mrmazinkle

UK pensions

3,174 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, Flustered said:

Voting in a general election is not comparable to asking MPs to stump up money for non electoral roll people. Re the lottery, someone has to win whereas asking for money for a pension is again not comparable.

 

I am a pragmatist in life and do not expect anyone to help me or look after me. When someone takes the massive step of becoming non resident in their home country I would have expected them to research the matter in great depth including pensions and budgets  Relying on MPs who have no loyalty to you is asking for the earth to revolve clockwise.

 

I have often commented re pensions, budgets and the way of life in Thailand but do not expect you to agree with me.

 

If you only want people who agree with your point of view to post, then start the thread by saying so. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I have not berated you for stating yours, just pointed out some facts as I see them.

 

Sorry if it offends you, I was simply offering a counter point.

I'm not offended and recognize that you are entitled to your point of view. As much as you are entitled to your own distinctive views and your right to express them, that does not mean that your views should not be challenged by those who disagree with you. The airing of opinion is the prime purpose of the thread.

Share this post


Link to post

ID: 3152   Posted (edited)

16 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Again, I doubt many will agree with me, but if you make the decision to be a non resident UK, you should lose the vote as well.

 

Just my opinion so as not to upset some people.

When do we stop being Brits?

 

Why should a group of otherwise eligible past-or-present taxpayers that would fill 80 average Parliamentary constituencies not have the same rights as Joe Public in the British Isles or (for now) the EU?

 

Edited by evadgib
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, Flustered said:

Again, I doubt many will agree with me, but if you make the decision to be a non resident UK, you should lose the vote as well.

 

Just my opinion so as not to upset some people.

Your view does not offend me but I do not agree with it.

Share this post


Link to post

ID: 3154   Posted (edited)

There are people on this thread who think that trying to get our annual increases re-instated is a very long shot and it is but we should not keep pressing for it to happen. Shane Warne that Australian cricketer was once once asked what he would wish to have as his epitaph and after a moment he said................."never, ever, give up."

Now we all know its not going to be easy to change the governments mind but we must keep trying, its part of the British way, for me anyway, now lets suppose that eventually the Government of the day does change its position, what would all of you folks who dont want to keep pushing for the change, will you reject the annual increases and say you dont want them or will you gladly accept them like the ones who fight for the change? In short let someone else fight your corner.

Edited by nong38
spelling!
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

ID: 3155   Posted (edited)

2 hours ago, evadgib said:

When do we stop being Brits?

According to the government 186 days after you exit the UK. So why do they keep re-issuing my UK passport?  Somewhat confusing.

 

Who really gives a toot that increases in ones pension stops having become an expat? 2% annual average increase, less tax. for about another 10-15 years, if you're lucky, is  not worth fighting over. Enjoy your retirement.

Edited by sinbin
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, nong38 said:

There are people on this thread who think that trying to get our annual increases re-instated is a very long shot and it is but we should not keep pressing for it to happen. Shane Warne that Australian cricketer was once once asked what he would wish to have as his epitaph and after a moment he said................."never, ever, give up."

Now we all know its not going to be easy to change the governments mind but we must keep trying, its part of the British way, for me anyway, now lets suppose that eventually the Government of the day does change its position, what would all of you folks who dont want to keep pushing for the change, will you reject the annual increases and say you dont want them or will you gladly accept them like the ones who fight for the change? In short let someone else fight your corner.

Fortune favors the brave. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Rajab Al Zarahni said:

As I said, never trust a politician. Nothing but free loaders and pigs.

 

No party will ever spend money on ex pats resident overseas as they are seen by many in the UK as the rich elite. They simply do not understand that all most people want is a nice warm place to retire to that is reasonably safe and where you can get more for your bucks. The fact that all of your pension income in the UK is taxable even though you are overseas does not matter one jot.

 

When it comes to politics and money, never bet on them giving it away unless it is a massive vote winner like Gordon Brown and his winter fuel allowance/free bus travel. Bribes, nothing more.

 

Sorry guys, although I would welcome a few more shekels in the pot, I know it will never happen.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post

Good coverage in the Mail today as well about the debate and the Frozen Pensions, its in the .............thisismoney.co.uk             section.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

ID: 3161   Posted (edited)

9 minutes ago, nong38 said:

Good coverage in the Mail today as well about the debate and the Frozen Pensions, its in the .............thisismoney.co.uk             section.

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-4432190/MPs-press-end-frozen-state-pension-injustice.html

 

Ironically the savings they make on expats by not using the NHS, Bus Pass, Cold Weather Payments & all the Other Age Related Allowances would more than cover the annual increase. .

Edited by Expattaff1308
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

All politicians seem to attend a school for special needs where they are given a course on how to be selective on what they use in their arguments and what they can safely ignore ad infinitum. Perhaps a gun at the side of the head might concentrate the mind more.

I still look and hope for a a media big hitter to take up the cause and keep thrusting it down the Governments throat, that would be the gamechanger like Joanna Lumley did for the Gurkhas.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

ID: 3163   Posted (edited)

The Gurkha's terms and conditions of service differed significantly from the rest but I take your point. On the other hand UK workforce/taxpayers saw no such difference prior to Carson.

 

HMG realise the game is up and will address the issue during the next Parliament. Proposed changes to the voting system will have dire consequences in the 2022 election should they fail.

 

 

Edited by evadgib
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, evadgib said:

The Gurkha's terms and conditions of service differed significantly from the rest but I take your point. On the other hand UK workforce/taxpayers saw no such difference prior to Carson.

 

HMG realise the game is up and will address the issue during the next Parliament. Proposed changes to the voting system will have dire consequences in the 2022 election should they fail.

 

 

Having watched the debate and reviewed the subsequent media coverage I feel a lot more optimistic than I have felt over past months.

I know it doesn't count for much but I now see the Greens are pledged to overturn the frozen pension policy.

Ominously, there is now press speculation that the Tories are looking to free themselves from the promises of the Cameron end their commitment to the triple lock and reduce the threshold for tax exempt pension contributions.

We need to keep up the pressure. 

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, Expattaff1308 said:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/pensions/article-4432190/MPs-press-end-frozen-state-pension-injustice.html

 

Ironically the savings they make on expats by not using the NHS, Bus Pass, Cold Weather Payments & all the Other Age Related Allowances would more than cover the annual increase. .

Comment from your link.

"Harrington went on: 'Those who are eligible for a UK state pension can have their pension paid wherever they choose to live. The rules governing the uprating of pensions are straightforward, widely publicised and have been the same for many years.'

He added that National Insurance was a 'pay as you go' system, where current contributions were used for expenditure on state pensions in that year, not in future ones."

 

Maybe I am missing something but surely his comment would apply to the state pension scheme overall.

They would never have got away with freezing all state pensions so it was a case of settling for the easy option, geographical discrimination.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
21 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Maybe I am missing something but surely his comment would apply to the state pension scheme overall.

Indeed, but his speech was largely waffle. His argument came down to three basic points:-

 

1) It's been this way for 70 years.

2) Nobody forced you to retire abroad, and if you didn't take the trouble to find out what the score is, that's your problem.

3) The 'partial uprating' cost of £30 million per year proposed in the motion is an illusion, because over the years all new pensioners would effectively have a "full uprating", at a very much higher cost.

 

There is some logic in point (3, assuming that a similar number of pensioners would retire  to countries which are currently "frozen". I got the impression that he couldn't be bothered to mount a vigorous defence, because the snap election has got his department and the Treasury off the hook for the time being.

 

There is one argument that I didn't hear in the debate (perhaps I missed it), which may become more powerful in the future. Pensioners with foreign wives/husbands who decide they can no longer afford to live abroad have another problem if they cannot meet the minimum income requirement for a spouse settlement visa. The requirement itself has of course been tested in the courts and can not now be challenged, but it is a factor which was not present in the previous Human Rights case about frozen pensions, thus might give grounds for a fresh challenge against frozen pensions.

Share this post


Link to post

The '15 year' clause remains on Gov.uk website re voting in the GE. If they can add 16-17 year old as the Jocks are proposing/did in 2014 why are eligible adults abroad excluded?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
40 minutes ago, evadgib said:

The '15 year' clause remains on Gov.uk website re voting in the GE. If they can add 16-17 year old as the Jocks are proposing/did in 2014 why are eligible adults abroad excluded?

This is from a recent statement by Sir Roger Gale MP on the subject. 16-17 year olds won't be voting in this election:-

 

Not surprisingly I have received a number of queries about the status of the “Votes for Life” legislation proposed in the last Conservative Manifesto.

The commitment, made in good faith, was to have the legislation and supporting franchise infrastructure approved by the Electoral Commission on the statute book in time for a 2020  General Election and my understanding from Chris Skidmore in the Cabinet Office is that that process was on track at the time that the Prime Minister announced her intention to seek an election on June 8th.

It gives me no pleasure to have to say that there is no prospect of this process being expedited, as some have sought to suggest, by the time that Parliament is dissolved on 2nd/3rd May. Only agreed and non-contentious measures will be allowed to pass through both Houses of Parliament – and a ”Votes for Life” bill will have to go through both Houses  - before the House is prorogued. All other (contentious) measures will have to be carried over or re-introduced in the next parliament.

The short answer to the “why was it not done sooner” question is that the measure is contentious – it is not supported by the Labour and Liberal parties in an Upper House in which the Government does not have a majority.  There is an additional complication , as explained to me by Chris Grayling when he was Leader of the House, which is that the bill will be a franchise measure and, under the `long title`, amendable in the House of Lords. That House is known to want to extend the franchise to sixteen year-olds  - a measure that is in itself contentious – and is likely to seek to use a “Votes for Life” bill as a vehicle to achieve other objectives.  The horse-trading process will therefore take time that is simply no longer available in this parliament.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

The debate was mentioned at the end of the weekly round up of politics that serves as a stocking-filler on BBC world News this afternoon.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post

I watched most of the last PMQ's of the current season, when I joined Corbyn was on about these women who will lose a lot of money because now they have equality they have to wait another 5 or 6 years to get their pension ( something they have been paying into all their lives and are entitled to). The PM was sympathetic and sounded if as if something might be done but no promise. There was no mention about the overseas frozen situation, perhaps there are more votes to be had from UK based females eh? Anyway seems that the 2 combatants agreed and it might be in both manifestos thus cancelling each other out, I did not hear any figures but sure to dwarf the 30m gbp what would solve the OSP's situation which the country apparently has no funds for.

In another article I was reading in the Mail yesterday a Parliamentry select committee was showing concern about supplying our armed forces with ammunition! OSP problem take one more step back, if they cannot fund the forces that puts into perspective at this moment in time and nothing is likely to happen this side of the GE result on the 8th June, but, in the interim time the campaign kicks off in early May and who knows what subjects will be raised and actions promised. Its hard to predict will happen tomorrow for yourself so lets hope we get some air time in the coming 6 weeks.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, nong38 said:

I watched most of the last PMQ's of the current season, when I joined Corbyn was on about these women who will lose a lot of money because now they have equality they have to wait another 5 or 6 years to get their pension ( something they have been paying into all their lives and are entitled to). The PM was sympathetic and sounded if as if something might be done but no promise. There was no mention about the overseas frozen situation, perhaps there are more votes to be had from UK based females eh? Anyway seems that the 2 combatants agreed and it might be in both manifestos thus cancelling each other out, I did not hear any figures but sure to dwarf the 30m gbp what would solve the OSP's situation which the country apparently has no funds for.

In another article I was reading in the Mail yesterday a Parliamentary select committee was showing concern about supplying our armed forces with ammunition! OSP problem take one more step back, if they cannot fund the forces that puts into perspective at this moment in time and nothing is likely to happen this side of the GE result on the 8th June, but, in the interim time the campaign kicks off in early May and who knows what subjects will be raised and actions promised. Its hard to predict will happen tomorrow for yourself so lets hope we get some air time in the coming 6 weeks.

Women enjoyed a massively unfair advantage over men in being entitled to draw their state pension five years earlier. This unfair advantage was compounded by the fact that their life expectancy is demonstrably greater than that of men. The unfairness of their treatment arises not from the equalization of the pension age with men but from the pitifully poor manner in which they were advised of the change by the DWP. The government have been emphatic that they will mot accede to any demands to put the matter right and to do so would compound the disadvantage to men of the same age.

Corbyn and co can campaign vigorously to put the matter right in the comfortable certainty that they will not be the incoming government who has to find the money for it.Correcting the frozen pension problem would be a drop in the ocean in comparison to funding the womens pension claim. Cynical I may be but I am confident that they wouldn't have any interest in an issue affecting predominantly white, indigenous, middle aged men.  

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, ianh68 said:

This piece about protecting UK pensions abroad by the Labour Party as part of the General Election campaign is worth reading.

https://www.ftadviser.com/pensions/2017/04/12/labour-makes-state-pension-pledges/

 

Anyone wanting advice about voting should go the the UK General Election thread in this forum.

Easy to promise the earth when you know you will not be in power.

 

Look how the LibDems caught a cold when they had to explain why their promises could not be kept.

 

If you trust politicians, you need your head examining. Work on the assumption that they are all lying, snout in the trough pigs and vote for the one who promises the least.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   1 member

BANGKOK 28 April 2017 15:10
Sponsors
  • Popular Now