UK pensions

[evadgib]

'Do the RIGHT thing' May under pressure to END state pension FREEZE for expats

THERESA May is to be urged to “do the right thing” and end the historic injustice of freezing the state pension of British pensioners who move abroad denying them thousands of pounds. The message is due to be delivered by 93-year-old Ane Puckridge, a Second World War veteran who has the rare distinction of serving in all three branches of the armed services.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1034285/theresa-may-state-pension-freeze-expats-brexit-latest

[evadgib]

https://www.ft.com/content/947bc7a0-dc57-11e8-9f04-38d397e6661c?fbclid=IwAR0s7yecZJN5ndxHHkYy-xE5vO1z6EldmvTebK5bFRr-52dGLekGE3Gfjdc

[billzant]

A well-spoken 93-year-old woman, Anne Puckridge, appears to have been an effective campaign, of course the result is what matters. It hurts neither party to support the campaign so there is a chance. Photos on twitter @pensionjustice

[evadgib]

https://www.itv.com/news/2018-10-31/retirees-living-abroad-call-for-freeze-on-state-pensions-to-be-scrapped/

 

https://www.shropshirestar.com/news/uk-news/2018/10/31/petition-calls-for-expat-pensioners-to-get-same-payments-as-those-who-stay-in-uk/

[evadgib]

Starts at 12.37

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_two

[strikingsunset]

500m GBP to resolve this - it’s peanuts in the scheme of things


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

9 minutes ago, strikingsunset said:

500m GBP to resolve this - it’s peanuts in the scheme of things


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

The total spending of the UK government in the current fiscal year is anticipated to be £817.5 billion.

[roo860]

Yesterday on radio 2, UK, Jeremy Vine was discussing this topic .

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[billzant]

500m GBP. Less than a 1000 drones https://dronewars.net/2018/02/26/cost-of-uk-air-and-drone-strikes-in-iraq-and-syria-reach-1-75-billion/

[evadgib]

49 minutes ago, roo860 said:

Yesterday on radio 2, UK, Jeremy Vine was discussing this topic .

Sent from my SM-G920F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Unfortunately the link in my last post no longer goes to Anne's interview. I thought she came across very well in the 13mins in which they discussed the affair.

[billzant]

Jeremy Vine interview https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0000ycn Start at 37 mins

 

[billzant]

Has what the SAGA lady said been discussed before? She was saying something to the effect that I paid my pension contributions to pay the pensions of people earning a pension at the time (the generation(s) older than me). In the paying of this money does the government have no obligation to pay my pension when I reached retirement age? By the supposed logic of the SAGA lady the government does not have to pay pensions to anyone. So they choose who they pay for? What is the legality of this? Any info?

[cleopatra2]

20 minutes ago, billzant said:

Has what the SAGA lady said been discussed before? She was saying something to the effect that I paid my pension contributions to pay the pensions of people earning a pension at the time (the generation(s) older than me). In the paying of this money does the government have no obligation to pay my pension when I reached retirement age? By the supposed logic of the SAGA lady the government does not have to pay pensions to anyone. So they choose who they pay for? What is the legality of this? Any info?

The government do pay the pension the people are entitled to on reaching state pension age. What they dont pay is any uprating. Take for example the move to the new flat rate pension. Pensioners before the introduction of the new system receive the old basic state pension, whilst those reaching pension age after introduction receive the new amount ( a difference of around gbp 30 assuming full qualifying entitlement )

[billzant]

Cleopatra, Thanks for your reply. I understand the issue of uprating, that the government is paying my pension as assessed at 65 but will not be uprating it each year as they do in the UK and in countries where there is a reciprocal agreement. Thailand does not have such an agreement.

What I don't understand is what the SAGA lady was trying to say in the interview. It struck me after that she is working for private pensions, and trying to throw a spanner in the works.

 

I am interested in knowing what the government's legal responsibility is, and I think this has been discussed in this 325-page thread - somewhere.

 

 

[cleopatra2]

18 minutes ago, billzant said:

Cleopatra, Thanks for your reply. I understand the issue of uprating, that the government is paying my pension as assessed at 65 but will not be uprating it each year as they do in the UK and in countries where there is a reciprocal agreement. Thailand does not have such an agreement.

What I don't understand is what the SAGA lady was trying to say in the interview. It struck me after that she is working for private pensions, and trying to throw a spanner in the works.

 

I am interested in knowing what the government's legal responsibility is, and I think this has been discussed in this 325-page thread - somewhere.

 

 

The SAGA lady was just repeating that NI contributions pension portion is to pay for existing pensioners and not the individuals future pension.  The individuals NI contribution history is used as qualifying criteria for their state pension.

 

What was not discussed or clarified, if the campaign is successful and oversees pensions uprated, how much more money would Anne receive in her pocket. The difference is said to be about gbp 50 . However Anne gets Canadian welfare , which would be reduced due to her UK pension rise. In effect the UK would be paying into the Canadian treasury 

[billzant]

"The SAGA lady was just repeating that NI contributions pension portion is to pay for existing pensioners and not the individuals future pension.  The individuals NI contribution history is used as qualifying criteria for their state pension."

 

Cleopatra, Thanks. My NI contributions are not my own personal pension fund kind of thing. If I have paid the contributions that is all that counts, how the government decides to use the money at the time it is paid is their business.

Are they committed by law to pay my pension based on an assessment of pension contributions? I understand that our pensions are frozen by law, a law that is renewed annually (denying our uprating) - forgot the parliamentary terminology.

For me there are no logical arguments for not uprating our pensions - just inertia, they haven't paid before so why pay now, yet the SAGA lady suggested the government was being logical because of the above. That didn't make sense to me. Can you surmise what she meant? The logic of the injustice that Anne was presenting was that people with the same qualifying criteria in neighbouring countries eg Thailand and Philippines get different pensions, one frozen and one not. Can you see why the SAGA lady saying the above was providing some sort of counter-argument to this?

 

I understand that you are just stating what she said, and not defending her, I am asking your opinion.

Do you have an opinion/understanding as to why our pension contributions were not placed in some government-managed pension fund to enable our payments? It seems like mismanagement not to have done so.

[billzant]

"What was not discussed or clarified, if the campaign is successful and oversees pensions uprated, how much more money would Anne receive in her pocket. The difference is said to be about gbp 50 . However Anne gets Canadian welfare , which would be reduced due to her UK pension rise. In effect the UK would be paying into the Canadian treasury "

 

I believe Australia also makes some kind of hardship payment. 

Earlier this year I think, there was a Commonwealth conference in which this issue was being pushed by Commonwealth governments. Obviously a vested interest there.

But why should a person who has made full contributions require some kind of hardship payment unless the standard of living is so different.

I would surmise that Anne would only get a net increase, and not the full increase. (No actual knowledge, just a guess)

I shall be applying to the Thai government soon for my hardship payment. ????

[cleopatra2]

40 minutes ago, billzant said:

"The SAGA lady was just repeating that NI contributions pension portion is to pay for existing pensioners and not the individuals future pension.  The individuals NI contribution history is used as qualifying criteria for their state pension."

 

Cleopatra, Thanks. My NI contributions are not my own personal pension fund kind of thing. If I have paid the contributions that is all that counts, how the government decides to use the money at the time it is paid is their business.

Are they committed by law to pay my pension based on an assessment of pension contributions? I understand that our pensions are frozen by law, a law that is renewed annually (denying our uprating) - forgot the parliamentary terminology.

For me there are no logical arguments for not uprating our pensions - just inertia, they haven't paid before so why pay now, yet the SAGA lady suggested the government was being logical because of the above. That didn't make sense to me. Can you surmise what she meant? The logic of the injustice that Anne was presenting was that people with the same qualifying criteria in neighbouring countries eg Thailand and Philippines get different pensions, one frozen and one not. Can you see why the SAGA lady saying the above was providing some sort of counter-argument to this?

 

I understand that you are just stating what she said, and not defending her, I am asking your opinion.

Do you have an opinion/understanding as to why our pension contributions were not placed in some government-managed pension fund to enable our payments? It seems like mismanagement not to have done so.

I will try to address some of your points.

 

The system was set up to give everybody a minimum standard of living in retirement. There have been various changes over the years but the fundamental of using contributions for existing payments have remained. Without this provision in 1945/1946 the people who had suffered hardship and provided support to the UK during the Wars and depression would have been excluded or at best disadvantaged.

 

The being logical comes from the fact that uprating is determined by agreements that the UK have entered into , and not some random throw of the dice. The agreements are complicated and as an analogy I would use the various Double Tax treaties to demonstrate how each give rise to differing conditions.

 

The government is required by current law to pay the pension , using the NI contributions as qualifying criteria. (Pensions Act 2014)

As a side note the Pensions Act 2014 initially did not include the clause for not uprating , but was added during the debates.

[cleopatra2]

21 minutes ago, billzant said:

"What was not discussed or clarified, if the campaign is successful and oversees pensions uprated, how much more money would Anne receive in her pocket. The difference is said to be about gbp 50 . However Anne gets Canadian welfare , which would be reduced due to her UK pension rise. In effect the UK would be paying into the Canadian treasury "

 

I believe Australia also makes some kind of hardship payment. 

Earlier this year I think, there was a Commonwealth conference in which this issue was being pushed by Commonwealth governments. Obviously a vested interest there.

But why should a person who has made full contributions require some kind of hardship payment unless the standard of living is so different.

I would surmise that Anne would only get a net increase, and not the full increase. (No actual knowledge, just a guess)

I shall be applying to the Thai government soon for my hardship payment. ????

If the major benefactor of uprating pensions is going to be governments then the campaign is a non starter.

To use Anne as the example. The campaign are trying to give the impression Anne is reliant on the state pension at a value dated 2001,  the amount being received by the Canadian welfare is not mentioned. If what Anne is receiving is means tested then the amount will be affected by any uprating. 

Thus the campaign opponents will correctly claim the UK is giving money to a foreign treasury for no gain.Any public sympathy within the UK will evaporate

[evadgib]

Both Govts (Canada/Oz) regularly raise this issue with the British Govt but seemingly without much success.

[ivor bigun]

Both Govts (Canada/Oz) regularly raise this issue with the British Govt but seemingly without much success.

Same as this try wont have any success.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[evadgib]

54 minutes ago, ivor bigun said:

Same as this try wont have any success.

They wont get away with it forever.

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

Both Govts (Canada/Oz) regularly raise this issue with the British Govt but seemingly without much success.

I will ask a question, since the campaign wishes to highlight Anne's situation in Canada.If the UK uprated the frozen pensions, would Anne qualify for canadian welfare in addition to her uprated pension.

Would it result in her being treated more favorable than like pensioners in UK

[nong38]

I would have thought that if her pension were uprated it would affect the amount she gets from the Canadian Government.

[ivor bigun]

They wont get away with it forever.

I hope not ,but i fear i wont hold my breath,we just dont count in todays PC anybody but decent British born ordinary people who worked hard all their lives get it before we do.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[cleopatra2]

16 minutes ago, nong38 said:

I would have thought that if her pension were uprated it would affect the amount she gets from the Canadian Government.

I concur

It is also possible with the UK frozen pension and current Canadian welfare , Anne is receiving more than a UK pensioner.

 sShowcasing a person to highlight the injustices, when that person is at best minimally affected or even might  be better off is not a good image for the cause.

[evadgib]

1 hour ago, cleopatra2 said:

I will ask a question, since the campaign wishes to highlight Anne's situation in Canada.If the UK uprated the frozen pensions, would Anne qualify for canadian welfare in addition to her uprated pension.

Would it result in her being treated more favorable than like pensioners in UK

Any gains will likely be withdrawn by host Govts when HMG coughs up.

[billzant]

My immediate personal reaction is that it is up to the British government to pay the pensions that people are entitled to based on qualifications criteria. 

 

I don't think it would be politically sound for the government to say they are not paying because some governments pay out welfare/hardship allowance to make up for the British government not paying entitlement. Does anyone know of an instance where the British government has said they are not paying because it would help Canada and Australia .... and elsewhere?

 

Listening to the Jeremy Vine interview it sounded to me that the Canada payment did not match how much she was losing because her pension has been frozen. Don't know though.  Link to interview in a comment I made on p325.

 

Being frozen is an injustice. I read, I think it was on the all party campaigning group site, that inertia was why they didn't pay - never have so why start now. To overcome such inertia shaming seems a good tactic. A 93-year-old meeting MPs and promoting the issue seemed to me a good way of shaming - see @pensionjustice.  500m GBP is a small amount if enough shame could be created.

[billzant]

"I will ask a question, since the campaign wishes to highlight Anne's situation in Canada.If the UK uprated the frozen pensions, would Anne qualify for canadian welfare in addition to her uprated pension."

 

Cleopatra, I didn't read that they were trying to highlight the case for Canada. the ICBP is based in Canada, I think.  Anne Puckridge lives in Canada, is 93, and is willing to go to London and hopefully shame the government to cough up 500m GBP (less than a 1000 drones) for 500000 people who were born British citizens.

 

My personal greed worries sometimes that ICBP is Commonwealth. Here is the All party group on frozen pensions APPG solution, annulling up-rating regulations, that is somehow costed at 37 million GBP

[mommysboy]

Lots of complex ifs and buts arguments: surely the issue is that the pension is not means tested or residency based and she simply wants the same as everyone else.  

 

Shockingly unfair imo.