UK pensions

[cleopatra2]

28 minutes ago, nontabury said:

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. 

It went through the full course of UK domestic courts before reaching the EctHR. In what way did the judges error in reaching their conclusion.

Is it unlawful discrimination according to the HR Act

[billzant]

 

 

Unlawful discrimination. The British government cannot be accused of unlawful discrimination because they make the laws. It is however discrimination of the highest order, and is not recognised as unlawful because of who makes the laws.

 

This discrimination is a political question and not a legal question, and we should not be diverted to debate law by bias.
 

 

 

[billzant]

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

 

Cleopatra, The campaign does not give any such impression, the campaign presents the issue of frozen pensions as being unjust, and Anne repeatedly talks of this injustice. it is only that your bias keeps pushing this agenda of two pensions/payments. It is an attempt to present Anne in some way as a manipulator, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing that.

[cleopatra2]

22 minutes ago, billzant said:

 

 

Unlawful discrimination. The British government cannot be accused of unlawful discrimination because they make the laws. It is however discrimination of the highest order, and is not recognised as unlawful because of who makes the laws.

 

This discrimination is a political question and not a legal question, and we should not be diverted to debate law by bias.
 

 

 

It is a legal question , asserted by article 14 of European Human Rights Act

[cleopatra2]

19 minutes ago, billzant said:

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

 

Cleopatra, The campaign does not give any such impression, the campaign presents the issue of frozen pensions as being unjust, and Anne repeatedly talks of this injustice. it is only that your bias keeps pushing this agenda of two pensions/payments. It is an attempt to present Anne in some way as a manipulator, and you should be ashamed of yourself for doing that.

Where in the campaign's interview or reports is it mentioned that Anne is receiving Canadian welfare. All the reports i have seen only state the UK pension. On J Vine Anne started to mention welfare after prompting but then became vague about the issue

[steve187]

 

 

7 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) .

please explain how money would go from UK government to Thai government

[cleopatra2]

16 minutes ago, steve187 said:

 

 

please explain how money would go from UK government to Thai government

Obviously not Thailand.

The majority of expat pensioners are in Australia and Canada , both with social welfare programs to assist their residents. Any uprating will reduce the social welfare provided by the host countries.

[DILLIGAD]

 
 
please explain how money would go from UK government to Thai government

They seem to have no problems sending out billions in foreign aid to all sorts of countries (including Thailand)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[billd766]

3 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

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.

So what?

 

At least Canada IS helping her which is far more than ANY immoral UK government is doing.

 

They are quite happily shovelling UK taxpayers billions to countries such as India and Pakistan, (both armed with nuclear weapons and India even has a space program) than in helping the elderly of their own country.

Edited November 3, 2018 by billd766

[billzant]

Focus on the injustice.

 

Despite dubious assertions to the contrary this is a question of injustice, political injustice. It does not make sense for people with frozen pensions to want to describe it any other way. I have no desire to deflect from a government shirking its responsibility to 500000 of its citizens, why would any person with a frozen pension want to do that?

 

 

Edited November 3, 2018 by billzant

[evadgib]

5 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

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.

This is on par with the "My taxes" baloney typically posted in comments sections by Sun readers or the "alright jack" club currently basking in the EU or other 7.

Edited November 3, 2018 by evadgib

[nong38]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

So what?

 

At least Canada IS helping her which is far more than ANY immoral UK government is doing.

 

They are quite happily shovelling UK taxpayers billions to countries such as India and Pakistan, (both armed with nuclear weapons and India even has a space program) than in helping the elderly of their own country.

Don't forget that Indian or Pakistan UK pensioners that decide to return to their original countries will have their pensions frozen as well, that colonialism for you!!

[mommysboy]

3 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Obviously not Thailand.

The majority of expat pensioners are in Australia and Canada , both with social welfare programs to assist their residents. Any uprating will reduce the social welfare provided by the host countries.

That's really not the point though. As I said before, it's really about parity with every other pensioner holder. The UK pension is neither means tested or residency based.

[mommysboy]

I think the only excuses offered thus far are:

 

1. It's been like this for 70 years.

2. It's too costly to address the issue.

3. Since pensioners are no longer in the UK they are no longer generating national wealth (part of the real economy).

 

1 and 3 are really quite cruddy reasons.  Of course, what is overlooked, is that expats are no longer drawing from the system for health and social care which is significant.

[cleopatra2]

5 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

That's really not the point though. As I said before, it's really about parity with every other pensioner holder. The UK pension is neither means tested or residency based.

Taking Australia as an example. An uprating of pensions will result in a saving of over  200M Australian dollars. That is money going from the UK to the Australian treasury .

The uprating is to help for the rising costs in the UK not for where pensioners choose to live.

In the case of places like

Australia and Canada where the host country has a welfare programs , they are in a better position to provide for the pensioner cost of living in the respected country.

Say for example the UK uprating is only 1% but the host country cost of living has risen 10% , then the pensioner is disadvantaged. The uprating would be in effect a devaluation.

.

 

[mommysboy]

3 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Taking Australia as an example. An uprating of pensions will result in a saving of over  200M Australian dollars. That is money going from the UK to the Australian treasury .

The uprating is to help for the rising costs in the UK not for where pensioners choose to live.

In the case of places like

Australia and Canada where the host country has a welfare programs , they are in a better position to provide for the pensioner cost of living in the respected country.

Say for example the UK uprating is only 1% but the host country cost of living has risen 10% , then the pensioner is disadvantaged. The uprating would be in effect a devaluation.

.

 

It's really much simpler than that. The UK pension is not means tested.  

[evadgib]

Radio interview from London to a Canadian radio station:

https://www.cbc.ca/listen/shows/calgary-eyeopener/segment/15625915?fbclid=IwAR1Ih2OOkKD90r53Wl4fd_RpDsSPUUtN_Xc-y9v9oKHTl0OW9XLVa4xxPRY

Edited November 3, 2018 by evadgib

[billd766]

3 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Taking Australia as an example. An uprating of pensions will result in a saving of over  200M Australian dollars. That is money going from the UK to the Australian treasury .

The uprating is to help for the rising costs in the UK not for where pensioners choose to live.

In the case of places like

Australia and Canada where the host country has a welfare programs , they are in a better position to provide for the pensioner cost of living in the respected country.

Say for example the UK uprating is only 1% but the host country cost of living has risen 10% , then the pensioner is disadvantaged. The uprating would be in effect a devaluation.

.

 

ANY foreign aid goes to a country and 100% is lost to the UK.

 

ANY expat who still pays income tax will pay 20% back to the UK Treasury in income tax for life but will still be unable to use the NHS or gain any other benefit that UK pensioners get.

 

quote from your post.

 

"The uprating is to help for the rising costs in the UK not for where pensioners choose to live."

 

Absolute rubbish. Pensioners who live in the USA, Philippines and many other countries get upgraded and the people there do NOT live in the UK.

 

Try doing a lot of research before you post and you may learn things and not look so foolish.

 

[DILLIGAD]

ANY foreign aid goes to a country and 100% is lost to the UK.
 
ANY expat who still pays income tax will pay 20% back to the UK Treasury in income tax for life but will still be unable to use the NHS or gain any other benefit that UK pensioners get.
 
quote from your post.
 
"The uprating is to help for the rising costs in the UK not for where pensioners choose to live."
 
Absolute rubbish. Pensioners who live in the USA, Philippines and many other countries get upgraded and the people there do NOT live in the UK.
 
Try doing a lot of research before you post and you may learn things and not look so foolish.
 

I also think you need to look into the use of the NHS (that Expats have paid into)!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[billzant]

"This is on par with the "My taxes" baloney typically posted in comments sections by Sun readers or the "alright jack" club currently basking in the EU or other 7." Evadgib, good one. 

 

People are arguing with Cleopatra instead of focussing on the injustice, and the failure of the British government to pay our pension entitlement.

Edited November 4, 2018 by billzant

[billzant]

"I think the only excuses offered thus far are:

 

1. It's been like this for 70 years.

2. It's too costly to address the issue.

3. Since pensioners are no longer in the UK they are no longer generating national wealth (part of the real economy).

 

1 and 3 are really quite cruddy reasons.  Of course, what is overlooked, is that expats are no longer drawing from the system for health and social care which is significant."

 

Mommysboy, good post. These are the issues - not the hijack. 1 and 3 are cruddy.

 

2 is also feeble. The APPG's solution http://frozenbritishpensions.org/a-solution/ - uprating going forward, only a partial solution but a start, is costed at 37m GBP, a drop in the ocean for the budget.

Uprating without backpay ie Anne getting paid her full whack is apparently costed at 500m GBP. This sounds a lot more but not when you compare it with how much the government pays for drones for example (https://dronewars.net/2018/02/26/cost-of-uk-air-and-drone-strikes-in-iraq-and-syria-reach-1-75-billion/).

 

The issue is not too costly, so I make all 3 reasons to be technical cruddy.

 

The issue is inertia, and this is why the government and their apologists want to deflect away from the inertia of the British government by putting forward red herrings.

[superal]

12 hours ago, mommysboy said:

I think the only excuses offered thus far are:

 

1. It's been like this for 70 years.

2. It's too costly to address the issue.

3. Since pensioners are no longer in the UK they are no longer generating national wealth (part of the real economy).

 

1 and 3 are really quite cruddy reasons.  Of course, what is overlooked, is that expats are no longer drawing from the system for health and social care which is significant.

1/  the 70 year old law/rule is clearly out dated , not relevant to modern times where the 500,000 retirees who are living abroad are not a burden to the NHS , housing and other social benefits and thus saving the UK government billions . When the law was made living abroad was only an option for the well off but the world is a smaller place now and living abroad in warmer climates is beneficial to older peoples health . How would the NHS cope if all retirees returned to the UK , answer = final nail in the coffin to an already falling apart service . 

 

 

[billzant]

"https://www.cbc.ca/listen/shows/calgary-eyeopener/segment/15625915?fbclid=IwAR1Ih2OOkKD90r53Wl4fd_RpDsSPUUtN_Xc-y9v9oKHTl0OW9XLVa4xxPRY"

 

Evadgib, interesting interview. With all the austerity in the UK I am not surprised there is little awareness of the issue. That is why Anne is such a good figurehead - and why she is being attacked. I further note that she says she has had to live off her savings.

 

But perhaps the biggest thing I personally got was that the British government were not willing to negotiate a reciprocal agreement with the Canadian government. Makes me think reciprocal agreement is also a "cruddy" excuse.

[billzant]

Excellent point, Superal:-

"1/  the 70 year old law/rule is clearly out dated , not relevant to modern times where the 500,000 retirees who are living abroad are not a burden to the NHS , housing and other social benefits and thus saving the UK government billions . When the law was made living abroad was only an option for the well off but the world is a smaller place now and living abroad in warmer climates is beneficial to older peoples health . How would the NHS cope if all retirees returned to the UK , answer = final nail in the coffin to an already falling apart service . "

Cleopatra, perhaps you could find out for us whether Superal is correct. What about this assertion - maybe you could ask (your) people to cost it? 500,000 expats returning to the UK would cost far more than 500m GBP. 500,000 retired people would then be paid a full pension as they would not be frozen any more. 500,000 people would be using the NHS and other benefits for the elderly. If each person returned that would cost the government far more than 1000 GBP pa. If Anne returned it would cost the government 2500 GBP pa plus other benefit costs. And if they returned where would they live? Government housing costing the government as well?

 

It makes economic sense for the British government to keep these people - ourselves - as expats, and pay us the uprating - unfreeze the pensions.

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, billzant said:

Excellent point, Superal:-

"1/  the 70 year old law/rule is clearly out dated , not relevant to modern times where the 500,000 retirees who are living abroad are not a burden to the NHS , housing and other social benefits and thus saving the UK government billions . When the law was made living abroad was only an option for the well off but the world is a smaller place now and living abroad in warmer climates is beneficial to older peoples health . How would the NHS cope if all retirees returned to the UK , answer = final nail in the coffin to an already falling apart service . "

Cleopatra, perhaps you could find out for us whether Superal is correct. What about this assertion - maybe you could ask (your) people to cost it? 500,000 expats returning to the UK would cost far more than 500m GBP. 500,000 retired people would then be paid a full pension as they would not be frozen any more. 500,000 people would be using the NHS and other benefits for the elderly. If each person returned that would cost the government far more than 1000 GBP pa. If Anne returned it would cost the government 2500 GBP pa plus other benefit costs. And if they returned where would they live? Government housing costing the government as well?

 

It makes economic sense for the British government to keep these people - ourselves - as expats, and pay us the uprating - unfreeze the pensions.

500,000 frozen pension expats are not going to return to the UK on the basis that their pensions are frozen. If it was an issue it would have already happened. Sure retirees from countries such as Thailand may return to the UK , but compared to the 255, 000 and 144,000 pensioners in Australia and Canada where there is no incentive to come back , they represent a very small number.

[billzant]

What an interesting reply.

 

So no dispute from the "government" on my financial contention that it would cost them more if all 500000 expats returned.

 

But this "compared to the 255, 000 and 144,000 pensioners in Australia and Canada where there is no incentive to come back". Hence the irrational attacks on Anne, how interesting.
 

Edited November 4, 2018 by billzant

[superal]

16 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

500,000 frozen pension expats are not going to return to the UK on the basis that their pensions are frozen. If it was an issue it would have already happened. Sure retirees from countries such as Thailand may return to the UK , but compared to the 255, 000 and 144,000 pensioners in Australia and Canada where there is no incentive to come back , they represent a very small number.

I am not going to get in to a numbers debate but up to now there are in excess of 220,000 signatures of support for the reform of the frozen pension campaign , is that a very small number ?

[delphioracle]

Considering the current position in the U K I fear we have no hopes at all of fair treatment.

thhe

[cleopatra2]

38 minutes ago, superal said:

I am not going to get in to a numbers debate but up to now there are in excess of 220,000 signatures of support for the reform of the frozen pension campaign , is that a very small number ?

The question was about expats returning to the UK

[cleopatra2]

44 minutes ago, billzant said:

What an interesting reply.

 

So no dispute from the "government" on my financial contention that it would cost them more if all 500000 expats returned.

 

But this "compared to the 255, 000 and 144,000 pensioners in Australia and Canada where there is no incentive to come back". Hence the irrational attacks on Anne, how interesting.
 

Maybe you could explain why they would repatriate back to the UK , as opposed to remaining in Australia or Canada.