UK pensions

[mommysboy]

1 hour ago, billzant said:

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.

'

500m GBP is a small amount if enough shame could be created.'

 

I can't imagine this figure would be enough to compensate for lost years.

 

Is this the cost to simply uprate (without any retrospective payments)?

[mommysboy]

I think where successive attempts have gone wrong is insisting on full uprate, or worse still back payments. A partial uprate- where payments start again from their present level (what they are receiving today) would have happened by now.

 

Sometimes you just have to accept a compromise, because there is unfortunately no legal case here.

 

It's wrong, I know, but... by insisting on nothing less than full restitution one not only reduces the chance of receiving at least some restitution but ensures other retirees and future retirees also lose out.

Edited November 2, 2018 by mommysboy

[cleopatra2]

8 hours ago, billzant said:

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.

In the case of Anne from Canada there is no shaming. Anne made a choice to move and live in Canada , receives welfare from the Canadian government to help her maintain a minimum Canadian standard of living . 

 

There could be a valid argument if the uprating improved the finances of the individual.

Any potential uprating would simply offset the Canadian welfare , thus it would be money from UK government going to the Canadian government . How can that be fair on UK citizens who would be paying. 

[billzant]

"500m GBP is a small amount if enough shame could be created.'

 

I can't imagine this figure would be enough to compensate for lost years.

 

Is this the cost to simply uprate (without any retrospective payments)?"

 

Mommysboy, YES

[steve187]

27 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

In the case of Anne from Canada there is no shaming. Anne made a choice to move and live in Canada , receives welfare from the Canadian government to help her maintain a minimum Canadian standard of living . 

 

There could be a valid argument if the uprating improved the finances of the individual.

Any potential uprating would simply offset the Canadian welfare , thus it would be money from UK government going to the Canadian government . How can that be fair on UK citizens who would be paying. 

that's not the point, the point is its unfair to upgrade some and not others. The UK government are taking the p**s with expats, pensions and healthcare

[cleopatra2]

11 minutes ago, steve187 said:

that's not the point, the point is its unfair to upgrade some and not others. The UK government are taking the p**s with expats, pensions and healthcare

Currently expat pensioners receive entitlement under existing UK law.

The claim is that this is unfair , and the law should be changed. It could be argued to change the law to unfreeze the pensions would be unfair on the UK taxpayer (money would move from one government to the other) .

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Currently expat pensioners receive entitlement under existing UK law.

The claim is that this is unfair , and the law should be changed. It could be argued to change the law to unfreeze the pensions would be unfair on the UK taxpayer (money would move from one government to the other) .

Many of us here are still UK tax payers!

[billzant]

"In the case of Anne from Canada there is no shaming. Anne made a choice to move and live in Canada , receives welfare from the Canadian government to help her maintain a minimum Canadian standard of living . 

 

There could be a valid argument if the uprating improved the finances of the individual.

Any potential uprating would simply offset the Canadian welfare , thus it would be money from UK government going to the Canadian government . How can that be fair on UK citizens who would be paying. "

 

Personally I think Anne, as a single elderly person, has the right to choose to live near her family without losing pension entitlement, she moved when she was 76. I believe a pension is earned by right, by work, and in Anne's case military service. I think the government pension service has a different view of "entitlement" although I am not sure.

 

Cleopatra we are both speculating as to the figures for the second paragraph - as I previously said I got the feeling that if she got the uprating she would be better off but not the full amount . The question would not have arisen if the situation had been just in the first place ie that there was the uprating she was (we are) entitled to. 

 

Cleopatra, surely justice to British people has to be the byword, and not government filling the coffers of other governments. Legally the British government does not have to pay the uprating, but this is an unjust law. Pensions are part of the government budget as a whole, it is not a self-sustaining compartment based on NI contributions. If NI contributions fall below the required pension budget the government by law is required to find the pension money from elsewhere to fulfil their commitment - confirmed by advice from the National Pensioners' Association. 500000 British people are losing out, and yet drones used in action in the Middle East cost the budget far more (https://dronewars.net/2018/02/26/cost-of-uk-air-and-drone-strikes-in-iraq-and-syria-reach-1-75-billion/)

 

When I retired to Thailand I was aware that my pension was frozen, of course I didn't like it but it was part of my decision. However I became incensed when I learnt that pensions were not frozen in the Phillipines. Then the question of reciprocal agreements arose, and that there is no apparent logic to these, and because of this lack of logic some citizens (pensioners in different countries) are being treated unjustly. Although it is not the practise it is my view that governments should be looking after people with a certain level of justice. It is not just that in Thailand and the Phillipines the pensions over time will be vastly different.

In the case of Canada, Australia and I believe South Africa it is far worse because there is inflation in those countries on a par with the inflation in the UK.

[billzant]

"It could be argued to change the law to unfreeze the pensions would be unfair on the UK taxpayer (money would move from one government to the other) ."

 

Cleopatra, In such an unjust situation to place such emphasis on this transfer of money into government coffers to me sounds dubious. The Canadian government offers a welfare payment because British law is not just and you are concerned that SOME of the British money goes to the Canadian government - I suspect more would go to Anne. The Canadian government welfare payment is being replaced by Anne's entitlement, simply to see it as a government transfer ignores the lack of justice and the personal suffering caused to Anne who is losing 50GBP a week because she is not uprated.

[billzant]

"Many of us here are still UK tax payers!"

 

I personally would prefer to see our government use those taxes in a just way, this frozen pension is not just. There are many unjust ways our taxes are used (https://dronewars.net/2018/02/26/cost-of-uk-air-and-drone-strikes-in-iraq-and-syria-reach-1-75-billion/). 500,000 people are treated unjustly, reparation is relatively cheap, that is the issue.

[nong38]

Under current legislation the HMG is abiding by it by not up grading the pensions for UK pensioners who left the UK for a different way of life, many of whom were not made aware of the up grading of pension affect at that time. Their view was that they had without any choice paid into the system and they expected to receive a pension that went up with inflation every year regardless of where they chose to live, Liverpool or on the moon, why would they think it mattered? The ordinary man in the street is not a lawyer and although some might argue prudence might make sure you investigate something that you should have been made aware of years ago but the HMG said nothing.

Let us not forget two other things, firstly we left knowing that we would not be able to use the NHS or other HMG services, for which we receive nothing in respect of that so that really a double whammy, but it gets worse! There is a third whammy isn't there another one you cannot escape from, you are still paying taxes towards your own pension, have a look at the form the HMRC sends you every year.

The whole system is grossly unfair and discriminates against a body of people purely on the grounds of where they choose to live.

Now have a look at your pension and total income on a weekly basis and compare it to the July 2018 UK weekly average wage which 523GBP, if you were still in the UK you would be able to claim some benefits to raise you up to a minimum rate, not to 523GBP I grant you, something you again cannot do and we did know that when we left although I dare say some have found a way round that one, as Anne said the current system is creating a whole load of new criminals. I guess it comes down to the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. The law is wrong and it needs changing.

[superal]

Does anyone know the latest news on Anne's appeal ?

 

So what is the logic of pension freezing ? In a court of law the UK government would surely lose the case as it is an unqualified injustice and discriminates against retirees freedom of choice of residence . Having worked all their lives in the UK and made mandatory N.I. contributions they are being treated like cast offs who no longer matter . 

Indeed there could be a counter claim for higher pensions for those living abroad as they do not use the NHS / regular doctors appointments / cold weather payments / home help /and for non house owners the Gov does not have the onus of providing accommodation  etc

Is the UK the only country that freezes pensions ?  It feels like legalised fraud . Maybe should play the game and open a bank account in the Philippines plus a pals address there .

[cleopatra2]

4 minutes ago, superal said:

Does anyone know the latest news on Anne's appeal ?

 

So what is the logic of pension freezing ? In a court of law the UK government would surely lose the case as it is an unqualified injustice and discriminates against retirees freedom of choice of residence . Having worked all their lives in the UK and made mandatory N.I. contributions they are being treated like cast offs who no longer matter . 

Indeed there could be a counter claim for higher pensions for those living abroad as they do not use the NHS / regular doctors appointments / cold weather payments / home help /and for non house owners the Gov does not have the onus of providing accommodation  etc

Is the UK the only country that freezes pensions ?  It feels like legalised fraud . Maybe should play the game and open a bank account in the Philippines plus a pals address there .

Anne is not appealing , but appearing as a person affected , by the campaign to unfreeze pensions.

The pension freezing have been challenged in court and the gov. position upheld.

Discrimination in itself is not unlawful, it is the basis of the discrimination which may be unlawfull. For example a landlord may state no pets, this is not unlawful but discriminates against pet owners

[billzant]

As far as I understand it what was upheld by various courts was that:-

"not uprating" (frozen pensions) was not unlawful.

 

This basically says that the British government by paying frozen pensions are not breaking the law that the British government made.

The law is unjust and needs to change. And that is the purpose of the campaign that Anne is the figurehead of.

 

In my view this is a clear example of laws that are unjust. If people defend the British government over frozen pensions (for whatever reason) they are defending unjust laws. Anyone is entitled to defend injustice, but one has to ask why.

Remember the frozen pension is unjust, that is all that is needed to be known.

[superal]

7 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Anne is not appealing , but appearing as a person affected , by the campaign to unfreeze pensions.

The pension freezing have been challenged in court and the gov. position upheld.

Discrimination in itself is not unlawful, it is the basis of the discrimination which may be unlawfull. For example a landlord may state no pets, this is not unlawful but discriminates against pet owners

But in this case the discrimination of UK retirees , who have chosen to live abroad for what ever reason , may in some cases have a profound effect on their lives / welfare and that is within the context of discrimination . Below extract from the Cambridge English Dictionary

treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.: racial/sex/age

It seems the Government will not concede , however if a retiree returns to the UK for 6 months their pension will be brought up to date . Just wondering if that would work if the retiree went to a reciprocal country instead of the UK for the 6 month period i.e. for those of us in Thailand went to the Philippines ? Low cost travel and living expenses as opposed to a UK trip.

[cleopatra2]

10 minutes ago, superal said:

But in this case the discrimination of UK retirees , who have chosen to live abroad for what ever reason , may in some cases have a profound effect on their lives / welfare and that is within the context of discrimination . Below extract from the Cambridge English Dictionary

treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.: racial/sex/age

It seems the Government will not concede , however if a retiree returns to the UK for 6 months their pension will be brought up to date . Just wondering if that would work if the retiree went to a reciprocal country instead of the UK for the 6 month period i.e. for those of us in Thailand went to the Philippines ? Low cost travel and living expenses as opposed to a UK trip.

where does it fall into the definition unlawful discrimination

[stephenterry]

8 minutes ago, superal said:

But in this case the discrimination of UK retirees , who have chosen to live abroad for what ever reason , may in some cases have a profound effect on their lives / welfare and that is within the context of discrimination . Below extract from the Cambridge English Dictionary

treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.: racial/sex/age

It seems the Government will not concede , however if a retiree returns to the UK for 6 months their pension will be brought up to date . Just wondering if that would work if the retiree went to a reciprocal country instead of the UK for the 6 month period i.e. for those of us in Thailand went to the Philippines ? Low cost travel and living expenses as opposed to a UK trip.

Yes. I had it confirmed by the UK pensions office that if I retired to the Philippines, my pension would be unfrozen. Presumably, you would have to maintain an address there, and there could be other requirements to satisfy the Pensions office that I didn't pursue at the time (early 2018).

[evadgib]

2 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

In the case of Anne from Canada there is no shaming. Anne made a choice to move and live in Canada , receives welfare from the Canadian government to help her maintain a minimum Canadian standard of living . 

Yet it could be argued that at 76 with no husband and with her daughter living in Canada this particular choice was an operational necessity that fulfills her (+daughter and grandchildren if any) right to family life.

Edited November 3, 2018 by evadgib

[cleopatra2]

14 minutes ago, billzant said:

As far as I understand it what was upheld by various courts was that:-

"not uprating" (frozen pensions) was not unlawful.

 

This basically says that the British government by paying frozen pensions are not breaking the law that the British government made.

The law is unjust and needs to change. And that is the purpose of the campaign that Anne is the figurehead of.

 

In my view this is a clear example of laws that are unjust. If people defend the British government over frozen pensions (for whatever reason) they are defending unjust laws. Anyone is entitled to defend injustice, but one has to ask why.

Remember the frozen pension is unjust, that is all that is needed to be known.

My argument is the campaign has to be objective.Putting Anne forward as the figurehead is a poor example , Anne receives a UK state pension along with a Canadian welfare payment , 

[evadgib]

25 minutes ago, superal said:

Just wondering if that would work if the retiree went to a reciprocal country instead of the UK for the 6 month period i.e. for those of us in Thailand went to the Philippines ?

According to a recent post on one of the consortium's FB pages the only places where you cannot temporarily upgrade are USA and Bermuda.

HTH

[evadgib]

End Frozen Pensions

 

9 hrs · 

What a fantastic week it has been. On Wednesday Anne led a delegation to Westminster where she spoke to MPs about the injustice of frozen pensions and shared her story. Anne then handed in the petition with 218,660 of your signatures to Number 10 Downing Street. She was even invited inside. If you haven't already signed your name to support Anne do so now at endfrozenpensions.org The fight has only just begun.

 

40 Comments

74 shares

 

[johng]

I just signed the petition  to end frozen pensions...

what a despicable con, truly disgusting that people have forcibly been paying into these government schemes but when the time comes the government use any trick to renege on the deal.

[billd766]

4 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

In the case of Anne from Canada there is no shaming. Anne made a choice to move and live in Canada , receives welfare from the Canadian government to help her maintain a minimum Canadian standard of living . 

 

There could be a valid argument if the uprating improved the finances of the individual.

Any potential uprating would simply offset the Canadian welfare , thus it would be money from UK government going to the Canadian government . How can that be fair on UK citizens who would be paying. 

 

I made a choice to live in Thailand and my pension has not been uprated since 2009.

 

How much welfare do you thunk the Thai government gives me and all those others like me?

 

Not even 1 satang, so the Thai government will not gain anything directly if my pension is upgraded. Do you think that is fair?

 

BTW I am also a UK taxpayer so in effect I am subsidising my own state pension through taxation without representation. Do you think THAT is fair also? 

 

3 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Currently expat pensioners receive entitlement under existing UK law.

The claim is that this is unfair , and the law should be changed. It could be argued to change the law to unfreeze the pensions would be unfair on the UK taxpayer (money would move from one government to the other) .

 

I AM a UK tax payer and I have been since I left school in 1959 and will be until the day I die. Apart from child benefit I have received NO other benefits from the government.

 

I think it is unfair that I have not got what I have paid for. What do you think about that?

[billzant]

"My argument is the campaign has to be objective.Putting Anne forward as the figurehead is a poor example , Anne receives a UK state pension along with a Canadian welfare payment ,"

 

Cleopatra, The way you are stating this is still biased as you persist in suggesting she has a pension and welfare. She does not have her entitled full pension, she has a partial pension, 76 GBP instead of 120+GBP. She has an additional welfare payment from Canada that in total gives her less than the proper pension (120+GBP).

She is also a good figurehead because she is 93 years old, is well-spoken, in the military for a time, and worked until she was 76. And then her life was disadvantaged by the frozen pension issue when she just wanted to be close to her family in her final years

 

Cleopatra, I wonder why you persist with this bias that ignores the injustice. If your pension is frozen you should be thanking her for all the work she has done for us. I have done so in a token way, through her twitter account.

 

 

[evadgib]

Retired expats calling for an end to a squeeze on their pensions have handed in a 200,000-signature petition to Downing Street.

Around 520,000 expats have had their pension frozen at the level it was at when they left the UK, rather than being increased in line with payments to those who remained in the country.

Second World War veteran Anne Puckridge, a 93-year-old who emigrated to Calgary in Canada in 2001 to be near to her daughter, was among the group of expats and campaigners who delivered the petition on Wednesday....

https://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/national/17192216.petition-calls-for-expat-pensioners-to-get-same-payments-as-those-who-stay-in-uk/

[evadgib]

The message is getting out & (thankfully) hasn't been torpedoed as happened during the CHOGM with Windrush.

[cleopatra2]

36 minutes ago, billzant said:

"My argument is the campaign has to be objective.Putting Anne forward as the figurehead is a poor example , Anne receives a UK state pension along with a Canadian welfare payment ,"

 

Cleopatra, The way you are stating this is still biased as you persist in suggesting she has a pension and welfare. She does not have her entitled full pension, she has a partial pension, 76 GBP instead of 120+GBP. She has an additional welfare payment from Canada that in total gives her less than the proper pension (120+GBP).

She is also a good figurehead because she is 93 years old, is well-spoken, in the military for a time, and worked until she was 76. And then her life was disadvantaged by the frozen pension issue when she just wanted to be close to her family in her final years

 

Cleopatra, I wonder why you persist with this bias that ignores the injustice. If your pension is frozen you should be thanking her for all the work she has done for us. I have done so in a token way, through her twitter account.

 

 

It is not bias, Anne is receiving a UK state pension which she has contributed to , and is also entitled to the Canadian Security pension which only requires time spent In Canada ,plus any additional qualifying GIS.

It is disingenuous for the campaign to give the impression Anne is reliant on the UK state pension alone.

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

I made a choice to live in Thailand and my pension has not been uprated since 2009.

 

How much welfare do you thunk the Thai government gives me and all those others like me?

 

Not even 1 satang, so the Thai government will not gain anything directly if my pension is upgraded. Do you think that is fair?

 

BTW I am also a UK taxpayer so in effect I am subsidising my own state pension through taxation without representation. Do you think THAT is fair also? 

 

 

I AM a UK tax payer and I have been since I left school in 1959 and will be until the day I die. Apart from child benefit I have received NO other benefits from the government.

 

I think it is unfair that I have not got what I have paid for. What do you think about that?

Bild766 I have no gripe about campaigning for unfrozen pensions. However i fail to understand why the consortium puts forward pensioners who are receiving welfare from the host state. It is easy for their opponents to cite that the effect of uprating means money going into foreign treasury.

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Anne is not appealing , but appearing as a person affected , by the campaign to unfreeze pensions.

The pension freezing have been challenged in court and the gov. position upheld.

Discrimination in itself is not unlawful, it is the basis of the discrimination which may be unlawfull. For example a landlord may state no pets, this is not unlawful but discriminates against pet owners

Yes it was upheld by the European court of human rights. Strangely some of those judges that backed the bequest and the stance of the then Labour government, were citizens of countries that do not discriminate against their own pensioners,allowing their ex-pat pensioners to obtain the same pension rights as those who remain in their country. 

[nontabury]

3 hours ago, superal said:

But in this case the discrimination of UK retirees , who have chosen to live abroad for what ever reason , may in some cases have a profound effect on their lives / welfare and that is within the context of discrimination . Below extract from the Cambridge English Dictionary

treating a person or particular group of people differently, especially in a worse way from the way in which you treat other people, because of their skin colour, sex, sexuality, etc.: racial/sex/age

It seems the Government will not concede , however if a retiree returns to the UK for 6 months their pension will be brought up to date . Just wondering if that would work if the retiree went to a reciprocal country instead of the UK for the 6 month period i.e. for those of us in Thailand went to the Philippines ? Low cost travel and living expenses as opposed to a UK trip.

If a retiree returns to the U.K for just one day,they are entitled to the upgraded rate for that day. Ridiculous I know, but that’s how the British government discriminated against its own citizens.