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

[Hans1]

In Denmark they are cut 11.000 Baht in pension, if they go from being single to live with someone, married or not !!
No pension to people who not had lived in Denmark, and reduced if you not had lived there for 42 years !!

[7by7]

AnotherOneAmerican. The UK Gov't HAVE KEPT to the Contract. It is not a question of them altering the contract unfairly. Wives and Kids of UK nationals all over the world drawing benefits when they have never set foot into the Country or made any contribution into the coffers is just plain wrong. Compare that with the System in Thailand : both ends of the scale and BOTH need adjusting in their different ways.

As far as I can ascertain, the UK pension is was for UK nationals that have paid into the scheme, and their wife.

Why would it matter if the wife had ever been to the UK or was a UK citizen?

Why would it matter if the wife was a UK citizen? she didn't pay either.

It is a purchased pension plan with a contract, not a benefit given to all UK citizens.

As far as I know benefits are given to all citizens in a country, no need to ever contribute, that's why it is called a benefit.

The UK state pension is not a "purchased pension plan with a contract."

It is a state benefit paid for through the NI contributions which all those working in the UK, including the immigrants some here complain about, earning above a set minimum have to pay. Purchased pension plan implies a choice; there is no choice.

As such, the government can alter the terms in anyway the see fit; with the approval of Parliament, of course.

Entitlement to certain other state benefits are also conditional upon the claimant having made the requisite contributions; e.g. contribution based job seekers allowance, colloquially referred to as the dole.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

AnotherOneAmerican. The UK Gov't HAVE KEPT to the Contract. It is not a question of them altering the contract unfairly. Wives and Kids of UK nationals all over the world drawing benefits when they have never set foot into the Country or made any contribution into the coffers is just plain wrong. Compare that with the System in Thailand : both ends of the scale and BOTH need adjusting in their different ways.

As far as I can ascertain, the UK pension is was for UK nationals that have paid into the scheme, and their wife.

Why would it matter if the wife had ever been to the UK or was a UK citizen?

Why would it matter if the wife was a UK citizen? she didn't pay either.

It is a purchased pension plan with a contract, not a benefit given to all UK citizens.

As far as I know benefits are given to all citizens in a country, no need to ever contribute, that's why it is called a benefit.

The UK state pension is not a "purchased pension plan with a contract."

It is a state benefit paid for through the NI contributions which all those working in the UK, including the immigrants some here complain about, earning above a set minimum have to pay. Purchased pension plan implies a choice; there is no choice.

As such, the government can alter the terms in anyway the see fit; with the approval of Parliament, of course.

Entitlement to certain other state benefits are also conditional upon the claimant having made the requisite contributions; e.g. contribution based job seekers allowance, colloquially referred to as the dole.

If there is no choice and no contract then it is a tax.

[Billmont]

£410 Million? Okay that's a lot of money. Now let's put it in perspective.

Pensions - £138 Billion. Out of a total of £684 billion.

So, 0.3% of the pension budget. 0.06% of the overall budget.

Yes, I'm sure clawing a fraction of that back will fix all their problems. Much more effective than not spending £12Bn on a computer system then scrapping it because it doesn't work. Or the £2.4Bn battlefield radios (that don't work) for the MOD. How about the £250M helicopters that can't fly at night (or in clouds). I'd sure like to see a breakdown of exactly how "policing" Julian Assange has cost the taxpayers £3M (so far). And these are 'tip of the iceberg' examples.

You post is a load of rubbish. Why? Beacause it is sensible, logical and most probably supported by all that read it. Therefore it will not be supported by our elected Gods and rubbished by them. Its a pity that people like you do not enter into poltics but unfortunately they dont and if they did they would be sidelined by the 'establishement' to the extend they would leave. Its called Democracy and we are told ours (the UK) is the best in the world. Isn't our system great? Go after peanuts and the wilful wastage so correctly mentioned above goes unchecked. Its times like this I am so proud to be British!

[7by7]

AnotherOneAmerican, on 08 May 2013 - 11:34, said:
If there is no choice and no contract then it is a tax.

Effectively; yes.

(Edit to add quote I'm replying to as the above post appeared while I was typing.)

Edited May 8, 2013 by 7by7

[Thai at Heart]

How about the retired people who have migrated to other countries like NZ., Aust, Canada and Sth Africa, to join their children and grandchildren, and find that their pensions are frozen from the time that they left and will not be annually indexed. In my case i left in 1973 and thats where it remains. If i had gone to say Spain, Germany or America, my pension would be indexed annually.

The Norwegians have a good take on this.

It is reduced if you are oversea because the money is not circulating in the local economy so the government loses VAT.

However it increases on line with all normal increases.

[HardenedSoul]

Always good to hear some input from the feminists. Someone once remarked "English food and English women....the foundations of a great seafaring nation!"

Yeah cos every bird loves a sweating, beer-sodden hippo wheezing and writhing over her

Well they certainly do in Pattaya. At least it's better than the reverse arrangement, which is what us blokes would be getting back home!

Oh they do love it in Pattaya, do they?

I guess that's why all the idiots who marry these girls don't end up skint then.

Ok, mate . . . you keep kidding yourself

[ginjag]

Can anyone say how much is spent per person in the UK on national health care ? If this is possible then we will know how much the UK govt is already saving by not having to pay this for ex-pats living in Thailand.

It doesn't stop there.----TV licences-dentistry-cold weather allowance- dissabled allowances-optitions-travel allowances to old- rail and bus-passes-and the rest.

YES the government is saving a mint, and puts crap out like this pension business.

Not many very wealthy pensioners (very upper class) will bat an eyelid. Cameron and the like just let Bull###it spew out as they have no idea what the NORMAL pensioner feels.

[mrfill]

A interesting discussion, correct me if I'm wrong but

English workers pay 20% of their salary every year as a national insurance payment (10% from employee, 10% from employer)

This then buys them their pension. Purchased pensions normally have provisions to pay a spouse on death of the primary beneficiary.

Let me see, a salary averaging 15k a year for 30 years gives a pension pot of 90,000 UKP, with interest about 250,000 UKP.

Some claim that it also buys their NHS entitlement, but doesn't everyone in the UK get NHS entitlement, paying NI or not?

So if a pension is a benefit, doesn't that make NI payments a tax?

In which case the British base rate of income tax becomes 30%.

Just an observation from an outsider.

Certainly.

The NIC rates for 2013/14 are 12% for employees, 13.8% for employers. This applies from the Lower Earnings limit of £109 to the Higher Earnings Limit of £797 per week. So if you earn over £797 a week you pay 0% NIC over that amount. Fair?

The contributions are *not* for purchasing pension as the scheme runs hand to mouth i.e. the contributions being paid now go towards payments being made now. It has always worked that way.

The average UK wage is £26500 a year (ONS statistics 2012).

Yes, NIC does not affect NHS entitlement. Otherwise women who do not work would not be eligible.

And yes, NIC most certainly is a tax, especially as the contributions go into the 'general pot' of government and is not ring fenced.

Calculating the base rate gets a bit tricky because no income tax is paid on the first £9440 although NIC (12%) is due on £3772. Above £9440 income tax and NIC are payable up to £41444. Above 41444 to the start of the higher rate band, only income tax is payable. Employers NIC of 13.8% is payable on all income. Simple eh?

On £26500 a total of £6219 income tax + employee NIC is payable.

That works out as a 'base rate' of 23.47% and includes pension contributions and health care for the taxpayer and his family.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

Health care is free for everyone living in the UK, it is not a benefit for those paying tax and NI in the UK but living abroad.

So you can't include that as a benefit of NI contribution, because if you live abroad, you aren't entitled.

3 months outside the UK, and you are out of the NHS, no matter what NI and tax you pay.

Edited May 8, 2013 by AnotherOneAmerican

[bikerider21]

It has become popular for many men to have younger wives (not just in Thailand). It is also common for men to have children with these younger wives. The pension which a man has paid for (could be as much as 30% of salary for 35 years) is not only for his wife but also his dependents until they are of age. Take an example of a man at 60 marrying a younger wife (of any age but young enough to have children). By the time the man retires, his child(ren) could be around 5 years old. The average age of death for men used to be 65 and that's why the pension age was established at 65. If you die before 65, tough luck. If you live to be 90 good luck. But even if the average age of death is now 70 (guess). The child mentioned above is still only 10 and is a dependent for a good while yet.

Is it fair that the man lived his working life with no saving in the assurance that his wife and dependents would be taken care of only to find out now that they will become destitute if he dies? Some how I don't think so.

[MRJOHNNY]

Lets face it everyone, the country we once knew and loved so much is nothing more than a dumping ground for anyone who feels free to sponge off of it including all those militant types that hate our culture so much yet they are happy to live there taking handouts, the sooner the uk gets out of the eec the better and stops bowing down to despotic eurocrats and their stupid laws which have allowed our once Great Britain to become a laughing stock and an easy touch......bring on the revolution and God Save the Queen.

[MAJIC]

If you purchase a pension that includes a provision for 'spouse payment', shouldn't you expect to get what you paid for?

If the 'spouse payment' clause did not exclude people of selected race, nationality or gender. Would they be allowed to change it later?

Would any western company be allowed to exclude people by such means?

I think not.

They (British government) sold the product, people bought into it, now it's time for them to keep their contract.

That isn't to say they shouldn't be able to change the terms for new people joining the scheme.

But those already paying, should get what they purchased.

Comparing the British National Pension scheme with a Private one you are correct,but unfortunately the National scheme was brought about without the same rules as Private ones,so can't be compared, for instance the National scheme has been in operation since the end of the second world war,and at no time has there ever been any investment,put aside for a future growth potential! money gets paid in by the workforce and get's paid out directly to Retirees.

Had a Private Pension Company conducted their scheme by not investing money paid in, they would most probably have been prosecuted for fraud,and shut down!

[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.

[Thai at Heart]

It has become popular for many men to have younger wives (not just in Thailand). It is also common for men to have children with these younger wives. The pension which a man has paid for (could be as much as 30% of salary for 35 years) is not only for his wife but also his dependents until they are of age. Take an example of a man at 60 marrying a younger wife (of any age but young enough to have children). By the time the man retires, his child(ren) could be around 5 years old. The average age of death for men used to be 65 and that's why the pension age was established at 65. If you die before 65, tough luck. If you live to be 90 good luck. But even if the average age of death is now 70 (guess). The child mentioned above is still only 10 and is a dependent for a good while yet.

Is it fair that the man lived his working life with no saving in the assurance that his wife and dependents would be taken care of only to find out now that they will become destitute if he dies? Some how I don't think so.

Where is this benefit for exhausts expatriate British children?

[Spalpeen]

Always good to hear some input from the feminists. Someone once remarked "English food and English women....the foundations of a great seafaring nation!"

Yeah cos every bird loves a sweating, beer-sodden hippo wheezing and writhing over her

Well they certainly do in Pattaya. At least it's better than the reverse arrangement, which is what us blokes would be getting back home!

Oh they do love it in Pattaya, do they?

I guess that's why all the idiots who marry these girls don't end up skint then.

Ok, mate . . . you keep kidding yourself

They do indeed. Which is why every man who crosses the Pattaya City Limits, regardless of race, creed, colour or body mass index, is instantly transformed into a Sexy Man! It's always entertaining to watch bulging, puffy faced, western women stomping around Pattaya scowling at their much happier male counterparts.

[7by7]

Is it fair that the man lived his working life with no saving in the assurance that his wife and dependents would be taken care of only to find out now that they will become destitute if he dies? Some how I don't think so.

Is it fair that the taxpayer should be expected to look after a man who has lived his working life without making any provision at all for his retirement and his family?

I don't think so!

Whilst I am fully, and personally, aware that some people's income may not always be high enough to contribute to a personal or company pension, it needs to be remembered that the state pension is a sort of safety net. It provides a minimum income; which to be honest is barely enough to live on.

My brother in law was made to start a personal pension by his father when he was 18. He complained at the time, but as he was so young when he started it the monthly payments were, and even more so now, very small. Now in his fifties, he sees the wisdom of his father's insistence. I only wish I had done the same!

As I said earlier, anyone who relies on the state when they retire will be in one!

[HardenedSoul]

Well they certainly do in Pattaya. At least it's better than the reverse arrangement, which is what us blokes would be getting back home!

Yeah cos every bird loves a sweating, beer-sodden hippo wheezing and writhing over her

Oh they do love it in Pattaya, do they?

I guess that's why all the idiots who marry these girls don't end up skint then.

Ok, mate . . . you keep kidding yourself

They do indeed. Which is why every man who crosses the Pattaya City Limits, regardless of race, creed, colour or body mass index, is instantly transformed into a Sexy Man! It's always entertaining to watch bulging, puffy faced, western women stomping around Pattaya scowling at their much happier male counterparts.

Well, I doubt they actually love it but hey, cash is the most effective anaesthesia

[Spalpeen]

This change to the pension rules doesn't just affect Thai wives. It affects all women who don't have a record of paying NI contributions. That seems grossly unfair. After all, a woman who spends her life raising children, keeping house and looking after elderly relatives has worked just as much as her husband who went to the office every day. His payments should be recognised as joint payments and not just his alone.

Also, as already stated, retired Brits who live abroad are less of a cost to the state and so should be encouraged, not penalised.

[Waterloo]

Is it fair that the man lived his working life with no saving in the assurance that his wife and dependents would be taken care of only to find out now that they will become destitute if he dies? Some how I don't think so.

Is it fair that the taxpayer should be expected to look after a man who has lived his working life without making any provision at all for his retirement and his family?

I don't think so!

Whilst I am fully, and personally, aware that some people's income may not always be high enough to contribute to a personal or company pension, it needs to be remembered that the state pension is a sort of safety net. It provides a minimum income; which to be honest is barely enough to live on.

My brother in law was made to start a personal pension by his father when he was 18. He complained at the time, but as he was so young when he started it the monthly payments were, and even more so now, very small. Now in his fifties, he sees the wisdom of his father's insistence. I only wish I had done the same!

As I said earlier, anyone who relies on the state when they retire will be in one!

me too

[Waterloo]

This change to the pension rules doesn't just affect Thai wives. It affects all women who don't have a record of paying NI contributions. That seems grossly unfair. After all, a woman who spends her life raising children, keeping house and looking after elderly relatives has worked just as much as her husband who went to the office every day. His payments should be recognised as joint payments and not just his alone.

Also, as already stated, retired Brits who live abroad are less of a cost to the state and so should be encouraged, not penalised.

As I have only just learn't and am currently taken action to rectifie, if you are in the UK & your wife is claiming child benefit the Goverment will pay her NI contributions until the youngest child is 12 at which point she could presumably get a job to meet her own NI contributions.

[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.

[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.

Sorry to spoil your rant, but illegal immigrants cannot claim any benefits in the UK.

Neither can legal ones, until they are no longer subject to immigration control; i.e. have ILR or the equivalent.

So what do say about this couple?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306838/Fraudster-couple-funded-champagne-lifestyle-exotic-holidays-plush-home-1million-insurance-scam.html

"Jaksone, 36, also pocketed £82,000 in benefits to which she was not entitled by posing as a single mother and using her own mother’s details to falsely claim pension credits and the winter fuel allowance."

[Card]

It has become popular for many men to have younger wives (not just in Thailand). It is also common for men to have children with these younger wives. The pension which a man has paid for (could be as much as 30% of salary for 35 years) is not only for his wife but also his dependents until they are of age. Take an example of a man at 60 marrying a younger wife (of any age but young enough to have children). By the time the man retires, his child(ren) could be around 5 years old. The average age of death for men used to be 65 and that's why the pension age was established at 65. If you die before 65, tough luck. If you live to be 90 good luck. But even if the average age of death is now 70 (guess). The child mentioned above is still only 10 and is a dependent for a good while yet.

Is it fair that the man lived his working life with no saving in the assurance that his wife and dependents would be taken care of only to find out now that they will become destitute if he dies? Some how I don't think so.

It's probably all covered in the small print somewhere in the NI regulations. Ignorance of miniscule print requiring a microscope to read is not taken as a defense. Sorry.

[Card]

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.

Sorry to spoil your rant, but illegal immigrants cannot claim any benefits in the UK.

Neither can legal ones, until they are no longer subject to immigration control; i.e. have ILR or the equivalent.

So what do say about this couple?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306838/Fraudster-couple-funded-champagne-lifestyle-exotic-holidays-plush-home-1million-insurance-scam.html

"Jaksone, 36, also pocketed £82,000 in benefits to which she was not entitled by posing as a single mother and using her own mother’s details to falsely claim pension credits and the winter fuel allowance."

He's got bigger nips than she has.

[Card]

Always good to hear some input from the feminists. Someone once remarked "English food and English women....the foundations of a great seafaring nation!"

Yeah cos every bird loves a sweating, beer-sodden hippo wheezing and writhing over her

Well they certainly do in Pattaya. At least it's better than the reverse arrangement, which is what us blokes would be getting back home!

Oh they do love it in Pattaya, do they?

I guess that's why all the idiots who marry these girls don't end up skint then.

Ok, mate . . . you keep kidding yourself

They do indeed. Which is why every man who crosses the Pattaya City Limits, regardless of race, creed, colour or body mass index, is instantly transformed into a Sexy Man! It's always entertaining to watch bulging, puffy faced, western women stomping around Pattaya scowling at their much happier male counterparts.

Western women with their husbands? Where do u see western women in Pattaya with their husbands? Those are Russians.

Edited May 8, 2013 by Card

[Card]

hey do indeed. Which is why every man who crosses the Pattaya City Limits, regardless of race, creed, colour or body mass index, is instantly transformed into a Sexy Man! It's always entertaining to watch bulging, puffy faced, western women stomping around Pattaya scowling at their much happier male counterparts.

Always good to hear some input from the feminists. Someone once remarked "English food and English women....the foundations of a great seafaring nation!"

Yeah cos every bird loves a sweating, beer-sodden hippo wheezing and writhing over her

Well they certainly do in Pattaya. At least it's better than the reverse arrangement, which is what us blokes would be getting back home!

Oh they do love it in Pattaya, do they?

I guess that's why all the idiots who marry these girls don't end up skint then.

Ok, mate . . . you keep kidding yourself

Western women with their husbands? Where do u see western women in Pattaya with their husbands? Those are Russians.

[Card]

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.

[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!

[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.

Sorry to spoil your rant, but illegal immigrants cannot claim any benefits in the UK.

Neither can legal ones, until they are no longer subject to immigration control; i.e. have ILR or the equivalent.

So what do say about this couple?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2306838/Fraudster-couple-funded-champagne-lifestyle-exotic-holidays-plush-home-1million-insurance-scam.html

"Jaksone, 36, also pocketed £82,000 in benefits to which she was not entitled by posing as a single mother and using her own mother’s details to falsely claim pension credits and the winter fuel allowance."

Fraudsters who have been caught and gaoled.

They broke the law.

They fraudulently claimed benefits to which they weren't entitled.

They defrauded HMRC by not paying tax.

They are criminals.

Any other person, immigrant or native, who did the same would also be breaking the law and similarly punished if caught.

That they were immigrants is irrelevant; except it does mean they can be deported once they have served their sentences.

It certainly has absolutely no relevance to the fact that illegal immigrants cannot claim any benefits in the UK.

Neither can legal ones, until they are no longer subject to immigration control; i.e. have ILR or the equivalent.

Edited May 8, 2013 by 7by7