Patf Posted November 1, 2011 Share Posted November 1, 2011 If a retired person moves to France from the UK they don't cease to be a drain on the NHS, who pay about 3000€ pa to the french health system to cover their health costs.Another point - the money we paid as NI when working falls well short of the weeks and weeks of OAP paid to a person who lives to a good old age (like you, SW17.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugsy Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 [quote user="Russethouse"]They may well get a house, but when and what sort, and where ? [/quote][:D] I well remember, many years ago, the huge influx of young on-benefit, 'scousers' descending on Bournemouth when they discovered that they would, and could get accomodation by the seaside if they declared themselves homeless.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allanb Posted November 2, 2011 Share Posted November 2, 2011 The annual pension increase is supposed to compensate for inflation: in other words, without the increase the real value of the pension will fall. Which means that the real cost to the government will fall.So the usual government excuse that "they can't afford it" is, as we say in France, boule chite. A lie, in fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 [quote user="Russethouse"] there may well be a period in a bed and breakfast before getting accomodation and people returning in such circumstances could find themselves at the end of a very long list.[/quote]Yup, but the point is that the UK taxpayer will still foot the bill. A bit of additional social secutiry help (from the UK as that's where they paid all their taxes when they worked) and they could have afforded to carry on in their rented home here with a much smaller drain on the UK exchequer. My point was that there is really no overall impact assesment made with these things. On the plus side, the pension they do have will be spent in Britain and thus will go back into the UK economy, not the French one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 [quote user="Patf"]If a retired person moves to France from the UK they don't cease to be a drain on the NHS, who pay about 3000€ pa to the french health system to cover their health costs.[/quote]That amount was arrived at as representing how much the mean cost is for each person over retirement age. Thus presumably it would cost - on average - the same amount for the person to use the NHS if they came back to the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanH Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 [quote user="cooperlola"][quote user="Patf"]If a retired person moves to France from the UK they don't cease to be a drain on the NHS, who pay about 3000€ pa to the french health system to cover their health costs.[/quote]That amount was arrived at as representing how much the mean cost is for each person over retirement age. Thus presumably it would cost - on average - the same amount for the person to use the NHS if they came back to the UK. [/quote]Is that amount ( 3000€ pa) paid to the French whether or not the person concerned needs treatment?If so it seems vastly more than in the UK, where "the NHS will pay an average of £67 per year to the GP for having Mr X on his list, irrespective of whether or not he attends." quoted from Daft Doctor on another thread..I am assuming that in both cases the patient is lucky enough as to not need any treatment.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 [quote user="NormanH"][quote user="cooperlola"] [quote user="Patf"]If a retired person moves to France from the UK they don't cease to be a drain on the NHS, who pay about 3000€ pa to the french health system to cover their health costs.[/quote]That amount was arrived at as representing how much the mean cost is for each person over retirement age. Thus presumably it would cost - on average - the same amount for the person to use the NHS if they came back to the UK. [/quote]Is that amount ( 3000€ pa) paid to the French whether or not the person concerned needs treatment?[/quote]Yes. It's not bang on (the amount I mean - it's a couple of hundred less than that) but roughtly correct. It is true throughout the EU if you have an S form of any sort.DD's amount is only for the GP, not operations, drugs, follow up treatments etc etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanH Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Let's hope the Daily Mail doesn't get hold of it [6] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Sorry in advance if this doesn't quite come across as I mean it to.When you say (you= anyone, BTW) "I paid my dues for X years so I should be able to get Y" what you overlook is that you paid your dues for years so that the people who were retired at the time you were working could get their pensions etc. If you're retired and are no longer paying tax, then it's not some fictional ring-fenced pot of YOUR money that you're getting your pension from. It's being paid in by people who are still (and, the way things are going, might have to keep on and on) working to ensure you get your money.There are often opinions expressed on forums about how the French don't mind change as long as it doesn't affect them, directly and individually, in their pockets. TBH, many of the opinions expressed by non-resident Brits (see what I did there?) on the internet seem to indicate the same reluctance to be financially inconvenienced by change. I can understand the points of view expressed here, but to be honest, if I were to take my own situation, I could argue (but I'm not: just adding another dimension) that I don't see why I should now find myself having to continue working for another 6 years above the age I originally was led to expect I could retire, just so that a few pensioners living overseas should get an index-linked pension.You see, at the moment, the general climate of belt-tightening is affecting everyone, with almost everyone convinced that they have every right to be considered a special case. As long as that mentality persists, I personally don't see a lot of hope for us, individually or indeed collectively, ever getting out of this hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Quite right, Betty. (We don't see enough of you on here these days, btw.)However, I think the point here is about those abroad taking less than those who remain in the UK and whether or not it costs more to keep us than those who stay/return to Britain. The link refers to the proposal to make those who live abroad into a special case, regardless of their contributions or age. The only difference between them and those who would keep their entitlement is their location. Yes, we must save money, we must all make sacrifices. I'm happy to pay more taxes or contributie however I can but only if everybody's treated equally and has to put a similar number of extra holes in their belts, thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allanb Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 [quote user="You can call me Betty"]I don't see why I should now find myself having to continue working for another 6 years above the age I originally was led to expect I could retire...[/quote]I appreciate that you're not actually making that argument for yourself, but some people do, and I think there's a valid reply. For most people, if you're having to work for some years longer than originally expected, it's because you are now likely to live longer than was expected when your pension contributions were originally calculated. And the difference is multiplied by an effect that the government doesn't explain very well, in my opinion. If your life expectancy when you started work was 75, and it's now 80, and you retire at 65, then your contributions (in theory) originally had to fund only 10 years of pension income, whereas now they will have to fund 15 years. That's a 50% increase in the cost of your pension. Where is that money supposed to come from?I don't think expatriate pensions can affect the basic problem significantly, although it's disgraceful to freeze some of them for no good reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Russethouse Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 The probem is that its not only those still contributing that are going to live longer, its people already drawing OAP that are. In addition money spent in the UK often produces government revenue in the form of taxes and may be instrumental in creating employment too. So actually it can never be really equal for residents and non residents As Betty says there is plenty of belt tightening going on everywhere, realistically I can't see this changing anytime soon.....I'll take cover now.......[6] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mint Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 To add to allanb's point, the NHI is not called National Health INSURANCE for nothing.It's like an insurance scheme, you pay in and you may or may not get any payouts. For example, you pay till age 60/65 (whatever the retirement age is now) and you die and get nothing for all the payments you have made.OTOH, you live to 100 and you get, not only a telegram from the queen, you get all those years of payments as well!For OH and me, we pay our mutuelles here in France (our biggest single expense) and we aren't really bothered on getting ill in order to make the premiums "worthwhile".[:)] We'll rather keep on paying and stay healthy and let other people get ill if it's their misfortune to suffer from poor health and let them claim whatever is their due. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 [quote user="cooperlola"]Quite right, Betty. (We don't see enough of you on here these days, btw.)However, I think the point here is about those abroad taking less than those who remain in the UK and whether or not it costs more to keep us than those who stay/return to Britain. The link refers to the proposal to make those who live abroad into a special case, regardless of their contributions or age. The only difference between them and those who would keep their entitlement is their location. Yes, we must save money, we must all make sacrifices. I'm happy to pay more taxes or contributie however I can but only if everybody's treated equally and has to put a similar number of extra holes in their belts, thanks![/quote]Thanks, Coops...wish I could stop by more often but this forum refuses to let me in 75% of the time. I understand what the original link was saying. However, it is inciting people to pre-empt something that may or may not happen and possibly (probably) won't change things for those living in the EU, if I've understood correctly. Does this make it better/worse/the same, then, when considering that people migrating outside the EU have been in this position for some time? As things stand, people migrating to the EU - when taken as a group and compared directly to other migrant pensioners - are enjoying an advantage only afforded to them by virtue of their choice of overseas location. People in Australia, etc. are already not being treated equally. Again, not being antagonistic, but pensioners in EU countries haven't to my knowledge until now ever shouted "man the barricades" to ensure a fair deal for their ex-compatriots in the far-flung reaches of the commonwealth. I don't even know if those in the far-flung..blah blah have even ever tried to man the barricades themselves.Sadly, whatever deal is cut, by whoever, for whoever, someone (many someones) will have to pay for it. However, I can see EU-based pensioners (who wouldn't!) being much keener on demanding parity with their UK-based fellow pensioners than with the many pensioners who have been living with non-index-linked pensions for some time. But it does beg the question "why do we always want to be treated equally to the people who get the best deal?" I've got a second home in France. clearly it costs France a lot less to keep me when I'm there...my bins only get emptied a few times a year, I don't call upon many local services..you know the deal...but I still get called upon to pay my full whack of local taxes. Some people even get charged more for the privilege of owning a second home, I understand. Most people (myself included) just have to pay the bills and swallow the pill. Anyone up for joining me in a mass protest at this unfair treatment? I thought not![:D]I must away. I'm off to see if I can get pay parity with Richard Branson.[:)] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted November 3, 2011 Share Posted November 3, 2011 Actually, R/H, I spend quite a bit of money in the UK still since my income's in stirling, thanks to t'internet! But I agree with you and indeed made this point earlier. It's an incredibly complex subject, isn't it, and multi-faceted? Hence my point that the main problem seems to me to be a lack of joined up fiscal policy.I'm still not sure how my (occupational) pension fund's figures remain healthy in spite of (because of?) the fact that it is now closed to new members since it got Thatchered when we were privatised. In fact it was doing better at the last count than the previous year and still has enough money to pay me and my o/h - apparently for as long as they think its remaining members will live. Are they just better at money management than the average government official or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allanb Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 [quote user="You can call me Betty"] As things stand, people migrating to the EU ... are enjoying an advantage only afforded to them by virtue of their choice of overseas location. People in Australia, etc. are already not being treated equally.[/quote]As I understand it, nothing is going to change in the pensions themselves; all that's changing is that more information about this statutory fraud will be given to anyone asking for a pension forecast. [quote]Again, not being antagonistic, but pensioners in EU countries haven't to my knowledge until now ever shouted "man the barricades" to ensure a fair deal for their ex-compatriots in the far-flung reaches of the commonwealth. I don't even know if those in the far-flung..blah blah have even ever tried to man the barricades themselves.[/quote]Well, they do organize petitions. There was one not long ago that was organized in Canada, for instance, to which I actually added my signature. But I'm not sure that politicians are greatly moved by petitions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mint Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 [quote user="allanb"][Well, they do organize petitions. There was one not long ago that was organized in Canada, for instance, to which I actually added my signature. But I'm not sure that politicians are greatly moved by petitions.[/quote]You're right, they're not the least bit moved, especially if the signatories have no votes [:(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Let's remember that the freeze is not something new that people couldn't know about. It's always been the rule whatever you think of it. We should just be grateful that those of us resident in the EU aren't affected by this freeze. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
minnie Posted November 4, 2011 Author Share Posted November 4, 2011 The Government have to take notice in the form of a debate in the House if more than 100,000 people sign the e-petition. One day Rabbie we might be affected if, for any reason, the EU falls apart! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 [quote user="Rabbie"]It's always been the rule whatever you think of it.[/quote]If I'm understanding correctly what you're saying, this hasn't always been the rule with, let's call them "Commonwealth Pensioners". My sister and her family were £10 Poms and the freezing of the UK pension was certainly introduced after they left the UK.I'll Google the topic and see what I can find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 [quote user="sweet 17"][quote user="allanb"][Well, they do organize petitions. There was one not long ago that was organized in Canada, for instance, to which I actually added my signature. But I'm not sure that politicians are greatly moved by petitions.[/quote]You're right, they're not the least bit moved, especially if the signatories have no votes [:(][/quote]Well, actually, all of us who have lived abroad for fewer than 15 years do have votes in the UK (unless we've taken French citizenship or dual nationality). The tories have a website (Conservatives Abroad or some-such, I forget) so it is a subject one could bring up there just to remind them that there could be upwards of a quarter of a million votes in this. Far more poignant to politicians than the effect on the national exchequer as their own personal finances are involved if they don't get re-elected.[Www] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 [quote user="minnie"]The Government have to take notice in the form of a debate in the House if more than 100,000 people sign the e-petition. ![/quote]Actually they don't 'have' to take notice at all. They can have a debate on an issue so raised - if they wish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Well, having just looked at the petition, it's got a long way to go....As far as I know, and I don't know quite how long this has been the case, but outwith certain rather specific exceptions it's nigh-on impossible to emigrate to a lot of the most popular countries concerned (e.g. Australia) if you're over 45 anyway. Among the exceptions in some countries is that you can emigrate above this age IF you buy a business and employ a certain number of local people. I guess some retirees can emigrate if they have children who are permanent, naturalised residents, but I admit I don't know what conditions are attached to those circumstances.Making the assumption (from the Telegraph article) that there are about half a million people currently with frozen pensions, then I would think it's a fairly reasonable assumption also to assume that many of these have subsequently accrued some pension rights in the countries they've emigrated to (and it's not France, so I'm also making the sweeping assumption that the pensions they've possibly accrued overseas will be worth more than the price of a couple of biscuits). Taking the above into account, then not only does that possibility dilute the effects of a frozen UK pension, it probably means that the UK pension would only be based on an absolute maximum of 29 years of contributions for someone who started work at 16 and scraped into Australia (for example) by the skin of their teeth at 45. And even at 45, they would have had a good 15 or more years to contribute to both state and private pensions in their new country of residence.All the above makes me wonder just how much hardship is endured by these people as a result of having their UK pension frozen? Plenty of work involved, but if I was pressed to come up with an equitable solution I'd say that at best I'd suggest people living outside the UK had their pensions index linked to inflation in the UK, or the country they were residing: whichever was the lower. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperlola Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 Well, Betty, you make (another) good point. My o/h opted for what our fund calls a "level pension" whereby once he reaches 65 his occupational pension drops by whatever amount the state pays him. Thus, if his old aged pension were to get frozen then the occupational one will take up the slack. There must be others for whom this applies and thus the state pension amount is largely irrelevant to the bottom line.I, on the other hand, took a smaller pension but will get my state old aged pension on top when I reach 65 (or whatever age is in play when and if I get there.) Judging by our relative states of health though, we should have done this the other way around.[:-))] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted November 4, 2011 Share Posted November 4, 2011 [quote user="Benjamin"][quote user="Rabbie"]It's always been the rule whatever you think of it.[/quote]If I'm understanding correctly what you're saying, this hasn't always been the rule with, let's call them "Commonwealth Pensioners". My sister and her family were £10 Poms and the freezing of the UK pension was certainly introduced after they left the UK.I'll Google the topic and see what I can find.[/quote]IIRC this was a topic of discussion in the 1960s. As I had just started working then and had no plans to emigrate I did not give it much attention. I await the results of your research with interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now