UK pensioner expat or remain UK resident

[MichaelJohn]

My understanding is (if you're left the UK and return), that you have to be resident in the UK for 6 months before you become re-eligible for the free NHS.

Although in practice I doubt the systems are linked and you'd probably get the free service!

[chiang mai]

Taxable assets that are below the annual personal allowance are treated exactly the same weather you are an Expat or resident !!! so why is it more compelling to become an expat ?

I see you're having comprehension difficulties this morning, the rest of the post provided the answer, but once again:

If the split of your retirement assets were say 75% onshore pension assets that couldn't be moved, and, 25% offshore cash assets, the argument for remaining onshore is more compelling since the UK tax element is inescapable, this is especially true where NHS eligibility is retained.

But if the split were the other way around, for example, that would mean that the larger percentage of total assets, 75% in this example, could be moved to escape UK tax.

Clear now?

.

Your waffling again, originally you said

It depends on the value of your taxable assets that arise in the UK that simply can't be offshored, (rental income, UK pension payments and also private pension that can't be QROP'd or easily cashed in).

First of all your talking about something that can't be offshored and then your talking about moving to escape UK tax !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Alfie, try, just a little bit, it's not that difficult to understand the complete picture of what I wrote!

Over and out.

[uptheos]

My understanding is (if you're left the UK and return), that you have to be resident in the UK for 6 months before you become re-eligible for the free NHS.

Although in practice I doubt the systems are linked and you'd probably get the free service!

Your understanding from where?

Have you read post 27?

Also:

'Habitual residence in fact'

Proving someone is ‘habitually resident in fact’ relies on case law as there is no definition in the Regulations of ‘habitual residence’.

Some key points:

• You must be resident (and in some cases have been so for at least 3 months) Note: Not MOST cases
• You must show intention to settle (not necessarily permanently).

++ You may be accepted as habitually resident from your first day if you are returning to the country and you were previously habitually resident or you or a member of your family is a national of, or has worked in, another European Economic Area (EEA) state.

British citizens who have lived abroad and are returning to the UK will still have to show that they are 'habitually resident in fact'.

++ I would say that anyone born, lived and paid into the system for many years, qualifies as 'previously habitually resident'.

Edited April 3, 2014 by uptheos

[sms747]

My understanding is (if you're left the UK and return), that you have to be resident in the UK for 6 months before you become re-eligible for the free NHS.

Although in practice I doubt the systems are linked and you'd probably get the free service!

Emergency treatment is always free, they do not log people in and out of the uk and I have never even been asked to show a NHS medical card even though I have had one for 60 years.

[James207]

My understanding is (if you're left the UK and return), that you have to be resident in the UK for 6 months before you become re-eligible for the free NHS.

Although in practice I doubt the systems are linked and you'd probably get the free service!

Emergency treatment is always free, they do not log people in and out of the uk and I have never even been asked to show a NHS medical card even though I have had one for 60 years.

I think that on the basis the NHS is incapable or determining who arrived yesterday, last week, last year or last century the chances of being denied treatment was zero.

[SheungWan]

My understanding is (if you're left the UK and return), that you have to be resident in the UK for 6 months before you become re-eligible for the free NHS.

Although in practice I doubt the systems are linked and you'd probably get the free service!

Emergency treatment is always free, they do not log people in and out of the uk and I have never even been asked to show a NHS medical card even though I have had one for 60 years.

I think that on the basis the NHS is incapable or determining who arrived yesterday, last week, last year or last century the chances of being denied treatment was zero.

Basing your future expectations on the incompetence of the NHS, well good luck with that one.

[SheungWan]

If you are retired you should consider the implications for your NHS entitlement. No small matter.

Not sure I get your point. NHS entitlement is based on where you reside, not on where you pay tax, although is to some extent based on where you reside. If you return to the UK then you are UK resident and entitled to NHS treatment.

I suppose unless you are chronically ill it wouldn't matter, if you were chronically then you would stay in the UK.

If you are a non-resident expat, you cannot now just automatically expect to jump on a plane to the UK and be treated immediately without cost.

Are you suggesting that a UK passport holder returning to the UK needs to go through a qualifying period. My wife arrived in the UK and the same day qualified for NHS treatment.

A friend of mine certainly had to go through a qualifying period of having to provide evidence after returning to the UK of establishing a permanent address before he could obtain eye treatment on the NHS. So OK some seem not to go through hoops and some do, but we are all aware of a government intention to tighten up. One can maybe duck and dive for a while, but it is hardly a foundation for a strategy of whether to go offshore for taxation purposes or not.

PS....now about your avatar.....

Edited April 3, 2014 by SheungWan

[davejones23]

If you are retired you should consider the implications for your NHS entitlement. No small matter.

If you're out of the UK for over 90 days you are no longer entitled to free NHS treatment. I don't think they check at the moment, especially if you appear to be a native, but I'm sure the time will come soon.

Many people wrongly think that all UK citizens get free NHS treatment. This is not the case at all. The NHS is a resident based system. i.e. you have to be resident in the UK. There are some exceptions though. e.g. armed forces personnel, etc.

I prefer being non-resident for tax purposes because it saves me money. It all depends on individual circumstances.

[fletchsmile]

This really is an area you need to get advice tailored specifically to yourself given the complexities of the UK tax system and all the factors that could come into play. That said, to be a bit more constructive:

For the first question I'd make the statement that:

(1) if your state pension is your main source (i.e more than half) of income, and the most impportant thing to you is to maximise your income, then staying in the UK is likely to be your best bet. Additionally for someone who relies on the state pension as their main source of income then the protection the NHS provides them is another important reason to stay, as if they're relying on the state pension for health service it's unlikely they have the funds to pay privately in Thailand when anything serious comes up.

This is based on crudely:

- You have a ball park allowance of about 10k for income tax and 10k for capital gains tax against taxable income. (Crudely simplying a lot!).

- Take say 6-7k as a ball park for a single persons pension. The increase you get each year is unlikely to exceed more than about 5% or say 300 quid.

- Over simplifying tax rates on CGT and IT, if your taxble income is more than about 2k above your allowances then you'll be paying more tax on your other income than the stingy increase in pensions.

(2) So it becomes a relative no brainer that if your taxable income is over about 20k a year the meagre increase in pension (compared to being frozen in Thaialand) alone won't compensate for if you could take your 20k+ tax free in say Thailand but you'd be paying tax in UK. You could just keep the tax saving built up to outwwigh the pension increase

To go back also to (1) if 6-7k is your main income (less than 50%). That means you're getting less than 14k a year, so under the allowances.

There are loads of other factors, tax free investments, eg ISAs, tax planning and other considerations, but those are 2 basic conculsions.

For me the UK actively discourages me from going back. Most of my investment income outside the UK is income tax and CGT free and Thailand is great on this score without even mentioning other locations. If I go back to the UK and become UK tax resident, I'm taxable on it, unless I've structured and paid not to be so, and the personal allowances come nowhere close.

As for the pension, I don't bank on receiving anything for the government. That's a lottery with moving goalposts - frozen or otherwise.

Cheers

Fletch

Edited April 3, 2014 by fletchsmile

[davejones23]

If you are retired you should consider the implications for your NHS entitlement. No small matter.

Not sure I get your point. NHS entitlement is based on where you reside, not on where you pay tax, although is to some extent based on where you reside. If you return to the UK then you are UK resident and entitled to NHS treatment.

I suppose unless you are chronically ill it wouldn't matter, if you were chronically then you would stay in the UK.

Why would you stay in the UK if you were chronically ill. I'd prefer to be chronically ill in Thailand than the UK. Depends to some extent on costs and how much money you have. But some chronic illnesses aren't much more than annoyances and don't require any/much medical treatment. Even if seriously ill I'd prefer to be in Thailand.

In my view, people should live where they will be happiest. I don't see the point of living somewhere you don't want to live just for the sake of saving a few £ on medical treatment. In any case, cheap medical insurance is available in Thailand if you want it.

[davejones23]

Don't loose sight of the fact that older age and poor health can creep up on you, once you've gone to the trouble of becoming an expat it's sometimes quite hard to become a resident again and as the rules change over time, re attaining NHS eligibility will become even more difficult. My vote would be, unless you have substantial assets, go the 6 months in and 6 months out route.

That's just not true at all. Just go home and you are resident again. no-one can stop you from living in the UK if you have a UK passport. And NHS treatment will be free once you've been back for 90 days. It couldn't be any simpler. Why do you think it's quite hard? What you say is utter nonsense. And I wish people on this forum would quit talking about stuff they know nothing about.

Edited April 3, 2014 by davejones23

[fletchsmile]

For the second question, I'd give the same riders as above.

Purely in isolation and oversimplifying again though. For pension income you can ignore CGT.

If the state pension is 7k and your IT allowances 10k your state pension is eating up most of your allowances. BTW I see the government more and more aligning so the two beome similar amounts.

You can take 25% tax free. Take it and invest outside UK where you are not taxble is therefore a good idea.

For the remaining 75% it's more of a tming issue than one relating to Thailand or not. You'll be paying tax whenever you draw it. If you take it all there and then you wiill push yourself into/towards higher tax brackets. Best you could perhaps do is spread over time it to reduce the rate, by say income drawdown looking at the rates you would pay under various scenarios.

Cheers

Fletch

[chiang mai]

If you are retired you should consider the implications for your NHS entitlement. No small matter.

Not sure I get your point. NHS entitlement is based on where you reside, not on where you pay tax, although is to some extent based on where you reside. If you return to the UK then you are UK resident and entitled to NHS treatment.

I suppose unless you are chronically ill it wouldn't matter, if you were chronically then you would stay in the UK.

Why would you stay in the UK if you were chronically ill. I'd prefer to be chronically ill in Thailand than the UK. Depends to some extent on costs and how much money you have. But some chronic illnesses aren't much more than annoyances and don't require any/much medical treatment. Even if seriously ill I'd prefer to be in Thailand.

In my view, people should live where they will be happiest. I don't see the point of living somewhere you don't want to live just for the sake of saving a few £ on medical treatment. In any case, cheap medical insurance is available in Thailand if you want it.

That's easy to say until you get to that point of it all getting real, if you don't have adequate medical insurance and you can't fall back into the safe arms of the NHS, it will get expensive and it will get very difficult. For example, it has been said (Sheryl) that an expat with a terminal illness here will need at least 5 million baht and that assumes a smooth exit. The other aspect to consider is that end of life care in Thailand is not exactly the same as in the UK, there are very few hospices and narcotic strength pain killers are not the norm - all in all it's not going to be an easy process as in the UK..

[davejones23]

Don't forget that the UK government are very likely with withdrawal the personal tax allowance from expats. It's currently out for consultation. So if you're an expat your UK state pension could suddenly attract 20% tax, as your personal allowance would be £0.

The UK government are increasing tax on almost everything these days. They are desperate for money and will therefore keep finding more ways to get more tax from you.

My suggestion, especially for younger people that have more time to plan, is to sort out your own finances for retirement and don't rely on the state. Rely on the state and you'll end up very unhappy.

[James207]

If you are retired you should consider the implications for your NHS entitlement. No small matter.

Not sure I get your point. NHS entitlement is based on where you reside, not on where you pay tax, although is to some extent based on where you reside. If you return to the UK then you are UK resident and entitled to NHS treatment.

I suppose unless you are chronically ill it wouldn't matter, if you were chronically then you would stay in the UK.

Why would you stay in the UK if you were chronically ill. I'd prefer to be chronically ill in Thailand than the UK. Depends to some extent on costs and how much money you have. But some chronic illnesses aren't much more than annoyances and don't require any/much medical treatment. Even if seriously ill I'd prefer to be in Thailand.

In my view, people should live where they will be happiest. I don't see the point of living somewhere you don't want to live just for the sake of saving a few £ on medical treatment. In any case, cheap medical insurance is available in Thailand if you want it.

You raise a good point. Can an expat of pensionable age get insurance. My wife is an ex nurse from a Government hospital. I know that relatives get free health care. Does that extend to farang relatives not that my wife would have cover now.

[chiang mai]

Don't loose sight of the fact that older age and poor health can creep up on you, once you've gone to the trouble of becoming an expat it's sometimes quite hard to become a resident again and as the rules change over time, re attaining NHS eligibility will become even more difficult. My vote would be, unless you have substantial assets, go the 6 months in and 6 months out route.

That's just not true at all. Just home home and you are resident again. no-one can stop you from living in the UK if you have a UK passport. And NHS treatment will be free once you've been back for 90 days. It couldn't be any simpler. Why do you think it's quite hard? What you say is utter nonsense. And I wish people on this forum would quit talking about stuff they know nothing about.

As a long term expat aged over 65 and with a series of health issues, I have looked into this subject from most angles, I've even sat with doctors in the UK and discussed it openly. I don't know for certain which part of what I wrote you don't agree with but I would guess it is the part about not being readily admitted back into the NHS system when your plane touches down?

Fair enough, I used to believe the same, there is now however an industry associated with this aspect and you should read back through this thread and in particular, read what Os has posted. It's true that if you are a genuine returnee who has sold all his assets in Thailand (proven and with receipts) and is now 100% verifiably moving back, the chances of acceptance back into the NHS are reasonable. But if your treatment needs are anything more than emergency care and it is shown that you are not really moving back permanently, you will be charged, along with any other health tourist, regardless of how many NI payments or tax you might have paid in your lifetime.

[davejones23]

If you are retired you should consider the implications for your NHS entitlement. No small matter.

Not sure I get your point. NHS entitlement is based on where you reside, not on where you pay tax, although is to some extent based on where you reside. If you return to the UK then you are UK resident and entitled to NHS treatment.

I suppose unless you are chronically ill it wouldn't matter, if you were chronically then you would stay in the UK.

Why would you stay in the UK if you were chronically ill. I'd prefer to be chronically ill in Thailand than the UK. Depends to some extent on costs and how much money you have. But some chronic illnesses aren't much more than annoyances and don't require any/much medical treatment. Even if seriously ill I'd prefer to be in Thailand.

In my view, people should live where they will be happiest. I don't see the point of living somewhere you don't want to live just for the sake of saving a few £ on medical treatment. In any case, cheap medical insurance is available in Thailand if you want it.

That's easy to say until you get to that point of it all getting real, if you don't have adequate medical insurance and you can't fall back into the safe arms of the NHS, it will get expensive and it will get very difficult. For example, it has been said (Sheryl) that an expat with a terminal illness here will need at least 5 million baht and that assumes a smooth exit. The other aspect to consider is that end of life care in Thailand is not exactly the same as in the UK, there are very few hospices and narcotic strength pain killers are not the norm - all in all it's not going to be an easy process as in the UK..

I don't agree with most of what you said. For example, there is some fantastic care for people with Alzheimer's disease in Chiang Mai. I've read about people from the UK transferring there from UK care homes. Everyone involved said how much better the care was and how much cheaper also. I think the NHS is great for emergency situations but very far from great for chronic illnesses. There are stories in the papers almost daily of people being denied drugs on the NHS due to living in the wrong postcode area. They are not looked after at all, but left to die. I doubt that the vast majority of terminal illnesses would cost 5 million baht. A small percentage maybe, but not many at all.

But I'm not suggesting that someone who's almost broke and very ill just turns up here and hopes for the best. Many people have enough money to pay the 5 million baht you mentioned, so why should they spend their last days in the UK when they could spend it here, which to me seems a much better place to die. If you're broke and ill, then maybe the UK is a better place, but that's not you said. You suggested that UK was better place for those that are chronically ill regardless of income or wealth. Arrange your finances properly and you can then chose where it's best to live without having to worry about such things.

[davejones23]

Don't loose sight of the fact that older age and poor health can creep up on you, once you've gone to the trouble of becoming an expat it's sometimes quite hard to become a resident again and as the rules change over time, re attaining NHS eligibility will become even more difficult. My vote would be, unless you have substantial assets, go the 6 months in and 6 months out route.

That's just not true at all. Just home home and you are resident again. no-one can stop you from living in the UK if you have a UK passport. And NHS treatment will be free once you've been back for 90 days. It couldn't be any simpler. Why do you think it's quite hard? What you say is utter nonsense. And I wish people on this forum would quit talking about stuff they know nothing about.

As a long term expat aged over 65 and with a series of health issues, I have looked into this subject from most angles, I've even sat with doctors in the UK and discussed it openly. I don't know for certain which part of what I wrote you don't agree with but I would guess it is the part about not being readily admitted back into the NHS system when your plane touches down?

Fair enough, I used to believe the same, there is now however an industry associated with this aspect and you should read back through this thread and in particular, read what Os has posted. It's true that if you are a genuine returnee who has sold all his assets in Thailand (proven and with receipts) and is now 100% verifiably moving back, the chances of acceptance back into the NHS are reasonable. But if your treatment needs are anything more than emergency care and it is shown that you are not really moving back permanently, you will be charged, along with any other health tourist, regardless of how many NI payments or tax you might have paid in your lifetime.

The part I really disagreed with is the part where you said it's quite hard to become resident again. To become resident is easy. You just fly there and live there. That's it. Any entitlements are separate issues. But if you have a UK passport no-one can stop you living (residing) in the UK. I read some earlier posts and getting NHS entitlement back is not too difficult once you're back for good. I thought it would take 90 days, but if you've been resident in the past then it could be much shorter, even instant.

[davejones23]

If you are retired you should consider the implications for your NHS entitlement. No small matter.

Not sure I get your point. NHS entitlement is based on where you reside, not on where you pay tax, although is to some extent based on where you reside. If you return to the UK then you are UK resident and entitled to NHS treatment.

I suppose unless you are chronically ill it wouldn't matter, if you were chronically then you would stay in the UK.

Why would you stay in the UK if you were chronically ill. I'd prefer to be chronically ill in Thailand than the UK. Depends to some extent on costs and how much money you have. But some chronic illnesses aren't much more than annoyances and don't require any/much medical treatment. Even if seriously ill I'd prefer to be in Thailand.

In my view, people should live where they will be happiest. I don't see the point of living somewhere you don't want to live just for the sake of saving a few £ on medical treatment. In any case, cheap medical insurance is available in Thailand if you want it.

You raise a good point. Can an expat of pensionable age get insurance. My wife is an ex nurse from a Government hospital. I know that relatives get free health care. Does that extend to farang relatives not that my wife would have cover now.

I wouldn't want to be treated in a Thai government hospital. I've no idea at what age it might become difficult to get health insurance. Have a chat with one of the insurance companies here. My gf's father is 70 and he can still get insurance here for treatment in a private hospital.

[chiang mai]

I am not advocating that one country is better than another of terms of end of days, I am hopefully only pointing out the differences between getting sick and dieing in Thailand vs the UK. If a person has good health insurance coverage and they enjoy living in Thailand and don't mind dieing here, go for it I say. Alternatively, if that same person has a spare 5 million baht (todays money) and meets all the other criteria, great!

But what would be a massive mistake, especially since the rules have changed over the past couple of years and will doubtless change again, is for UK expats to believe that living here in Thailand until they get sick is OK (or outside of their planning) in the hope that the UK NHS system will welcome them back, free of charge, they wont.

As for managing finances properly: I don't mind sharing with you that ten years ago I was wealthier than I am today, ten years ago I was quite rich, today I'm only comfortable and I never planned for it to be that way. Luckily I still have my 5/7 million baht reserves set aside for end of life but another global financial crisis could easily dominate, ten years is a long time in these matters.

[chiang mai]

Don't loose sight of the fact that older age and poor health can creep up on you, once you've gone to the trouble of becoming an expat it's sometimes quite hard to become a resident again and as the rules change over time, re attaining NHS eligibility will become even more difficult. My vote would be, unless you have substantial assets, go the 6 months in and 6 months out route.

That's just not true at all. Just home home and you are resident again. no-one can stop you from living in the UK if you have a UK passport. And NHS treatment will be free once you've been back for 90 days. It couldn't be any simpler. Why do you think it's quite hard? What you say is utter nonsense. And I wish people on this forum would quit talking about stuff they know nothing about.

As a long term expat aged over 65 and with a series of health issues, I have looked into this subject from most angles, I've even sat with doctors in the UK and discussed it openly. I don't know for certain which part of what I wrote you don't agree with but I would guess it is the part about not being readily admitted back into the NHS system when your plane touches down?

Fair enough, I used to believe the same, there is now however an industry associated with this aspect and you should read back through this thread and in particular, read what Os has posted. It's true that if you are a genuine returnee who has sold all his assets in Thailand (proven and with receipts) and is now 100% verifiably moving back, the chances of acceptance back into the NHS are reasonable. But if your treatment needs are anything more than emergency care and it is shown that you are not really moving back permanently, you will be charged, along with any other health tourist, regardless of how many NI payments or tax you might have paid in your lifetime.

The part I really disagreed with is the part where you said it's quite hard to become resident again. To become resident is easy. You just fly there and live there. That's it. Any entitlements are separate issues. But if you have a UK passport no-one can stop you living (residing) in the UK. I read some earlier posts and getting NHS entitlement back is not too difficult once you're back for good. I thought it would take 90 days, but if you've been resident in the past then it could be much shorter, even instant.

Resident for tax purposes (182 days+) or resident for health care (NHS) purposes, the two things are becoming the same. But you can't have one with out the other, eg. you don't want to be tax resident but you want NHS benefits, hmmm!.

[brewsterbudgen]

I find the whole thing very confusing.

I'm a UK passport holder and have been living and working in Thailand continuously since 2005.

I still get sent a notice to complete a UK Self-Assessment tax return every year (sent to my Thai address) which I complete online, with a comment in the notes that I am now living and working in Thailand. I declare all the interest I have earned on my UK accounts and savings, although this is minimal and I usually get a tax refund. I don't declare my Thai earnings (I pay Thai income tax) or my off-shore investment bond.

I've called them more than once to find out whether I really should be completing a Self-Assessment return and they just say that if I get a notice to complete it, I have to.

Edit: I assume I could apply for expat status, but I really don't have a problem paying tax on my UK income and assume I will be eligible for NHS services should I need them.

Edited April 3, 2014 by brewsterbudgen

[davejones23]

I am not advocating that one country is better than another of terms of end of days, I am hopefully only pointing out the differences between getting sick and dieing in Thailand vs the UK. If a person has good health insurance coverage and they enjoy living in Thailand and don't mind dieing here, go for it I say. Alternatively, if that same person has a spare 5 million baht (todays money) and meets all the other criteria, great!

But what would be a massive mistake, especially since the rules have changed over the past couple of years and will doubtless change again, is for UK expats to believe that living here in Thailand until they get sick is OK (or outside of their planning) in the hope that the UK NHS system will welcome them back, free of charge, they wont.

As for managing finances properly: I don't mind sharing with you that ten years ago I was wealthier than I am today, ten years ago I was quite rich, today I'm only comfortable and I never planned for it to be that way. Luckily I still have my 5/7 million baht reserves set aside for end of life but another global financial crisis could easily dominate, ten years is a long time in these matters.

Yes, very true about a potential financial crisis. But all we can do is plan as best as possible. If things don't work out for me in 10-20 years time, then that's life. But I still would prefer to stay here than live in UK. Also, UK economy could easily collapse totally, so where would that leave you if you had relied on being looked after in UK in your old age. NHS is already close to collapse. Will it still be there when people need it? I'd rather rely on myself than on some government. I feel happier and more secure.

[davejones23]

Resident for tax purposes (182 days+) or resident for health care (NHS) purposes, the two things are becoming the same. But you can't have one with out the other, eg. you don't want to be tax resident but you want NHS benefits, hmmm!.

I agree, but originally you said to become resident. To be resident somewhere just means to live somewhere. So you seemed to be saying that it was quite hard to live in UK again, which it's not. You would be resident for tax purposes from day 1 if it was your INTENTION to stay there. They will be glad that you are back and paying tax again. They aren't going to stop you paying tax.

[chiang mai]

I am not advocating that one country is better than another of terms of end of days, I am hopefully only pointing out the differences between getting sick and dieing in Thailand vs the UK. If a person has good health insurance coverage and they enjoy living in Thailand and don't mind dieing here, go for it I say. Alternatively, if that same person has a spare 5 million baht (todays money) and meets all the other criteria, great!

But what would be a massive mistake, especially since the rules have changed over the past couple of years and will doubtless change again, is for UK expats to believe that living here in Thailand until they get sick is OK (or outside of their planning) in the hope that the UK NHS system will welcome them back, free of charge, they wont.

As for managing finances properly: I don't mind sharing with you that ten years ago I was wealthier than I am today, ten years ago I was quite rich, today I'm only comfortable and I never planned for it to be that way. Luckily I still have my 5/7 million baht reserves set aside for end of life but another global financial crisis could easily dominate, ten years is a long time in these matters.

Yes, very true about a potential financial crisis. But all we can do is plan as best as possible. If things don't work out for me in 10-20 years time, then that's life. But I still would prefer to stay here than live in UK. Also, UK economy could easily collapse totally, so where would that leave you if you had relied on being looked after in UK in your old age. NHS is already close to collapse. Will it still be there when people need it? I'd rather rely on myself than on some government. I feel happier and more secure.

If you believe that then spread your risk, keep all your options open, target Thailand as a place to retire/die, but don't close out the UK angle, even if it means paying something. If you want to have a separate debate about the quality of medical care, Thailand vs the UK, am happy to go there, but in a separate thread.

[chiang mai]

Resident for tax purposes (182 days+) or resident for health care (NHS) purposes, the two things are becoming the same. But you can't have one with out the other, eg. you don't want to be tax resident but you want NHS benefits, hmmm!.

I agree, but originally you said to become resident. To be resident somewhere just means to live somewhere. So you seemed to be saying that it was quite hard to live in UK again, which it's not. You would be resident for tax purposes from day 1 if it was your INTENTION to stay there. They will be glad that you are back and paying tax again. They aren't going to stop you paying tax.

The term Residency must have context, otherwise the meaning is not understood, as you have just found out!.

[davejones23]

I find the whole thing very confusing.

I'm a UK passport holder and have been living and working in Thailand continuously since 2005.

I still get sent a notice to complete a UK Self-Assessment tax return every year (sent to my Thai address) which I complete online, with a comment in the notes that I am now living and working in Thailand. I declare all the interest I have earned on my UK accounts and savings, although this is minimal and I usually get a tax refund. I don't declare my Thai earnings (I pay Thai income tax) or my off-shore investment bond.

I've called them more than once to find out whether I really should be completing a Self-Assessment return and they just say that if I get a notice to complete it, I have to.

Edit: I assume I could apply for expat status, but I really don't have a problem paying tax on my UK income and assume I will be eligible for NHS services should I need them.

Your assumption is totally wrong. You are not eligible for free NHS treatment, as you are not resident in the UK - you are resident in Thailand. Being resident for tax purposes is different from being resident for NHS purposes. With a few exceptions,m you have to actually live in the UK to be entitled to free NHS treatment. But if you went back for treatment you may get it for free because no-one really checks, although this could change sometime. Paying UK tax and getting free NHS treatment are two totally unrelated things.

[davejones23]

Resident for tax purposes (182 days+) or resident for health care (NHS) purposes, the two things are becoming the same. But you can't have one with out the other, eg. you don't want to be tax resident but you want NHS benefits, hmmm!.

I agree, but originally you said to become resident. To be resident somewhere just means to live somewhere. So you seemed to be saying that it was quite hard to live in UK again, which it's not. You would be resident for tax purposes from day 1 if it was your INTENTION to stay there. They will be glad that you are back and paying tax again. They aren't going to stop you paying tax.

The term Residency must have context, otherwise the meaning is not understood, as you have just found out!.

Very true. The definition varies for just about everything.

[brewsterbudgen]

I find the whole thing very confusing.

I'm a UK passport holder and have been living and working in Thailand continuously since 2005.

I still get sent a notice to complete a UK Self-Assessment tax return every year (sent to my Thai address) which I complete online, with a comment in the notes that I am now living and working in Thailand. I declare all the interest I have earned on my UK accounts and savings, although this is minimal and I usually get a tax refund. I don't declare my Thai earnings (I pay Thai income tax) or my off-shore investment bond.

I've called them more than once to find out whether I really should be completing a Self-Assessment return and they just say that if I get a notice to complete it, I have to.

Edit: I assume I could apply for expat status, but I really don't have a problem paying tax on my UK income and assume I will be eligible for NHS services should I need them.

Your assumption is totally wrong. You are not eligible for free NHS treatment, as you are not resident in the UK - you are resident in Thailand. Being resident for tax purposes is different from being resident for NHS purposes. With a few exceptions,m you have to actually live in the UK to be entitled to free NHS treatment. But if you went back for treatment you may get it for free because no-one really checks, although this could change sometime. Paying UK tax and getting free NHS treatment are two totally unrelated things.

Thanks. Hopefully I won't need to use the NHS!

I surprised there are no exemptions for English teachers working overseas!

[davejones23]

I am not advocating that one country is better than another of terms of end of days, I am hopefully only pointing out the differences between getting sick and dieing in Thailand vs the UK. If a person has good health insurance coverage and they enjoy living in Thailand and don't mind dieing here, go for it I say. Alternatively, if that same person has a spare 5 million baht (todays money) and meets all the other criteria, great!

But what would be a massive mistake, especially since the rules have changed over the past couple of years and will doubtless change again, is for UK expats to believe that living here in Thailand until they get sick is OK (or outside of their planning) in the hope that the UK NHS system will welcome them back, free of charge, they wont.

As for managing finances properly: I don't mind sharing with you that ten years ago I was wealthier than I am today, ten years ago I was quite rich, today I'm only comfortable and I never planned for it to be that way. Luckily I still have my 5/7 million baht reserves set aside for end of life but another global financial crisis could easily dominate, ten years is a long time in these matters.

Yes, very true about a potential financial crisis. But all we can do is plan as best as possible. If things don't work out for me in 10-20 years time, then that's life. But I still would prefer to stay here than live in UK. Also, UK economy could easily collapse totally, so where would that leave you if you had relied on being looked after in UK in your old age. NHS is already close to collapse. Will it still be there when people need it? I'd rather rely on myself than on some government. I feel happier and more secure.

If you believe that then spread your risk, keep all your options open, target Thailand as a place to retire/die, but don't close out the UK angle, even if it means paying something. If you want to have a separate debate about the quality of medical care, Thailand vs the UK, am happy to go there, but in a separate thread.

I don'tknow what you mean by "don't close out the UK angle, even if it means paying something". What angle? Why do I need to pay something and to who? No UK vs Thailand medical debate needed. I prefer Thailand, so if someone else prefers UK it's irrelevant to me. Different people, different needs, etc. I find medical treatment here to be far, far ahead of anything I've received in the UK. Of course, its free in the UK and paid for here.