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

[Expatwannabee]

This is quite a complicated situation and the effect of men marrying foreign ladies is even less significant than is being suggested. The reason I say this is that it used to be the case that a British pensioner married to a woman of any age and nationality could claim additional pension for his wife. ( I know this because my own father was 13 years older than my mother, who had always been a full time housewife and mother, and when he was 65 he got his state pension with an additional allowance for Mum.When my mother turned 60 his allowance stopped and she got a pension in her own right based on his NIC, but the ammount was the same so purely an academic change.) However this was changed a number of years ago so that the pensioner could only claim additional pension for his wife if she was also pension age. At the time this was 60 its now 67 and rising. So the overall savings from this change are very small indeed. The hype around this recent moves suggests that 20 year old girls married to British pensioners get this money for the rest of their lives when they will only get it once they are 67yrs old. This is all about the government trying to make people think they are looking after taxpayers interests when really they are doing very little and far more is being spent on EU citizens who legally are allowed to move to Britain and claim benefits ( even child benefit for children who remain in their own country.) A lot needs to be done but while we remain in the EU very little can be done.

[Spalpeen]

Another big problem with the plan to get people to work into their 70's is the question of where the jobs will come from. If they're just blocking jobs that would otherwise have gone to younger people with families - say traffic warden or checkout operator - then the savings on pensions will be offset by the extra unemployment payments to younger people.

Personally I think the UK government should be making it worthwhile for pensioners to move abroad to lower cost countries. This would free up housing and jobs for younger people while reducing costs to the NHS. The inevitable illnesses that come with age can be treated at much lower cost in countries like Thailand, India or the Philippines.

[evadgib]

What annoys me & seemingly goes over the heads of many posters is that this decision is a complete U turn on info received from HMG after a routine enquiry 5-6 years ago! Having completed the 30 year marathon I remain gobsmacked that they can tinker with the prize, If I predecease my wife I expect HMG to support her as pledged in writting based on my contribution record.

This nonsence will no doubt be challenged long before I achieve retirement age, presumably by the consortium of expat British Pensioners in Oz/Canada/SA.

(Disclaimer: I have other pensions too and remain a taxpayer so none of those "our money" replies please!)

(Originally posted in the "Pensions" thread on 07 May)

Edited May 12, 2013 by evadgib

[7by7]

.................. far more is being spent on EU citizens who legally are allowed to move to Britain and claim benefits ( even child benefit for children who remain in their own country.) A lot needs to be done but while we remain in the EU very little can be done.

EEA citizens exercising their treaty rights in the UK do enjoy the same welfare benefits as a national of the UK, provided they do not become an unreasonable burden upon the state (see here). They cannot move to the UK just to claim benefits!

EEA citizens living in the UK can claim both working tax credits and child benefit for children not living in the UK with them; but to do so the person in the UK must be financially responsible for the child and working and paying tax and NICs in the UK.

As said before, the myth of EEA nationals coming to the UK and living off benefits is just that; a myth.

Plus, of course, UK nationals exercising their treaty rights in another EEA country enjoy the same welfare benefits as a national of that country; it's a two way street.

[Expatwannabee]

.................. far more is being spent on EU citizens who legally are allowed to move to Britain and claim benefits ( even child benefit for children who remain in their own country.) A lot needs to be done but while we remain in the EU very little can be done.

EEA citizens exercising their treaty rights in the UK do enjoy the same welfare benefits as a national of the UK, provided they do not become an unreasonable burden upon the state (see here). They cannot move to the UK just to claim benefits!

EEA citizens living in the UK can claim both working tax credits and child benefit for children not living in the UK with them; but to do so the person in the UK must be financially responsible for the child and working and paying tax and NICs in the UK.

As said before, the myth of EEA nationals coming to the UK and living off benefits is just that; a myth.

Plus, of course, UK nationals exercising their treaty rights in another EEA country enjoy the same welfare benefits as a national of that country; it's a two way street.

If it is not possible for EEA citizens to come to Britain (quite legally) and claim benefits , why have the government issued a statement that such people will, after 6 mths of benefits, have to prove they nearly have a job or their benefits will be withdrawn. Also how is "an unreasonable burden on public funds defined" when the same rules state that " work seekers are able to claim public funds without their right of residence being affected". Sadly this myth is all too real. Some of my colleagues are from Spain, Portugal & Poland and they cannot believe the help that is given to some people in Britain. They are adamant that welfare provision back home is nothing compared to Britain, so any Brits claiming benefits in other EEA countries will not be doing as well in this 2 way street. Anyway, all of this is taking us away from the original post (OK that was my fault). What I was trying to say is that the reason the Government are so keen to attack pensioners claiming for wives is because they can. They cannot do anything about EEA citizens without first leaving the EEC.

[7by7]

Why the government have issued such a statement as you describe is beyond me as 6 months is already in the guidance, and has been for some time!

EUN1.4 Can an EEA national claiming benefits still be a qualified person?

An EEA national claiming benefits in the UK would continue to be considered a qualified person if they were:
A worker in receipt of top-up funds or tax credits for low income

An EEA national working in the UK who has become temporarily unemployed (due to incapacity or involuntary unemployment) and is claiming public funds. A worker would still be considered temporarily incapacitated for as long as a doctor confirms that they cannot work but have the intention to do so. We would expect this to be for no longer than six months, although there may be cases where this could be extended (for example if we believe the EEA national has a reasonable prospect of returning to work or finding a job).

In certain circumstances EEA nationals who have ceased employment due to retirement or permanent incapacity would still have a right to reside in the UK.

I suspect it's 6 months as this is the period contribution based JSA is paid for.

But to get anything the EEA national must first have been working in the UK. S/he cannot arrive in the UK and immediately start claiming.

'Unreasonable burden' is difficult to define, as it depends on too many variables and each case is assessed on it's own merits.

There are many arguments both for and against the UK leaving the EU; and you are correct that this is not the place to discuss them.

But remember the freedom of movement rights apply to both EU and EEA members, so we'd have to leave the EEA as well!

The crux as far as EEA nationals is concerned is this:

Who is logically and reasonably more entitled to UK state benefits;

• an EEA national who has lived, worked and paid taxes and NICs in the UK;
• or someone who has never done so, but is married to a British national who has?

Edited May 13, 2013 by 7by7

[Bagwan]

If women can claim some, or all, of a guy's private pension rights why shouldn't a lady who has stood by her man also benefit on his demise? Irrespective of her domicile or nationality.

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

If women can claim some, or all, of a guy's private pension rights why shouldn't a lady who has stood by her man also benefit on his demise? Irrespective of her domicile or nationality.

The women who have lost out include a large number of women of indigenous UK origin. The new rules will prevent all women from claiming a UK state pension if they reach retirement age after April 2016 and don't have an adequate record of their own National Insurance contributions. Essentially the change will prevent a woman (or a man) claiming a state pension on the basis of their partner's NI contribution record. I seem to recall a figure of 1.7 million potential claimants being quoted in the media and of these 220,000 were foreign residents. This isn't a case of foreign partners being singled out for bad treatment, rather it's a case of all women in this category being treated equally badly.

[Waterloo]

If women can claim some, or all, of a guy's private pension rights why shouldn't a lady who has stood by her man also benefit on his demise? Irrespective of her domicile or nationality.

The women who have lost out include a large number of women of indigenous UK origin. The new rules will prevent all women from claiming a UK state pension if they reach retirement age after April 2016 and don't have an adequate record of their own National Insurance contributions. Essentially the change will prevent a woman (or a man) claiming a state pension on the basis of their partner's NI contribution record. I seem to recall a figure of 1.7 million potential claimants being quoted in the media and of these 220,000 were foreign residents. This isn't a case of foreign partners being singled out for bad treatment, rather it's a case of all women in this category being treated equally badly.

and of that figure of 220,000 some could be UK citizens as there are no record of what there nationality is, only that they have no NI foot print in the UK

[Rajab Al Zarahni]

If women can claim some, or all, of a guy's private pension rights why shouldn't a lady who has stood by her man also benefit on his demise? Irrespective of her domicile or nationality.

The women who have lost out include a large number of women of indigenous UK origin. The new rules will prevent all women from claiming a UK state pension if they reach retirement age after April 2016 and don't have an adequate record of their own National Insurance contributions. Essentially the change will prevent a woman (or a man) claiming a state pension on the basis of their partner's NI contribution record. I seem to recall a figure of 1.7 million potential claimants being quoted in the media and of these 220,000 were foreign residents. This isn't a case of foreign partners being singled out for bad treatment, rather it's a case of all women in this category being treated equally badly.

and of that figure of 220,000 some could be UK citizens as there are no record of what there nationality is, only that they have no NI foot print in the UK

True

[Guest jonzboy]

I hope folks won't mind if I revive this debate. There's been more talk in the press on this subject of frozen pensions, as well as the changes affecting a woman's entitlements based on her husband's NI contribution record, known officially as a derived pension.

Firstly, if anyone has experience of getting their pension "unfrozen" i.e. by moving back to UK for a period and then leaving UK again, I'd appreciate hearing about how that went.

On the derived pension aspect, this thread has missed one important point. Yes, the changes will affect UK-based spouses as well as those living overseas. What the government want is for everyone to build up their own NI contribution record which will be used to calculate the state pension entitlement. Those living in the UK will become exempt from paying NI contributions if for example they are bringing up young children. For those that do not work and are not exempt, they can choose to pay voluntary NI contributions. What I have discovered, however, is that there is a bar for non UK residents to pay voluntary contributions. In order to qualify the person must have lived in the UK for three consecutive years or have a three-year NI contribution record already. This is an old clause that is still effective and my enquiry with HMRC has elicited that they have no plan to change things.

I do not object to the move towards flat rate pensions, but this bar to anyone who is overseas being able to join the NI scheme is the bit I have a problem with.

I have fully earned my state pension, but have a few years to wait before it is payable. However, I did make voluntary contributions for about 20 of the 35 years as I was living overseas, and did so on the understanding that my wife would be entitled to a derived pension when she reaches retirement age and/or when I die. Now she will get nothing.

Fair?

[bigbamboo]

I hope folks won't mind if I revive this debate. There's been more talk in the press on this subject of frozen pensions, as well as the changes affecting a woman's entitlements based on her husband's NI contribution record, known officially as a derived pension.

Firstly, if anyone has experience of getting their pension "unfrozen" i.e. by moving back to UK for a period and then leaving UK again, I'd appreciate hearing about how that went.

On the derived pension aspect, this thread has missed one important point. Yes, the changes will affect UK-based spouses as well as those living overseas. What the government want is for everyone to build up their own NI contribution record which will be used to calculate the state pension entitlement. Those living in the UK will become exempt from paying NI contributions if for example they are bringing up young children. For those that do not work and are not exempt, they can choose to pay voluntary NI contributions. What I have discovered, however, is that there is a bar for non UK residents to pay voluntary contributions. In order to qualify the person must have lived in the UK for three consecutive years or have a three-year NI contribution record already. This is an old clause that is still effective and my enquiry with HMRC has elicited that they have no plan to change things.

I do not object to the move towards flat rate pensions, but this bar to anyone who is overseas being able to join the NI scheme is the bit I have a problem with.

I have fully earned my state pension, but have a few years to wait before it is payable. However, I did make voluntary contributions for about 20 of the 35 years as I was living overseas, and did so on the understanding that my wife would be entitled to a derived pension when she reaches retirement age and/or when I die. Now she will get nothing.

Fair?

Ex pats are treated disgustingly by the UK government, especially the pensioners. I'm English, paid my dues there for years but still quite a long way off my state pension yet and frankly I don't even factor it in to my retirement plans. If I get anything it will be a bonus.

I shall say no more as I don't want to spoil my dinner.

[Chupup]

What a load of BS, OK the average Brit pension is aproximatly 140 GB pounds a week, BUT^ if they live in Thailand they only recive

80 GB pounds per week, Yes the British Government is already sticthing them up for a bloody great 60 quids or 240 Quids a month

If they are WHINGing about the Millions they are spending on those of us that live abroard and who did pay our taxes and SS just think

how much they would have to pay out IF WE ALL went back, ( no i am not leaving i like it here )........... ..

[Dogmatix]

I think the British government would do better to explain the fraud it perpetrates on pensioners who live abroad in counties other than the US and the EU by freezing their pensions without any inflation increments, rather than coming out with this disgusting racist rant. You'd think the British National Party was already in power.

[icare999]

according to pensions department wife only gets pension when she reaches pension age. They say before 2010 you could claim a dependent wife addition but that was stopped in 2010 (for new pensioners I believe).

So since 2010 it can only apply to thai wives age over 60 and soon agree over 65 and soon after that age 67.

I checked this with pensions department and they said my wife definitely could not get anything until she reached Uk retirement pension but then she would be entitled to something depending on my contributions.

So whats all fuss about. There can hardly be many new pensioners who marry Thai wives near or at UK retirement age. Unless they are concerned about long term future but they would almost certainly honour commitment for any wives already married to pensioners.

[3NUMBAS]

and brits have to apply in person at the UK embassy for passport renewals twice , to make sure theyre still alive ,great when your old and infirm and cant get to BKK

[icare999]

I hope folks won't mind if I revive this debate. There's been more talk in the press on this subject of frozen pensions, as well as the changes affecting a woman's entitlements based on her husband's NI contribution record, known officially as a derived pension.

Firstly, if anyone has experience of getting their pension "unfrozen" i.e. by moving back to UK for a period and then leaving UK again, I'd appreciate hearing about how that went.

On the derived pension aspect, this thread has missed one important point. Yes, the changes will affect UK-based spouses as well as those living overseas. What the government want is for everyone to build up their own NI contribution record which will be used to calculate the state pension entitlement. Those living in the UK will become exempt from paying NI contributions if for example they are bringing up young children. For those that do not work and are not exempt, they can choose to pay voluntary NI contributions. What I have discovered, however, is that there is a bar for non UK residents to pay voluntary contributions. In order to qualify the person must have lived in the UK for three consecutive years or have a three-year NI contribution record already. This is an old clause that is still effective and my enquiry with HMRC has elicited that they have no plan to change things.

I do not object to the move towards flat rate pensions, but this bar to anyone who is overseas being able to join the NI scheme is the bit I have a problem with.

I have fully earned my state pension, but have a few years to wait before it is payable. However, I did make voluntary contributions for about 20 of the 35 years as I was living overseas, and did so on the understanding that my wife would be entitled to a derived pension when she reaches retirement age and/or when I die. Now she will get nothing.

Fair?

I decided very young that anyone relying on UK state pension would find they will be very disappointed. Basically its not really governments fault since their is a huge time bomb due to people living longer and unfunded state pensions. This and other measures are totally necessary or whole state system will totally collapse which it probably will anyway. I don't feel it fair after paying hundreds of thousands in tax that if id left my assets in UK and i die my thai wife would loose out on 40% IH tax since what oat people do not understand is transfers between husband and wife are only free of IH tax if spouse is resident in UK except for a very small 60k gbp allowance. Its to late for you but you can never rely on governments to support you and to be honest its time people learnt this the hard way and made their own provisions.

I guess if she's legally married you could mover to UK and she could get a job for 3 years and then problem solved. Maybe not fair but UK should look after those who remain in UK first and not those dependents of UK citizens who decided to leave. Many maybe not you have benefited greatly by being non resident and not paying UK tax in particular not paying CGT tax.

The frozen pension thing is also probably not fair but we all have a choice of returning to UK and if legally married (for a long period) can in nearly all cases get a settlement visa for our wives.

No point moaning it aint going to change and its going to get worse and worse so those who have time should plan now. Basically decades of nanny state and socialism has totally bankrupted UK and however unfair its impossible to carry on simply borrowing more and more to push can down road.

Its sorry to say foolish to rely on government fro your future.

[fatdrunkandstupid]

Eventually all western governments will cease to pay aged pensions.

It is a mathematical certainty.

[daboyz1]

Does this affect Thai widows who are receiving survivor's benefits from their now deceased British husband's pension?

[Guest jonzboy]

of course I am referring to people affected by current pensions reforms that will soon be legislated and should come into effect in 2016 and only affect those reaching pensionable age thereafter

[Guest jonzboy]

I checked this with pensions department and they said my wife definitely could not get anything until she reached Uk retirement pension but then she would be entitled to something depending on my contributions.

yes, that is the current status, but this will change in 2016 when derived pensions, as you describe in the above quote, will be a thing of the past. It depends on your wife's age

[for real]

Those of us retired now paid 44 years of N.I..

I believe that one only has to contribute 30 years on NI payments now to qualify for full state pension

Some ,like myself never had children [my choice as I could see what England was coming to after muticulturism was planned to destroy the unity of the then british working class].

In my work I came into contact with many unemployed .Many were immigrant women whose husbands had departed and left them with children to rear.

These women never worked and because of the benefit system could eventually claim a state pension.

If you are unemployed the government credits you with N.I payments.

As a single employed man I paid high income tax to contribute towards those with large numbers of children.I had no choice in this.The only way I could recover some of my vast payments back was by legally marrying a foreign girl.I did this in 2010 and now receive an increase of 59 pounds weekly..The British government claw some of this back as I am taxed on my other pension.

I believe that NOBODY marrying after April 2010 can claim this 59 pounds for their wives should they marry.

Most of you that paid into this scam do not realize the full cost of your 'national insurance'

The wonderful civil servants who drew this scam fooled the working class .

This was done by dividing the costs in 2 parts.

I ,Employees contribution [involuntary]

2 ,EMPLOYERS contribution.....???

Any employer would add this cost when calculating a job salary..Any trade union seeking higher wages would have this sum shown as 'profit loss' .lessening his chances of much higher increased wage..

In plain English...The EMPLOYEE paid for both sums.

[Neeranam]

It ain't all bad from the UK. They recent;y reduced the number of years one need to contribute from 40 to 30 years. That means I only have to voluntarily pay 25 yeaars instead of 35!

Then again, maybe it is abd idea paying back anything, certainly a gamble. When I am 68 I could be dead or they may have increased the pension age to 75.

I wonder what will happen if Scotland gets independence.

[Neeranam]

and brits have to apply in person at the UK embassy for passport renewals twice , to make sure theyre still alive ,great when your old and infirm and cant get to BKK

They maybe should have made provision by getting citizenship when they were younger.

Surely if one is unfit to travel, the authorities will have mercy.

[binjalin]

entirely reasonable to close the loophole... unless someone can demonstrate they have lived in UK for X number of years

Edited April 13, 2014 by binjalin

[Neeranam]

If I decide to go back when I am 68 with my Thai wife, will she be able to claim any social security? We will have been married for 35 years then. Come to think of it, I wonder if I will be entitled to social security having lived away for over 40 years.

[northernjohn]

Just another off topic finger pointing session from the UK government.They have been doing this for years. They blame one group and then another all to keep Joe public from focusing on the fact they are the reason the economy is in the tank.

Cut backs on benefits, inspection of those that receive state assistance which the majority have been paying into through high taxes all their working life.Although the propaganda would have us believing no one works anymore and just live from claiming welfare.

Where did the money go?

That is in an easy one. They (the government) have been robbing the country blind for years.They manipulate policy to favor those companies, banks, etc that they have an interest in.They prop up a corrupted system.

The British people (of which I am one) need to wake up to the rot that has set in before they all end up like Greece.

The topic of paying pensions to wives of Britons outside the country or of different ethnic/National backgrounds is a test case, if they can do it with one group they will do it to all.

Soon the country will have a welfare system that benefits no one apart from those at the top handling the money.

Enough already! its time people stood their ground and showed the British Government that they are there to serve the public not lord over them.

sorry rant over

Well I enjoyed the rant and not being a member of Great Briton but of the states I agree with what you say for the most part.

The part I didn't like is where you purport to it being just a problem in Great Brittan. Lack of government spending money is an international problem. Just as in the early 2000s it was a world wide prosperity thing.

I wonder if Great Briton would have as big a problem if they paid full benefit to the ones not living in the country? I am quite sure there are many who got married just to meet the lower requirements for immigration in Thailand. Please do not even think that I am accusing all of this need. But I feel sure there is a fair amount now since the baht went up in relationship to what it used to be.

Of course there were a few countries who were not the same.

[Guest jonzboy]

If I decide to go back when I am 68 with my Thai wife, will she be able to claim any social security? We will have been married for 35 years then. Come to think of it, I wonder if I will be entitled to social security having lived away for over 40 years.

I assume by social security you mean a state pension. Your entitlement will depend on your history of paying national insurance as well as your age and that of your wife. I cannot comment on specifics in your case as you give no information. Given the 40 years away comment, it may well be that you did pay some NI before leaving UK (let's say 10 years) and at any time you can pay back voluntarily up to 6 years of missing contributions (but you must do this before you reach retirement age). You would then qualify for a part pension of 16/30 of the full pension amount if you reach 65 before April 2016, and your wife will receive a derived pension of the same percentage on the spouse's additional pension provided she also reaches retirement age before that date. If after that, then it will be 16/35 of the new flat-rate pension, but your wife will receive nothing.

See...

https://www.gov.uk/state-pension/print

and attachment

single-tier-pension-executive-summary.pdf