Rise In British Men Marrying Thai Brides Behind Foreign Pensions Increase, U K Govt Suggests

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

As has previously been stated this change affects all spouses, the estimate being 4 times as many women in the country will be affected as those outside the country.

So the more worrying question is why is this goverment selling the change as a measure aimed at johney foreigner when it clearly isn't.

I for one am starting to find the ukip affect a little worrying & have now lost all respect for Mr Cameron.

Don't understand this - as far as I can see it doesn't include wives living in the UK, who will still inherit their husband's state pension.

They won't. The new legislation is designed to prevent anyone claiming a state pension from their partners record of contributions. It just so happens that many of them will be foreigners, simply because they have not lived or worked in the UK and do not have a record of contributions of their own.

[Card]

Indeed, as previously explained here.

Although the government never said that an individual's NI contributions would be invested for their exclusive benefit; so I don't see where fraud comes into it.

A private pension scheme provider,would most certainly be barred from operating a pension scheme with no investment and growth facility,so it's a pay in and pay out scheme,so would it be legal and above board? I don't think so!

Yes,the government's pension scheme is a ponzi.

[joorakee]

Stop paying allowances to illegal immigrants and their extended families in UK and it will easily offset the cost of the rise in pension payments to people who paid tax and NI all their lives in the UK>

Rant over.

Or even Eastern Europeans who can turn up and start claiming benefits. Apparently Polish is now the 2nd most spoken language in the UK.

Fortunately, I have qualifications enabling me to find meaningful employment all over the world, no matter in Europe or Asia, but guess what I would do if I weren't equipped with them. Yes, most probably I would claim benefits somewhere in Europe and use them, among others, to travel to the LOS. Maybe I would live in the UK (or perhaps Germany) from spring to autumn on social welfare, save as much as possible and spend the coldest part of the year in the City of (Fallen) Angels or on one of the picturesque islands cocking a snook at taxpayers back "home".

Greetings from sunny Warsaw (great motorcycling weather today!)

[7by7]

Indeed, as previously explained here.

Although the government never said that an individual's NI contributions would be invested for their exclusive benefit; so I don't see where fraud comes into it.

A private pension scheme provider,would most certainly be barred from operating a pension scheme with no investment and growth facility,so it's a pay in and pay out scheme,so would it be legal and above board? I don't think so!

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

The government is not a private pension provider; it's the government.

The state pension bears no relationship to, and cannot be compared to, a private pension plan.

As said previously, NICs are effectively a tax used to pay pensions. Your (assuming you live in the UK and pay them) and mine pay the pensions of those currently retired. When we retire, ours will be paid by those then working. As you, yourself, have said.

That's how it's always worked.

To be fraud, there would need to be deception; there is none.

It's legal because the Act of Parliament which set it up says it's legal.

Whether it would be legal for a private pension provider to offer such a scheme, I don't know. But if people joining the scheme knew what was involved before signing up, there would be no fraud.

(Edit; embarrassing spelling mistake corrected!)

Edited May 8, 2013 by 7by7

[7by7]

Stop paying allowances to illegal immigrants and their extended families in UK and it will easily offset the cost of the rise in pension payments to people who paid tax and NI all their lives in the UK>

Rant over.

Or even Eastern Europeans who can turn up and start claiming benefits. Apparently Polish is now the 2nd most spoken language in the UK.

Fortunately, I have qualifications enabling me to find meaningful employment all over the world, no matter in Europe or Asia, but guess what I would do if I weren't equipped with them. Yes, most probably I would claim benefits somewhere in Europe and use them, among others, to travel to the LOS. Maybe I would live in the UK (or perhaps Germany) from spring to autumn on social welfare, save as much as possible and spend the coldest part of the year in the City of (Fallen) Angels or on one of the picturesque islands cocking a snook at taxpayers back "home".

Greetings from sunny Warsaw (great motorcycling weather today!)

I can't speak for other European countries; but if you think UK benefit levels are high enough to allow such a lifestyle, you are mistaken!

[Riverman63]

This might help put this into focus. WARNING- contains facts

http://fullfact.org/factchecks/overseas_pensions_spouse_single_tier_reform-28911

[Waterloo]

As has previously been stated this change affects all spouses, the estimate being 4 times as many women in the country will be affected as those outside the country.

So the more worrying question is why is this goverment selling the change as a measure aimed at johney foreigner when it clearly isn't.

I for one am starting to find the ukip affect a little worrying & have now lost all respect for Mr Cameron.

Don't understand this - as far as I can see it doesn't include wives living in the UK, who will still inherit their husband's state pension.

They won't. The new legislation is designed to prevent anyone claiming a state pension from their partners record of contributions. It just so happens that many of them will be foreigners, simply because they have not lived or worked in the UK and do not have a record of contributions of their own.

Whilst you are right about who this measure will affect, you are wrong about the numbers, for every spouse living abroad affected there are 4 in the UK by the goverments own figures (ie full time homemakers).

The minister put up to defend this change on C4 on monday night was confronted on this very issue and he blantly continued to use the blame the foreigner line, despite it being continually pointed out to him that it would affect far more people in the UK.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

This might help put this into focus. WARNING- contains facts http://fullfact.org/factchecks/overseas_pensions_spouse_single_tier_reform-28911

Crikey, looks like a lot of UK women, living in the UK will be losing their expected pensions.

6.3BUKP to be saved by cutting the UK wives state pension, only 0.4BUKP saved from wives abroad.

And no stats to say what nationality the 'wives abroad' are, most of them could be British.

Edited May 8, 2013 by AnotherOneAmerican

[Card]

This might help put this into focus. WARNING- contains facts http://fullfact.org/factchecks/overseas_pensions_spouse_single_tier_reform-28911

pensionsspendy_3.png

Crikey, looks like a lot of UK women, living in the UK will be losing their pensions.

6.3BUKP to be saved by cutting the UK wives state pension, only 0.4BUKP saved from wives abroad.

And no stats to say what nationality the 'wives abroad' are, most of them could be British.

I doubt that it would apply to current widows - I think it would start sometime in the future - they can't just cut off an important source of income for some - or could they?

[Spalpeen]

As has previously been stated this change affects all spouses, the estimate being 4 times as many women in the country will be affected as those outside the country.

So the more worrying question is why is this goverment selling the change as a measure aimed at johney foreigner when it clearly isn't.

I for one am starting to find the ukip affect a little worrying & have now lost all respect for Mr Cameron.

Don't understand this - as far as I can see it doesn't include wives living in the UK, who will still inherit their husband's state pension.

They won't. The new legislation is designed to prevent anyone claiming a state pension from their partners record of contributions. It just so happens that many of them will be foreigners, simply because they have not lived or worked in the UK and do not have a record of contributions of their own.

Whilst you are right about who this measure will affect, you are wrong about the numbers, for every spouse living abroad affected there are 4 in the UK by the goverments own figures (ie full time homemakers).

The minister put up to defend this change on C4 on monday night was confronted on this very issue and he blantly continued to use the blame the foreigner line, despite it being continually pointed out to him that it would affect far more people in the UK.

What they do is they use public money collected as taxes to pay PR companies, polling companies and focus groups. All of these well paid 'consultants' then come up with a line to be used in selling the policy to the public. In this case they chose to highlight the small number of foreign wives. Ministers are then sent out to TV studios with a list of points they must stick to and God help them if they stray off the script. You can see these glove puppets parroting the official line on television regardless of what questions are asked of them.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

This might help put this into focus. WARNING- contains facts http://fullfact.org/factchecks/overseas_pensions_spouse_single_tier_reform-28911

pensionsspendy_3.png

Crikey, looks like a lot of UK women, living in the UK will be losing their pensions.

6.3BUKP to be saved by cutting the UK wives state pension, only 0.4BUKP saved from wives abroad.

And no stats to say what nationality the 'wives abroad' are, most of them could be British.

I doubt that it would apply to current widows - I think it would start sometime in the future - they can't just cut off an important source of income for some - or could they?

I edited my post to insert 'expected', I believe no further espousal claims are to be paid. Existing pensions being currently paid will be unaffected.

[Waterloo]

This might help put this into focus. WARNING- contains facts http://fullfact.org/factchecks/overseas_pensions_spouse_single_tier_reform-28911

pensionsspendy_3.png

Crikey, looks like a lot of UK women, living in the UK will be losing their expected pensions.

6.3BUKP to be saved by cutting the UK wives state pension, only 0.4BUKP saved from wives abroad.

And no stats to say what nationality the 'wives abroad' are, most of them could be British.

As I said they are playing fast and loose with the truth & playing the bash the foreigner card to sell the policey, a worrying trend in my opinion

[Bagwan]

Between 2002 and 2012, the number of pensioners overseas receiving a married person’s pension rose by 17 per cent.

Wonder how much of that 17% rise is down to couples bailing out of UK?

About 30% of retired folks make their way to sunnier climes - and to avoid the crap hole that successive Governments, wishy washy liberals and the chattering classes have made the UK.

[MAJIC]

Indeed, as previously explained here.

Although the government never said that an individual's NI contributions would be invested for their exclusive benefit; so I don't see where fraud comes into it.

A private pension scheme provider,would most certainly be barred from operating a pension scheme with no investment and growth facility,so it's a pay in and pay out scheme,so would it be legal and above board? I don't think so!

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

The government is not a private pension provider; it's the government.

The state pension bears no relationship to, and cannot be compared to, a private pension plan.

As said previously, NICs are effectively a tax used to pay pensions. Your (assuming you live in the UK and pay them) and mine pay the pensions of those currently retired. When we retire, ours will be paid by those then working. As you, yourself, have said.

That's how it's always worked.

To be fraud, there would need to be deception; there is none.

It's legal because the Act of Parliament which set it up says it's legal.

Whether it would be legal for a private pension provider to offer such a scheme, I don't know. But if people joining the scheme knew what was involved before signing up, there would be no fraud.

(Edit; embarrassing spelling mistake corrected!)

It's a good thing the Government is not a Pension Provider,they could have done better,in the way it was set up,I'm sure there was plenty of a times,when the people could have been given some better options over the years,but now all we get is excuses for failure,like the "people are living too long" which covers up their own miscalculations and poor management of the peoples money.

Even their excuse of people living too long is open to argument,just sit down one day and work out how many people you personally know of that died before reaching retirement age,or not too long after,now theres a huge pot they didn't have to pay out on (yes I do know that stays in the Pension Pot) were it not for the fact of early deaths,and no claims to pay out on,I dread to think of the collapse, and shambles that would have occurred.

Normally I am not particularily fond of Privatisation,but this is one scheme that would have benefitted going into Private Companies hands,as my small Private Pension shows up very clearly, (and before you ask me why is it small?) because 1.I couldnt afford to pay in enough,and 2. I started too late in life to have enough years of growth, (for the same reason) but better than no growth,like the Government Pension!

[4u2mad]

It always stuck in my mind that sucessive governments have said that everyone will have to provide more for their own retirement. Before I officially retired I wrote to the DWP to find out if I quallified for a full pension. I had worked for 10yrs in The USA, and paid UK NI contributions whilst working there.I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the rules had changed, and 30yrs payments ment that I had sufficient contributions, actually I had 33yrs, for a retirement age of 65yrs.So I started to draw down on my private pensions and moved here. Things started to go rapidly downhill a couple of years later when I received a letter from the DWP stating my retirement age had been 'recalculated' to 66yr 10mth. Then recently I have learnt that to Qualify for a FULL pension I will have to have 35yrs contributions. It seems that the goalposts are eturnally moving.I think that trusting ANY government will only result in grief, and unsurprisingly. I feel somewhat cheated and lied to. Although I don't agree with all the UKIP's manifesto, I can understand why they did so well in the recent local elections. So at the grand old age of 59, should I return with my various medical problems, making me virtually unemployable and become a burden on the state, just to get the NI cons paid for another couple of years? Should I also take with me my Thai wife? At the moment I can pass the income test, but who knows, that too may change shortly. I can play the system as well as any johnny foreigner, and it would cost the state a lot more to keep me there than pay an indexed linked pension eventually, if ever.

[Waterloo]

Indeed, as previously explained here.

Although the government never said that an individual's NI contributions would be invested for their exclusive benefit; so I don't see where fraud comes into it.

A private pension scheme provider,would most certainly be barred from operating a pension scheme with no investment and growth facility,so it's a pay in and pay out scheme,so would it be legal and above board? I don't think so!

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

The government is not a private pension provider; it's the government.

The state pension bears no relationship to, and cannot be compared to, a private pension plan.

As said previously, NICs are effectively a tax used to pay pensions. Your (assuming you live in the UK and pay them) and mine pay the pensions of those currently retired. When we retire, ours will be paid by those then working. As you, yourself, have said.

That's how it's always worked.

To be fraud, there would need to be deception; there is none.

It's legal because the Act of Parliament which set it up says it's legal.

Whether it would be legal for a private pension provider to offer such a scheme, I don't know. But if people joining the scheme knew what was involved before signing up, there would be no fraud.

(Edit; embarrassing spelling mistake corrected!)

It's a good thing the Government is not a Pension Provider,they could have done better,in the way it was set up,I'm sure there was plenty of a times,when the people could have been given some better options over the years,but now all we get is excuses for failure,like the "people are living too long" which covers up their own miscalculations and poor management of the peoples money.

Even their excuse of people living too long is open to argument,just sit down one day and work out how many people you personally know of that died before reaching retirement age,or not too long after,now theres a huge pot they didn't have to pay out on (yes I do know that stays in the Pension Pot) were it not for the fact of early deaths,and no claims to pay out on,I dread to think of the collapse, and shambles that would have occurred.

Normally I am not particularily fond of Privatisation,but this is one scheme that would have benefitted going into Private Companies hands,as my small Private Pension shows up very clearly, (and before you ask me why is it small?) because 1.I couldnt afford to pay in enough,and 2. I started too late in life to have enough years of growth, (for the same reason) but better than no growth,like the Government Pension!

What pension pot, there is no pension pot.

All past goverments have been spending the contributions and relying on future generations to pay the pensions of current retires, now this can work when the proportion of contributors to recepients is right, but unfortunatly we have a rapidly ageing population.

This has been a very slow happening train wreck and they still haven't made the really difficult decisions

[joorakee]

Stop paying allowances to illegal immigrants and their extended families in UK and it will easily offset the cost of the rise in pension payments to people who paid tax and NI all their lives in the UK>

Rant over.

Or even Eastern Europeans who can turn up and start claiming benefits. Apparently Polish is now the 2nd most spoken language in the UK.

Fortunately, I have qualifications enabling me to find meaningful employment all over the world, no matter in Europe or Asia, but guess what I would do if I weren't equipped with them. Yes, most probably I would claim benefits somewhere in Europe and use them, among others, to travel to the LOS. Maybe I would live in the UK (or perhaps Germany) from spring to autumn on social welfare, save as much as possible and spend the coldest part of the year in the City of (Fallen) Angels or on one of the picturesque islands cocking a snook at taxpayers back "home".

Greetings from sunny Warsaw (great motorcycling weather today!)

I can't speak for other European countries; but if you think UK benefit levels are high enough to allow such a lifestyle, you are mistaken!

Well, they must be high enough to attract all those claimants. Surely it won't pay off to live on social security benefits for someone who can earn £3-4k monthly or more, but I can well imagine that it could be an option worth considering for those who would otherwise get 1k or something like that. I've heard that dishwashers in London make about £1k per month - I would be having second thoughts about accepting a job paying an equivalent of this even in Warsaw, let alone London, where the costs of living are much higher (I could work for such money in Bangkok , providing the job itself was interesting) - and in their case it might be better to get, say, £700 in benefits and supplement this passive income by doing, for example, some small (unregistered) business. SSB won't, of course, allow to live a luxurious life, but all those menial jobs won't either. And you can always claim those benefits in your country of origin or a third country you are somehow connected with while living (temporarily) elsewhere; with £700/month you'll be able to afford much more in Pattaya than in Hastings (I've good memories of both these places ).

[4u2mad]

Can't believe that whilst I composed the above post that the number of pages went from 4 to 8. Seems like there are more than a few Brits in the same boat, or not in bars due to the exchange rate

[Waterloo]

It always stuck in my mind that sucessive governments have said that everyone will have to provide more for their own retirement. Before I officially retired I wrote to the DWP to find out if I quallified for a full pension. I had worked for 10yrs in The USA, and paid UK NI contributions whilst working there.I was pleasantly surprised to learn that the rules had changed, and 30yrs payments ment that I had sufficient contributions, actually I had 33yrs, for a retirement age of 65yrs.So I started to draw down on my private pensions and moved here. Things started to go rapidly downhill a couple of years later when I received a letter from the DWP stating my retirement age had been 'recalculated' to 66yr 10mth. Then recently I have learnt that to Qualify for a FULL pension I will have to have 35yrs contributions. It seems that the goalposts are eturnally moving.I think that trusting ANY government will only result in grief, and unsurprisingly. I feel somewhat cheated and lied to. Although I don't agree with all the UKIP's manifesto, I can understand why they did so well in the recent local elections. So at the grand old age of 59, should I return with my various medical problems, making me virtually unemployable and become a burden on the state, just to get the NI cons paid for another couple of years? Should I also take with me my Thai wife? At the moment I can pass the income test, but who knows, that too may change shortly. I can play the system as well as any johnny foreigner, and it would cost the state a lot more to keep me there than pay an indexed linked pension eventually, if ever.

If you are only short of a couple of years of contributions you would probably be advised to looking into wether you can make back dated contributions or not, this does not mean you have to return to the UK to acheive this.

Contact the DWP & see what they have to say.

I am currently investigating this situation myself, but for my wife we live in the UK & she my be short a couple of years contributions due to the new figure of 35 years, I do know we can make 6 years back payments if we need to which would be a little under £14 a week for an employee a lot less for other catagories.

[7by7]

A private pension scheme provider,would most certainly be barred from operating a pension scheme with no investment and growth facility,so it's a pay in and pay out scheme,so would it be legal and above board? I don't think so!

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

The government is not a private pension provider; it's the government.

The state pension bears no relationship to, and cannot be compared to, a private pension plan.

As said previously, NICs are effectively a tax used to pay pensions. Your (assuming you live in the UK and pay them) and mine pay the pensions of those currently retired. When we retire, ours will be paid by those then working. As you, yourself, have said.

That's how it's always worked.

To be fraud, there would need to be deception; there is none.

It's legal because the Act of Parliament which set it up says it's legal.

Whether it would be legal for a private pension provider to offer such a scheme, I don't know. But if people joining the scheme knew what was involved before signing up, there would be no fraud.

(Edit; embarrassing spelling mistake corrected!)

It's a good thing the Government is not a Pension Provider,they could have done better,in the way it was set up,I'm sure there was plenty of a times,when the people could have been given some better options over the years,but now all we get is excuses for failure,like the "people are living too long" which covers up their own miscalculations and poor management of the peoples money.

Even their excuse of people living too long is open to argument,just sit down one day and work out how many people you personally know of that died before reaching retirement age,or not too long after,now theres a huge pot they didn't have to pay out on (yes I do know that stays in the Pension Pot) were it not for the fact of early deaths,and no claims to pay out on,I dread to think of the collapse, and shambles that would have occurred.

Normally I am not particularily fond of Privatisation,but this is one scheme that would have benefitted going into Private Companies hands,as my small Private Pension shows up very clearly, (and before you ask me why is it small?) because 1.I couldnt afford to pay in enough,and 2. I started too late in life to have enough years of growth, (for the same reason) but better than no growth,like the Government Pension!

What pension pot, there is no pension pot.

All past goverments have been spending the contributions and relying on future generations to pay the pensions of current retires, now this can work when the proportion of contributors to recepients is right, but unfortunatly we have a rapidly ageing population.

This has been a very slow happening train wreck and they still haven't made the really difficult decisions

Indeed as has previously been explained by myself and, curiously as he now seems to have forgotten, MAJIC!

Yes, the fault lies with the way the system was set up in the 1940's; and as previously explained the increase in the number of pensioners compared to the number of workers has meant this problem has been brewing for many years. Certainly since the 1980's when I was involved in the pensions industry.

But previous governments didn't have the balls to do anything about it.

The standardisation of male and female retirement ages, the increase in retirement ages etc. are necessary, though painful, steps if the whole state pensions structure isn't to totally collapse.

I'm sure no one wants that to happen!

[7by7]

joorakee,

Your latest post only displays your ignorance of the UK benefits system; and to be honest, I can't be bothered educating you.

[MAJIC]

When the UK opts out of the EEC (and it will) all the benefits that foreigners enjoy will be cut, and quite rightly so. In thailand foreign husbands are entitled to absolutely nothing. So why should Thai brides be allowed to have rights in the UK ?

Another post from another poster ignorant of what 'foreigners' can and cannot claim in the UK!

Maybe you should read Playing the blame game - it's all the immigrants fault...

BTW, the EEC no longer exists, so it will be difficult for the UK to 'opt out' of it.

Not as difficult as it would be for the UK to break the numerous treaties that leaving the EU would involve, though.

The EEC was what most people voted to join. The EU was foisted on them later...

But it still doesn't exist any more.

And if you want to be pedantic, the people of the UK did not vote to join the EEC. The UK was already a member at the time of the referendum; which asked whether or not the UK should remain in the EEC.

From this report of 1975,it is pretty obvious the British people were fed a pack of lies,as to what exactly they were signing up for with voting for Europe. Our Politicians ( Edward Heath and the Tories) told us no more wars in Europe, Correct, a European trading nation Correct,and that was virtually what was sold to the British people,Commonly known as the:Common Market, all very worthy and laudable,so we believed..........not!

read on, to what was really the poisoned chalice...........

They forgot to tell us ........"lied" the Ultimate goal was a Federal Europe,Rule by Brussels,our Parliamentary laws being Overuled, No Control on Immigration (open borders,no papers required),Britain ruled by Member EEC States,No right to Deport Undesirables from our Country,Allowing Foreign workers to undermine our Employment Laws (cheap labour) Using the European Court of Human Rights to ridiculous lengths,Demands that we pay mega bucks into this virtually Bankrupt Alliance, and for those interested in their UK Pension and denied annual increases,guess where the Courts of appeal were situated ? comprising foreign Judges which voted on two occasions to deny you,your Pension Increases? because you live in Thailand,and our Politicians sold us down the river.

Small wonder i'm voting UKIP after a lifetime voting for X Party,well lets face it Blair and Cameron promised a Referendum on Europe,which was the main reason the pair of lying S**** got into power!

We may disagree with Thailand and their strict rules on Immigration,amongst other laws but all credit to them,they are not going to lose control of their Country,and sell out Lock Stock and Barrel to Foreigners and their interests!

Ok I have said some of what I wanted to say,so bring on the Pedantics,Apologists,Wimps,Brit Haters,and those with Vested Interests.

For the Pedantics,And the Argumentitive,for it's own sake, yes I know the ECHR is not part of our Membership to the EEC!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/witness/june/6/newsid_4586000/4586791.stm

Edited May 8, 2013 by MAJIC

[MAJIC]

was correct 7by7 then that would make Ponzi schemes legal,which as you know are not

Indeed, as previously explained here.

Although the government never said that an individual's NI contributions would be invested for their exclusive benefit; so I don't see where fraud comes into it.

A private pension scheme provider,would most certainly be barred from operating a pension scheme with no investment and growth facility,so it's a pay in and pay out scheme,so would it be legal and above board? I don't think so!

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make.

The government is not a private pension provider; it's the government.

The state pension bears no relationship to, and cannot be compared to, a private pension plan.

As said previously, NICs are effectively a tax used to pay pensions. Your (assuming you live in the UK and pay them) and mine pay the pensions of those currently retired. When we retire, ours will be paid by those then working. As you, yourself, have said.

That's how it's always worked.

To be fraud, there would need to be deception; there is none.

It's legal because the Act of Parliament which set it up says it's legal.

Whether it would be legal for a private pension provider to offer such a scheme, I don't know. But if people joining the scheme knew what was involved before signing up, there would be no fraud.

(Edit; embarrassing spelling mistake corrected!)

"Whether it would be legal for a private pension provider to offer such a scheme, I don't know. But if people joining the scheme knew what was involved before signing up, there would be no fraud."

If that was correct ? then People joining a Ponzi scheme would know the rules before joining up,and would have no legal complaint later on when their money disappeared. Still fraud though!

[cougar]

That many guys are leaving England and seeking foreign brides is really an indictement of English women. They are the one's that need to get their act together, not the men.

[cougar]

To be honest, if you've spent your whole life working at some piss-awful job, and you've paid your contributions, then it's up to you who gets the benefit of it, not some xxxxxx in Whitehall. Most of us have put in more than we're ever going to get out, and then they screw us in our old age. Talk about spoiling the ship for a happorth of tar. Do they realise just how much goodwill this generates around the world. Your average English guy is a very sought after commodity. He might not be beautiful, he might not be rich, but he's there when you need him.

Edited May 9, 2013 by metisdead
Obscenity

[MAJIC]

Indeed, as previously explained here.

Although the government never said that an individual's NI contributions would be invested for their exclusive benefit; so I don't see where fraud comes into it.

A private pension scheme provider,would most certainly be barred from operating a pension scheme with no investment and growth facility,so it's a pay in and pay out scheme,so would it be legal and above board? I don't think so!

Yes,the government's pension scheme is a ponzi.

I don't think that was ever intended to be the case,Ponzi schemes where never even dreamt of in the mid to late late 1940s. And those that gave the British people a Pension scheme,were very unlikely to have personally profited,in those days,even petty cash had to be signed for,under a strict Civil Service Regime.

It was with the best will in the world an ill concieved scheme,designed to benefit the people of an elderly population, but hopelessly planned by todays standards,and the civil servants could not have envisaged the shortcomings which are now,some 67 years later all too obvious. ( Sigh....) Hindsight is a cure all for all past errors and omissions.

[Badboldie]

Did not know one could claim - how does you go about claiming for your (legal) wife when you retire ?

All you have to do is "Die"

[Locationthailand]

"... “too many foreign people who have never set foot in Britain at all are receiving UK pensions.”

But it's okay for the hundreds of thousands of immigrants who refuse to work to receive social security? Idiots...

[canman]

Indeed, as previously explained here.

Although the government never said that an individual's NI contributions would be invested for their exclusive benefit; so I don't see where fraud comes into it.

A private pension scheme provider,would most certainly be barred from operating a pension scheme with no investment and growth facility,so it's a pay in and pay out scheme,so would it be legal and above board? I don't think so!

Yes,the government's pension scheme is a ponzi.

I don't think that was ever intended to be the case,Ponzi schemes where never even dreamt of in the mid to late late 1940s. And those that gave the British people a Pension scheme,were very unlikely to have personally profited,in those days,even petty cash had to be signed for,under a strict Civil Service Regime.

It was with the best will in the world an ill concieved scheme,designed to benefit the people of an elderly population, but hopelessly planned by todays standards,and the civil servants could not have envisaged the shortcomings which are now,some 67 years later all too obvious. ( Sigh....) Hindsight is a cure all for all past errors and omissions.

I think you need to google Charles Ponzi, hint he was busted well before 1940

[F4UCorsair]

This post is so full of crap. Next it will be blaming people who have paid pensions for living too long. If you have paid into a pension; then you are fully entitled to what you are owed regardless. Just a shame that the government now is full of rich hi-so dipshits that have no grasp of what it is like to live like a normal person. Stop letting immigrants in with no way to fund themselves, stop foriegn aid to countries that hate us and that will save the honest tax payer more than the money quoted in the above crap.

Hear, hear!! Eddie. Same in Australia. The tragic excuse we have for a government, socialist pricks, are responsible for about 100 a day illegal arrivals by boat, and the estimate is that they cost at almost as much as a prisoner to fund, about $100,000 a year!! That includes rescue efforts, accommodation, chartered flights, etc. If we received 30,000 arrivals last year, that would be $3 BILLION we've wasted, and that's not just last year, it's every year since these losers have been in office, now coming up 6, because they abolished the policies of the previous conservative government that took a tough line on illegal arrivals, and the arrivals dried up. Our own aged pensioners have to fight for an increase while we fund our 'international obligations'. It's BS !!!

Edited May 9, 2013 by F4UCorsair