UK pensions

[chiang mai]

2 hours ago, nontabury said:

 

Nice try C.M. Failed again by being unable to supply a link, instead now states due to low level of income. Many families in the UK do not have that income, this I thought you would have been aware of,what with you being the son of a Mill Owner from Dewsbury, they instead rely on state benefits. In fact even if the family showed an income of £25,000 they could still claim many benifits including £200 monthly for child tax credits. And all the time the government are telling us that there is no money to pay the annual increase to some state pensioners,due to where they reside in the world.

 

 

I have concluded NB that you just want to argue, especially with me. I however am not interested, so you understand that!

[Liquorice]

Sorry to p*ss on your chips gentleman, but can we forget the income requirements for UK settlement and what benefits you can still claim.

Although it may be interesting to debate, it has nothing to do with UK Pensions............your in the wrong topic.

[evadgib]

It is nonetheless of interest to any forced back to UK by lack of income as a result of the freeze.

[chiang mai]

3 minutes ago, evadgib said:

It is nonetheless of interest to any forced back to UK by lack of income as a result of the freeze.

 

I don't believe for one moment that the issue of being forced back to the UK results from the pensions freeze, it results from exchange rates, the arguments in this thread in favour of benefits are meant to disguise that.

[nontabury]

13 hours ago, evadgib said:

It is nonetheless of interest to any forced back to UK by lack of income as a result of the freeze.

 

13 hours ago, evadgib said:

It is nonetheless of interest to any forced back to UK by lack of income as a result of the freeze.

 

  Correct in addition to highlighting the money that the government can produce while at the same time refusing to unfreez fully contributed pensions. I do believe some British ex-pats have had to return home,while others are probably having to consider that course  of action and are not aware of the financial support at the UK end.

[rockingrobin]

18 minutes ago, nontabury said:

 

 

  Correct in addition to highlighting the money that the government can produce while at the same time refusing to unfreez fully contributed pensions. I do believe some British ex-pats have had to return home,while others are probably having to consider that course  of action and are not aware of the financial support at the UK end.

With regards to unfreezing state pension the statement by,Lord Freud is quite powerful and would need  to be successfully countered

 

' In debate in the House of Lords on 9 March 2011, Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State, Lord Freud, said:
My Lords, this is a much more complicated issue than it seems on the surface, because it is not a question of making a payment to a pensioner the entirety of which they then put into their pocket. The country where they are living will often supplement their pension, so it can often be a case, for instance, of us making a higher pension payment and the equivalent of pension credit being reduced. It is money out of the UK taxpayer's pocket into the pocket of the taxpayers of another country. It is a far more complicated issue than it seems on the surface. [...] The point about costs in the current environment is that this change to uprating in the frozen areas would cost us £620 million a year, and in the context of the austerity position that we are in - all noble Lords will be very familiar with the terrible dilemmas that we face as we look to get the budget under control - we should consider how much that £620 million represents '

 

 

[nontabury]

25 minutes ago, rockingrobin said:

With regards to unfreezing state pension the statement by,Lord Freud is quite powerful and would need  to be successfully countered

 

' In debate in the House of Lords on 9 March 2011, Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State, Lord Freud, said:
My Lords, this is a much more complicated issue than it seems on the surface, because it is not a question of making a payment to a pensioner the entirety of which they then put into their pocket. The country where they are living will often supplement their pension, so it can often be a case, for instance, of us making a higher pension payment and the equivalent of pension credit being reduced. It is money out of the UK taxpayer's pocket into the pocket of the taxpayers of another country. It is a far more complicated issue than it seems on the surface. [...] The point about costs in the current environment is that this change to uprating in the frozen areas would cost us £620 million a year, and in the context of the austerity position that we are in - all noble Lords will be very familiar with the terrible dilemmas that we face as we look to get the budget under control - we should consider how much that £620 million represents '

 

 

 

It's a pity this parasite did not mention the savings to the UK taxpayer,by these same pensioners who by going to a pension frozen country,no longer use the resources of the NHS and other government departments/agencies. It's like taking into account and making a decision on only one side of a balance sheet. Further more he forgot to mention that that those same pensioners will have paid into the system throughout their lives,with the expectation that they would be treated the same as their fellow pensioners wherever they live. Then he goes on to mention " The country where they are living will often supplement their pension"  obviously when he made this remark he had Thailand in his mind!

[Liquorice]

14 hours ago, evadgib said:

It is nonetheless of interest to any forced back to UK by lack of income as a result of the freeze.

 

If anyone can afford to meet the UK financial requirements of £18,600 for settlement of your Thai spouse, I fail to see how you are being 'forced' back to the UK by lack of income as a result of the Pension freeze.

If your Pension cannot support you and/or your wife anymore in Thailand, then I feel genuinely sorry for your hardship, but discussing the alternative of returning to the UK with your family is a bridge too far and not a viable option under such circumstances.

 

I feel genuinely sorry for those who may be forced back to the UK, whilst being separated from their Thai family.

It would be more appropriate to discuss the support and benefits a person in such circumstances could expect in the UK and still maintain a relationship and support for his Thai family.

 

Some sold all their UK assets, others didn't, so situations will vary from one situation to another.

The only certainty is that your Pension will be unfrozen whilst you remain in the UK.

Everything else is an uncertainty.

 

Personally in that position, I'd rather get a multi entry Non Imm O Visa from Savannakhet and remain in Thailand.

 

[theoldgit]

15 minutes ago, Faz said:

If anyone can afford to meet the UK financial requirements of £18,600 for settlement of your Thai spouse, I fail to see how you are being 'forced' back to the UK by lack of income as a result of the Pension freeze.

.............

I feel genuinely sorry for those who may be forced back to the UK, whilst being separated from their Thai family.

It would be more appropriate to discuss the support and benefits a person in such circumstances could expect in the UK and still maintain a relationship and support for his Thai family.

Whilst it's true to say that if a married person feels the need to return to the UK, because they believe they cannot survive here on a pension that's frozen, they will need to meet the £18,600 financial requirement, not all those that are "struggling" are married, I'm aware of a few single people who say they are on their uppers and feel they have little option.
Maybe the freefall of the GBP since the Brexit vote has made their plight worse I really don't know, though I suspect this may have been the tipping point for some who were struggling already.
Maybe there are other pull factors, healthcare and the like.
 

[chiang mai]

Overseas expats who don't claim UK benefits are not creating savings for the Treasury, the government is avoiding have to pay them and avoidance is not the same as savings in that avoided costs can't be redistributed to other parts of the budget. By disallowing UK State Pension uplift for expats in non-reciprocal countries, the government has created a mechanism for cost avoidance, that however does not represent cost savings since the amount was never budgeted for in the first place.

Similarly the fact that overseas expats don't claim certain benefits in the UK is not a savings to the government, the government has merely avoided having to pay them by virtue of the citizens expatriation. As a result of that distinction it is impossible for anyone to successfully argue against government  that non-payment of those benefits and the pension uplift is actual savings.

 

It's a subtle but important difference that needs to be understood otherwise there is no argument, and before anyone jumps on my case, I didn't create the rules I merely understand them slightly better than some others do, the following links will help some posters better understand the distinction:

 

https://www.business-case-analysis.com/avoided-cost.html

 

http://cbkb.org/2011/10/cost-savings-or-cost-avoidance/

 

http://www.esourcingwiki.com/index.php/Cost_Reduction_and_Avoidance

[nontabury]

11 minutes ago, chiang mai said:

Overseas expats who don't claim UK benefits are not creating savings for the Treasury, the government is avoiding have to pay them and avoidance is not the same as savings in that avoided costs can't be redistributed to other parts of the budget. By disallowing UK State Pension uplift for expats in non-reciprocal countries, the government has created a mechanism for cost avoidance, that however does not represent cost savings since the amount was never budgeted for in the first place.

Similarly the fact that overseas expats don't claim certain benefits in the UK is not a savings to the government, the government has merely avoided having to pay them by virtue of the citizens expatriation. As a result of that distinction it is impossible for anyone to successfully argue against government  that non-payment of those benefits and the pension uplift is actual savings.

 

It's a subtle but important difference that needs to be understood otherwise there is no argument, and before anyone jumps on my case, I didn't create the rules I merely understand them slightly better than some others do, the following links will help some posters better understand the distinction:

 

https://www.business-case-analysis.com/avoided-cost.html

 

http://cbkb.org/2011/10/cost-savings-or-cost-avoidance/

 

http://www.esourcingwiki.com/index.php/Cost_Reduction_and_Avoidance

 

So it's like the £1.7 billion that is now estimated to be the cost in supporting 20,000 Syrian refugees. I wonder where that money has come from.

[Liquorice]

14 minutes ago, theoldgit said:

Whilst it's true to say that if a married person feels the need to return to the UK, because they believe they cannot survive here on a pension that's frozen, they will need to meet the £18,600 financial requirement, not all those that are "struggling" are married, I'm aware of a few single people who say they are on their uppers and feel they have little option.
Maybe the freefall of the GBP since the Brexit vote has made their plight worse I really don't know, though I suspect this may have been the tipping point for some who were struggling already.
Maybe there are other pull factors, healthcare and the like.

 

A frozen UK State Pension doesn't even meet the 40,000 baht per month income to remain in Thailand on a marriage extension.

It has to be supplemented by a Private Pension, or they use Savings to meet the requirements.

 

I'm only stating that if as a married person you cannot meet the financial requirements to stay in Thailand, then your certainly not going to be anywhere near meeting the UK financial requirement, so why discuss it as an option.

I totally agree the fall in the exchange rate has probably had more of an effect recently than frozen Pensions.

 

Some were just managing to meet the 40,000 per month requirements with their frozen State Pensions and an additional Pension, but with the reduced exchange rate affecting their total income, they now find themselves just under the Thai requirements.

I personally know a case in question.

The option to take his wife to the UK though is just not a viable solution to this problem.

[vogie]

8 minutes ago, Faz said:

 

A frozen UK State Pension doesn't even meet the 40,000 baht per month income to remain in Thailand on a marriage extension.

It has to be supplemented by a Private Pension, or they use Savings to meet the requirements.

 

I'm only stating that if as a married person you cannot meet the financial requirements to stay in Thailand, then your certainly not going to be anywhere near meeting the UK financial requirement, so why discuss it as an option.

I totally agree the fall in the exchange rate has probably had more of an effect recently than frozen Pensions.

 

Some were just managing to meet the 40,000 per month requirements with their frozen State Pensions and an additional Pension, but with the reduced exchange rate affecting their total income, they now find themselves just under the Thai requirements.

I personally know a case in question.

The option to take his wife to the UK though is just not a viable solution to this problem.

 

I was hoping to get my extension to my marriage visa next year on monthly income. I have a gov pension and a private pension, but my gov pension is paid directly into my Thai bank acc, so the British Embassy will not accept this as it is in Thai Baht. I have just drafted a letter to the DWP asking if they will send me a letter to confirm my monthly pension, has anyone else had any previous experience with this situation?

[evadgib]

The Embassy will do it if you provide the figure in £

 

HTH

[ignis]

Vogie..

 

I have a letter from DWP [OK is a bit old] showing the weekly Pension payment in £  paid every 4 weeks into my Thai Bank account... I scanned it into PC so always have it......... also my Thai Bank sends a SMS every 4 weeks which shows the payment + the exchange rate..  would the Embassy accept that ?

 

On another note if you are contacting DWP they will send you a 'snail mail' letter which appears to take 4 - 6 weeks... hope you have plenty of time before the Extension is due.

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, evadgib said:

The Embassy will do it if you provide the figure in £

 

HTH

 

Thanks, but theres is the problem, the DWP pays my pension into my Thai Acc, so it only shows up as Thai Baht. How can I show it in £'s?

[Expattaff1308]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

Thanks, but theres is the problem, the DWP pays my pension into my Thai Acc, so it only shows up as Thai Baht. How can I show it in £'s?

Ask the DWP for a letter stating your annual pension.

[Lite Beer]

3 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

Thanks, but theres is the problem, the DWP pays my pension into my Thai Acc, so it only shows up as Thai Baht. How can I show it in £'s?

 

Surely you must have a letter from DWP stating your pension in sterling.

You must have been issued with one at some stage.

[evadgib]

Your annual P60?

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, ignis said:

Vogie..

 

I have a letter from DWP [OK is a bit old] showing the weekly Pension payment in £  paid every 4 weeks into my Thai Bank account... I scanned it into PC so always have it......... also my Thai Bank sends a SMS every 4 weeks which shows the payment + the exchange rate..  would the Embassy accept that ?

 

On another note if you are contacting DWP they will send you a 'snail mail' letter which appears to take 4 - 6 weeks... hope you have plenty of time before the Extension is due.

Thanks for that, yes my renewal is not while March, so just thinking ahead.

 

i started receiving my pension last year in April and indeed I have found the original letter from the DWP stating my weekly rate of pension. Have you yourself actually sent this letter to the Brit Em?

 

[vogie]

10 minutes ago, Lite Beer said:

 

Surely you must have a letter from DWP stating your pension in sterling.

You must have been issued with one at some stage.

 

Yes I have, just found it. Thanks

[Liquorice]

36 minutes ago, vogie said:

 

I was hoping to get my extension to my marriage visa next year on monthly income. I have a gov pension and a private pension, but my gov pension is paid directly into my Thai bank acc, so the British Embassy will not accept this as it is in Thai Baht. I have just drafted a letter to the DWP asking if they will send me a letter to confirm my monthly pension, has anyone else had any previous experience with this situation?

 

The Embassy require the statement letters from the DWP and your Private Pension provider, which shows your total monthly/annual income,  they will then produce an Income Letter for use at Immigration.

Immigration will work out the exchange rate from £ to Baht to prove you meet the requirements.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, Faz said:

 

The Embassy require the statement letters from the DWP and your Private Pension provider, which shows your total monthly/annual income,  they will then produce an Income Letter for use at Immigration.

Immigration will work out the exchange rate from £ to Baht to show you meet the requirements.

 

Thanks Faz, what about bank statements?

[evadgib]

Bank statements are fine too but as yours are in bhat and you have your DWP letter you needn't bother.

[vogie]

1 minute ago, evadgib said:

Bank statements are fine too but as yours are in bhat and you have your DWP letter you needn't bother.

 

My private pension is paid into my UK bank acc, so that would show sterling, but if the Embassy will accept the letter even though it is over one year old, that has to be the best option.

[evadgib]

...which brings us back to your P60

[Liquorice]

It doesn't matter how old the letters are, but they can only produce an Income Letter based on the figures you provide.

[Lite Beer]

My mate uses his original DWP letter.

I will be at this stage in December so have not done it yet.

[vogie]

43 minutes ago, evadgib said:

...which brings us back to your P60

Does my P60 show my government pension?

[billd766]

3 hours ago, rockingrobin said:

With regards to unfreezing state pension the statement by,Lord Freud is quite powerful and would need  to be successfully countered

 

' In debate in the House of Lords on 9 March 2011, Parliamentary-Under Secretary of State, Lord Freud, said:
My Lords, this is a much more complicated issue than it seems on the surface, because it is not a question of making a payment to a pensioner the entirety of which they then put into their pocket. The country where they are living will often supplement their pension, so it can often be a case, for instance, of us making a higher pension payment and the equivalent of pension credit being reduced. It is money out of the UK taxpayer's pocket into the pocket of the taxpayers of another country. It is a far more complicated issue than it seems on the surface. [...] The point about costs in the current environment is that this change to uprating in the frozen areas would cost us £620 million a year, and in the context of the austerity position that we are in - all noble Lords will be very familiar with the terrible dilemmas that we face as we look to get the budget under control - we should consider how much that £620 million represents '

 

 

 

There is an interesting website here on the claims of the members of the House of Lords up until April 2015 on a monthly basis. Members of the House can claim up to £300 per session/day as an attendance allowance.

 

http://www.parliament.uk/business/lords/whos-in-the-house-of-lords/house-of-lords-expenses/

 

and here for UK MPs.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salaries_of_Members_of_the_United_Kingdom_Parliament