Court Hearing Expat Pensions Case

[rott]

Of course it's Thailand related, it affects pensionable age UK people here. I don't know, why are there so many nobheads about?

[DC1066]

Of course it's Thailand related, it affects pensionable age UK people here. I don't know, why are there so many nobheads about?

Succinct and eloquently put but I have to agree. If its not of interest then click out and read something else.

Kitsch22, an interesting perpective - where's your compassion for your fellow man? I disagree entirely, but respect your right to a differing view. Nevertheless, I think your argument is against the provisions of The Welfare State in general rather than the varied application of pension increases.

The cost argument against providing the increase I believe can be shown by example:

Current Basic State Pension - £95 per week (approx).

Lets say indexed by 3% = £2.85 per week - £148.20 per year.

So for every 1 million pensioners living abroad outside the EU, the Chancellor is saving approx £150m each and every year.

The counter argument from 'JoSkyDive' pretty much covers things in response and knocks the cost argument out of the water.

The emotive argument against is, "you're not in the UK, so why should you benefit?" It's a fair question, but my answer is that it is a right based on contributions to have the same State Pension as anyone else who has contributed.

My parents had to pay NI contributions for 44 years to get the full state pension - for me I'll need 30 years' contributions by the time I've finished, but I'll be older when (if) I get mine. After 30 years of contributing National Insurance I feel I've done enough to earn the right to live wherever I want to and still get my extra £2.85 per week.

I don't want Winter fuel allowances, or tax credits or anything else that is rightly based on current situation, but I do want what is rightfully mine based on a lifetime's contributions.

[reallyok]

Countries where pension payments to expats are frozen include Australia, Canada, Hong Kong and South Africa.

Source:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/8232612.stm

And Thailand

With a current eligible country list as long as an Elephants 'nick nack' how in the hel_l can the UK govt say that they are concerned only with the living standards of UK residents. Especially considering the millions of UK pounds in the fund.

[GarryP]

I have no vested interest in this, but it just seems a totally biased system. I am a Brit, have never paid tax in the UK, or what little I did pay when there was rebated, paid in a few years worth of stamps but then gave up. It should not matter where you choose to live. If you have paid in the required number of years worth of stamps, you should be reimbursed the same as everyone else. If it is linked to inflation in the UK or the CPI for adjustment, then everyone should get it. If Mr. A paid in for 45 years and lives in the UK, and Mr. B paid in the same amount over the same period, what right does the government have to pay Mr. A and B different basic pensions just because Mr. B lives in Timbuktu. You can't claim that the cost of living is higher in the UK than say Thailand. That has got f'all to do with it. It should be solely based on what you paid in as qualifying criteria. If increments are granted to A they should also be granted to B for the simple reason that B paid in the same amount.

Rant over from someone who will never be entitled to a UK pension anyway.

[BigWheelMan]

Another point the UK Government should take into consideration is that we are not immigrants in Thailand but only glorified tourists, permitted to stay one year and do not benefit from any Thai Government schemes, such as the medical 30 baht scheme or claims for unemployment, whether we have paid in or not.

So us Brits lose out both ways.

For those British ex-pats who have paid in all our lives to the UK tax and social security system, should be able to receive the same as any other British national, once we have fulfilled our obligations and retired.

Edited February 1, 2010 by BigWheelMan

[Penkoprod]

NOTE TO MODS

Can this thread be amalgamated into the other (at least) one dealing with this same issue, please?

It would make it SO much easier to follow, if it were

(By that i mean, not just close one so that it sinks without trace, and people might miss info, which, to them might be important)

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Frozen-Uk-Pe...ns-t147672.html

[astral]

Maybe the Government should look at the other side of the coin and see what they are saving because someone becomes an expat.

No requirement to see NHS Doctor when they get ill and require free prescriptions - not in the UK

No requirement for Home Help - not in the UK

No requirement for placement in Old peoples Homes - not in the UK

No requirement for free bus rides - not in the UK

No requirement for free meals on wheels - not in the UK

No requirement for Home Nursing if disabled - not in the UK

No yearly extra payment for fuel required incase of Hypothermia - not in the UK

No requirement for mobility Allowance - not in the UK

The list can go on and on.

My argument too.

We are saving them money

[Mosha]

They don't want to give me an annual rise, they do want to tax my UK based company pension. Something seems out of Sync.

[PattayaParent]

<snip>.

Rant over from someone who will never be entitled to a UK pension anyway.

Not exactly true now under the new rules.

If you have a N.I. number you can back pay a certain number of years contributions and continue to pay intil you receive 30 years credits.

If you cannot make the 30 years credits before your retirement age then you get a pro-rata pension based on your contributions.

[Nignoy]

That being the case all those retirees who served in WW11 and subsequent conflicts would, quite rightly IMHO, be some of the best rewarded pensioners.

They have looked at the moral contribution to the country and then taxed the butt out it! Why do you think you see all the ex-military, old duffs, doing bodyguarding when they should be retired and enjoying their lives for once before they die?

All the ex military----------------------------- my mate has over 1200gbp per month and retired at 47

who are these old duffs working as body guards????? Surely not ex military as the retirement age many times is below 50

Excuse me if i have not understood your reply

Your mate must be one of the many retired 22nd SAS regt officers in pattaya, 3ooquid a week army pension ,he definitely wasnt in the same army I was

[steve187]

<snip>.

Rant over from someone who will never be entitled to a UK pension anyway.

Not exactly true now under the new rules.

If you have a N.I. number you can back pay a certain number of years contributions and continue to pay intil you receive 30 years credits.

If you cannot make the 30 years credits before your retirement age then you get a pro-rata pension based on your contributions.

you can choose to pay class 2 stamps at £2.40 per week (2009/2010) until you reach retirement age or until you have 30 years credit. I think that paying past years back is about £12.00 per week, so better to pay ( if you have enough years left) for future years than paying for back years. this would also enable your wife to claim a pension based on your contributions at present about £60.00 per week. After April this year only a single persons pension will be paid for all persons, no additions for wife will be allowed.

[Penkoprod]

Ok, i'll play Devil's Advocate, here.

What, exactly do people feel that they are being denied that shouldnt be denied, because they "contributed to" or "paid into" the system (or whatever euphomism they care to throw out to explain their position)?

I take it we will all feel we should get something in the autumn of our years, if we have the recognised number of years contributions (currently 30 years)?

Guess what those contributions entitles us to? A basic state pension and no more is what !!!!!

Anything else given out, pensions wise is based on either residency, or a combination of means testing and residency.

Read that last line again....the common denominator is RESIDENCY. Something that those that live outside the country are at risk of falling foul of, depending on where they choose to live. And nothing to do with any contributary schemes in place

Grossly unfair, but whats fair? Ferris wheels, dodgems and candyfloss is whats fair, and it makes no difference how much we puff our cheeks out with righteous indignation, and write to newspapers or post in online forums, it will take a HUGE change of heart to get the ECHR to grant us any increase, as they have already thrown out the case for it, a few years ago, and now we are at the second spin of the coin, in the best of 3. Lose THIS time and thats it, i'm afraid. There wont be a "best of 5"

Already a propoganda war is being waged against expat pensioners.....................................

Click here!

here

here

And here

Does anybody, after reading those 4 links SERIOUSLY think that the UK taxpayers are going to take our side ?????

I seriously doubt they would.

You notice no national newspaper taking up the cause for us?

I wonder why? In fact, looking at the above links would indicate they are doing the exact opposite, and putting the poison in before the ECHR judgement is announced!!!!!

Penkoprod

[happylarry]

I hear your argument Penkoprod about not being resident on the mainland of Britain BUT can you explain to us all exactly what is fair about an expat living in the Philipines getting their pension index linked and yet we cant do the same in Thailand. Because no matter how hard I try, I cannot see this.

HL

[Ricardo]

In fact, looking at the above links would indicate they are doing the exact opposite, and putting the poison in before the ECHR judgement is announced!!!!!

Perhaps we should learn from our adopted home, and all 'club together', to send in a 'lunch-box' for the European judges !

[Penkoprod]

I hear your argument Penkoprod about not being resident on the mainland of Britain BUT can you explain to us all exactly what is fair about an expat living in the Philipines getting their pension index linked and yet we cant do the same in Thailand. Because no matter how hard I try, I cannot see this.

HL

Firstly (as i stated before) fairness doesn't come into it. If our most compelling argument is "its not fair!!!" and thats all we have in our armoury (and it appears thats all we DO have, going by comments made on this and other threads of the same subject) then we might as well not have bothered in the first place.

Secondly, and in answer to your question, there is a recipricol agreement between the 2 counties.

Its like a lot of other countries have with UK. Usa, Canada (<--- i THINK) Philipines, Jamaica are a few such countries that have this almost mythical agreement. Information on these agreements is a bit like rocking horse sh*te......none about that i can see.

The way to negate the "its not fair" argument, in your example, is for the government to turn round and say "No one forced you to go and live in Thailand, and no one in the UK is stopping you from moving to <insert name of country with recipricol agreement> either" and any sympathy that might have been garnered towards our cause is blown right out of the water............no?

Penkoprod

[happylarry]

Well from the sound of your posts I would guess that you are a learned man in these sorts of arguments....I am not.... but all I know is that for over forty years I lived in The UK and paid my taxes and paid into my pension fund etc. and now I should be able to claim what is rightfully mine and not be dictated to by anyone where I should spend the rest of my days.

Not only that but it seems to me that they are using double standards, after all they are accepting to pay the pension in these countries but not to increase it. I really dont see what they are gaining by this stance as we all still pay tax on it at source anyway. Do you?

HL

[Penkoprod]

Well from the sound of your posts I would guess that you are a learned man in these sorts of arguments....I am not.... but all I know is that for over forty years I lived in The UK and paid my taxes and paid into my pension fund etc. and now I should be able to claim what is rightfully mine and not be dictated to by anyone where I should spend the rest of my days.

Not only that but it seems to me that they are using double standards, after all they are accepting to pay the pension in these countries but not to increase it. I really dont see what they are gaining by this stance as we all still pay tax on it at source anyway. Do you?

HL

Again you are singing the exact same songs that "our side" have been singing throuhgout every court case. That of "its not fair" and " i paid in all my life"

Like i keep saying, increases in State Pensions are NOT based on contributions.

In order to change that law, it will take more than what "our side" has brought to the table at every court case this has been through............right up to the House Of Lords, and then the European Court Of Human Rights, afterwards. And they all said an emphatic NO! to our case

Pretty soon the ECHR will announce their final, FINAL judgement on the matter, and i honestly cant see any change in their previous decision not to find in the expat pensioners favour. Especially when nothing new that i can see or think of, has been put forward to further our argument. This is the last chance saloon, and, to be blunt, i dont think we have done enough, and all the bleating, moaning and whining about it wont change that.

I sincerely hope i am proved wrong on this, but i can see only another "Null point" from our European cousins.

So, in answer to your questions

Do i think what they are doing is fair............no (But its the law)

Do i think its morally right........no

Do i think we will get a positive verdict........no

Reality bites....and it bites HARD huh?

Penkoprod