UK pensions

[billd766]

41 minutes ago, delphioracle said:

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

thhe

That is sad but no more than I would expect of ANY UK government of the last 60 years.

 

Don't forget that the extra 5 years she has to wait if she still has a job she will be paying tax as well. A double whammy.

[dick dasterdly]

1 hour 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.

Sadly, this is true and part of the reason why the uk govt. has no incentive to change the unfair policy re. freezing pensions. ☹️

[billzant]

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

 

I'm not playing your game, that is not the issue. The issue is the injustice of the British government in not uprating our pensions.

[billzant]

Dick,

 

"Sadly, ....  the uk govt. has no incentive to change the unfair policy re. freezing pensions."

 

Whilst it is unlikely that people who have chosen to live as expats are going to return to the UK - wherever they are now living, it is a sound political argument to put to the government that even with uprating to the pensions we are entitled to they are saving money compared to the costs they would be paying out if we did return.

I agree that the UK govt has no incentive to uprate even though they are supposed to be our government (inclusive of the 500,000 expats). That is why it is good to support the ICBP campaign with Anne Puckridge to shame the British government to pay us what we are entitled. It is necessary to focus on the injustice of the government in not paying.

 

Of course there are much greater injustices but politically this campaign has a small chance because it has token all party support. Maybe Anne and ICBP can increase that support. 

 

[mommysboy]

2 hours ago, delphioracle said:

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

thhe

There is a small cohort of age 60 something women who got really worked over by the changes.  Other than that, the younger ones are just experiencing equalisation.

[billd766]

22 minutes ago, mommysboy said:

There is a small cohort of age 60 something women who got really worked over by the changes.  Other than that, the younger ones are just experiencing equalisation.

And that makes it OK by you?

[billzant]

The pension budget is not a finite pot, it is a small part of the overall government budget. It is not the case that the government has to choose between paying disadvantaged old ladies or expats living the life of luxury ????. The reality is that the government has to pay pensions subject to the law of the land. If they hadn't made an unjust law that said our pensions would not be uprated, then we would have been paid. If they hadn't raised the retirement age for these ladies by law, they would have been forced to pay their pensions as well. It is a government decision, a political decision.

The problem is government has made these laws and they need to be shamed into changing them. That is all we can try to do.

 

The government chooses to spend money elsewhere, it is as simple as that. We have paid NI contributions all our lives, and the government chooses not to pay our full entitlement by annually making laws that do not uprate our pensions. It is as simple and straightforward as this, no matter what curve balls are thrown out.

 

[Jip99]

1 minute ago, billzant said:

The pension budget is not a finite pot, it is a small part of the overall government budget. It is not the case that the government has to choose between paying disadvantaged old ladies or expats living the life of luxury ????. The reality is that the government has to pay pensions subject to the law of the land. If they hadn't made an unjust law that said our pensions would not be uprated, then we would have been paid. If they hadn't raised the retirement age for these ladies by law, they would have been forced to pay their pensions as well. It is a government decision, a political decision.

The problem is government has made these laws and they need to be shamed into changing them. That is all we can try to do.

 

The government chooses to spend money elsewhere, it is as simple as that. We have paid NI contributions all our lives, and the government chooses not to pay our full entitlement by annually making laws that do not uprate our pensions. It is as simple and straightforward as this, no matter what curve balls are thrown out.

 

 

 

 

I guess it is little different to our Thai widows no longer receiving bereavement payments - (unless they are domiciled in the UK at the time of a claim).

 

That was also an 'entitlement' based on NICs that has been 'stolen'.

[cleopatra2]

5 minutes ago, billzant said:

The pension budget is not a finite pot, it is a small part of the overall government budget. It is not the case that the government has to choose between paying disadvantaged old ladies or expats living the life of luxury ????. The reality is that the government has to pay pensions subject to the law of the land. If they hadn't made an unjust law that said our pensions would not be uprated, then we would have been paid. If they hadn't raised the retirement age for these ladies by law, they would have been forced to pay their pensions as well. It is a government decision, a political decision.

The problem is government has made these laws and they need to be shamed into changing them. That is all we can try to do.

 

The government chooses to spend money elsewhere, it is as simple as that. We have paid NI contributions all our lives, and the government chooses not to pay our full entitlement by annually making laws that do not uprate our pensions. It is as simple and straightforward as this, no matter what curve balls are thrown out.

 

The raising of women pension age was as a result of the government loosing an unlawful discrimination case.

I do not know what the person who brought the claim hoped to achieve. 

[billzant]

"I guess it is little different to our Thai widows no longer receiving bereavement payments - (unless they are domiciled in the UK at the time of a claim).

 

That was also an 'entitlement' based on NICs that has been 'stolen'."

 

Exactly JIP. I don't know details about what you are describing, but it sounds like a similar injustice. Whilst they spend vast amounts of money elsewhere, the small amount of money ordinary people need is not paid because of some law somewhere. 

[billzant]

Unlawful discrimination case or not, the government can pass laws so that they can pay ladies like Shiela and ladies like Anne Puckridge they just choose not to. In our case they do not have to deny the uprating every year. Simple.

[cleopatra2]

17 minutes ago, billzant said:

Unlawful discrimination case or not, the government can pass laws so that they can pay ladies like Shiela and ladies like Anne Puckridge they just choose not to. In our case they do not have to deny the uprating every year. Simple.

Apologies my last comment contained error

The equalisation came about due to a ruling regarding occupational pensions being pay, and thus needed to be equalised so as not to discriminate between sexes.

Various governments from the 70s had become under pressure to equalise pension age.

Following the ruling 1990 the 1993 government started the process of equalisation through utilising transitional period to phase in the years.

The 2010 coalition decided to accelerate the equalisation and reduce the transition art period

[lungbing]

I don't remember women running ads when they retired 5 years earlier than men, and on average also lived longer.  They only want equality when it suits them.

[nong38]

The current legislation that we are talking about came to pass in 1955 and I have no idea what brought it about then, I was still at junior school. The world was a different place then, living in England a foreigner was a Scotsman, a Welshman or an Irishman! We had a few "Poles" around so it was said who had worked in the munitions factories during the war and had decided to stay, in Nottingham there were West Indians working on the buses but foreigners were rare. Foreign travel was even rarer, that was only for rich people.

When this law about frozen pensions was brought in the world was a different place, ordinary people did not retire abroad, it really should be changed to reflect the time we now live in which is very different to 1955 England.

[ivor bigun]

The current legislation that we are talking about came to pass in 1955 and I have no idea what brought it about then, I was still at junior school. The world was a different place then, living in England a foreigner was a Scotsman, a Welshman or an Irishman! We had a few "Poles" around so it was said who had worked in the munitions factories during the war and had decided to stay, in Nottingham there were West Indians working on the buses but foreigners were rare. Foreign travel was even rarer, that was only for rich people.
When this law about frozen pensions was brought in the world was a different place, ordinary people did not retire abroad, it really should be changed to reflect the time we now live in which is very different to 1955 England.

Yes,in those days only the rich could live abroad,but you look whenever you see a couple of pensioners living abroad in the papers,its always two young looking fit healthy well off types laughing on a beach somewhere,never a poor old man or woman.That is how we are seen,well off living the high life and if you live here in Thailand you are an old perv living with a 20 something hooker, not a familly man ,doing the same things you do back home,just in the sun .

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

[nong38]

I have to admit that before I came here I had a view of the country which was probably not too dissimilar to the "SUN" idea so I can understand why people have that view, they read it so many times it must be true, no I had not been like most readers or most UK people so its easy to see where they are coming from and its difficult to get that changed, almost a like a government campaign to support the view. Spain, the EU and the Canaries of course are all promoted in a different way, The EU is a wonderous place to live!

I wonder if ex pats in the EU are considering their position now, their position is not as clear cut as it might seem, soon there might be more than million of us or 500,000  or some of them might be heading back to Blighty.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, nong38 said:

 

When this law about frozen pensions was brought in the world was a different place, ordinary people did not retire abroad, it really should be changed to reflect the time we now live in which is very different to 1955 England.

There is no law about frozen pensions, only pension law. The DWP pays out what you are entitled to under the law. Pensions vary for people living in the UK for various reasons under that same law. If you live outside the UK the law requires that a Social Security agreement is in place with the country of residence. The UK government just abandoned making such agreements about 30 or so years ago. There is in fact a Social Security agreement in place with Canada but it does not include pension payments, unlike the USA. It was a sore point with my brother, he went to live in Montreal and people just a short distance away were getting the full pension and he wasn't.

It will be interesting to see what happens with brexit as the agreement with the EU will terminate but I strongly suspect they will make a "special case" for a new agreement. There is little incentive for the government to do anything for the rest of us.

At the end of the day it is a morality issue, why should 'anyone' that has paid the full NI contributions get less than those that may never have paid any at all? About the only weapon available is public awareness and hope to shame the politicians, but not holding my breath on that.

[mommysboy]

8 hours ago, billd766 said:

And that makes it OK by you?

Good grief! Did I say that?  No these women were unfairly treated as I say because not only did their retirement age increase 7 years, but they were given very little notice.

 

The rest- well, no they are just in the same boat as the rest of us.

[mommysboy]

4 hours ago, cleopatra2 said:

Apologies my last comment contained error

The equalisation came about due to a ruling regarding occupational pensions being pay, and thus needed to be equalised so as not to discriminate between sexes.

Various governments from the 70s had become under pressure to equalise pension age.

Following the ruling 1990 the 1993 government started the process of equalisation through utilising transitional period to phase in the years.

The 2010 coalition decided to accelerate the equalisation and reduce the transition art period

'The 2010 coalition decided to accelerate the equalisation and reduce the transition art period'

 

It was this that left women born around the mid-fifties in a very difficult situation- some were left with a shortfall in their qualifying years and the prospect of having to wait another 7 years to claim pension. And they only knew this 3 or 4 years before their initial projected date.

[steve187]

8 hours ago, mommysboy said:

'The 2010 coalition decided to accelerate the equalisation and reduce the transition art period'

 

It was this that left women born around the mid-fifties in a very difficult situation- some were left with a shortfall in their qualifying years and the prospect of having to wait another 7 years to claim pension. And they only knew this 3 or 4 years before their initial projected date.

it was phased in my wife was to receive hers at age 67, early this year it has been reduced to 66 and 4 months i believe

[evadgib]

9 hours ago, sandyf said:

There is no law about frozen pensions, only pension law. The DWP pays out what you are entitled to under the law. Pensions vary for people living in the UK for various reasons under that same law. If you live outside the UK the law requires that a Social Security agreement is in place with the country of residence. The UK government just abandoned making such agreements about 30 or so years ago. There is in fact a Social Security agreement in place with Canada but it does not include pension payments, unlike the USA. It was a sore point with my brother, he went to live in Montreal and people just a short distance away were getting the full pension and he wasn't.

It will be interesting to see what happens with brexit as the agreement with the EU will terminate but I strongly suspect they will make a "special case" for a new agreement. There is little incentive for the government to do anything for the rest of us.

At the end of the day it is a morality issue, why should 'anyone' that has paid the full NI contributions get less than those that may never have paid any at all? About the only weapon available is public awareness and hope to shame the politicians, but not holding my breath on that.

My gut feeling is that HMG would ideally prefer to include us (rest of the world) in any deal involving Brits in the EU while hoping the gen public won't notice. They know it is morally wrong and will bite them harder the longer they wait.

[sandyf]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

My gut feeling is that HMG would ideally prefer to include us (rest of the world) in any deal involving Brits in the EU while hoping the gen public won't notice. They know it is morally wrong and will bite them harder the longer they wait.

I would really like to think you could be right but I doubt it, too complicated. It is two separate issues, as far as the EU is concerned all they need to do is draft another agreement without making any change to UK law. The legal text that affects the rest of us is embedded in the Social Security Act and would require amendment.

I looked into this some time ago and if I remember right the Social Security Act comes up for amendment every year and a couple of years ago I found out it was going in front of the House so I wrote to my previous MP about it but got some waffle for a response.

I did post the info on here at the time but it is all a bit vague now but if I get the chance will try and refresh the grey cells.

[cleopatra2]

10 hours ago, sandyf said:

There is no law about frozen pensions, only pension law. The DWP pays out what you are entitled to under the law. Pensions vary for people living in the UK for various reasons under that same law. If you live outside the UK the law requires that a Social Security agreement is in place with the country of residence. The UK government just abandoned making such agreements about 30 or so years ago. There is in fact a Social Security agreement in place with Canada but it does not include pension payments, unlike the USA. It was a sore point with my brother, he went to live in Montreal and people just a short distance away were getting the full pension and he wasn't.

It will be interesting to see what happens with brexit as the agreement with the EU will terminate but I strongly suspect they will make a "special case" for a new agreement. There is little incentive for the government to do anything for the rest of us.

At the end of the day it is a morality issue, why should 'anyone' that has paid the full NI contributions get less than those that may never have paid any at all? About the only weapon available is public awareness and hope to shame the politicians, but not holding my breath on that.

The reason behind Canada , only having DCC vice Full Social Security agreement is that at the time of conclusion Canadian law prevented the exporting of Canada's security pension.

Subsequently Canada changed its law .

[DILLIGAD]

My gut feeling is that HMG would ideally prefer to include us (rest of the world) in any deal involving Brits in the EU while hoping the gen public won't notice. They know it is morally wrong and will bite them harder the longer they wait.

I disagree, I think HMG see us (Expats) as cats without claws who are sitting around enjoying the sunshine whilst lapping up cream.

They are more interested in getting votes from the (Katie Hopkins Words) cockroaches creeping around within the UK while provided nothing, in the way of benefit to the country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[cleopatra2]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

My gut feeling is that HMG would ideally prefer to include us (rest of the world) in any deal involving Brits in the EU while hoping the gen public won't notice. They know it is morally wrong and will bite them harder the longer they wait.

It is not solely about pension Uprating. Social Security agreements are to prevent double contributions in seperate states. To recognize that the time spent working in one country can count to entitlement in another

[sandyf]

5 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

The reason behind Canada , only having DCC vice Full Social Security agreement is that at the time of conclusion Canadian law prevented the exporting of Canada's security pension.

Subsequently Canada changed its law .

As far as my brother was concerned, it was a bone of contention on principle rather than necessity. He emigrated on leaving the Navy aged 40, so apart from his navy pension by the time he finished work he had a Canadian occupational pension and a Canadian old age pension. Unfortunately retirement did not last long, passed away last year at 67.

[sandyf]

22 minutes ago, sandyf said:

I would really like to think you could be right but I doubt it, too complicated. It is two separate issues, as far as the EU is concerned all they need to do is draft another agreement without making any change to UK law. The legal text that affects the rest of us is embedded in the Social Security Act and would require amendment.

I looked into this some time ago and if I remember right the Social Security Act comes up for amendment every year and a couple of years ago I found out it was going in front of the House so I wrote to my previous MP about it but got some waffle for a response.

I did post the info on here at the time but it is all a bit vague now but if I get the chance will try and refresh the grey cells.

It was longer back than I thought and all previous posts are no longer on TVF. This is what I wrote to the MP about asking for support.

https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/767

[billzant]

Legally why our pensions are not being paid is because of uprating. There are a group of MP's who are "campaigning" to end frozen pensions, they are known as the APPG. This is what they say on their website:-

"Everyone should get the pension they paid for through their National Insurance contributions, and should be up-rated in the same way.

However, as a group, the APPG recognise that successive governments have refused to act to end frozen pensions in this way, citing grounds of cost, fear of legal claims for back-payment, and the fact that, however strong the moral case, there is no legal obligation on them to do so."

[billzant]

From Sandy's Early Day Motion https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2015-16/767

 

"recognises that research from the All Party Parliamentary Group on Frozen Pensions has identified that uprating frozen pensions with no back-dating would cost £1.7 billion by 2050, just 0.03 per cent of the pensions budget, and research from the Department for Work and Pensions has determined that there is a net saving of £3,800 per person per year for pensioners living outside the UK; and further believes that all British pensioners should receive the same state pension regardless of where they live."

Saving 3800 GBP.

[sandyf]

There was another HoC briefing paper in Aug of this year, there is no direct link, google "Number CBP-01457, 7 August 2018" and it should show up. Gives all the background and it would appear there was another EDM last year but only 76 signatures,

https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/1097

The EDM shows exactly where the legislation is incorporated.

Historically there has never been any legislation introduced to freeze pensions, it has been there since day one. After 93 years, putting things right has become a bit overdue.

 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 3. When pensions were first introduced in 1925, they were only payable in Great Britain. Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man. Subsequently, a provision was included in the Contributory Pension Act 1929 enabling pensions to be paid in His Majesty’s dominions (broadly the countries which now form the Commonwealth). When the rate of pension was increased in 1946, the increase was not paid to pensioners abroad. The reasons for this decision appear to have been related mainly to the then forthcoming new scheme of National Insurance. It was considered that the substantial increase in pension, from 10 to 26 shillings, was a first instalment of the new scheme and that pensioners abroad had made only a small contribution to their pensions and could not reasonably expect a share in the new scheme.

4. The position remained the same after the National Insurance Act 1946 came into force. The Act contained a general disqualification for payment of benefits absent from Great Britain, together with power for regulations to remove the disqualification. During the passage of the National Insurance Bill through Parliament, there was no debate on this provision. The relevant Clause also contained disqualification for payment during a period of imprisonment and was debated, in Committee, only in that context. Regulations provided that retirement pension and widows benefits were payable to people absent from Great Britain only if they were in another part of HM dominions or if the absence did not exceed 12 months. Upratings, of which there were three between July 1948 and July 1955, were not payable to persons not resident in Great Britain. Subsequent regulations providing for pension increases have continued to have the same effect.