Australian Aged Pension

[tifino]

 

"Oh!! I am sooo sorrry - (that I got caught)..."

[keithpa]

17 hours ago, giddyup said:

Not sure if they have the resources to go on those kind of witch hunts when there's plenty of locals who are rorting the system. I'm surprised in 8 years I've never had a request to update my info like earnings/income etc.

15 years for me.

[4MyEgo]

14 hours ago, Gregster said:

 

Also interesting is how she paid back the (fraudulently obtained) $50,000 and yet STILL she got a jail sentence.

Aus courts these days are showing little mercy on welfare cheats...

 

Sorry to have to correct you, yes, she did get a jail term of 8 months, but is now in home detention, meaning she has to return to court on 25 January for sentencing, in my understanding, meaning, if home detention works, then the state can save costs from putting her away for 8 months, good behaviour 3 months and she is out, meaning the judge will have her hands tied to give her an 8 months jail term at home.

 

I hope I am wrong, let the beeech suffer by going to jail for 8 months, and her partner who knew what was going on to look after 3 kids, therefore both having a jail sentence 555

 

 

 

[David Walden]

On 11/17/2017 at 7:21 AM, keithpa said:

You are a good man for being prepared to tell CL if you buy a property here. Thousands of others wouldnt bother to, as its not necessary .

As rule of thumb as a single pensioner you are allowed to own a house and $257,000 approx in asset before your pension will be reduced as per the formula or $457,000 approx if you don't own a house.  Assets can be anything, super, car, horse, furniture, jewellery.  e.g. If you are single and have $250.000 in super and don't own a house my information is that you could own a condo in Thailand up to $207,000 and still be OK.  No need to keep it secret.  The formula is fairly simple, if you loose some of your pension on the assets test it will be because your assets are too high. You are required to take $5% of you super value each year if you are 65 to 75 y/o, it goes up to 6% at 75 and then more when you reach 80 y/o.  The value of the super value is stated by your Super provider on 01/07/each year.  Centrelink will most likely know before you do.  If you have $250.000 and are 65 to 75 you must take 5%= $12.500 each year, $15,000 if over 75y/o.  This not taxable and you can take as much as you like even all and it will not effect your pension.  This will bring deeming issues in if the money disappears which is a different kettle of fish.  If you don't take the required amount the tax man will step in and have a ball.

   If living overseas long term once granted a pension the only thing you will loose is much of the pension supplement about $50 p/f.  And also anything that is affected by excessive assets.

[David Walden]

18 hours ago, ELVIS123456 said:

Interesting discussion as always.  Having some close experience in the matter at hand (with CLink processes and people), I can say that most cases that end up in court like the one above, start with someone dobbing in someone else.  The next most frequent cases, are those where the 'management/Minister' direct DHS to undertake a review of a certain type of recipient (eg. Expats overseas). And the next frequency is when someone in CLink/DHS/ATO comes across something and thinks it needs further investigation.  

 

My advice to everyone is still the same as before - bend them but dont break them - and if challenged dont deny, but plead ignorance (really? I didnt know that! Are you sure?) and if caught red handed , ask for forgiveness for making a mistake and not knowing.  I cant stress that enough guys. The investigators are very experienced and skilled in getting the info they need/want, and they have very broad rights when investigating a possible fraud. 

I had a partner who was an investigator for Centrelink she  loved it when her turn came around to serve answering the "dob-in-line" as she called it.  Some very interesting and tragic stories there...lots and lots, pity.

[kkerry]

The key line from the news.com.au news article...

 

crime of nondisclosure was “consistent and persistent"

 

This is where some people risk being undone imo.

[bazza73]

5 hours ago, David Walden said:

As rule of thumb as a single pensioner you are allowed to own a house and $257,000 approx in asset before your pension will be reduced as per the formula or $457,000 approx if you don't own a house.  Assets can be anything, super, car, horse, furniture, jewellery.  e.g. If you are single and have $250.000 in super and don't own a house my information is that you could own a condo in Thailand up to $207,000 and still be OK.  No need to keep it secret.  The formula is fairly simple, if you loose some of your pension on the assets test it will be because your assets are too high. You are required to take $5% of you super value each year if you are 65 to 75 y/o, it goes up to 6% at 75 and then more when you reach 80 y/o.  The value of the super value is stated by your Super provider on 01/07/each year.  Centrelink will most likely know before you do.  If you have $250.000 and are 65 to 75 you must take 5%= $12.500 each year, $15,000 if over 75y/o.  This not taxable and you can take as much as you like even all and it will not effect your pension.  This will bring deeming issues in if the money disappears which is a different kettle of fish.  If you don't take the required amount the tax man will step in and have a ball.

   If living overseas long term once granted a pension the only thing you will loose is much of the pension supplement about $50 p/f.  And also anything that is affected by excessive assets.

Putting it bluntly, I think you are wrong. The value of a house is irrelevant. Plug in the numbers for a single homeowner vs. a single non-homeowner for anyone on a part pension on the CENTRELINK calculator provided, and you will see it is the status of home ownership, not the value of the home, that affects the part pension significantly.

Where did you get the information a house in Thailand would not be treated just like a house in Australia?

An authoritative source would give your statement some credibility.

You are also assuming that people with $250,000 in super will keep it there. Due to costs of administration and audit, plus the prospect of losing 15% to the taxman on death, many people are closing down their super funds. As I did. I'm actually $1500 a year better off even reporting all my income as taxable.

If you want to present on this forum as some kind of AAP guru, the least you could do is research your subject properly.

[rhodie]

21 hours ago, David Walden said:

As rule of thumb as a single pensioner you are allowed to own a house and $257,000 approx in asset before your pension will be reduced as per the formula or $457,000 approx if you don't own a house.  Assets can be anything, super, car, horse, furniture, jewellery.  e.g. If you are single and have $250.000 in super and don't own a house my information is that you could own a condo in Thailand up to $207,000 and still be OK.  No need to keep it secret.  The formula is fairly simple, if you loose some of your pension on the assets test it will be because your assets are too high. You are required to take $5% of you super value each year if you are 65 to 75 y/o, it goes up to 6% at 75 and then more when you reach 80 y/o.  The value of the super value is stated by your Super provider on 01/07/each year.  Centrelink will most likely know before you do.  If you have $250.000 and are 65 to 75 you must take 5%= $12.500 each year, $15,000 if over 75y/o.  This not taxable and you can take as much as you like even all and it will not effect your pension.  This will bring deeming issues in if the money disappears which is a different kettle of fish.  If you don't take the required amount the tax man will step in and have a ball.

   If living overseas long term once granted a pension the only thing you will loose is much of the pension supplement about $50 p/f.  And also anything that is affected by excessive assets.

Are you sure? Or is it from the time you are of pensionable age?

[David Walden]

23 hours ago, bazza73 said:

Putting it bluntly, I think you are wrong. The value of a house is irrelevant. Plug in the numbers for a single homeowner vs. a single non-homeowner for anyone on a part pension on the CENTRELINK calculator provided, and you will see it is the status of home ownership, not the value of the home, that affects the part pension significantly.

Where did you get the information a house in Thailand would not be treated just like a house in Australia?

An authoritative source would give your statement some credibility.

You are also assuming that people with $250,000 in super will keep it there. Due to costs of administration and audit, plus the prospect of losing 15% to the taxman on death, many people are closing down their super funds. As I did. I'm actually $1500 a year better off even reporting all my income as taxable.

If you want to present on this forum as some kind of AAP guru, the least you could do is research your subject properly.

Dear Bassa 73

1...My super is grandfathered so I don't have to worry about the new regulation that place a tax on the profits before I see any of it.  For newer super contributions there is a tax on profits which comes out before you see anything.

 

  2...Yes the value of a house you own is irrelevant it can be millions of dollars, but if you do own a house for a single person the presn't threshold is now about $255, 000 ( the house value has nothing to do with this) at which a formula is invoked to reduce you pension payments (look up C/link to study it if you like).  If you don't own a house the threshold for asset is about $457,000 before you start to lose some of your pension. If you own a condo in Thailand as an investment well as far as I know overseas investment are just part of your assets, you could rent it to your girlfriend and be the star boarder.  If owning one puts your assets over the threshold well you will lose some of your pension.  If owning a condo investment in Thailand keeps your assets under the asset threshold well BOB'S YOUR UNCLE. 

 

3...If you are single and get an Aussie aged Pension and get a payment from your super fund as well and that super and has a profit for that year e. g. of $10.000 under the new system the dividend would now likely be $8500.00 which is what you will receive, you have been taxed  $1500 by stealth.  Australian governments for year and years have promised not to tax super payments.  But they lied!  all of them. You didn't get taxed the super fund did but it was really your dividend.

 

 4...I'm not trying in any way to advise what, where, why or how you invest your super.  I have my nice modest super in a bank managed fund which has increase in value by about 10% per year spread over ASX200 and other blue chip investment which make things very simple.  No book work, running around, no tax returns.  Every month the funds sends me a $1000 which is all above board, the tax man knows all about it, I'm getting the full single aged pension (less penalty for being absent from Aus) and this makes retirement in Thailand quite comfortable. The fund claims it only charges me 0.5% fee which seem OK.

 

5...As far as I know there are no death duties payable in Australia at present.  Watch this space though.

 

6... I sorry you seem so agitated Bassa,  Quite frankly judging by the tone of your comments that unless your problem is that you have more then the asset threshold to invest ($457.000 and no house, $255.000 if you own a house) you may be better putting your money into a managed super fund, paying the 0.5% management fee and receive what you will from the fund (you must take 5%, over 75 y/o  6%) collect the Aged pension, don't even do a tax return for ever and live in eternal bliss in Thailand or other place you desire and live happy ever after .  Highly recommended.

 

7 hours ago, rhodie said:

Are you sure? Or is it from the time you are of pensionable age?

Tax liabilities are different once you reach 65y/o.  Regardless of where your money comes from the tax threshold for a single person in about $35,000.  Not $19.000 as for other normaaal people.  As far as I know no tax credits are available for the already tax paid with the new 15% tax on super profits.  if tax credits were allowed 90% of pensioners with a bit of super would likely get these payments back.  That would be the honest way but not for the Governments in Aus.  Labour invented the bullets the Libs fired the gun.

[bazza73]

3 hours ago, David Walden said:

 

 4...I'm not trying in any way to advise what, where, why or how you invest your super.  I have my nice modest super in a bank managed fund which has increase in value by about 10% per year spread over ASX200 and other blue chip investment which make things very simple.  No book work, running around, no tax returns.  Every month the funds sends me a $1000 which is all above board, the tax man knows all about it, I'm getting the full single aged pension (less penalty for being absent from Aus) and this makes retirement in Thailand quite comfortable. The fund claims it only charges me 0.5% fee which seem OK.

 

5...As far as I know there are no death duties payable in Australia at present.  Watch this space though.

 

 

 

You are on a full pension, the circumstances are different to that of a part pension. That is what I am trying to tell you. The value of a house is irrelevant on the full pension, you can live in a multi-million dollar mansion and still draw a full pension. It becomes relevant on a part pension, the very fact you are a home-owner is sufficient to affect the pension significantly. In my case, about $400 a fortnight.

I have yet to see any authoritative source for your claim property in Thailand would be treated differently to property in Australia by Centrelink.

If you are not aware the superannuation balance of ANY super fund is taxed at 15% by the government upon death of the beneficiary, your knowledge in this area is even more deficient than I first thought.

Were you a public servant? The phrase " from the tone of your post/letter/message " is a favorite attack phrase used in the public service to convey the implication a person is being unreasonable. It doesn't work with me. Why? Because to me, the term "public service" is an oxymoron.

[rhodie]

11 hours ago, rhodie said:

Are you sure? Or is it from the time you are of pensionable age?

@David Walden I am not sure you understand my question.

"You are required to take $5% of you super value each year if you are 65 to 75 y/o, it goes up to 6% at 75 and then more when you reach 80 y/o. "

Above is your statement. Currently pension kicks in at 65 years and 6 months. In a few years it will be 67 years. Do I still have to draw 5% at 65? Even though I am not on a pension yet?

[David Walden]

2 hours ago, bazza73 said:

You are on a full pension, the circumstances are different to that of a part pension. That is what I am trying to tell you. The value of a house is irrelevant on the full pension, you can live in a multi-million dollar mansion and still draw a full pension. It becomes relevant on a part pension, the very fact you are a home-owner is sufficient to affect the pension significantly. In my case, about $400 a fortnight.

I have yet to see any authoritative source for your claim property in Thailand would be treated differently to property in Australia by Centrelink.

If you are not aware the superannuation balance of ANY super fund is taxed at 15% by the government upon death of the beneficiary, your knowledge in this area is even more deficient than I first thought.

Were you a public servant? The phrase " from the tone of your post/letter/message " is a favorite attack phrase used in the public service to convey the implication a person is being unreasonable. It doesn't work with me. Why? Because to me, the term "public service" is an oxymoron.

Bassa 73...If you are loosing some of your pension, that is you are getting a part aged pension then your asset or income is over the limit...period.  If you are loosing $400 p/f then you are likely to be about $100,000 or more over the asset level allowed.   If you want advice about how the Australian pension system works please tell the truth.  For about the 10th time now I have made it clear that it is of no concern to Centrelink how much your house house is worth. The very fact that you have a house makes your asset value limit $255,000 and you will still get the full aged pension. 

    I'm not interested if any taxation is payable upon my death or any taxation matters I don't pay tax but I'm close to it, anyway that is a problem for someone else it does not concern me. When I'm dead and it will surely happen that is some other persons problem. Death duties are a taxation matter.  We are discussing Centrelink matters....  I never ever worked for public service but was in a  long time relationship with a lady who was an investigator for Centrelink.  People like you with warped understanding of the system drove her to early retirement, death threats everyday.  Get real we have just about the best retirement system in the world, not perfect could be better but pretty bloody good.

      If and when you come to Thailand and you meet some Norwegians or Swedish people their system perhaps is better.  Swedish like to tell the story of the man who owns Ikea the big international retail business.  The man boasts that even though he earns billions of Euros a year he still collects his aged pension.  Try sitting back and enjoy what you get.  Me thinks you are so far over the level that you get nothing...sorry.

 

If you own a house in Australia and your assets are over the limit and are loosing part of your pension already then of course any additional assets you have overseas will affect your pension payments further if Centrelink is advised.  That's not news this is how its been now for a hundred years.  Anyway what's with the agro, enjoy life it's not a rehearsal you know.

[David Walden]

4 hours ago, rhodie said:

@David Walden I am not sure you understand my question.

"You are required to take $5% of you super value each year if you are 65 to 75 y/o, it goes up to 6% at 75 and then more when you reach 80 y/o. "

Above is your statement. Currently pension kicks in at 65 years and 6 months. In a few years it will be 67 years. Do I still have to draw 5% at 65? Even though I am not on a pension yet?

Once you retire I believe yes at the required 5%  minimum, above 65 Y/o but you can go back to work if you wish, maybe part time.  As far as I know Centrelink matters and Taxation matters are 2 different issues.  I haven't seen anything that changes taxation threshold matters with the retirement age from 65 y/o.  Any changes would set the trumpets blaring  with self funded retirees if the taxation commitments were altered inline with aged pension entitlements which are going up.  "I stand corrected"  

 

    It's only the asset value of your retirement fund that effects your assets with Centrelink, it's your money similar to being in a bank..  How much you take is up to you but you must take 5% if you are 65 to 75 y/o  If you do take the lot Centrelink will want to know where its gone.  If you have divested yourself of this money or put it in a secret Hongkong Bank A/c then there is a limit of how much you can give away or the deeming issue will come into play.  This is presently $10,000 per year or $30,000 limit over the next 5 years if you give it away now.  If you give away $500,000 to your kids Centrelink you will be assesd as still having a $470,000 asset and perhaps blow your pension.  It's best if you blow it gambling or a 12 month World tour but even then you will have some explaining to do.  If you divest your self of assets it's a big no no with Centrelink.  If you can get away with this it would greatly increase you pension payments at Govt expense.  A big no, no with Centrelink.

 

 

[bazza73]

3 hours ago, David Walden said:

 Death duties are a taxation matter.  We are  Try sitting back and enjoy what you get.  Me thinks you are so far over the level that you get nothing...sorry.

 

If you own a house in Australia and your assets are over the limit and are loosing part of your pension already then of course any additional assets you have overseas will affect your pension payments further if Centrelink is advised.  That's not news this is how its been now for a hundred years.  Anyway what's with the agro, enjoy life it's not a rehearsal you know.

Me thinks? David, you are way out in your assumption. However, I'm not going to give you specific information in a public forum on how much pension I get.... sorry.

The 15% tax on super balances is a death duty. If that doesn't affect you, fine. It's different for someone who wants to leave something to their heirs.

I have several times asked you for an authoritative source for your claim a house in Thailand is treated differently to a house in Australia by Centrelink. You avoid answering that question.

I can only conclude from your posts you waffle a lot, and don't have the knowledge you pretend to have. Apologies if you think that's aggro; however, it's been a habit of mine all my life to call out BS artists.

 

[halloween]

News from the front - application for OAP now reduced to 13 weeks before start date.

[David Walden]

3 hours ago, bazza73 said:

Me thinks? David, you are way out in your assumption. However, I'm not going to give you specific information in a public forum on how much pension I get.... sorry.

The 15% tax on super balances is a death duty. If that doesn't affect you, fine. It's different for someone who wants to leave something to their heirs.

I have several times asked you for an authoritative source for your claim a house in Thailand is treated differently to a house in Australia by Centrelink. You avoid answering that question.

I can only conclude from your posts you waffle a lot, and don't have the knowledge you pretend to have. Apologies if you think that's aggro; however, it's been a habit of mine all my life to call out BS artists.

 

It's pretty simple as I've said  dozen times already on this site the only thing that stops you getting the Australian Aged Pension if you qualify by residency is if your income is too high or your assets are too high.  That's all you need to know.

[bazza73]

41 minutes ago, David Walden said:

It's pretty simple as I've said  dozen times already on this site the only thing that stops you getting the Australian Aged Pension if you qualify by residency is if your income is too high or your assets are too high.  That's all you need to know.

You're doing nothing to address the issues I raised, and waffling off on another tangent which has nothing to do with those issues.

[David Walden]

There are no death duties payable in Australia...please read this...   https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Deceased-estates/.  There are no death duties payable in Australia since about 1978.  It may be that when assets are distributed from a decease estate capital gains tax may be payable. This would be just the same if you sold a commercial property or shares package whilst you are still alive at a profit much higher then the CPI or inflation and didn't pay the Tax.

 

  When you die a major tax return is submitted by the executor.  The tax man will catch up with many things you didn't tell him when you were alive.  It will all come out warts and all, perhaps that's how you got that great super A/C 10 years ago. didn't pay tax on the money in the 1st place?...the tax man get first bite of the estate...he believes it was his anyway maybe for years so interest is wacked on in abundance...Like the tax man says  about unpaid tax "give him enough rope and he will hang himself".

[bazza73]

5 minutes ago, David Walden said:

There are no death duties payable in AustraliaPlease read this...   https://www.ato.gov.au/Individuals/Deceased-estates/.  There are no death duties payable in Australia since about 1978.  It may be that when assets ahttps://www.ato.gov.au/super/apra-regulated-funds/paying-benefits/paying-superannuation-death-benefits/re distributed from a decease estate capital gains tax may be payable. This would be just the same if you sold a commercial property or shares package whilst you are still alive at a profit much higher then the CPI or inflation.

Money willed to a non-dependant out of a superannuation fund upon the death of the beneficiary of that fund is taxable. If that's not a death duty, I don't know what is. Nothing to do with capital gains tax.

Read the link again, then stop with the misinformation.

https://www.ato.gov.au/super/apra-regulated-funds/paying-benefits/paying-superannuation-death-benefits/

 

[David Walden]

7 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Money willed to a non-dependant out of a superannuation fund upon the death of the beneficiary of that fund is taxable. If that's not a death duty, I don't know what is. Nothing to do with capital gains tax.

Read the link again, then stop with the misinformation.

https://www.ato.gov.au/super/apra-regulated-funds/paying-benefits/paying-superannuation-death-benefits/

 

This appears to have not much to do with tax on super except the value of the super fund is going from a tax free environment to someone who has inherited a legacy to pay income tax on the funds.   So what new?

[bazza73]

1 hour ago, David Walden said:

This appears to have not much to do with tax on super except the value of the super fund is going from a tax free environment to someone who has inherited a legacy to pay income tax on the funds.   So what new?

I really have difficulty working out whether you are being deliberately obtuse, have blinkers on, or just quote links without taking the trouble to read through them thoroughly.

You can continue presenting as some kind of Age Pension guru if that is your shtick. My advice to other forum participants is to take your pronouncements with more than a few grains of salt.

[David Walden]

3 hours ago, bazza73 said:

I really have difficulty working out whether you are being deliberately obtuse, have blinkers on, or just quote links without taking the trouble to read through them thoroughly.

You can continue presenting as some kind of Age Pension guru if that is your shtick. My advice to other forum participants is to take your pronouncements with more than a few grains of salt.

I know nothing about the financial requirement details if you inherit a super fund.  Perhaps if you are a  20 y/o.  It gets to you in a tax free area, it now belongs to you, I suggest if he wants to spend the money or even save it in a bank it he will now have to pay the tax on the surrender value which is likely would have been payable if the original owner had to pay if he surrendered it or it wasn't in a super fund.  Perhaps if you rolled it over you may be able to retain some of those tax free benefits but you are a 20 y/o and the value of the fund may be double of what it may have been if you used it as everyday income and paid tax on it.  The money got there tax free.  Big penalties are payable in surrendering Super retirement assets before maturity, dying has no benefit I suggest (sorry).  Inheriting one probably has the same penalties...this is nothing to do with death duties which were abolished in Australia in 1978.

 

Your insults to me about me suggest you are a  really self describing yourself.  The questions you asked have simple answers but very unpopular answers.  Those are the rules.  If you don't like the rules take the issues up with politicians and government.  People often make enquiries about pension matters, quite often if they don't get the answers they want to hear they get very nasty.  do you know anyone like that Bazza?

[bazza73]

3 minutes ago, David Walden said:

I know nothing about the financial requirement details if you inherit a super fund.  Perhaps if your are a  20 y/o.  It gets to you in a tax free area, it now belongs to you, I suggest if he wants to spend the money or even save it in a bank it he will now have to pay the tax on the surrender value which is likely would have been payable if the original owner had to pay if he surrendered it or it wasn't in a super fund.  Perhaps if you rolled it over you may be able to retain some of those tax free benefits but you are a 20 y/o and the value of the fund may be double of what it may have been if you used it as everyday income and paid tax on it.  The money got there tax free.  Big penalties are payable in surrendering Super retirement assets before maturity, dying has no benefit I suggest (sorry).  Inheriting one probably has the same penalties...this is nothing to do with death duties which were abolished in Australia in 1978.

 

Your insults to me about me suggest you are a  really self describing yourself.  The questions you asked have simple answers but very unpopular answers.  Those are the rules.  If you don't like the rules take the issues up with politicians and government.  People often make enquiries about pension matters, quite often if they don't get the answers they want to hear they get very nasty.  do you know anyone like that Bazza?

Again, you are making totally erroneous assumptions. I have never had problems with Centrelink, and am very happy with the pension I get from them. I am simply pointing out some of the pitfalls of being on a part pension, or dying while your super fund is still running. I have always found Centrelink staff to be very cooperative.

My best advice to anyone reading this thread is to make an appointment with a Centrelink Financial Services Officer.  They give unbiased advice, very professional. And it's free.

If you find my responses insulting, it's because your constant attempts at obfuscation, divergence and downright waffling on a topic where you appear to be making it up as you go along are an insult to my intelligence.

[David Walden]

24 minutes ago, bazza73 said:

Again, you are making totally erroneous assumptions. I have never had problems with Centrelink, and am very happy with the pension I get from them. I am simply pointing out some of the pitfalls of being on a part pension, or dying while your super fund is still running. I have always found Centrelink staff to be very cooperative.

My best advice to anyone reading this thread is to make an appointment with a Centrelink Financial Services Officer.  They give unbiased advice, very professional. And it's free.

If you find my responses insulting, it's because your constant attempts at obfuscation, divergence and downright waffling on a topic where you appear to be making it up as you go along are an insult to my intelligence.

Apart from big words I can't see any intelligence in your correspondence at all.  I will file your ravings away in my file for future reference.

 

PS that's where I get most of my information about Centrelink matters.  From my friend who is a Centrelink Financial Service Officer

[bazza73]

1 minute ago, David Walden said:

Apart from big words I can't see any intelligence in your correspondence at all.  I will file your ravings away in my file for future reference.

Well, the frequent lapses of grammar and the occasional malformed sentence you produce in your posts lead me to the conclusion your education level is low. I don't know about your intelligence, for obvious reasons.

[sceadugenga]

OK, that's enough personal opinions of each other here.

Posts will be removed and warnings/suspensions issued if it continues.

[David Walden]

14 hours ago, sceadugenga said:

OK, that's enough personal opinions of each other here.

Posts will be removed and warnings/suspensions issued if it continues.

Thank you.

[4MyEgo]

On 20/11/2017 at 11:34 AM, halloween said:

News from the front - application for OAP now reduced to 13 weeks before start date.

Are you saying that you can apply for the OAP 13 weeks before the due birthday, i.e. if you are entitled to the OAP at 67, you can apply when your 66 and 39 weeks ?

[halloween]

7 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

Are you saying that you can apply for the OAP 13 weeks before the due birthday, i.e. if you are entitled to the OAP at 67, you can apply when your 66 and 39 weeks ?

Yep. AFAIK it was 6 months in advance, but now 13 weeks to allow for processing, and hopefully, approval. 

[ELVIS123456]

So how many years, months, weeks, days, hours, minutes is that to go before I get it am out of here and back to LOS??  Mmmm.  What's the bet the bastards change things before then?  And the changes will not be in my favour?  100/1 on.