Frozen Uk State Pensions

[chiang mai]

I would laugh if someone on the petition wrote their address as in Thailand, but was claiming Invalidity Benefit using another address, that would be the icing on the cake.

or even claiming their pension at a UK address!!

You can almost guarantee that both scenario's have taken place.

[makescents]

You can get it in the Philippines but not Thailand?

Seems unfair.

Edited September 15, 2011 by makescents

[CRUNCHER]

Signed, but I doubt it will do any good.

3134 so far. We need to employ the Red Shirts on this. Perhaps 3.5 million might do it.

[cheeryble]

I also agree it is inequitable, but can see one vague reason for an excuse........that the pensions paid are not generally being circulated in the UK system to then have secondary, tertiary, and every other -tiary taxation gained from it for the govt's coffers. Still not equitable though.

I'm rather shocked today.

I was under the impression that if one returned to the UK (or the Phillipines i suppose) for a couple of months and started picking up pension there for a short while that the pension would revert upwards to the full rate and then on return to Thailand STAY AT THAT RATE until another trip back home. I vaguely had in mind that I might do this a couple of times during my retirement and stop it getting (inflation adjusted) too low. Surely if one's home it will change up and cannot then go back down?

Some may be interested in the rule of 72.

To find otu how many years to double your money with a certain amount of interest you divide that interest into 72.

Seems to me you can do the same vice versa with inflation for a halving of your real wealth.

So if inflation was 3% you would have 24 years for a halving of value.

If 5% it would be 14.4 years.

As I will be making back payments to get 13/30ths of my pension, about 40GBP per week, of about 6500GBP I figure it will take nearly 3.5 years to be ahead and start actually benefitting (forgetting the time value of the money). So I'll be 68.5yo getting a pension fixed at age 65 an the value will likely have eroded about 10%. Hmmmm.....

Would be most intersted in comments on my second paragraph important to all..........

Edited September 16, 2011 by cheeryble

[chiang mai]

I also agree it is inequitable, but can see one vague reason for an excuse........that the pensions paid are not generally being circulated in the UK system to then have secondary, tertiary, and every other -tiary taxation gained from it for the govt's coffers. Still not equitable though.

I'm rather shocked today.

I was under the impression that if one returned to the UK (or the Phillipines i suppose) for a couple of months and started picking up pension there for a short while that the pension would revert upwards to the full rate and then on return to Thailand STAY AT THAT RATE until another trip back home. I vaguely had in mind that I might do this a couple of times during my retirement and stop it getting (inflation adjusted) too low. Surely if one's home it will change up and cannot then go back down?

Some may be interested in the rule of 72.

To find otu how many years to double your money with a certain amount of interest you divide that interest into 72.

Seems to me you can do the same vice versa with inflation for a halving of your real wealth.

So if inflation was 3% you would have 24 years for a halving of value.

If 5% it would be 14.4 years.

As I will be making back payments to get 13/30ths of my pension, about 40GBP per week, of about 6500GBP I figure it will take nearly 3.5 years to be ahead and start actually benefitting (forgetting the time value of the money). So I'll be 68.5yo getting a pension fixed at age 65 an the value will likely have eroded about 10%. Hmmmm.....

Would be most intersted in comments on my second paragraph important to all..........

It is indeed a very odd system whereby we are allowed temporary increases based on us standing on different soil, move off that soil and the temporary increases cease. But as has been pointed out already, the criteria for these increases are based on the existence of reciprocal tax treaties, if there's no treaty there's no increase, not a permanent one anyway.

[nong38]

I signed it and paased the information onto friends asking them to sign and pass it on, the way we do with the funnies people send us. The way I understand it we need to get 100,000 signatures for the government to look at it and then we need an MP who is willing to promote it. So get all chums and networks moving thus is not going to be a pushover.

[cheeryble]

I'm rather shocked today.

I was under the impression that if one returned to the UK (or the Phillipines i suppose) for a couple of months and started picking up pension there for a short while that the pension would revert upwards to the full rate and then on return to Thailand STAY AT THAT RATE until another trip back home. I vaguely had in mind that I might do this a couple of times during my retirement and stop it getting (inflation adjusted) too low. Surely if one's home it will change up and cannot then go back down?

Would be most intersted in comments......

It is indeed a very odd system whereby we are allowed temporary increases based on us standing on different soil, move off that soil and the temporary increases cease. But as has been pointed out already, the criteria for these increases are based on the existence of reciprocal tax treaties, if there's no treaty there's no increase, not a permanent one anyway.

But is it true the pension re-reverts downwards again? This seems a bit too much.

Wouldn't it go up on a visit home and stay re-set at that rate?

Not raising a pension is one thing.

Reducing it is something else....

Edited September 16, 2011 by cheeryble

[PattayaParent]

I also agree it is inequitable, but can see one vague reason for an excuse........that the pensions paid are not generally being circulated in the UK system to then have secondary, tertiary, and every other -tiary taxation gained from it for the govt's coffers. Still not equitable though.

But people who live in Philippines and USA and Europe who DO get the yearly increase don't spend their money in UK either so that's not a valid argument.

[theoldgit]

An in adition to PP's observations, many of those with frozen pensions continue to be UK taxpayers and are not a drain on the benefits system, they don't receive NHS cover, various benefits and even free bus passes.

[meatboy]

I would laugh if someone on the petition wrote their address as in Thailand, but was claiming Invalidity Benefit using another address, that would be the icing on the cake.

or even claiming their pension at a UK address!!

dont get me going on this subject i have already had 2warnings over the fiddling of uk benefits.topic in the med forum[getting medics.sent to thai.from uk] it doesnt pay to be honest,read it.

[chiang mai]

I'm rather shocked today.

I was under the impression that if one returned to the UK (or the Phillipines i suppose) for a couple of months and started picking up pension there for a short while that the pension would revert upwards to the full rate and then on return to Thailand STAY AT THAT RATE until another trip back home. I vaguely had in mind that I might do this a couple of times during my retirement and stop it getting (inflation adjusted) too low. Surely if one's home it will change up and cannot then go back down?

Would be most intersted in comments......

It is indeed a very odd system whereby we are allowed temporary increases based on us standing on different soil, move off that soil and the temporary increases cease. But as has been pointed out already, the criteria for these increases are based on the existence of reciprocal tax treaties, if there's no treaty there's no increase, not a permanent one anyway.

But is it true the pension re-reverts downwards again? This seems a bit too much.

Wouldn't it go up on a visit home and stay re-set at that rate?

Not raising a pension is one thing.

Reducing it is something else....

Yes it is true that it reverts to the lower rate, see the article posted in post 12 of this thread.

[Nibor1945]

Signed, but not with a great deal of hope!

Here is something I've been pondering, perhaps someone out there can shed some light on it.

As a pensioner, if I were to return to the UK and resided there, then decided to return/move to Thailand. How long would the period of residence have to be, to retain the pension increase received as a result of my return to UK?

Or more simply, what period of time must pass before a tempory stay is considered permanent?

[nong38]

Signed, but not with a great deal of hope!

Here is something I've been pondering, perhaps someone out there can shed some light on it.

As a pensioner, if I were to return to the UK and resided there, then decided to return/move to Thailand. How long would the period of residence have to be, to retain the pension increase received as a result of my return to UK?

Or more simply, what period of time must pass before a tempory stay is considered permanent?

That is an interesting one, as the claim for pension staes " have you spent 90 or more days out of the UK in the last 12 months?" After a year maybe you could claim to have become a permanent resident, there is only one way to find out and thaqt would be to try it.

To put the whole system back in our favour, ie paying annual increases would cost the exchequer around £540 million. Money well spent I would say, just stop paying asylum seekers to sit around doing nowt ans send em back from whence they came, if they were clever enough to get them and their families to the UK with no resources they will know the way back.

Now get your online networks to sign the e petition.

Edited September 16, 2011 by nong38

[theoldgit]

To put the whole system back in our favour, ie paying annual increases would cost the exchequer around £540 million. Money well spent I would say, just stop paying asylum seekers to sit around doing nowt ans send em back from whence they came, if they were clever enough to get them and their families to the UK with no resources they will know the way back.

They keep banding that figure about, they also say there are 500,000 pensioners living overseas, some of whom get the pension increases honoured. The pension increase is about six quid a week, £312, so I really don't know how they arrive at that figure.

The population of the UK is about 62.6m of which about 10m are over 65.

[cardholder]

Signed, but not with a great deal of hope!

Here is something I've been pondering, perhaps someone out there can shed some light on it.

As a pensioner, if I were to return to the UK and resided there, then decided to return/move to Thailand. How long would the period of residence have to be, to retain the pension increase received as a result of my return to UK?

Or more simply, what period of time must pass before a tempory stay is considered permanent?

I think you will find that the 'declared' intention to return will probably be sufficient.

I doubt you would be able to do it more than once, so perhaps nip back when you are 75 - max up and then change your mind and return to Thailand.

[nong38]

To put the whole system back in our favour, ie paying annual increases would cost the exchequer around £540 million. Money well spent I would say, just stop paying asylum seekers to sit around doing nowt ans send em back from whence they came, if they were clever enough to get them and their families to the UK with no resources they will know the way back.

They keep banding that figure about, they also say there are 500,000 pensioners living overseas, some of whom get the pension increases honoured. The pension increase is about six quid a week, £312, so I really don't know how they arrive at that figure.

The population of the UK is about 62.6m of which about 10m are over 65.

The quoted figure of £540 million would be to bring all pensioners into line, restore whats been withheld and hen it would be an extra £540 million a year to maintain it, sounds a lot but in govt parlance its not very much at all. The 2 new aircaft carriers are said to be costing £5 billion. I am all for keeping the forces up to strength but it gives you some comparison and I expect some of that £540 million will be clawed back in tax, so that is the headline figure.

[chiang mai]

Signed, but not with a great deal of hope!

Here is something I've been pondering, perhaps someone out there can shed some light on it.

As a pensioner, if I were to return to the UK and resided there, then decided to return/move to Thailand. How long would the period of residence have to be, to retain the pension increase received as a result of my return to UK?

Or more simply, what period of time must pass before a tempory stay is considered permanent?

I think you will find that the 'declared' intention to return will probably be sufficient.

I doubt you would be able to do it more than once, so perhaps nip back when you are 75 - max up and then change your mind and return to Thailand.

I've long believed that the issue of eligibility vs UK residency will be normalized across all the services at some point soon, pensions, NHS, tax, etc, offend/defraud in one area and lose access to all - biometric passports are yet another aspect of this issue, quite right too.

[Eff1n2ret]

To put the whole system back in our favour, ie paying annual increases would cost the exchequer around £540 million. Money well spent I would say, just stop paying asylum seekers to sit around doing nowt ans send em back from whence they came, if they were clever enough to get them and their families to the UK with no resources they will know the way back.

They keep banding that figure about, they also say there are 500,000 pensioners living overseas, some of whom get the pension increases honoured. The pension increase is about six quid a week, £312, so I really don't know how they arrive at that figure.

The population of the UK is about 62.6m of which about 10m are over 65.

540,000,000 divided by 312 = 173,077 - which presumably is the number of pensioners they believe would benefit, the remaining 326,923 already do so by virtue of living in the EU or in one of the treaty countries. I suppose the figures are feasible, although, as you say, how they arrive at them is anyone's guess. The figure of £540 million is not far from the "over £500 million" estimate mentioned in the EC judgement, so one would assume it wasn't substantially disputed.

[theblether]

Your wasting your time, the rules are clear, the rules have been gone over by the European Court and they are lawful. Take responsibility for your own decisions, you decided to live in a country that did not qualify for an annual increase. lf you didn't know that before you moved to Thailand then you should have researched more.

This e-petition is a red herring. The debate, if it ever happens, will take the form of some backbencher standing for 5 minutes to raise the point, the Government minister will then point out the obvious while referring to previous court decisions, and that's it.

The government has limited time to enact their own legislative programme, and there are dozens of these e-petitions floating around. The most recent high profile one was to re-open the Hillsborough Disaster files. That will get some genuine debating time as there are enough highly motivated MP's in regards to this issue. You'll find a very sparsely populated chamber when they raise the issue of raising pensions for people living in Thailand.

If you think the UK government is ready to spend one extra coin on overseas pensions then dream on. Sorry to be so negative but this e-petition is not the answer to your money problems if your experiencing any.

On a side note, I believe, ( In fact I'm certain ). you cannot sign the e-petition unless you are on the UK Electoral Roll. You can be certain that these petitions will be checked, if not in their entirety, then they will be sampled and if they find a level of fraud then the petitions will be dismissed. The UK government is very sensitive to this issue due to recent problems in the Scottish election ( 2007 ), postal vote fraud and other well publicized difficulties during the last General Election.

I think the Thaivisa moderators should be more sensitive to members indicating or inducing criminal offences. It's a recurring theme through too many threads, including this one.

Yes i agree i think its criminal that the british government can pay pension increases to someone living in the phillipines and not to someone in Thailand... Daylight robbery and should be a life sentence

Am quite sure that as my mother votes for me in the UK that I am on the Electoral Role, but if someone knows better please let me know, as she has been voting for me since I was eligible.

Electoral roll is irrelevant - see the link to the petition provided by the OP, click on 'Terms & Conditions':-

"To create or sign an e-petition, you must be either:

•a British citizen

•a resident in the UK (you normally live in the UK)"

Yes, I made a mistake. I recently signed an E-Petition on another matter and it wrongly stuck in my mind that you had to be on the voters roll. I apologize, after I put the post up ,I checked it, and I edited my post. HOWEVER!! It still doesn't get away from two salient facts. This issue has been done to death through the UK and European court system already, and has been defeated. It was crushingly defeated in the UK Parliament and House of Lords also. Not only is it flogging a dead horse, the horse has been boiled, melted, and is currently resident in pots of glue!! THIS ISSUE IS DEAD!!

Secondly, the only way to get redress is to get a reciprocal agreement put in place between Thailand and the UK. YOU ARE CAMPAIGNING ON THE WRONG SUBJECT AND YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT!!! If there was a reciprocal agreement in place YOU WOULD BE GETTING PAID OUT!! So go start a campaign to get the Thai government to agree to the reciprocal agreement. Good luck with that.

[theblether]

I also agree it is inequitable, but can see one vague reason for an excuse........that the pensions paid are not generally being circulated in the UK system to then have secondary, tertiary, and every other -tiary taxation gained from it for the govt's coffers. Still not equitable though.

I'm rather shocked today.

I was under the impression that if one returned to the UK (or the Phillipines i suppose) for a couple of months and started picking up pension there for a short while that the pension would revert upwards to the full rate and then on return to Thailand STAY AT THAT RATE until another trip back home. I vaguely had in mind that I might do this a couple of times during my retirement and stop it getting (inflation adjusted) too low. Surely if one's home it will change up and cannot then go back down?

Some may be interested in the rule of 72.

To find otu how many years to double your money with a certain amount of interest you divide that interest into 72.

Seems to me you can do the same vice versa with inflation for a halving of your real wealth.

So if inflation was 3% you would have 24 years for a halving of value.

If 5% it would be 14.4 years.

As I will be making back payments to get 13/30ths of my pension, about 40GBP per week, of about 6500GBP I figure it will take nearly 3.5 years to be ahead and start actually benefitting (forgetting the time value of the money). So I'll be 68.5yo getting a pension fixed at age 65 an the value will likely have eroded about 10%. Hmmmm.....

Would be most intersted in comments on my second paragraph important to all..........

There are another couple of points to take into account. The increase in pension payments is linked to inflation, the inflation referred to is obviously UK inflation.

If your not in the UK how can you be affected by UK inflation? Your not, and that is why your pension is fixed at the rate when you left.

The UK will raise your pension to the same rate as the other pensioners that live in the UK when you return. However if you return prematurely to Thailand the UK will freeze the pension because it's ................. linked to UK inflation and your ............. not living in the UK!!

Fairy Godmother UK is not stupid either ........... she knows that some people of evil and selfish intention will come home for a holiday, and hope that a side benefit of said holiday will be a substantial increase in their pension, which will pay for said holiday. I would love to get paid for going on holiday!!!

[nong38]

I also agree it is inequitable, but can see one vague reason for an excuse........that the pensions paid are not generally being circulated in the UK system to then have secondary, tertiary, and every other -tiary taxation gained from it for the govt's coffers. Still not equitable though.

I'm rather shocked today.

I was under the impression that if one returned to the UK (or the Phillipines i suppose) for a couple of months and started picking up pension there for a short while that the pension would revert upwards to the full rate and then on return to Thailand STAY AT THAT RATE until another trip back home. I vaguely had in mind that I might do this a couple of times during my retirement and stop it getting (inflation adjusted) too low. Surely if one's home it will change up and cannot then go back down?

Some may be interested in the rule of 72.

To find otu how many years to double your money with a certain amount of interest you divide that interest into 72.

Seems to me you can do the same vice versa with inflation for a halving of your real wealth.

So if inflation was 3% you would have 24 years for a halving of value.

If 5% it would be 14.4 years.

As I will be making back payments to get 13/30ths of my pension, about 40GBP per week, of about 6500GBP I figure it will take nearly 3.5 years to be ahead and start actually benefitting (forgetting the time value of the money). So I'll be 68.5yo getting a pension fixed at age 65 an the value will likely have eroded about 10%. Hmmmm.....

Would be most intersted in comments on my second paragraph important to all..........

There are another couple of points to take into account. The increase in pension payments is linked to inflation, the inflation referred to is obviously UK inflation.

If your not in the UK how can you be affected by UK inflation? Your not, and that is why your pension is fixed at the rate when you left.

The UK will raise your pension to the same rate as the other pensioners that live in the UK when you return. However if you return prematurely to Thailand the UK will freeze the pension because it's ................. linked to UK inflation and your ............. not living in the UK!!

Fairy Godmother UK is not stupid either ........... she knows that some people of evil and selfish intention will come home for a holiday, and hope that a side benefit of said holiday will be a substantial increase in their pension, which will pay for said holiday. I would love to get paid for going on holiday!!!

A good point you make about the increases linked to UK inflation and you are not living in the UK. Your argument falls flat when I mention the EU, USA, Phillipines and all those other places where the increases are still valid, these countries are not imune to the ravages of inflation. It comes down to the UK Govt paying youa a meagre pension which they will increase by the rate of inflation each year providing you stay in the UK ( and enjoy the taxes and benefits). If you go abroad we will freeze them unless you go to a country on our selcted list. Freedom is wonderful.

[meatboy]

this is a subject close to my heart[exscuse the pun] i am one whos pension is frozen after paying ni.cont.for 48years,also i must buy my own medication for life saving drugs[8per day] why is thailand any diff.to say philipines,the wf.worked 20years in the uk and never once went on the sick or had any presciptions.but has to wait till she is 67years old to get her pension,its a pity she couldnt get all she paid in back,on average £26ni.a week.i fear we wont get much joy with the petition as this has been going on for quite a long time,didnt a lady pensioner living in south africa take this to the high court and then to the court of human rights long ago.

[cardholder]

[quote name='theblether' timestamp='1316208695' post='4702629'

Yes, I made a mistake. I recently signed an E-Petition on another matter and it wrongly stuck in my mind that you had to be on the voters roll. I apologize, after I put the post up ,I checked it, and I edited my post. HOWEVER!! It still doesn't get away from two salient facts. This issue has been done to death through the UK and European court system already, and has been defeated. It was crushingly defeated in the UK Parliament and House of Lords also. Not only is it flogging a dead horse, the horse has been boiled, melted, and is currently resident in pots of glue!! THIS ISSUE IS DEAD!!

Secondly, the only way to get redress is to get a reciprocal agreement put in place between Thailand and the UK. YOU ARE CAMPAIGNING ON THE WRONG SUBJECT AND YOU ARE MISSING THE POINT!!! If there was a reciprocal agreement in place YOU WOULD BE GETTING PAID OUT!! So go start a campaign to get the Thai government to agree to the reciprocal agreement. Good luck with that.

This issue is not dead nor should it (or any iniquitous regulations) be.

This is not about any selfish entitlement claims, it simply about fairness - or in this instance lack of it.

[theoldgit]

This issue is not dead nor should it (or any iniquitous regulations) be.

This is not about any selfish entitlement claims, it simply about fairness - or in this instance lack of it.

Spot on.

[nong38]

Cardholder does hve a point, maybe we should be fighting this on 2 fronts, the e petition and trying to get a reciprical agreement. How though would you go about getting a reciprical agreement? I would think the Thai Govt would think what in for us? There are a lot more UK folks here than Thais in the UK. I think they would think they would be bailing out the UK NHS and would cost them, right or wrongly I think that is how they would see it. It would not be in the interests of the UK Govt to do this, it will cost them, come to think of it why dont they cancel al reciprical agreements, save them some more money.

[theoldgit]

I think what the campaigners are actually trying to do is to change the UK Law, that's why they are trying to force a debate in the house, so that a UK pensioner can receive their pension increases wherever they choose to live in the world, without the need for reciprocal agreements.

I think they are campaigning under the the grounds of fairness.

I, like I presume most potential retirees, was fully aware of this rule when I decided to retire to Thailand, also, like may others, I am in the fortunate position of not relying on my State Pension, to survive in Thailand, otherwise I probably wouldn't have decided to re-locate here. But, whilst I agree it's probably a lost cause, I am supporting the campaign on the grounds that it's the right thing to do, I note that most others seem to be doing the same.

If this one is ever won, I think they should then campaign for free travel for those over 60

[cheeryble]

If your not in the UK how can you be affected by UK inflation?

Are you suggesting Yingluck's going to ban inflation to go with the ridiculous car and fuel discount deals?

[letitbe]

I've signed (even though I'm a long way off claiming my pension)...

Without reading through all of the legal junk (I'm lazy) , can anyone explain WHY people in Thailand are penalised when it comes to pension payments from the UK, with regards to other countries??

Why are Filipino/Canadian expats better off (or in a better position) than Thai expats...??

What are the 'rules' that were met for this to be put in place...?! I'm 'confuzzed' (sic)...

It all depends on whether there is a reciprocal tax agreement in place between the UK and individual countries, in the case of Thailand there is not!

yes their is contact your uk inland revenue and they will confirm a reciprocal tax agreement at least thats what they told my Thai wife when she asked under what conditions she could get UK tax allowance. amongst others they stated if she showed that she was a thai tax payer and provided Thai tax reference she is entitled to a UK tax allowance for her UK based income. Have not done so since it would open pandoras box on her Thai based income Our children get a UK tax allowance because they are also UK citizans as well as their other citizenships. My wife carefully explained she was not UK resident and not a UK citizen although she does hold a long term UK visa

[letitbe]

Signed.

Anyway, like everything else it will go into my bank in UK as a remain a UK citizen and tax/NI payer.

Although the way it is going I will be 100 for i get it.

be careful you are proving you are still uk resident and so subject ot UK CGT tax and certainly UK inheritance tax. But then if neither of those will effect you they will never know if your really non resident

[chiang mai]

I've signed (even though I'm a long way off claiming my pension)...

Without reading through all of the legal junk (I'm lazy) , can anyone explain WHY people in Thailand are penalised when it comes to pension payments from the UK, with regards to other countries??

Why are Filipino/Canadian expats better off (or in a better position) than Thai expats...??

What are the 'rules' that were met for this to be put in place...?! I'm 'confuzzed' (sic)...

It all depends on whether there is a reciprocal tax agreement in place between the UK and individual countries, in the case of Thailand there is not!

yes their is contact your uk inland revenue and they will confirm a reciprocal tax agreement at least thats what they told my Thai wife when she asked under what conditions she could get UK tax allowance. amongst others they stated if she showed that she was a thai tax payer and provided Thai tax reference she is entitled to a UK tax allowance for her UK based income. Have not done so since it would open pandoras box on her Thai based income Our children get a UK tax allowance because they are also UK citizans as well as their other citizenships. My wife carefully explained she was not UK resident and not a UK citizen although she does hold a long term UK visa

My apologies, I should have written, "reciprocal social security agreement" and not just tax, there is of course a double taxation treaty already in place between the two countries.