British Pensioner Struggles with Frozen Pension in Thailand

[noobexpat]

Just now, bradiston said:

£241.50 pw? Am I missing something? Is that for a couple?

 

THE MANX STATE PENSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD.

[sambum]

13 minutes ago, noobexpat said:

 

Its not a discrepancy. I just explained why. Can't you read??

[noobexpat]

4 minutes ago, sambum said:

 

I can read perfectly well - pity you don't explain yourself more clearly!

 

What EXACTLY is your point?

 

It is lost on you. You don't understand. You think the maximum anyone's state pension can be is £221 a week. Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Nigeone]

16 minutes ago, bradiston said:

£241.50 pw? Am I missing something? Is that for a couple?

No . Single persons pension. Plus any supplement your entitled too. Mine is a further £2k ish on top of that . As in over the year . 

Edited June 1 by Nigeone

[Jiggo]

Not frozen if you live in The Philippines 

Work that one out

[sambum]

1 minute ago, noobexpat said:

 

It is lost on you. You don't understand. You think the maximum anyone's state pension can be is £221 a week. Wrong!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Yes, I am afraid it is lost on me! I got my information from a Government website, and 

4 minutes ago, noobexpat said:

 

THE MANX STATE PENSION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS THREAD.

 

Of course it has - the Isle of Man is part of the UK/Britain is it not?

[Sandboxer]

Quick, someone needs to call them a WAAAAAAAmbulance.

 

GFM begging will begin in 3....2......1.....

Edited June 1 by Sandboxer

[Nigeone]

2 minutes ago, sambum said:

 

Yes, I am afraid it is lost on me! I got my information from a Government website, and 

 

Of course it has - the Isle of Man is part of the UK/Britain is it not?

Britain , but not part of UK . Never has been. 

[transam]

5 minutes ago, Jiggo said:

Not frozen if you live in The Philippines 

Work that one out

They have a reciprocal agreement with the UK...🤗

Thailand doesn't..

[bradiston]

4 hours ago, BritScot said:

The reason is very simple: Tony Blair and Gordon Brown stole the British State Pension Fund as well as selling off most of the country's Gold. They also closed all the military hospitals (they would have been very handy during times of pandemics) with promises that veterans would be top priority but with a sneaky clause "upto doctors discretion". State Pensions are now generated by those working. So all our contributions are gone and all those still Working, their contributions are stolen to pay the current pensioners.

Isn't that called a Ponzi scheme?

[bradiston]

4 hours ago, Muhendis said:

A point worth noting is that if and when Mrs. Fox returns to the UK, all her pension shortfall over the years is paid back to her and her pension will be brought up to the current level.

I don't think so. Yes it will be brought up to current levels, but I don't think there will be any back payment.

[sambum]

22 minutes ago, sambum said:

39 minutes ago, noobexpat said:

 

 

		9 minutes ago, bradiston said:

9 minutes ago, bradiston said:

I don't think so. Yes it will be brought up to current levels, but I don't think there will be any back payment.

I think she will receive her current pension for a period of time (3 months?) and after that time she will get her new pension which will be backdated to the date that she arrived back in the UK.

Edited June 1 by sambum

[bradiston]

3 hours ago, billd766 said:

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.

This doesn't cover thousands of pensioners. This is the so called New State Pension. The old one is about £50 less a week.

[Andre0720]

8 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.

What about immigrants, illegal immigrants, people who have never paid anything to the country's treasury.

[sambum]

24 minutes ago, Nigeone said:

Britain , but not part of UK . Never has been. 

Sorry - 2 posts got crossed somehow, but you are correct - the Isle of Man is not  part of the UK, which probably explains the discrepancy between the State Pension payments, but the poster from there has already explained that.

Edited June 1 by sambum

[bradiston]

3 hours ago, oxo1947 said:

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.????? 

 

It just has one. You can search for its exact wording but I'm not sure you'll find it.

 

Here is a list of countries with reciprocal agreements on healthcare and benefits apart from the EU and Iceland, Lichtenstein, Norway and Switzerland:

 

Barbados Bermuda Canada Chile Isle of Man Israel Jamaica Japan Jersey and Guernsey Mauritius New Zealand Philippines Republics of former Yugoslavia (the Republics of Bosnia-Herzegovina, North Macedonia, Serbia, Montenegro and Kosovo) South Korea (also known as The Republic of Korea) Turkey USA

 

Chile, Japan and South Korea only cover social security contribution liability and do not include benefits. These are known as Double Contribution Conventions.

The agreement with New Zealand refers to UK domestic legislation to consider social security contributions.

 

And the link:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reciprocal-agreements/reciprocal-agreements

Edited June 1 by bradiston

[bradiston]

2 hours ago, OldmanJ said:

It's a very sad and disgusting day when the country you were born in and worked over 30+ years discards it's people like a common piece of #hit.

SHAME ON THE THOUGHTLESS UK GOVERNMENT AND OTHERS LIKE IT.

There are plenty of countries you can live in where you'll get the increases.

[freeworld]

11 minutes ago, Andre0720 said:

What about immigrants, illegal immigrants, people who have never paid anything to the country's treasury.

If one did not pay they do not get anything.

 

For legal immigrants this article explains the basics

https://www.fool.co.uk/2021/04/01/how-does-the-uk-state-pension-work-for-immigrants/

[transam]

2 minutes ago, bradiston said:

There are plenty of countries you can live in where you'll get the increases.

But are not Thailand.......☺️

[bradiston]

4 minutes ago, transam said:

But are not Thailand.......☺️

No, Thailand not included.

[kimamey]

6 hours ago, Homburg said:

Much of the pension money paid by UK government to pensioners resident in the UK is recovered through taxes paid by the pensioners in the UK.  These taxes are recovered through a variety of means - Council Tax, VAT, fuel taxes, IPT, taxes on the businesses that pensioners buy from (including supermarkets), etc.  These taxes cannot be recovered for non-resident pensioners who therefore cost the government more than resident pensioners, so the government "freezes" these pensions in order to compensate.

Two problems with that. 

As far as I'm aware the state pension is paid by those working.  When they retire those then working pay for the pension of those who have retired. So when I was working I paid for the pensions of those who were retired. Admittedly it would have cost more if there hadn't been frozen pensions at that time, but times change. Sometimes people move to be with adult children who look after them,  not always through choice. Times change, and so should the state pension.  You'll notice they don't mind changing the age you receive the state pension despite what you thought was the retirement age when you were working.

Also, I'm retired and I pay tax on all my pensions and on the rent I recurve for the flat I rent out. I pay VAT on fees to the letting agent and any other costs related to it. The only income I don't pay tax on is on foreign income which is zero. 

Just recently the PM said the government should look after those who had worked hard for their retirement. He didn't say it depended on where you decided to doyen your retirement. 

[cardinalblue]

Son and daughter need to get her fit to fly and then deal with housing/care issues upon return…

 

I know in canada one must reside X months b/f receiving gov health coverage so could also be a barrier to overcome in UK

[kimamey]

6 hours ago, NorthernRyland said:

Prime minister is an immigrant. If you think just because someone has papers or was born in a certain place that they're "of" that people you're sadly mistaken. 

The PM isn't an immigrant.  He was born in the Princess Anne  Hospital in Southampton UK. His parents are Indian Abbs he may have Indian citizenship through that, although I don't know but he definitely isn't an immigrant. 

[kimamey]

5 minutes ago, cardinalblue said:

Son and daughter need to get her fit to fly and then deal with housing/care issues upon return…

 

I know in canada one must reside X months b/f receiving gov health coverage so could also be a barrier to overcome in UK

I think you're entitled to NHS treatment as soon as you become resident in the UK. 

[Kinok Farang]

6 hours ago, roo860 said:

Absolutely, there's a dinghies leaving France 3 times a day, welcome aboard madam 🙃

Wrong colour.

[khunPer]

14 hours ago, webfact said:

Christine remains deeply regretful about her decision to move and has voiced her dissatisfaction. She believes she would have been better off staying in the UK.

If you don't have some level of extra savings beyond a government retirement pension, you shall think twice about moving to Thailand; and it's worse for Brits that got their pension frozen.

[ericbj]

A perspective on the issue and some comments pertaining thereto:

 

1.  The woman's decision to emigrate to Thailand twenty years ago seems based upon re-joining family members.  A quite natural motive.  Her son was then aged 45.  He seems to be contributing at least as much to her upkeep as the UK Pensions Service.  Which, with his increasing age, a family to support, and economic downturns, is likely becoming increasingly burdensome.

 

2.  What evidence exists, as alleged in a comment, of the son operating an illegal business?  I.e. that it is not at least 51% Thai-owned.  If unfounded, this statement could constitute a libel; and perjury if claimed in a criminal hearing.

 

3.  The suggestion she may not have paid NI contributions is unsubstantiated; and besides the point if she is entitled on the basis of payments made by another.

 

4.  It is true that many Thai workers and their families can subsist on less than this woman.  But they are part of a network of relationships.  Which includes expanding Thai Government social services, including healthcare.  For example, go to a Thai public hospital for an eye operation.  An expatriate will not have it for the price a Thai person pays.

 

5.  Global economic circumstances have changed radically and unpredictably over the past 2 to 3 decades.  And are changing ever more rapidly now.
Who can foresee today what the world will be like in 2044?

 

6.  The Thai economy and Thai regulations, both in substance and application, have dramatically altered over recent decades.

 

7.  Not every retiree fits neatly into one of two categories:

Those who plan the move in every last financial detail, down to their final demise; and

 

Those who throw caution to the wind and come out on a whim, full of blue-eyed optimism.

 

My personal experience - not typical - but there are doubtlessly many untypical cases:

 

Came six months, unpaid, in each of a dozen years helping refugees (mostly genuine) improve their English with a view to resettlement in "western" countries.  Discontinued this, but continued coming as result of relationships developed here.  Because of changes to tourist visa (more limited duration), switched to O-A retirement visa.  Changes to O-A visa (health insurance with one of 8 listed companies) forced change to O visa for retirement).  Returned here late 2019.  Due back in Europe mid-May.  But the plandemic strikes.  Return flight cancelled.  Book seat on another flight.  Flight cancelled.  Book again.  Third time lucky?  No!  Flight cancelled.  From the next day, 1st July 2020, all international passenger-flights banned, and borders closed.  When finally the sanctions are lifted (thanks to the damage caused to the world's second largest tourist economy) the deterioration of my health renders the return journey unthinkable, not least because of the physical and administrative challenges to be confronted on arrival.

 

My impression of immigration policy as currently being drafted by the Thai Cabinet is that it favours short-term tourism where visitors come for several weeks, and spend much of their annual savings in the process.  They seem to be less interested in retirees, unless these happen to be extremely well-heeled.

 

The politicians may be missing the point that short-term tourism is volatile.  When times are good, it booms.  When a depression sets in, hardly anyone comes.  You only have to look back to 2008 and its aftermath to see this.

 

Retirees, on the other hand, make a less obvious but substantial commitment to the overall economy rather than to the tourist economy.  They are here, as a rule, for the long term.  It is not easy to up stumps and depart at short notice.  Except upon death.  And then some at least of their assets may remain in Thailand.

 

There is a case for both types of visitor.

Edited June 1 by ericbj

[transam]

2 minutes ago, ericbj said:

A perspective on the issue and some comments pertaining thereto:

 

1. The woman's decision to emigrate to Thailand twenty years ago seems based upon re-joining family members. A quite natural motive. Her son was then aged 45. He seems to be contributing at least as much to her upkeep as the UK Pensions Service. Which, with his increasing age, a family to support, and economic downturns, is likely becoming increasingly burdensome.

 

2. What evidence exists, as alleged in a comment, of the son operating an illegal business? I.e. that it is not at least 51% Thai-owned. If unfounded, this statement could constitute a libel; and perjury if claimed in a criminal hearing.

 

3. The suggestion she may not have paid NI contributions is unsubstantiated; and besides the point if she is entitled on the basis of payments made by another.

 

4. It is true that many Thai workers and their families can subsist on less than this woman. But they are part of a network of relationships. Which includes expanding Thai Government social services, including healthcare. For example, go to a Thai public hospital for an eye operation. An expatriate will not have it for the price a Thai person pays.

 

5. Global economic circumstances have changed radically and unpredictably over the past 2 to 3 decades. And are changing ever more rapidly now.

Who can foresee today what the world will be like in 2044?

 

6. The Thai economy and Thai regulations, both in substance and application, have dramatically altered over recent decades.

 

7. Not every retiree fits neatly into one of two categories:

Those who plan the move in every last financial detail, down to their final demise; and

 

Those who throw caution to the wind and come out on a whim, full of blue-eyed optimism.

 

My personal experience - not typical - but there are doubtlessly many untypical cases:

 

Came six months, unpaid, in each of a dozen years helping refugees (mostly genuine) improve their English with a view to resettlement in "western" countries. Discontinued this, but continued coming as result of relationships developed here. Because of changes to tourist visa (more limited duration), switched to O-A retirement visa. Changes to O-A visa (health insurance with one of 8 listed companies) forced change to O visa for retirement). Returned here late 2019. Due back in Europe mid-May. But the plandemic strikes. Return flight cancelled. Book seat on another flight. Flight cancelled. Book again. Third time lucky? No! Flight cancelled. From the next day, 1st July 2020, all international passenger-flights banned, and borders closed. When finally the sanctions are lifted (thanks to the damage caused to the world's second largest tourist economy) the deterioration of my health renders the return journey unthinkable, not least because of the physical and administrative challenges to be confronted on arrival.

 

My impression of immigration policy as currently being drafted by the Thai Cabinet is that it favours short-term tourism where visitors come for several weeks, and spend much of their annual savings in the process. They seem to be less interested in retirees, unless these happen to be extremely well-heeled.

 

The politicians may be missing the point that short-term tourism is volatile. When times are good, it booms. When a depression sets in, hardly anyone comes. You only have to look back to 2008 and its aftermath to see this.

 

Retirees, on the other hand, make a less obvious but substantial commitment to the overall economy rather than to the tourist economy. They are here, as a rule, for the long term. It is not easy to up stumps and depart at short notice. Except upon death. And then some at least of their assets may remain in Thailand.

 

There is a case for both types of visitor.

I think you need to adjust your font size.........🤭

[Phulublub]

6 hours ago, BritScot said:

The reason is very simple: Tony Blair and Gordon Brown stole the British State Pension Fund as well as selling off most of the country's Gold. They also closed all the military hospitals (they would have been very handy during times of pandemics) with promises that veterans would be top priority but with a sneaky clause "upto doctors discretion". State Pensions are now generated by those working. So all our contributions are gone and all those still Working, their contributions are stolen to pay the current pensioners.

State pensons have ALWAYS been paid for by those working. 

 

PH

[proton]

7 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.

 

Canada asked for this reciprocal agreement UK said no thanks. They have always said too costly to update all pensions abroad, but when you look at all the money wasted over the covid hysteria and the millions spent every day putting illegal immigrants in Hotels that does not ring true.