WFA

[YCCMB]

One would imagine that, in the same way that Torquay is not singled out for special treatment in the distribution of WFA, individual areas, regions and towns within a given country will not be singled out either.

[NormanH]

Which suggests that using temperature is in fact a pretext for pandering to a popular misconception about the conditions in which people in France live.

As you know I do not claim WFA, and would make such benefits means-tested, but both the old system which depended on something arbitrary such as the age you were when you moved to France, and this proposed system which does not take into account the actual need for heating are both flawed.

It would be better to abolish it, and raise the minimum pension for those who have only that to live on.

A much more significance measure would be to continue to charge   National Insurance payments on retired peoples' gross income who live abroad . After all it is the over-65s who are most likely to need expensive care.

I wonder if there is an official somewhere calculating the cost to the UK of paying the health care of British retirees in France? Charging say 7.5% on their income  would be a bigger saving than £200 a head, and would bring them into line with French pensioners.

After all not so long ago there was a hue and cry about early retired Brits wanting to be treated the same  as French nationals.  This would simply be an extension of that hard fought principal.

 

[YCCMB]

Let's face it, like every other "benefit" or whatever-you-want-to-call-it, there are 1001 ways to calculate it, or decide who gets it, and for every one of those ways there will be an interest group who disagree with it because it is they who will be disadvantaged.

Only a couple of weeks ago, there was much in the media about pensioners now being among the most well-off in society. Before anyone has a hissy fit, it's not me saying this, but the media. It is a little sad that this is the case yet, when it comes to making any sort of financial sacrifice, they are often the most firmly entrenched in their views about not doing so.

Put me down as someone else who'd like to see some form of demonstration of genuine need or hardship before things like WFA are issued.

[Gardian]

[quote user="NormanH"]A much more significance measure would be to continue to charge   National Insurance payments on retired peoples' gross income who live abroad . After all it is the over-65s who are most likely to need expensive care.[/quote]

Norman, I can't for the life of me understand why anybody should feel that just because you've chosen to live abroad you should be penalised, provided that you have a contribution record that provides entitlement. I'm not keen on the phrase "I've paid my dues", but my view amounts to just that.

Happily, such a proposal would be a nightmare to administer, requiring honest declarations of all income from all affected.

[quote user="NormanH"]I wonder if there is an official somewhere calculating the cost to the UK of paying the health care of British retirees in France? Charging say 7.5% on their income  would be a bigger saving than £200 a head, and would bring them into line with French pensioners.[/quote]

I'm quite sure that there is very detailed information. I believe that up until quite recently, the amount paid by the UK was based upon an average cost per person - a figure of €4k-ish per person p.a. was often talked about. Someone on here said that the process had changed and that the reimbursement was now based on the actual costs incurred. It would be interesting to know the numbers, but I wouldn't mind betting that the cost (assuming that you could arrive at a true like-for-like comparison) would be less for expat Brits than for 'home-based' ones. Reason? People often return to the UK in the event one partner falling seriously ill or if one dies. Not always of course, but often enough.

 

[Russethouse]

Couldn't they use the tax system to simply 'code out' the benefit to those who don't need it?

[YCCMB]

[quote user="Gardian"]I wouldn't mind betting that the cost (assuming that you could arrive at a true like-for-like comparison) would be less for expat Brits than for 'home-based' ones. Reason? People often return to the UK in the event one partner falling seriously ill or if one dies. Not always of course, but often enough.

[/quote]

I'm inclined to disagree, if for no other reason than reading these forums seems to indicate that there are an awful lot of expats who seem to be making daily visits for blood tests, physio etc., and marvelling at the thoroughness of the French health system. As I've said before, there seems to be a degree of confusion between quality and quantity, and France often errs on the side of the latter. That may be a jaundiced view, and I am categorically not accusing anyone, individually or collectively, of being the "malade imaginaire", but on the other hand, I have witnessed some extraordinarily wasteful practices in France. Yes, I know, there's wastefulness in the NHS, too, but I've never heard of anyone in the UK being driven the best part of 400km on a round trip by ambulance from one hospital to another just to have some stitches removed, nor of anyone being put up in a convalsecent facility for a month after surgery when the only further medical intervention required could have been carried out on an out-patient basis.

If we're being parochial about it, I pay my dues, too, and it's a percentage of those dues that Newcastle will be handing over to France to cover the costs of such blatant wastefulness.

[PaulT]

[quote user="Gardian"][quote user="Gardian"]

Its Cyprus, France, Gibralter, Greece, Malta, Spain & Portugal.  Effective Dec 2015.

[/quote]

Hang on a minute - what about Italy?

[/quote]

One of the ministers parents probably lives there.

The number of people in the UK who think we are going to a nice warm environment when we go to our French house in the winter - and yes, say, Calais, is further north than a number of places in southern England - still Dave can say 'look how tough we are being'.

[NormanH]

Norman, I can't for the life of me understand why anybody should feel

that just because you've chosen to live abroad you should be penalised,

provided that you have a contribution record that provides entitlement.

I'm not keen on the phrase "I've paid my dues", but my view amounts to

just that.

Happily, such a proposal would be a nightmare to administer, requiring honest declarations of all income from all affected.

Well I would prefer it if all retired people continued to pay NI, as it doesn't seem logical to assume that it should stop just when one is about to make most use of the facilities, but the reason I mentioned those living in France is that that is the system for French nationals, so it wasn't about penalising people, merely about bringing them into line with standard procedure in the country they have chosen to live in.

As for the administration, in France it is calculated  along with the tax declaration. You may remember the box on my spread sheet for that purpose... 

[Rabbie]

Norman, you seem to have forgotten that most people in the UK do not fill up an annual tax declaration so your suggested reform would involve recruiting extra civil servants to administer this change. I suspect that the saving would be rather less than you think.

[NormanH]

Perhaps not but those living in France do make an annual declaration on which gross income figures clearly.

A simple 7.5% applied to that and sent back to the UK to contribute towards the bill  for health cover wouldn't be that onerous to administer.

[Rabbie]

 

[andyh4]

[quote user="Rabbie"]

 

[/quote]

[Gardian]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"][quote user="Gardian"]I wouldn't mind betting that the cost (assuming that you could arrive at a true like-for-like comparison) would be less for expat Brits than for 'home-based' ones. Reason? People often return to the UK in the event one partner falling seriously ill or if one dies. Not always of course, but often enough.
[/quote]

As I've said before, there seems to be a degree of confusion between quality and quantity, and France often errs on the side of the latter.

[/quote]

You're quite right - my perception is that that is often the case. I would also suggest though that healthcare over here is frequently more proactive rather than reactive, but everybody will have their own experience according to where they were / where they are now.

The last thing that either of us would want to do is turn this in to a 'UK vs France healthcare is better' debate - we've all been there before and there's no definitive answer, nor need there be. 

As for general misuse of the healthcare system over here - almost certainly. More than the UK - quite probably (my dear French neighbour is an example). Whether its carried out by expats - I really rather doubt it, but I have no evidence. I can only quote our own GP who once said "You Brits are all the same - you only ever want to come off or reduce your medication rather than have more of it like the French". 

[YCCMB]

Nope, I'm not arguing that either system is better or worse, simply that from what I've seen and to some extent experienced, the French system is more wasteful and thus the associated costs, backcharged to Newcastle, are probably higher per capita than the expenditure that would be incurred for treatment administered in the UK. I do understand what you're saying: I spent a good ten minutes in the local pharmacy in France at New Year, patiently insisting that all I needed was a throat spray for my (very) sore throat, and that I didn't want or need a doctor's appointment. nevertheless, the pharmacist did everything in her power to issue me with a range of medication, somehow regarding it as a personal affront that I didn't want to buy three or four different things. I'm sure that, had I been French, I would have capitulated, both by buying the whole range of stuff on offer AND by rushing off to waste the doctor's time. But that may be just me, as I don't even know who my UK GP is, or what (s)he looks like.

I strongly suspect that for the majority of Brits in France, a certain lack of language ability (evidenced by the steady trickle of requests for English-speaking medical professionals) prevents them from being in a position to refuse medication or specific forms of arguably unnecessary treatment when offered. I marvel at the conversations among English friends in France who can drop the names of the best physios, nurses, cardiologists, chiropodists and so on, from personal experience of having visited (or been visited) by most of them, yet these are people who appear to be in perfectly good health and not at all in need of most of these services. They seem to take as a personal slight any visit to the doctor that doesn't result in a prescription of several drugs.

Perhaps there's some form of medication that could be prescribed to keep delicate Brits warm in the winter? Two birds, one stone and all that?[:D]

[Russethouse]

Lol - when I was a teenager I accidentally took double the dose of chilblain tablets, I was red from head to toe, and pretty warm too....so there's the answer....:-) :-)

[NormanH]

[quote user="Rabbie"]

 

[/quote]

I have never before rendered a Scot speechless[:D]

[Frederick]

It will be interesting to see if the WFA is removed from people living outside the UK how many will change their plans to live outside the UK .

How many on this forum are going to leave France if they lose it?  My bet will be you could count them on one hand if any at all !

[Quillan]

[quote user="Frederick"]It will be interesting to see if the WFA is removed from people living outside the UK how many will change their plans to live outside the UK .

How many on this forum are going to leave France if they lose it?  My bet will be you could count them on one hand if any at all !

[/quote]

You may remember several years ago under Labour this subject came up and there was talk about it being stopped to those living abroad. Several people were interviewed in Quillan by The Money Program I think it was. Indeed there was a thread (very long to) about it at the time. The people interviewed were of course very upset about the possibility of not getting it or it being removed. One chap, an ex Met copper with 25 years service and retired said it would make the difference between him going back to the UK or staying. I still see him (and some of his friends) from time to time on Sundays p*ssed in a local bar. One of the others who were interviewed has recently bought a new car and a house down in Spain. So neither can be exactly broke.

So they may all huff and puff but personally I can’t see an extra two or three hundred quid a year making much of a difference to these sort of people. I think it should be withdrawn as a right and given to those who really and truly need it and that for them it should be at least double what with the current prices of energy. If they don’t do that then at least make the requirement as being only having a state pension and withdraw it from those who have private pensions.

[YCCMB]

It is interesting, though, that there seems to be a groundswell of opinion from people who live abroad and have thus been in receipt of it, in favour of withdrawing it for anyone who doesn't really need it. It's almost as if they'll feel a bit better not getting it, as long as nobody else gets it either.

I've already said I'd prefer distribution based on means, so this isn't a pop at anyone. I'll also say that by the time I qualify for it, it'll be a dim and distant memory. Much like a state pension at 60.

[Hoddy]

I agree with Betty. It would make everything more simple and fair if it all fell under taxation. I would include in this the subsidised travel too which for someone like me who lives in the sticks is just a dream.

Hoddy

[andyh4]

Sorry for my blank post yesterday but nothing I typed would upload.

 

What I wanted to say was that I will never be in receipt of the WFA having left the UK well before it was brought in.  My comments therefore are not based on any personal gain or loss from the proposals.

 

As Gardian pointed out, WFA was brought in as a palliative to freezing the OAP.  As such it could be considered as a replacement for an annual increment.  To now remove it from some people because of where they live in the EU therefore seems unfair unless it is going to be replaced by the missing increment - which would of course then have to be applied to all successive increments since increases in OAP are based on percentage of the previous level.  Not going to happen.

 

My second point is that I am sure that many will be surprised that France seems so much warmer than the UK - I believe the government is basing its UK numbers on the SW UK and anyone with a warmer winter will not receive WFA.

The numbers are of course based on averages and when presented with an average we should always question, average of what?

Well for the UK it would seem that the average will be for  a period of time (what have they used as the basis for winter I wonder - 3 months, 4 months, 6 months?) over a number of weather stations.  The South West would seem to cover 2 or maybe 3 weather stations - Penzance, Launceston and maybe Taunton.  By and large fairly rural or small town measurements.  In France the weather stations seem to be mainly in large towns and cities.  According to the meteorological service towns and cities have higher average temperatures by some 2-6 degree.

 

[PaulT]

[quote user="Quillan"]

....... then at least make the requirement as being only having a state pension and withdraw it from those who have private pensions.

[/quote]

Ah, so you would penalise those who have given thought to their retirement and paid in to a private pension and those who said 's0d paying in to a private pension I'll have a few more pints' will be rewarded for their lack of thought for the future.

Now, yes, low paid workers would struggle to pay in to a private pension but there are those who have been well paid and kept putting it off until it was too late.

[YCCMB]

[quote user="PaulT"][quote user="Quillan"]

....... then at least make the requirement as being only having a state pension and withdraw it from those who have private pensions.

[/quote]

Ah, so you would penalise those who have given thought to their retirement and paid in to a private pension and those who said 's0d paying in to a private pension I'll have a few more pints' will be rewarded for their lack of thought for the future.

Now, yes, low paid workers would struggle to pay in to a private pension but there are those who have been well paid and kept putting it off until it was too late.

[/quote]

One in six people in London is earning below the "living" wage of just over £8 an hour.

There are also some 4.2 million self-employed people in the UK, most of whom probably don't earn enough to be able to set up a private pension

As of last year, the law requires anyone in full time employment to be automatically enrolled into a workplace pension. No option, no "putting it off"

Obviously, it's an emotive issue. I didn't see too many people kicking up a huge fuss on here when the government started to means test child benefit. Wrong demographic, obviously.

It's such a great pity that a whole older generation - some of whom get quite vocal about how the government (or whoever is whipping boy of the week) is ruining the country for their children and grandchildren - don't seem to realise that they could also do their bit to help stop things getting worse. As I mentioned previously, pensioners are now considered to be one of the richest groups in the country, yet they're soon up in arms at the thought of losing a couple of hundred quid.

This recession has taught me a great deal about human nature that I was way happier not knowing.

[Rabbie]

[quote user="NormanH"][quote user="Rabbie"]

 

[/quote]

I have never before rendered a Scot speechless[:D]

[/quote][:D][:D][:D]

[Quillan]

[quote user="PaulT"][quote user="Quillan"]

....... then at least make the requirement as being only having a state pension and withdraw it from those who have private pensions.

[/quote]

Ah, so you would penalise those who have given thought to their retirement and paid in to a private pension and those who said 's0d paying in to a private pension I'll have a few more pints' will be rewarded for their lack of thought for the future.

Now, yes, low paid workers would struggle to pay in to a private pension but there are those who have been well paid and kept putting it off until it was too late.

[/quote]

OK fair point so lets mean test then?

I actually agree with Betty and the comments in her post.

This should not be a 'right' for everyone. It was introduced back in the winter of 1997/8 to help state pensioners primarily to pay their heating bills.

It would be very interesting to discover if they ever changed these payments from being automatic to a 'need to apply for' system even without a means test how many would actually apply. I think reading Betties comments probably everyone who is of the correct age.

Incidently I do agree with the capping of child benifits and I see no reason why a house with a single or combined income of over £80k needs to have child benifit payments.

I would also like to see the 'bus pass' means tested. My father-in-law had a car, why did he need a bus pass, even he said that. I doubt the likes of Alan Sugar etc needs one either. I am led to believe that the transport companies get a 'fixed fee' for every one issued (around £1bn per year). By only giving them to poor people who have no car quite a bit of money could be saved.