Jump to content

UK pensions


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, denby45 said:

"Issuing a court summons to Chancellor Philip Hammond to try to reclaim "lost" payments."

This for me is a huge mistake and is definitely a stumbling block. They should concentrate on getting the current system change to up-rating for all as a priority. Yes the backdating of payments is also important especially for some who have lost out over the years but why don't they put that issue away for the time being and resurrect it after the government have changed the current system effectively admitting they made a mistake.

It is surely time to be smart and treat the two issues separately. One step at a time and keep it simple.

 

Den 

Unfortunately they are joined at the hip. The government cannot deal with one without opening the door to liability on the other and I think that is why they are digging their heels in.

The differential on my pension is now about £15 and over around 5 years making an average of about £3 a year. If we were to say the average back payment owed was 10 years it would make about £1500 on average owed to pensioners. I think it has been said that there is around half a million on frozen pensions so the potential back payment bill could be around 750 million, not a huge amount compared to this balance in the NIF sitting doing nothing.

It makes you wonder if it is the management of the change that is more of an obstacle that the cost itself.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
On 21/04/2018 at 1:22 PM, evadgib said:

Any publicity is good publicity and I for one am happy at how the Consortium tackled the CHOGM in front of the watching world.

 

It's grossly unfair (and so too is the 2 tier system)  but clearly the government has exploited a loophole regarding increments.  It's been looked at and isn't unlawful, so any legal challenge is bound to fail.

 

It would have been better to be less confrontational.  That way, there may have been more sympathy at a higher level.  The government has already said it is illogical and gave the reason that is not affordable to consider back payments- this could have been taken as a clue on how to proceed.

 

The present stance is just playing in to their hands imo.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

The campaign to unfreeze pensions will certainly not be won through legal challenge, however, raising a claim against the government is a symbolic action which will attract publicity for the political campaign. Slavery was lawful in the UK until 1834.  It wasn't the government  who were unhappy with it.  It took a protracted and determined political campaign to change the law.

You make a compelling argument.  I'm not sure I would make such a dramatic comparison. :smile:

 

The headscratcher for me is how this situation has been allowed to go on for so long; it's a total contradiction in the way the scheme runs.  The recent overhaul was about fairness for all, and simplicity.

 

The only bit of reasoning was that expats were no longer contributing to UK economy.  Yet this is a weak argument since the pension is always based on qualifying  contributions - that's as clear as day.

 

 

 

Edited by mommysboy
  • Like 1
Link to comment

I love the way whenever there is an article about pensioners living abroad ,its always preceeded by a picture of two fit and healthy young looking pensioners walking on a beach ,or as in yesterdays paper(which i will not mention)two pensioners with backpacks hiking over the hills ,so far from reality its a joke .

And that is why we will not get our rises .

  • Like 2
Link to comment
 
You could say exactly the same about the USA and Canada or the American and the British Virgin Islands.
 
Crazy isn't it.

It’s all to do with Treaties. Wonder when the last one was signed, with what country and why can there not be further new treaties with ‘frozen’ countries?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 1
Link to comment
18 minutes ago, DILLIGAD said:

It’s all to do with Treaties. Wonder when the last one was signed, with what country and why can there not be further new treaties with ‘frozen’ countries?

 

Why has it got anything to do with treaties at all? I've never understood the logic.

  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
(If I manage to cock this up it's worth reading the full post on the relevant FB page!)
 
Top recent posts
Edited by evadgib
  • Like 1
Link to comment
There is no logic. Its just an excuse to throw you of the scent. Think about it, why can't the UK pay what it wants to whoever it wants ? Is the Thai government going to break off diplomatic relations and declare war because the UK has paid increases to its pensioners ? The fact of a treaty is not a requirement, its just a device to  get people thinking that there is a logical reason why it can't be done.

Exactly, but why is it not mentioned by this party who are honorably fighting the fight on behalf of the frozen pension getters.
Link to comment
7 hours ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

The UK government have mired this issue in a number of clever obfuscations. The need to have a Social Security Agreement is just one of them.

They no longer use this excuse as everyone knows its rubbish. The latest defence is the one about expats not contributing to the tax burden. This also falls apart as an argument with many expats paying income tax on their pensions at source and pensioners in, for example the Philippines, getting the increase that are denied to those in Thailand.

Consider for a moment why the treatment of the Windrush generation has raised holy hell in Parliament. Diane Abbott and David Lammy have threatened hell, death and public hangings for the heinous crime of racism about the unjust way they have been treated. Their unique characteristic however is that they are black.

If they were indigenous, white, Anglo-Saxon and protestant they would just be told "tough luck, stop making a fuss about nothing" ! 

How many pensioners are paying tax on their state pension? Do you have the figures? Just curious.

 

Thanks

 

Den

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

I don't have any figures but  those paying tax on pension income will generally be those with both state pension and private pension income. Any income liability would be taken from the private pension at source. 

Paying tax on private pension is not relevant to the argument. Also I do know there is no facility for the government to tax your state pension at source. It is always paid gross and is supposed to be reconciled if you go over your personal allowance. I know many pensioners but I don't know any that get enough state pension to pay tax on it. The reason I asked about the numbers of pensioners is because I cannot find any figures online.

 

Den 

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, champers said:

Anyone on only a state pension will not reach the threshold that is their tax allowance (£11500 ?).  Must be tough going on state pension alone.

What about those who made the maximum contribution to SERPS  and contributed for a lifetime of work up to retirement. They would certainly get a pension beyond the personal allowance of £11800 ?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
10 minutes ago, denby45 said:

Paying tax on private pension is not relevant to the argument. Also I do know there is no facility for the government to tax your state pension at source. It is always paid gross and is supposed to be reconciled if you go over your personal allowance. I know many pensioners but I don't know any that get enough state pension to pay tax on it. The reason I asked about the numbers of pensioners is because I cannot find any figures online.

 

Den 

Paying tax on private pensions is relevant because the tax code would be increased to reflect the additional income from the state pension.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.










×
×
  • Create New...