UK pensions

[evadgib]

The International Consortium of British Pensioners (ICBP)

7 hrs · 

John Duffy, Chair of ICBP will be interviewed by the BBC 4 program "You and Yours on Thursday August 2nd at 12.15 p.m. UK time. You can catch it online at https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qps9

BBC.CO.UK

 

BBC Radio 4 - You and Yours

News and discussion of consumer affairs

[sandyf]

On 7/29/2018 at 12:06 AM, My Thai Life said:

I don't share your concerns. I am giving you my informed opinion.

 

As I told you earlier,  UK govt pensions are paid out of current worker contributions. This is a fact, not an opinion.

 

It's not actuarially sustainable for very obvious reasons.

 

 

 

Not entirely correct, the state pension is paid from contributions and income tax, in recent years it has been approx 12% of income tax. So the state pension is sustainable for the foreseeable future through manipulation and increases in income tax.

For those of us on frozen pensions and paying income tax we are each year increasingly funding more of our own pension.

[My Thai Life]

My point is that pensions are paid out of current income to government, not out of vested contributions, which seems to be a common assumption. So I think we are in agreement (about the first part anyway).

 

To be more specific: If Mr Smith is receiving a pension today, he is paid out of the income the government is receiving "today", not out of Mr Smith's earlier contributions.

 

(In the post you quoted I used the term "contribution" in a general sense, not a technical pensions sense, because I was paraphrasing an earlier post!)

 

But I'm not sure if I can agree about sustainability. We'd need to see some pretty good actuarial analysis to be sure, and even then we might disagree about its assumptions. The fact that the gov't has changed the rules, for example, raising the retirement age and its albeit limited freezes, suggests that the earlier model wasn't sustainable. (We all knew that anyway, that's why I opted out many moons ago.) Gov'ts all over the world (or at least the Caucasian parts) are doing this of course, including Russia; the post-war baby boom is now a retirement boom!

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by My Thai Life

[My Thai Life]

A question for globetrotters who have actually claimed their pension.

 

I’ve been non-resident for 20-30 years and my contributions are small, but do entitle me to a couple of bottles of wine a month.

 

I’ve recently checked the gov’t site. Do we really need to give a list of all work we’ve done, including non-UK, which is by far the biggest chunk of my cv? I can’t even remember all my employers, as I was a freelance contractor for many years. And I definitely can’t remember my last UK address either.

 

Thanks.

[mommysboy]

29 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

My point is that pensions are paid out of current income to government, not out of vested contributions, which seems to be a common assumption. So I think we are in agreement (about the first part anyway).

 

To be more specific: If Mr Smith is receiving a pension today, he is paid out of the income the government is receiving "today", not out of Mr Smith's earlier contributions.

 

(In the post you quoted I used the term "contribution" in a general sense, not a technical pensions sense, because I was paraphrasing an earlier post!)

 

But I'm not sure if I can agree about sustainability. We'd need to see some pretty good actuarial analysis to be sure, and even then we might disagree about its assumptions. The fact that the gov't has changed the rules, for example, raising the retirement age and its albeit limited freezes, suggests that the earlier model wasn't sustainable. (We all knew that anyway, that's why I opted out many moons ago.) Gov'ts all over the world (or at least the Caucasian parts) are doing this of course, including Russia; the post-war baby boom is now a retirement boom!

 

To cut a long story short, there was rather a protracted discussion about this subject on another thread earlier in the year.  I'll try to remember the exact page where some fairly authoritative information established that the NI account had a substantial sum of money (notionally at least).  What i can remember was that until fairly recently some of this money was invested in bonds, and latterly in a rather strange form of loan to other government accounts.  I can also recall that the funds would gradually be depleted so that come 2030 there would be nothing left.  here's the link anyway:

 

But really sustainability is indeed the key issue as MTL points out, and quite honestly it isn't unless funded in a different way, and as sandyf points out recently that has come in the form of income tax transfers in order to make up successive yearly shortfalls.

 

 

[My Thai Life]

"The state pension is paid for by national insurance contributions, which come from the wages of people working today.

 

Effectively, each working generation pays for the older generation above them. However, NI is also used to pay other benefits, such as to the unemployed.

 

The Centre for Policy Studies report warns under-45 they face tax hikes and a later retirement age, and under-35s they can expect the state pension to be scrapped altogether.

 

The CPS report says the money in National Insurance Fund is running out because not enough is coming in – with the surplus down from £53billion in 2009 to £29.1billion last year."

 

from 2014. Yes there has been some dipping into taxation income since then, which underlines my point that this system is increasingly unsustainable.

[OJAS]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

For those of us on frozen pensions and paying income tax we are each year increasingly funding more of our own pension.

A trend which would, of course, be hastened in our case were any proposal to deprive us of our personal tax-free allowances to be revived and implemented.

[sumrit]

14 hours ago, mommysboy said:

With regard to Pension contribution (National Insurance), the number of claimants is set to increase dramatically, whereas the number of taxpayers-by definition younger people- is declining.  So, I would say those tax payers are in line to pay a good deal more contributions in the future. And this is already happening- in the last few years the number of qualifying years for the full pension has increased, and the qualifying age also.  I think this narrative is largely watertight.  This is the posting I wish I had made a few days ago, and is an example of what I meant when I said youngsters will have to pay more tax.

 

 

You think your narrative is largely watertight? I think you're  only looking at want you want to see.

 

Yes, the qualifying years has recently increased (to 35 years I think) but, for those of us that are now retired, our qualifying years were FORTY-FOUR YEARS. You've got nine qualifying years LESS than us, not more. 

 

The Government decided that, because people are likely to live longer, the small increase in age qualification for those born after the 5th April 1955 would be sufficient to cover the cost of future pensions. Not only that, for those born after 5th April 1951, their pensions were increased from £117 to £150+. So you all get more than we do as a basic pension. We don't, ours is still based on the £117 level. Yes, if we didn't have a private pension, were able to subsidise our state pension with SERPS, but we had to pay extra NI contributions for that, and it wasn't optional. Your increase to £150 is a freebie, you don't pay anything extra for it do you. 

 

Then, when it comes to annual increases (leaving aside the frozen because living abroad problem) those born after 5th April 1951 get the (currently triple lock) increase on the whole £150 while those of us born before then only get the increase based on the £117 figure. The SERPS part of their pension is not part of the guaranteed annual increase.

 

Those currently under 66 win every time.

 

[sumrit]

54 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

To cut a long story short, there was rather a protracted discussion about this subject on another thread earlier in the year.  I'll try to remember the exact page where some fairly authoritative information established that the NI account had a substantial sum of money (notionally at least).  What i can remember was that until fairly recently some of this money was invested in bonds, and latterly in a rather strange form of loan to other government accounts.  I can also recall that the funds would gradually be depleted so that come 2030 there would be nothing left.  here's the link anyway:

 

But really sustainability is indeed the key issue as MTL points out, and quite honestly it isn't unless funded in a different way, and as sandyf points out recently that has come in the form of income tax transfers in order to make up successive yearly shortfalls.

 

 

If the NI reserved are reducing perhaps the current working population should have their contributions increased to make up the shortfall.??..........After all, that's what happened to us several times during our working lives.?

 

But then we all know our pension and NHS payments etc don't really come out of our NI contributions, they're just Government funded. Those sort of 'shortfall type' comments are only used when somebody is trying to 'prove a point'.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

My point is that pensions are paid out of current income to government, not out of vested contributions, which seems to be a common assumption. So I think we are in agreement (about the first part anyway).

 

To be more specific: If Mr Smith is receiving a pension today, he is paid out of the income the government is receiving "today", not out of Mr Smith's earlier contributions.

 

(In the post you quoted I used the term "contribution" in a general sense, not a technical pensions sense, because I was paraphrasing an earlier post!)

 

But I'm not sure if I can agree about sustainability. We'd need to see some pretty good actuarial analysis to be sure, and even then we might disagree about its assumptions. The fact that the gov't has changed the rules, for example, raising the retirement age and its albeit limited freezes, suggests that the earlier model wasn't sustainable. (We all knew that anyway, that's why I opted out many moons ago.) Gov'ts all over the world (or at least the Caucasian parts) are doing this of course, including Russia; the post-war baby boom is now a retirement boom!

 

Your interpretation of sustainability is a bit suspect, the government has sustained the state pension through various changes over the years. You cannot consider any particular level as no one wants to see the current level sustained, they want to see it rising. How they have managed the state pension is certainly open to criticism but that is another matter.

The actuarial analysis has already been done by the government actuary and lays out a plan through to 2080 with options and recommendations. I posted a link to it the last time this came up but cannot find it now. Maybe Den can help, I think he was involved in the discussion at the time.

Regarding your query on employment, you should download the overseas claim form. If I remember right, they only want employers that have collected NI contributions.

[mommysboy]

14 minutes ago, sumrit said:

You think your narrative is largely watertight? I think you're  only looking at want you want to see.

 

Yes, the qualifying years has recently increased (to 35 years I think) but, for those of us that are now retired, our qualifying years were FORTY-FOUR YEARS. You've got nine qualifying years LESS than us, not more. 

 

The Government decided that, because people are likely to live longer, the small increase in age qualification for those born after the 5th April 1955 would be sufficient to cover the cost of future pensions. Not only that, for those born after 5th April 1951, their pensions were increased from £117 to £150+. So you all get more than we do as a basic pension. We don't, ours is still based on the £117 level. Yes, if we didn't have a private pension, were able to subsidise our state pension with SERPS, but we had to pay extra NI contributions for that, and it wasn't optional. Your increase to £150 is a freebie, you don't pay anything extra for it do you. 

 

Then, when it comes to annual increases (leaving aside the frozen because living abroad problem) those born after 5th April 1951 get the (currently triple lock) increase on the whole £150 while those of us born before then only get the increase based on the £117 figure. The SERPS part of their pension is not part of the guaranteed annual increase.

 

Those currently under 66 win every time.

 

Remember we are talking about the future, not me, but the next generation and younger. 

 

It just stands to reason that when the demographics change so drastically then of course people pay more, and it will have to be much more, because as professionals like MTL have pointed it simply is unsustainable; even now it's creaking.

 

I was genuinely shocked to find out that it remained 117 pounds for some, particularly as they were the generation that paid as much as 45 years in contributions, but then it was explained that pension rights were extended to living spouses.  And moreover, this present generation would on average be claiming for 15, 20 years or more (40 hopefully).  The Government has indicated that this simply won't be the case in the future.  A person entering the system now could be working up until the age, maybe much higher.

 

Frankly, a person presently retired has lived in the golden generation as regards pensions.  We will not see the like again. So it really is a bit much to feel hard done by.  The expat issue is another matter- yes, feel genuinely cheated about that.

 

 

 

 

[mommysboy]

14 minutes ago, sumrit said:

If the NI reserved are reducing perhaps the current working population should have their contributions increased to make up the shortfall.??..........After all, that's what happened to us several times during our working lives.?

 

But then we all know our pension and NHS payments etc don't really come out of our NI contributions, they're just Government funded. Those sort of 'shortfall type' comments are only used when somebody is trying to 'prove a point'.

Up until 3 years ago the UK pension was entirely funded by NI contributions!!  Your assertion will hold good in the future however unless further substantial revisions are made to NI rate, retirement age, and qualifying years.

 

NHS has always been paid out of income tax.  NI is for pension and some work related welfare benefits.

 

As I pointed out the moment you return to Blighty to live you are covered by the NHS once more, and your pension returns to the normal rate.

Edited July 31, 2018 by mommysboy

[My Thai Life]

Sandy. I don't think I gave a definition of sustainability, but the gov't pension self-evidently isn't sustainable in line with past practice or with most people's expectations.

 

Maybe you're interpreting "unsustainable" as meaning totally scrapped. I never suggested that, but the Centre for Policy Studies believes that's a possibility for people under 35 (see my post above).

 

Re my question above - it is asked specifically of people who have been globetrotting for many years and claimed, and may have useful real experience to share. Thanks anyway.

Edited July 31, 2018 by My Thai Life

[sandyf]

15 hours ago, nong38 said:

The gvt is constantly hanging the goalposts, I paid NI 45 years, then qualifying came down to 30  then up to 35, in real terms wo is paying more? There will be less tax payers in the future to fund the system, someone is either going to have to pay more or someone is going to miss out, like New Zealand.

Everyone should take care of themselves and not rely on the state, unfortunately there are a lot who live for today and expect someone else to bail them out later in life, its a big gamble but some seem used to claiming everything thing they can from the state and that is what is bankrupting society. I like others here never clamed anything, others seem to milk the system, they are not stopped and therein lies the problem.

You are quite right, people should now be looking to provide for the future. The problem is many do not understand how it used to work and how it has changed.

Previously your NI provided a 2 part pension, basic pension plus additional pension. If you contracted out, you paid reduced NI and did not get the additional pension.

Last year the government pulled a fast one, they scrapped the additional pension and  now for the full NI you only get a basic pension and that will be reduced if you previously paid reduced NI under contracting out. They sweetened the deal by increasing the basic to £155. To put it in perspective,when I drew my pension the additional pension was about 80% of the basic pension.

Although people are now paying the same amount of NI they will only ever get the basic fixed amount and need to make additional provision themselves.

[sandyf]

14 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Sandy. I don't think I gave a definition of sustainability, but the gov't pension self-evidently isn't sustainable in line with past practice or with most people's expectations.

 

Maybe you're interpreting "unsustainable" as meaning totally scrapped. I never suggested that, but the Centre for Policy Studies believes that's a possibility for people under 35 (see my post above).

 

Re my question above - it is asked specifically of people who have been globetrotting for many years and claimed, and may have useful real experience to share. Thanks anyway.

You need to avoid arbitrary statements. Something like this  "but the gov't pension self-evidently isn't sustainable in line with past practice or with most people's expectations."  doesn't actually mean anything.

 

Again you should have said you wanted globetrotters that have paid NI as they trotted.

[My Thai Life]

1. Sandy. The government pensions provision has changed numerous times in recent years, and in numerous ways. This self-evidently shows it has not been sustained in line with past practice; and it cannot be sustained in line with present practice. This unsustainability is due to the baby boomers retiring: we've all  been aware of this unsustainability for 30 or more years. And some of us have taken the necessary steps to address this.

 

2. My own question is aimed at globetrotters who have experience of claiming UK gov't pensions. If you have any relevant experience please feel free to share it. The gov't forms that I have looked at on the website seem to want a record of all work, even non-UK, non N.I. If anyone has real experience of this particular situation (not generalised "advice") I'd be very pleased to hear from them.

 

I had assumed that the gov't would be able to figure out my entitlement from my NI contributions, but it seems from their website that they are not able to do this. 

 

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by My Thai Life

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

"The state pension is paid for by national insurance contributions, which come from the wages of people working today.

 

Effectively, each working generation pays for the older generation above them. However, NI is also used to pay other benefits, such as to the unemployed.

 

The Centre for Policy Studies report warns under-45 they face tax hikes and a later retirement age, and under-35s they can expect the state pension to be scrapped altogether.

 

The CPS report says the money in National Insurance Fund is running out because not enough is coming in – with the surplus down from £53billion in 2009 to £29.1billion last year."

 

from 2014. Yes there has been some dipping into taxation income since then, which underlines my point that this system is increasingly unsustainable.

"The state pension is paid for by national insurance contributions, which come from the wages of people working today.'

 

As an opener I would say: the state pension is paid from a dedicated account, which comprises an accumulated surplus and ongoing contributions from current taxpayers .  The UK Pension is regulated under The Pensions Act (2014).

[denby45]

2 hours ago, My Thai Life said:

My point is that pensions are paid out of current income to government, not out of vested contributions, which seems to be a common assumption. So I think we are in agreement (about the first part anyway).

 

To be more specific: If Mr Smith is receiving a pension today, he is paid out of the income the government is receiving "today", not out of Mr Smith's earlier contributions.

 

(In the post you quoted I used the term "contribution" in a general sense, not a technical pensions sense, because I was paraphrasing an earlier post!)

 

But I'm not sure if I can agree about sustainability. We'd need to see some pretty good actuarial analysis to be sure, and even then we might disagree about its assumptions. The fact that the gov't has changed the rules, for example, raising the retirement age and its albeit limited freezes, suggests that the earlier model wasn't sustainable. (We all knew that anyway, that's why I opted out many moons ago.) Gov'ts all over the world (or at least the Caucasian parts) are doing this of course, including Russia; the post-war baby boom is now a retirement boom!

 

Posted this before and I’m not sure if it has been superseded. It’s an extract from the “Government Actuary’s Quinquennial Review of the National Insurance Fund as at April 2015” Link is also posted.

 

 

1.4

The consequences of the above progression in NIC receipts and benefit expenditure

are that:

>

the Fund balance is expected to increase until around

2024-25, without any

Treasury Grants being required

>

without additional support in addition to NICs, the Fund balance will fall

rapidly to exhaustion in around 2032-

33

>

Treasury Grants would be required from around 2030, but would consistently

need to exceed the current limits from 2060-

61.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/653374/QR_2017_report_Oct_2017.pdf

 

 

[My Thai Life]

@MB Sure, the key point is that it's not (in)vested. It's a current account.

[mommysboy]

If I was to be asked the best way of proceeding with a claim for all applicants, I would say that most choose to make a telephone call to first request a pension forecast.  During that call, one will most likely be asked about past employment details as a method of confirming id.

[My Thai Life]

Exactly Denby45, the UK gov't pensions approach was/is not sustainable as was/is; hence the numerous policy changes. 

 

Chancellors of the Exchequer have been talking about this for years . Now it's hitting home.

[My Thai Life]

Mummysboy.  You don't need to make a call for a pensions forecast, you can do it with the info online.

 

The gov't website seems to want info for all work, including non UK, non NI. Can any fellow globetrotter here who is a few years older than me and acually claimed their pension cast any light on this?

 

[mommysboy]

4 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

@MB Sure, the key point is that it's not (in)vested. It's a current account.

I would say that is mostly true, to the point that it may as well be regarded as true. It has in the past invested in bonds, and still operates a rather peculiar type of internal lending to other government accounts. 

 

And of course it differs significantly from a private pension fund, in as much the contributor does not have a specified/dedicated personal holding. 

 

Maybe it's an error, but it is referred to as a fund and not just by laymen.  In fact the posting above by the government's actuarial body refers to the 'fund balance'.

 

But I acquiesce to your greater professional knowledge.

[mommysboy]

5 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Mummysboy.  You don't need to make a call for a pensions forecast, you can do it with the info online.

 

The gov't website seems to want info for all work, including non UK, non NI. Can any fellow globetrotter here who is a few years older than me and acually claimed their pension cast any light on this?

 

I got really good advice. I was even offered a free chat with a pensions advisor who could answer the sort of specific questions you may need to ask. These websites are awfully frustrating. I can't answer your question specifically since I haven't yet made a claim.

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, My Thai Life said:

Mummysboy.  You don't need to make a call for a pensions forecast, you can do it with the info online.

 

The gov't website seems to want info for all work, including non UK, non NI. Can any fellow globetrotter here who is a few years older than me and acually claimed their pension cast any light on this?

 

I wouldn't class myself as a globetrotter, but spent time away from the UK in the military. I filled my forms in about 3.5 years ago. I didn't know when I changed jobs and houses etc, however I filled the form in to the best of my knowledge, I sure I was year or two out either way. Not many of us can remember what we did over a 50 year period, I never got any problems from pensions.

I did however ring the pension service and they were very helpful and gave me my forecast.

[sumrit]

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Remember we are talking about the future, not me, but the next generation and younger. 

 

It just stands to reason that when the demographics change so drastically then of course people pay more, and it will have to be much more, because as professionals like MTL have pointed it simply is unsustainable; even now it's creaking.

 

I was genuinely shocked to find out that it remained 117 pounds for some, particularly as they were the generation that paid as much as 45 years in contributions, but then it was explained that pension rights were extended to living spouses.  And moreover, this present generation would on average be claiming for 15, 20 years or more (40 hopefully).  The Government has indicated that this simply won't be the case in the future.  A person entering the system now could be working up until the age, maybe much higher.

 

Frankly, a person presently retired has lived in the golden generation as regards pensions.  We will not see the like again. So it really is a bit much to feel hard done by.  The expat issue is another matter- yes, feel genuinely cheated about that.

 

 

 

 

That's simply not true. That was scrapped for all pensioners who retired after April 2010

 

 

2 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Up until 3 years ago the UK pension was entirely funded by NI contributions!!  Your assertion will hold good in the future however unless further substantial revisions are made to NI rate, retirement age, and qualifying years.

 

NHS has always been paid out of income tax.  NI is for pension and some work related welfare benefits.

 

As I pointed out the moment you return to Blighty to live you are covered by the NHS once more, and your pension returns to the normal rate.

Simply not true again.

 

I returned to the UK  for a month in June this year to attend a friend's funeral so thought, while I was there I would have my eyes tested (a pensioner plus there's glaucoma in the family to the test should be free), go to a dentist and visit a GP to get my painkillers (suffer from cervical spondylosys and osteo arthritis so am in constant pain). ALL THREE said I wasn't entitled and must attend as a private patient and pay the full price of course. Both the Doctor and Optician said I must wait three months then declare I'd returned to the UK  for good to get NHS treatment again.

 

Don't know about the pension returning to current rates as I didn't ask.  But another friend of mine who returned to the UK earlier this year (initially just for a month) had a stroke after about three weeks so is still there and still receiving treatment. He had applied for a council tax rebate but was refused because he hadn't been in the UK for three months, plus social services applied for an increase on his pension on his behalf and, although he did get it (along with a small amount of pension credit), he told me it wasn't paid for the first three months.

 

I know various posters on here have said they've got the pension increased when they went back to the UK but I don't know if it was paid from day one. I can only say what's happened to my mate.

 

Also, when he was taken to hospital he was told by an administrator that he might have to pay for treatment but nothing's been said since. 

[billd766]

3 hours ago, mommysboy said:

Remember we are talking about the future, not me, but the next generation and younger. 

 

It just stands to reason that when the demographics change so drastically then of course people pay more, and it will have to be much more, because as professionals like MTL have pointed it simply is unsustainable; even now it's creaking.

 

I was genuinely shocked to find out that it remained 117 pounds for some, particularly as they were the generation that paid as much as 45 years in contributions, but then it was explained that pension rights were extended to living spouses.  And moreover, this present generation would on average be claiming for 15, 20 years or more (40 hopefully).  The Government has indicated that this simply won't be the case in the future.  A person entering the system now could be working up until the age, maybe much higher.

 

Frankly, a person presently retired has lived in the golden generation as regards pensions.  We will not see the like again. So it really is a bit much to feel hard done by.  The expat issue is another matter- yes, feel genuinely cheated about that.

 

 

 

 

 

I would love to get £117 as my frozen pension is stuck on £95. OTOH £150 is simply an unattainable dream even though I paid NI for 44 years and I am still paying income tax after 59 1/2 years, thus partly subsidising my own state pension. Do you think that paying in part for my own lower rate pension would make the younger generation any happier?

[My Thai Life]

@Vogie thanks for your reply.

 

I'm assuming that your work in the UK military, though outside of the UK, was still classed as UK employment and you paid NI.

 

My situation is that I have had numerous contracts (often short-term contracts) in around 25 countries since the age of about 30, none of which required UK NI payments, and I chose not to top up my NI. 

 

The UK government pensions website seems to want details of all these positions, which is just impossible, and obviously not necessary for their calculation anyway. I realise my case is fairly rare, but there are many guys working like this, in various types of work.

 

I've calculated my entitlement, and naturally it's not much. I  have other good financial provision, so the UK gvt pension is not actually necessary for me, but it is my entitlement. I'm sure there must be others on this forum in that boat too. Any pointers welcome!

[nontabury]

31 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I would love to get £117 as my frozen pension is stuck on £95. OTOH £150 is simply an unattainable dream even though I paid NI for 44 years and I am still paying income tax after 59 1/2 years, thus partly subsidising my own state pension. Do you think that paying in part for my own lower rate pension would make the younger generation any happier?

Lots of sympathy for you Bill. Before I returned to live in the U.K in January, my state pension was £99 a week Now it’s at £137 a week. Is this fair, of course not. At least now I’ve  got the satisfaction of knowing that the government is having to pay an extra £15,000 + per year for my family. School cost £10,000 + extra pension £1,976 + child allowance £1,800. In addition any medical cost. These are the costs for just one family, imagine what the costs would be, if all those on frozen pensions were to return to the U.K. And there lies the rub, Unfortunately the government,knows this will not happen. And that’s what they’re relying on. 

 

Edited July 31, 2018 by nontabury

[vogie]

1 hour ago, My Thai Life said:

@Vogie thanks for your reply.

 

I'm assuming that your work in the UK military, though outside of the UK, was still classed as UK employment and you paid NI.

 

My situation is that I have had numerous contracts (often short-term contracts) in around 25 countries since the age of about 30, none of which required UK NI payments, and I chose not to top up my NI. 

 

The UK government pensions website seems to want details of all these positions, which is just impossible, and obviously not necessary for their calculation anyway. I realise my case is fairly rare, but there are many guys working like this, in various types of work.

 

I've calculated my entitlement, and naturally it's not much. I  have other good financial provision, so the UK gvt pension is not actually necessary for me, but it is my entitlement. I'm sure there must be others on this forum in that boat too. Any pointers welcome!

I think all this information that they require off you is just to prove who you are, I'm presuming you have a NI number which is all they need to evaluate your forecast. I rang them before I filled my pension claim form and they more or less told me straight away what my forecast was. They know more about you than you do, ringing them would be my first port of call anyway. Good luck.

Edit. There have been various times in my employ where I have opted out, I did not know this, they told me.

Edited July 31, 2018 by vogie