sorry.

 

What reciprocal agreement does The Philippines have with the UK which allows Brits living there to get updated pensions.????? 

[freeworld]

So if one pays in at current rates nic 8%, then on a 20000 gbp income that would be approx gbp 1600 gbp×35 years is a total working lifetime payment of 56000gbp.

 

Average life expectancy males is 80 years so 14 years of retirement. So retirees should be getting their money back 56000/14 ie about 4000 gbp per year + a little bit more because of the investment rates.

 

So it seems not so bad that the govt is paying over 221gbp per week if one paid in full nic for 35 years.

Edited June 1 by freeworld

[thesetat]

4 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

Which is a lot more than most Thais get from their government.

Son must be useless.

sorry this was uploaded 2 times

Edited June 1 by thesetat

[thesetat]

3 hours ago, MalcolmB said:

Which is a lot more than most Thais get from their government.

Son must be useless.

yeah, i am suspecting this also. As well as the woman and her husband failing to plan their future as retired. They have been in Thailand a very long time. When they arrived the THB was getting them almost the same as it is now. But the cost of living was 1/4 of what it is now. I wonder why they did not plan with savings for their futures, knowing their incomes would stay the same. Everyone knows the cost to live increases yearly. Also, when they saw their money dwindling, why did they wait until now to try to leave? Based on the article they have been told by several doctors now that she is unfit to fly. If they were already struggling before, why wait until there is nothing and she is unable to leave by plane?