UK Pensions

CO-CO said:
I think you are overplaying your hand Merlin.

As iniquitous as the current system is, the politicians have shown that they have no motivation to put themselves out for the 500,000. As Nick says, not a vote winner and there is little empathy from UK residents, most of whom would say that we have made our beds so must lay in them.

A good proportion of expats have been disowned by families back home - or at least have minimal contact. I would not dream of trying to enlist the support of my family on this matter, they have enough of their own issues to deal with.

Remember also that there is a growing opinion that pensioners who choose to live (and spend their money) overseas should not be entitled to receive the state pension. The precedent for this was set with Bereavement Payments, where a claimant had to be domiciled in the UK to claim.

I am afraid that this is a lost cause, the courts have consistently judged against the claim for parity

Nevertheless, I shall continue to add my name to any petition that is doing the rounds
Click to expand...

I am only one pair of some 1 million hands CO-CO. This isn't my battle against injustice, but one in which the more hands are shown the less unlikely it is that the injustice will continue. While accepting your statement that the politicians have repeatedly stated they have no intention of redressing the balance, it cannot be argued against that by raising the matter on a regular basis fails to keep the matter in the public eye (or in those of us at retirement age or above anyway.)

Some of us expats may have been disowned as you state, but that isn't really a 'good' proportion, is it? Several may be regarded as having joined the 'dirty mac brigade' but that is a slur on the others who came here for different benefits. Even so, should those who simply chose a country where the cost of living, the climate, the scenery (human or otherwise) is lower than in the West be discriminated against compared with those who already enjoy pension increases? We're told that we have been advised of our diminishing pension rights by seeking that negative information, even if we might have assumed that our rights should be equal wherever we choose to live out our remaining time. The small print may reveal that particular bit of bad news, but who would anticipate that retiring in Thailand would deny us the increases that living in the Philippines provide automatically? Did we sign up for that obscure bit of news when we decided to live here or was it made clear to us all beforehand without the need to rummage around websites to find it? Isn't that a bit like passing a driving test in the UK and then finding out that you can be guilty of breaking obscure laws you'd never heard of prior to your decision to drive your vehicle? ( https://www.kentlive.news/news/motoring/you-probably-broken-most-32-3319223 )

Ignorance may be bliss in some circumstances, but not when it comes to being able to afford to live beyond retirement age as a direct result of the inequality of the rules laid down by a few privileged folk who simply could not care less, as witnessed by the weak responses they have made to the subject. Never was the old saying "Bugger you, I'm all right Jack" more relevant when expressed by those whose own public-funded, index-linked, and future-proof pensions (irrespective of their in-service experience) are so generous in comparison.
 
Merlin said:
Even so, should those who simply chose a country where the cost of living, the climate, the scenery (human or otherwise) is lower than in the West be discriminated against compared with those who already enjoy pension increases? The small print may reveal that particular bit of bad news, but who would anticipate that retiring in Thailand would deny us the increases that living in the Philippines provide automatically?

Ignorance may be bliss in some circumstances, but not when it comes to being able to afford to live beyond retirement age as a direct result of the inequality of the rules laid down by a few privileged folk who simply could not care less, as witnessed by the weak responses they have made to the subject. Never was the old saying "Bugger you, I'm all right Jack" more relevant when expressed by those whose own public-funded, index-linked, and future-proof pensions (irrespective of their in-service experience) are so generous in comparison.
Click to expand...

Hear, hear.
Personally I do not understand as to the why exactly /(exactly why) British expats residing in the Philippines receive COLA increases and those residing in Thailand do not.

(I well understand that any increases further strain the the coffers of governments.)
 
Merlin said:
I am only one pair of some 1 million hands CO-CO. This isn't my battle against injustice, but one in which the more hands are shown the less unlikely it is that the injustice will continue. While accepting your statement that the politicians have repeatedly stated they have no intention of redressing the balance, it cannot be argued against that by raising the matter on a regular basis fails to keep the matter in the public eye (or in those of us at retirement age or above anyway.)

Some of us expats may have been disowned as you state, but that isn't really a 'good' proportion, is it? Several may be regarded as having joined the 'dirty mac brigade' but that is a slur on the others who came here for different benefits. Even so, should those who simply chose a country where the cost of living, the climate, the scenery (human or otherwise) is lower than in the West be discriminated against compared with those who already enjoy pension increases? We're told that we have been advised of our diminishing pension rights by seeking that negative information, even if we might have assumed that our rights should be equal wherever we choose to live out our remaining time. The small print may reveal that particular bit of bad news, but who would anticipate that retiring in Thailand would deny us the increases that living in the Philippines provide automatically? Did we sign up for that obscure bit of news when we decided to live here or was it made clear to us all beforehand without the need to rummage around websites to find it? Isn't that a bit like passing a driving test in the UK and then finding out that you can be guilty of breaking obscure laws you'd never heard of prior to your decision to drive your vehicle? ( https://www.kentlive.news/news/motoring/you-probably-broken-most-32-3319223 )

Ignorance may be bliss in some circumstances, but not when it comes to being able to afford to live beyond retirement age as a direct result of the inequality of the rules laid down by a few privileged folk who simply could not care less, as witnessed by the weak responses they have made to the subject. Never was the old saying "Bugger you, I'm all right Jack" more relevant when expressed by those whose own public-funded, index-linked, and future-proof pensions (irrespective of their in-service experience) are so generous in comparison.
Click to expand...


I am not arguing against the cause.

I am simply pointing out the futility.


I am not against pi55ing into the wind, but eventually your trousers can get too wet to carry on.
 
CO-CO said:
I am not arguing against the cause.

I am simply pointing out the futility.


I am not against pi55ing into the wind, but eventually your trousers can get too wet to carry on.
Click to expand...

We choose our decision makers in the UK Parliament - but we don't choose their advisers, such as the ones who pur forward the ridiculous argument that it would cost too much to fund the increases for ALL OAPs when the daily attendance allowance per person for the House of Lords exceeds the cost of pension parity many-fold. See https://fullfact.org/online/lords-allowance-universal-credit/

"What do members of the House of Lords get?​

It is true that most members of the House of Lords can claim an “attendance allowance” of £323 for each day that they attend the House and do parliamentary work... When doing other types of official work away from the House, peers can only (!!) claim a “reduced allowance” of £162 per day. (They can also claim travel expenses.) Allowances are not liable for income tax.

In 2020/21, the latest financial year for which we have data, members of the House of Lords between them attended an average of 68 days each, out of the 164 official sitting days available, and claimed an average of £11,830 each. Altogether, 259 peers out of 857 did not claim any allowances during the year, 62 did not attend the House for any days, and eight attended for 160 days or more."

An average allowance of £11,830 for an average of 68 days attendance seems very generous in comparison with the pre-tax New State Pension of £179.60 (maximum in 2021- for those who receive their annual increases, while many retirees who have NOT qualified for the increases receive MUCH less... and fall further behind as every year passes. If the New State Pension is compared with the Lords' allowance, OAPs receive just £1,739.90 for the same 68 days.

The fact check showed that altogether, 259 peers out of 857 did not claim any allowances during the year, which infers that 598 of them DID claim the average figure (as it would not otherwise be an average figure.) That totals £7,074,340, while the cost of equalising the OAP for all those who do not receive annual increases is claimed by the Government to be £0.6bn a year is for the UK retirees who reside in all countries where cost of living increases are not paid i.e. not only Thailand.

I repeat that continuing to campaign for equality is not futile. The more noise is made, the greater the attention it receives. Conversely, silence is deemed as acceptance of the inequality involved, and each one of us owes it to the others to help bring about a logical change in the rules.
 
Last edited:
@Merlin: I searched Google for "what do the Lords actually do?" and the return came back (from the British Government, not Private Eye"):

"What has the Lords changed?

Making a difference in recent years, the House of Lords has persuaded the government to make policy changes on a diverse range of issues. These include:
  • delaying cuts to tax credits until protections for low paid workers are in place
  • relocating unaccompanied refugee children from Europe to the UK
  • safeguards for immigration-related detention of vulnerable people, particularly pregnant women
  • electronic voting for industrial action ballots
  • protecting landlord and tenant money in a client money protection scheme for property agents
  • banning smoking in cars that carry children
  • ensuring that children with special educational needs are afforded the same legal protection in academies as in other mainstream schools."
What would we do without them?
 
Coffee said:
Hear, hear.
Personally I do not understand as to the why exactly /(exactly why) British expats residing in the Philippines receive COLA increases and those residing in Thailand do not.

(I well understand that any increases further strain the the coffers of governments.)
Click to expand...
I did some research on this some time ago as I was just curious. There is an international treaty that can be set up between two countries.
This is to protect the social security rights of workers moving between the 2 countries.These are sometimes known as ‘bilateral agreements’ or ‘reciprocal agreements’.
Don't ask me how they come about. All these agreements are based on the concept of shared responsibility. Shared responsibility agreements are reciprocal. Partner countries under each agreement make concessions against their social security qualification rules so that people covered by the agreement may access payments for which they might otherwise fail to qualify. In this way, responsibility for social security is shared between the countries where a person has lived during their working years and the person is able to unlock potential entitlements. Generally, a pension from one country can be accessed in the second country, although the paying country maintains some discretion in the currency and delivery mechanisms used. I suspect that The Philippines has an agreement as for the many expat workers it has world wide. Remittances are a large part of the Philippine economy.
Here are the places the UK has a social security agreement with.
If you live in one of the following countries and receive a UK State Pension, you will usually get an increase in your pension every year:
  • Barbados
  • Bermuda
  • Bosnia-Herzegovina
  • Gibraltar
  • Guernsey
  • the Isle of Man
  • Israel
  • Jamaica
  • Jersey
  • Kosovo
  • Mauritius
  • Montenegro
  • North Macedonia
  • the Philippines
  • Serbia
  • Turkey
  • USA
  • All The EU
The UK has social security agreements with Canada and New Zealand, but you cannot get a yearly increase in your UK State Pension if you live in either of those countries.
 
Rice said:
I did some research on this some time ago as I was just curious. There is an international treaty that can be set up between two countries.
This is to protect the social security rights of workers moving between the 2 countries.These are sometimes known as ‘bilateral agreements’ or ‘reciprocal agreements’.
Don't ask me how they come about. All these agreements are based on the concept of shared responsibility. Shared responsibility agreements are reciprocal. Partner countries under each agreement make concessions against their social security qualification rules so that people covered by the agreement may access payments for which they might otherwise fail to qualify. In this way, responsibility for social security is shared between the countries where a person has lived during their working years and the person is able to unlock potential entitlements. Generally, a pension from one country can be accessed in the second country, although the paying country maintains some discretion in the currency and delivery mechanisms used. I suspect that The Philippines has an agreement as for the many expat workers it has world wide. Remittances are a large part of the Philippine economy.
Here are the places the UK has a social security agreement with.
If you live in one of the following countries and receive a UK State Pension, you will usually get an increase in your pension every year:
  • Barbados
  • Bermuda
  • Bosnia-Herzegovina
  • Gibraltar
  • Guernsey
  • the Isle of Man
  • Israel
  • Jamaica
  • Jersey
  • Kosovo
  • Mauritius
  • Montenegro
  • North Macedonia
  • the Philippines
  • Serbia
  • Turkey
  • USA
  • All The EU
The UK has social security agreements with Canada and New Zealand, but you cannot get a yearly increase in your UK State Pension if you live in either of those countries.
Click to expand...

But still the Brit expat has paid straight away into the British social pension scheme/ system.

Why should it matter where that person decides to retire...(regardless of citizens from other countries paying into the British system).
 
nomad97 said:
Quite right. It should not matter at all.
Click to expand...
I, being a self funded retiree, even after paying 35% PAYG tax for the last 30 years, am not entitled to a pension @ 67 years old, and will not be, at this point in time.
Over the years, my tax and every other person in Aus has supported millions of itinerant layabouts, wetbacks and lazy as fook dole bludgers.
The AUS government, in the past, and possibly the future, will continue to lavish money on what ?, lost causes.
I was forced to pay an extra 1.5% medicare levy to support horizontal slugs or, take out top level private health cover for services I could not access.
Doubt my word ?, ask Rice.
My situation may change in the future as my pension base decreases, long time cummin.
 
FERRET said:
I, being a self funded retiree, even after paying 35% PAYG tax for the last 30 years, am not entitled to a pension @ 67 years old, and will not be, at this point in time.
Over the years, my tax and every other person in Aus has supported millions of itinerant layabouts, wetbacks and lazy as fook dole bludgers.
The AUS government, in the past, and possibly the future, will continue to lavish money on what ?, lost causes.
I was forced to pay an extra 1.5% medicare levy to support horizontal slugs or, take out top level private health cover for services I could not access.
Doubt my word ?, ask Rice.
My situation may change in the future as my pension base decreases, long time cummin.
Click to expand...
1655980595276.png
The final coup de grâce was the year I retired they had a special "Budget repair call" Where they so called taxed the rich. Anybody that earned over $180,000 PA gross had to pay a 4% tax. Well they took my Super pay out in to consideration and taxed the $%#@ out of me. Charming really.
Here is the link if anybody thinks I am telling pork pies.
www.ato.gov.au

Temporary budget repair levy

As part of the 2014-15 Federal budget the government introduced a temporary budget repair levy. Individual taxpayers with a taxable income of more than $180,000 per year will have additional tax withheld by their employer, starting from 1 July 2014 and ending on 30 June 2017.
www.ato.gov.au www.ato.gov.au
 
Last edited:
FERRET said:
Over the years, my tax and every other person in Aus has supported millions of itinerant layabouts, wetbacks and lazy as fook dole bludgers.
Click to expand...

"Lazy as fook dole bludgers"...

Yet they are entitled to cast their votes for more within our nanny states.

I'm not against providing a helping hand to those in need.
Childcare, physical and mental wellness-healthcare, food, housing, education, reproductive counseling and services..."It takes a village."

I'm a big believer in 'pay to play'.

I am against building a perpetual nest propped up and overseen by disfunctional governmental social services that take a disproportionate slice of the pie on the backs of taxpayers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top