UK pensions

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

11 minutes ago, Flustered said:

You cannot put a figure on wealth or income.

 

What is wealthy to you may be poverty to someone else. What is wealthy in the Yemen is poverty in America. 

 

Wealth is happiness in not having debt and living within your means. If you have surplus, you are wealthy.

If that is true how are you able to identify the wealthy pensioners on the bus from Hull to Scarborough ?

[Flustered]

4 minutes ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

If that is true how are you able to identify the wealthy pensioners on the bus from Hull to Scarborough ?

Boy, you have a problem with pensions, do you need a hand out?

 

Nearly all of the pensioners on the buses that we know have money to spare. None of them worry about how to pay their fuel bills or where the next meal is coming from. On the bus they talk about their next holidays and what they are doing for their grandchildren.

 

What is your problem with pensioners who are not poverty ridden?

 

[rockingrobin]

12 hours ago, Flustered said:

Boy, you have a problem with pensions, do you need a hand out?

 

Nearly all of the pensioners on the buses that we know have money to spare. None of them worry about how to pay their fuel bills or where the next meal is coming from. On the bus they talk about their next holidays and what they are doing for their grandchildren.

 

What is your problem with pensioners who are not poverty ridden?

 

Are you saying that a pensioner should live a life of subsistence, and unless thay are worrying about their next meal or how to pay the bills , then thay are wealthy.

[dick dasterdly]

15 hours ago, Flustered said:

You cannot put a figure on wealth or income.

 

What is wealthy to you may be poverty to someone else. What is wealthy in the Yemen is poverty in America. 

 

Wealth is happiness in not having debt and living within your means. If you have surplus, you are wealthy.

Its not that simple.

 

Living on the cheapest foods available/in a high-rise council flat (or the equivalent nowadays)/having to always be careful about using the heating during winter etc. etc. may result in living within their means, but it doesn't make them wealthy.  Obviously I'm only talking about Brit. citizens - and take your point about wealth being relative.

 

My own, personal definition of 'wealthy pensioners' (for the purposes of this discussion) are those paying higher rate tax on their pensions.

[Eff1n2ret]

20 hours ago, Flustered said:

Easy question, easy answer and to quote someone far greater than I.

 

Mr  Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

 

Anyone who has surplus after spending on essentials is wealthy. Wealth is relative.

 

 

Mr Micawber's dictum does not define wealth, merely the relative states of mind of being solvent or being in debt. If someone is just paying their way they're not "wealthy" because they are "wealthier than" someone else. What people are arguing about here is that if you make changes in taxation or benefits, however justified,  which reduce the income of pensioners there are some who are going to feel hard done by. If they are going to means-test the winter fuel payment, it implies that it should not have much impact on poorer pensioners, but my objection is that the cost of means-testing will greatly reduce the income derived from doing so.

 

What is really upsetting a lot of middle-class pensioners is the threat of losing all their savings and property down to the last £100k to pay for their residential care. It is of course quite reasonable to argue that the taxpayer should not have to fund inheritance wealth passed down to the next generation, but what sticks in the throat of many who would be affected is that they are the people who have worked and saved all their lives and paid the taxes to support others who have spent much of their lives on benefits, but their contribution is disregarded when it comes to the end of their lives. 

[Flustered]

Mr Micawber's statement was about happiness. I used it as an indication an indication of wealth.

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but at present the drop down figure is £23,250 so surely £100,000 is a huge step up?

 

I know it pisses of members here but why should the State pay for people care homes?  It should be the family looking after their own.

 

Just for the record, I come from a family that always looks after it's own (both sides) and the idea of the State looking after us is alien to our way of thinking. When our mothers went down hill into dementia, we looked after them, not the State. And when my mother needed further help, my sister and I took on the responsibility. I accept there are cases that need help but there is too much "The State must provide" going on.

 

Sorry to upset you guys but this is my opinion only and not likely to change in the near future. 

[Flustered]

6 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

Are you saying that a pensioner should live a life of subsistence, and unless thay are worrying about their next meal or how to pay the bills , then thay are wealthy.

Did I say that..No.

 

I was pointing out that nearly all of the pensioners using the buses in our area are not poor. they all have cash to spare. That is my definition of wealthy. 

 

Life can be hard if you have not planned for the future and are relying on the State. that seems to be the norm nowadays.

 

I was thinking about one of the couples in the same hotel as us in Chiang Rai last year complaining that they had to pay for the medication in Thailand and why couldn't the UK have an arrangement where it was paid for them. They could afford a long winter holiday in Thailand but wanted the State to foot their drug bills. Like many, their argument was that they had paid the taxes and were entitled to the drugs. Sorry, can't agree. If you don't want to spend the money on medication, stay in the UK.

[evadgib]

45 minutes ago, Flustered said:

I was thinking about one of the couples in the same hotel as us in Chiang Rai last year complaining that they had to pay for the medication in Thailand and why couldn't the UK have an arrangement where it was paid for them. They could afford a long winter holiday in Thailand but wanted the State to foot their drug bills. Like many, their argument was that they had paid the taxes and were entitled to the drugs. Sorry, can't agree. If you don't want to spend the money on medication, stay in the UK.

Some doctors / NHS trusts will prescribe sufficient meds to cover an absence if asked nicely; not that it has any bearing on this thread. 

[Eff1n2ret]

2 hours ago, Flustered said:

 

 

Correct me if I am wrong, but at present the drop down figure is £23,250 so surely £100,000 is a huge step up?

 

 

 

I wrongly stated "residential care" in my previous post, for which the current figure is as you suggest. The current furore is because of a proposal in the Conservative manifesto to extend means-testing to care supplied in your own home - "domiciliary care" as it's termed. They propose to set a common floor at 100k for both residential and domiciliary care. They say they won't force people to sell their homes during their lifetime. I suppose there may be a few who gain as well as lose, but it's had bad publicity because it's viewed as an attack on their natural supporters.

 

In a sense I agree with the general thrust of your argument, which is that we're all hooked up to a welfare system which is just piling up more and more debt for which future generations will have to pay. If anyone tries to turn off one of the drip-feeds, people start hurting. We pensioners are particularly sensitive,  because (i) most of us are beyond the point where we can improve our income by going back to work, and (ii) our expectation throughout our working lives was that by prudent planning and saving we would have a comfortable old age. It is galling to have worked and saved hard, and paid taxes into a welfare scheme, and then find that we're little better off than the wasters (or the unfortunate) who have contributed little or nothing.

 

Since 2010 the lefties have been screaming about 'cuts' when in fact government spending goes up year after year, as does the national debt, which frightens me. If we can't cut services or raise taxes (the latter being totally counter-productive), I wonder why we can't cut the cost of government itself by shutting down a few departments. I'd start with the Foreign Office.....

Edited May 25, 2017 by Eff1n2ret

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

8 hours ago, Flustered said:

Did I say that..No.

 

I was pointing out that nearly all of the pensioners using the buses in our area are not poor. they all have cash to spare. That is my definition of wealthy. 

 

Life can be hard if you have not planned for the future and are relying on the State. that seems to be the norm nowadays.

 

I was thinking about one of the couples in the same hotel as us in Chiang Rai last year complaining that they had to pay for the medication in Thailand and why couldn't the UK have an arrangement where it was paid for them. They could afford a long winter holiday in Thailand but wanted the State to foot their drug bills. Like many, their argument was that they had paid the taxes and were entitled to the drugs. Sorry, can't agree. If you don't want to spend the money on medication, stay in the UK.

Having some cash to spare is hardly consistent with the term wealthy and making judgments about the wealth status of people you don't know, who you have seen on the bus, must be a wholly unreliable method of assessment. These people entered the debate as you cited them as good evidence for withdrawing the free bus pass.

Retirement should be something to look forward to and a few government generated perks are a sign of a civilized society.

Surely we don't want to see a society where those living only on their State pensions experience a condition of miserable subsistence without any luxuries ?

Edited May 25, 2017 by Rajab Al Zarahni

[Flustered]

11 minutes ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

Having some cash to spare is hardly consistent with the term wealthy and making judgments about the wealth status of people you don't know, who you have seen on the bus, must be a wholly unreliable method of assessment. These people entered the debate as you cited them as good evidence for withdrawing the free bus pass.

Retirement should be something to look forward to and a few government generated perks are a sign of a civilized society.

Surely we don't want to see a society where those living only on their State pensions experience a condition of miserable subsistence without any luxuries ?

Boy, you really have a problem with this pension issue, you wont let go.

 

Of course the State pension should be basic as should benefits.

 

Why should someone who has not bothered to save any money and relies on the State have the same lifestyle as someone who has scrimped and saved, gone without and then enjoys the fruits of their labours.

 

Next you will be saying that everyone should have the same medical treatment as those who can afford to go private. then there is schooling.

 

I do not begrudge anyone the extras they can but with their money. The State should be a safety net, nothing more, unless you are a dyed in the wool Socialist/Marxist.

 

You remind me of the children's tale of the Little Red Hen

 

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/stories/fairytale/littleredhen/story/

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

3 hours ago, Flustered said:

Boy, you really have a problem with this pension issue, you wont let go.

 

Of course the State pension should be basic as should benefits.

 

Why should someone who has not bothered to save any money and relies on the State have the same lifestyle as someone who has scrimped and saved, gone without and then enjoys the fruits of their labours.

 

Next you will be saying that everyone should have the same medical treatment as those who can afford to go private. then there is schooling.

 

I do not begrudge anyone the extras they can but with their money. The State should be a safety net, nothing more, unless you are a dyed in the wool Socialist/Marxist.

 

You remind me of the children's tale of the Little Red Hen

 

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/stories/fairytale/littleredhen/story/

You are absolutely right but only about one thing. Yes, I do believe that all citizens should receive the same quality of health care irrespective of their ability to pay for it and that it should be funded from general taxation.

[Bikeman93]

On ‎24‎/‎05‎/‎2017 at 5:20 PM, Flustered said:

Easy question, easy answer and to quote someone far greater than I.

 

Mr  Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery."

 

Anyone who has surplus after spending on essentials is wealthy. Wealth is relative.

 

 

Its not how much you earn its how much you don't spend.

 

Give me the skills to haggle and spend less over earned income any day. These skills are far better with taxation based on income and GST or VAT on your purchases, are useful long after (hopefully) you stop working. 

 

Edited May 25, 2017 by Bikeman93
Addition

[steve187]

On 5/24/2017 at 7:53 AM, dick dasterdly said:

Agree entirely that if the state pension was sufficient, there would be no need for winter fuel allowance etc.  But, its not - hence the 'add on' benefits.

 

Retired police receive a very good 'government' pension and, of course, can claim the state pension once they are old enough - and perhaps the police pension is 4/5ths - but I doubt it.

 

Its certainly not for 'ordinary' education staff!  IIRC, my hubbies teacher pension was 50% after 40 years service (although it could have been 2/3rds)?  I gather its changed nowadays and based on 'average earnings'?

 

I'm one of the lucky generation that is able to enjoy 2/3rds non-contributory final company salary pension schemes (for one period of employment in my case).  First time I've heard of 4/5ths for ordinary employees!

 

In short, I'm very tired of the exaggerated beliefs about government pensions for ordinary employees.....

UK police pensions in simple terms were 25 years service 1/2 and 30 years 2/3, this is before any lump sum is taken, and i believe a minimum age of 55 years old, i think things have now changed for newer entries

[Bikeman93]

4 hours ago, steve187 said:

UK police pensions in simple terms were 25 years service 1/2 and 30 years 2/3, this is before any lump sum is taken, and i believe a minimum age of 55 years old, i think things have now changed for newer entries

So what happens to people who have never worked in UK? They have a government pension I assume?

 

Just confusing to me coz in Australia we have superannuation, a %age of your salary, and the age pension for those with minimal or no super.

[Flustered]

So if for instance I want an operation and am prepared to pay to have it done privately saving the NHS money, I am not allowed to do so?

 

My reading of your thoughts are that you would do away with all private hospitals/doctors and only allow NHS ones?

 

If you want to spend your money on holidays, drinks, smoking or any other expense that does not include day to day living that is your entitlement and I would challenge anyone to speak against that much as I hope you  respect my opinion/decisions to spend the money I have saved in any way I chose.

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

12 minutes ago, Flustered said:

So if for instance I want an operation and am prepared to pay to have it done privately saving the NHS money, I am not allowed to do so?

 

My reading of your thoughts are that you would do away with all private hospitals/doctors and only allow NHS ones?

 

If you want to spend your money on holidays, drinks, smoking or any other expense that does not include day to day living that is your entitlement and I would challenge anyone to speak against that much as I hope you  respect my opinion/decisions to spend the money I have saved in any way I chose.

Perhaps you should concentrate on reading my comment rather than trying to read my thoughts.

[Flustered]

Just now, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

Perhaps you should concentrate on reading my comment rather than trying to read my thoughts.

OK,

 

Is this what you want me to say.? ......."You are absolutely right, the UK should be a Socialist State where everyone is equal and we all live together in a utopian world"

 

You know exactly what my thoughts are as I have spelt them out many times

 

I have stated I respect your opinion and views yet you still come back with digs against my posts.

[steve187]

1 hour ago, Bikeman93 said:

So what happens to people who have never worked in UK? They have a government pension I assume?

 

Just confusing to me coz in Australia we have superannuation, a %age of your salary, and the age pension for those with minimal or no super.

to receive a UK state pension you have to have a minimum of 10 years national insurance  contributions ( N I ), and to receive the maximum amount of around £8,000 per year, you would need 35 years NI contributions, ( so if you only had 10 years you would receive 10/35 of a full pension) this would be on top of any private or work related pension that you receive.

 

 

edit, if you have never worked in the UK, you would not receive a pension

Edited May 26, 2017 by steve187

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

3 hours ago, Flustered said:

OK,

 

Is this what you want me to say.? ......."You are absolutely right, the UK should be a Socialist State where everyone is equal and we all live together in a utopian world"

 

You know exactly what my thoughts are as I have spelt them out many times

 

I have stated I respect your opinion and views yet you still come back with digs against my posts.

I respect the expression of all views and opinions and confirm my belief in in tolerance towards those we disagree with and the exercise of restraint in posting misleading and unrepresentative comment.

[Flustered]

So in other words, your opinion only.......and I like the fact you believe in in tolerance to others...I know, a slip of the keyboard.

 

Just because others have a different opinion does not mean they are wrong. No one is wrong, they just have different viewpoints. I am not a Socialist and I believe in individual responsibility which obviously annoys you.You have constantly badgered me over my beliefs so I leave it here and allow you the last word which I am sure you will have.

 

 

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

9 minutes ago, Flustered said:

So in other words, your opinion only.......and I like the fact you believe in in tolerance to others...I know, a slip of the keyboard.

 

Just because others have a different opinion does not mean they are wrong. No one is wrong, they just have different viewpoints. I am not a Socialist and I believe in individual responsibility which obviously annoys you.You have constantly badgered me over my beliefs so I leave it here and allow you the last word which I am sure you will have.

 

 

The notion that you have expressed your last word is matched only by the ridiculous proposition that I believe in a Socialist state or that I deplore the idea of individual responsibility.

[Bikeman93]

2 hours ago, steve187 said:

to receive a UK state pension you have to have a minimum of 10 years national insurance  contributions ( N I ), and to receive the maximum amount of around £8,000 per year, you would need 35 years NI contributions, ( so if you only had 10 years you would receive 10/35 of a full pension) this would be on top of any private or work related pension that you receive.

 

 

edit, if you have never worked in the UK, you would not receive a pension

So for someone who has never worked, do they receive unemployment benefits or something?

What's is their means of survival?

 

[uptheos]

On 5/24/2017 at 8:07 AM, Flustered said:

Don't forget Dick, pensioners are great actors, they love to plead poverty while looking at how well the stocks and shares are doing.

 

Just going out to the food bank...(now that's another story).

Yup and we get all kind of benefits and if we don't know how to get them, AGE UK advocates are there to help you squeeze every penny you can in cash and freebies from the state and quite right too. Life is good once you reach pension age and that winter fuel allowance of 200 quid, don't half come in handy for Xmas pressies and a nice bottle of single malt.

[teddog]

29 minutes ago, Bikeman93 said:

So for someone who has never worked, do they receive unemployment benefits or something?

What's is their means of survival?

 

 

Pension credits   same-same as OAP, but with restrictions

[Expattaff1308]

I think this forum is going off track very rapidly.

It was set up for news and views on the UK State Penion and the effect of the Frozen Pension.

Its becoming a site for bickering individuals.

[Scott]

Some off-topic posts and replies removed. 

[metisdead]

5 minutes ago, Ace of Pop said:

And a place for some confused ones like me ..Why isn't the Topic Closed,?.Not Thai related.Often a good post n replies Closed for this reason.Trump, Brexit, are they related?.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

The reason this topic is not closed is because it is in the Home Country Forum where issues like this are allowed to be discussed as per the description of this forum:

 

Quote

 

Home Country Forum

Pensions, regulations, laws, etc. that affect expats living in Thailand. No visa related topics.

 

 

 

 

[Ace of Pop]

Why has my post gone.?Too near the truth .?.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[NoshowJones]

On 5/22/2017 at 3:46 AM, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

I am fascinated  as to why someone with your distinctive and thought provoking views has found comfort on this forum.

How do you feel about pensions generally and the index linking of pensions ? In particular, do you believe that the freezing of pensions for those who chose to retire to certain countries is an injustice ? After all, as your comment correctly suggests, these are things the country managed without for thousands of years.

Additionally, it would be most helpful to know your view about prescription charges for pensioners. Can I take that you would like to see pensioners paying the going rate like everyone else ? 

And what of the free TV licence for the over 75's. What you like this to be withdrawn ? 

I would not bother about anything this poster says, he thinks UK state pensioners who object to not getting their annual increases should have read about it before retiring to Thailand, and if they did not agree, they should stay in the UK.