Freezing of expats British OAP's resident outside the EU

[Judith]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"]

Between us, Mr Betty and I, over a period of some several years, have racked up five redundancies. He's in the lead, 3-2, but that's neither here nor there. We've been fortunate in that our redundancies have never coincided, so one of us was working whilst the other was unemployed. When IN employment, both of us were higher rate taxpayers, which meant we were also paying higher rates of N.I. Now, let me be absolutely clear about this....I had no problem whatsoever with the levels of tax and NI I was paying. It's right and proper and all the rest of it. However, turns out that it's almost impossible to get any sort of benefit when you're made redundant if you have a spouse who's working, and if you have personal resources to fall back on, even if you've actually paid MORE into the system than other people.  So, morally, I didn't have the same rights as someone who earned less than me, or as (for example) a couple where the wife had decided to stay at home. Was that wrong? Not in my opinion.

[/quote]

Can match that - redundancies - one was always in work, so zilch for benefits - but neither were either of us ever near the high tax rate bracket - so just be grateful for what you did have - most of us have had to manage with a lot less - for most of our lives. 

[YCCMB]

Jeez...I think I've said, at least 3 times now, that I was grateful, happy to pay my dues and that "morally" I thought this was perfectly correct. If you'd had my life back then, you'd know that it wasn't exactly all beer and skittles!!

Somehow I seem to have become the whipping girl here...ingrate, jealous, resentful.....and even possibly by association Conservative.[:D][:D]

's a good job I've got the skin of a rhino, innit?

[NormanH]

If the cap fits [:P]

[idun]

I have read your posts Betty and I understand.

 

Will there be anything left in the kitty by the time your retire??  I am starting to think that in the future, all this talk of unfair payments at the moment, will seem like people once were paid richly.

[woolybanana]

Perhaps reducing the number of payments required for a full OAP from 45 to 30 years was not altogether a good idea if the kitty is a bit empty!

[Russethouse]

I'm with you Betty ! You argue your point so eloquently I've left you to it.

LOL Funny how this a more interesting topic when UK pensioners are due to get a 5% rise instead of the derisory amounts they've had in the last few years [:)]

[idun]

And that Mr Banana is something I do understand. Judging by some of the posts on here  I doubt that it'd be worth my while saying any more.

 

 

[YCCMB]

[quote user="NormanH"]If the cap fits [:P]

[/quote]

What an erudite, considered and mature response, Norman. I can't imagine how long it must have taken you to formulate it.

[YCCMB]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Perhaps reducing the number of payments required for a full OAP from 45 to 30 years was not altogether a good idea if the kitty is a bit empty![/quote]

Well, in reality, as I mentioned earlier, it's all smoke and mirrors as payment of tax and NI doesn't miraculously stop when anyone reaches the 30 year mark...so although one's only required to amass 30 years, it's pretty likely it'll actually exceed the 45 for a large percentage of people. 'Cos they sure as hell won't be able to afford to retire at 50 or 55 on "final contribution" salary schemes

However, that assumes that people coming into the workforce are able to secure a job. Perhaps what the reduction was trying to pre-empt was the effect on a whole generation of the prospect of not being lucky enough to get continuous employment for 30 years??

[NormanH]

[quote user="You can call me Betty"][quote user="NormanH"]If the cap fits [:P]

[/quote]

What an erudite, considered and mature response, Norman. I can't imagine how long it must have taken you to formulate it.

[/quote]

I learned my technique from Dryden

"How easy is it to call Rogue and Villain, and that wittily! But how hard

to make a Man appear a Fool, a Blockhead, or a Knave, without using any

of those opprobrious terms! To spare the grossness of the Names, and to

do the thing yet more severely, is to draw a full Face, and to make the

Nose and Cheeks stand out, and yet not to employ any depth of

Shadowing. This is the Mystery of that Noble Trade, which yet no Master

can

teach to his Apprentice: He may give the Rules, but the Scholar is never

the nearer in his practice. Neither is it true, that this fineness of

Raillery is offensive. A witty Man is tickled while he is hurt in this

manner, and a Fool feels it not. The occasion of an Offence may possibly

be given, but he cannot take it. If it be granted that in effect this

way does more Mischief; that a Man is secretly wounded, and though he be

not sensible himself, yet the malicious World will find it for him: yet

there is still a vast difference betwixt the slovenly Butchering of a

Man, and the fineness of a stroke that separates

the Head from the Body, and leaves it standing in its place. A man may

be capable, as Jack Ketch's Wife said of his Servant, of a plain piece

of Work, a bare Hanging; but to make a malefactor die sweetly was only

belonging to her Husband"

We more or less agreed several posts back on the original question, about freezing pension increases or not.

However you changed the topic.

What I will never agree on, (though you and the  right wing bullies will win by brute force as always because retired people are weak and can't fight back as you well know, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever") is the argument that you started when you referred to pensions as 'subsidies'.

That argument starts by saying we can't afford to pay people who live  abroad, using the sort of Daily Mail logic  'nudge nudge' we have all seen their wealthy way of life on the Tele (do you really think it a co-incidence that the ridiculous 'Little England' series is on at the moment?)  and they don't need us to subsidise them...

Then it moves on to we can't afford to pay 'gold plated' pensions here either...(in what foul sub-editor's bowel was that phrase mis-begotten?) because there is no money in the kitty (not that there ever was, but in the past we paid for both our parent's pensions and our own,  and then  for our  own and  other people's children (do you think that is something new?) then it moves on to..'can we really afford to maintain pensions at the present level?'

Why not just open the workhouses and light the gas-chambers and be rid of the  old, the  weak, the ill, and the unproductive?, because you might have to work to support them other wise...

That is where  your argument leads.

Is this just a reaction of pique because women now have to work as long as men? Or  are you really arguing that a nation such as Britain can't afford to pay around £100 a week to people who have worked and contributed for over 40 years of their lives?

[YCCMB]

[quote user="NormanH"][quote user="You can call me Betty"][quote user="NormanH"]If the cap fits [:P]

[/quote]

What an erudite, considered and mature response, Norman. I can't imagine how long it must have taken you to formulate it.

[/quote]

I learned my technique from Dryden

Only, as you aptly demonstrated, Dryden was somewhat better at it

We more or less agreed several posts back on the original question, about freezing pension increases or not.

However you changed the topic.I don't think I personally changed the topic...I responded to allanb's various questions and comments

What I will never agree on, (though you and the  right wing bullies will win by brute force as always because retired people are weak and can't fight back as you well know, "If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stomping on a human face -- forever") is the argument that you started when you referred to pensions as 'subsidies'. I used that word, but it takes two to start an argument, Norman....

That argument starts by saying we can't afford to pay people who live  abroad, using the sort of Daily Mail logic  'nudge nudge' we have all seen their wealthy way of life on the Tele (do you really think it a co-incidence that the ridiculous 'Little England' series is on at the moment?).  and they don't need us to subsidise them... Wherever you may have got those words from, they are not the ones I used.

Then it moves on to we can't afford to pay 'gold plated' pensions here either...(in what foul sub-editor's bowel was that phrase mis-begotten?) because there is no money in the kitty (not that there ever was, but in the past we paid for both our parent's pensions and our own,  and then  for our  own and  other people's children (do you think that is something new?) then it moves on to..'can we really afford to maintain pensions at the present level?  So, here you present a series of statements I have never made, attempt to attribute them to me and then refute, or simply rubbish them..

Why not just open the workhouses and light the gas-chambers and be rid of the  old, the  weak, the ill, and the unproductive?, because you might have to work to support them other wise...

That is where  your argument leads.You've come so perilously close, there, to invoking Godwin's Law....I use ONE word to which you take exception and you've managed to develop that into an entire hypothetical argument I haven't made, finishing by suggesting that I'd condone genocide? Chapeau.

Is this just a reaction of pique because women now have to work as long as men? Or  are you really arguing that a nation such as Britain can't afford to pay around £100 a week to people who have worked and contributed for over 40 years of their lives? You're doing it again. Pique now!!! Good grief, I've known for so many years that I wouldn't be able to retire until I was 65, now 66, that it's hardly NOW that I'm going to get piqued. But I've been trying to make it clear since the outset that this isn't, however much you have twisted my words and arguments, anything to do with ME. It's YOU that seems to have resolutely set out to make this personal. A facile way of arguing, that, to attack the individual rather than the argument.Or, better still, just tell me what my "argument" is, then condemn me for the argument you've made on my behalf??

[/quote]

What I keep saying, so here we go again, one more time for luck, is that this is a situation that has existed, for the people directly affected, since AT LEAST the 1970's. And whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation, it's no different for this group of people today than it was then, except that today they're looking for ways to make what they have go further, just like everyone else, whether working or not. I note you haven't questioned whether they are just having "a reaction of pique" because they are getting a less favourable deal than pensioners living in the UK. It's the wrong time, Norman. That's what I'm saying. Pensioners (wherever they live) are seeing their purchasing power eroded. I totally agree. Everyone is. And everyone, however unpalatable this may seem to you, is behaving selfishly. Unless you can explain to me where the selflessness is in your argument?

[NormanH]

OK I give up. You have battered me into submission by your incessant repetition.

You are obviously right.

It's the wrong time to support the old the sick the weak and the handicapped.

What do you propose to do with them?

By changing the idea of a Pension into the idea of a subsidy you have taken that first step on the slope to the  Social Darwinism ...

[Russethouse]

Norman, I'm saying this only once [:D]

When debating please attack the argument, not the poster.

[woolybanana]

Sorry to be obtuse, but would Social Darwinism function in parallel with the Medical Darwinism that seems to be being introduced by the NHS and by old folks' homes?

[Chancer]

[quote user="woolybanana"]Perhaps reducing the number of payments required for a full OAP from 45 to 30 years was not altogether a good idea if the kitty is a bit empty![/quote]

I am still waiting for the sting in the tail of that one, I am convinced that there is a yet unannounced quid pro quo (if thats the right phrase) waiting for the right conditions, probably fertilised by the Daily Mail to be let out of the bag.

The demographic crisis has been talked about in hushed tones to my knowledge since the 80's, probably a long time before that (I am relatively young) to reduce the number of qualifying years during a period of economic crisis is unimaginable except for perhaps a French socialist government and yet that is exactly what the UK government quietly did without fanfare.

My question to all of you because I sure would like to know the answer, is - WHY?

[cooperlola]

As I said several pages ago, Chance, it certainly beats me.  I'd willingly carry on paying for the 10  or so more years I have to go before I get my pension (more if you add the payments I've already been able to avoid).  I can't be alone in this.

[Pickles]

I'm wandering a little off-topic here, but, bear with me because it is related. There is an issue that the Govt has seemingly (perhaps conveniently) overlooked:

The actuarial tables on which this whole edifice is built are essentially backwards-looking, IIRC. Therefore they do not at present take into account:

1) the "obesity time bomb" which has been developing sinnce the 1980s and which can be assumed to have a negative effect on the average life expectancy as the cohort ages (this effect would also probably increase healthcare costs but the Govt seems to be doing a pretty good job so far of introducing rationing to the system which would keep this under control)

2) the as-yet unknown but probably negative effect of forcing people to work longer, which I suspect will have a hand in reducing life expectancy. A cynic might comment that the Govt is trying to return to the bad old days when most people never lived long enough to draw a pension.

Regards

Pickles

[idun]

The why, as was said, even if the number of years toward the pensions is reduced, people will still have to keep paying national insurance payments until what, within the next few years, until they are 66 years old and then probably they'll move the goal posts up to 70. They won't pay a bean out until people are retirement age either.

 

So it doesn't really matter what number of years they say. Those that don't have enough payments and have been on low incomes will get their money made up anyway.[6] If there is any ofcourse.

 

 

It should never be a surprise to anyone that they get old and stop working and will need money to live. The advantages are lower food bills, reduced prices for transport and cinema and many other things and no need to holiday in the school holidays. In the UK, free prescriptions and free bus pass.

 

The trouble is that too many people are living too long.  And that is the basic problem.

 

 

The fit body, which I don't have, is all very well, but I am now starting to see families (friends) where their very fit 80/90 year old has changed. These friends are looking after a shell,  brain going/gone, nasty, even violent.  And I understand that their mother/father is probably frightened not knowing the people who are around them, but nature is cruel to let the mind go before the body. As I said, living too long and sometimes not really living at all.

 

 

 

[NormanH]

You are obviously a special case given your medical history cooperlola , but the difference between those of working age and those of pensionable age is that those who could still work have some options, such as working harder, longer, getting promotion, going on strike, joining a union. Even if the situation is as terrible as is made out they have the strength to change it.

Those who have retired at 65, and I am just about to join them, have fewer of those possibilities, and I find it terrifying to hear the word 'subsidy' used about the OAP they have earned by many years' contributions.

On the other hand it does seem reasonable to expect people to keep paying NI contributions if they are receiving such things as NHS benefits.( which of course would include S1 holders)

[idun]

That's the difference in the systems though. In France people keep paying their SS payments, whereas they stop in the UK.

 

There again, in France it's only part of the SS payments, not chomage or towards their pensions either.

[cooperlola]

Taking the disability out of the equation, Norman, I am referring to my state before the accident.  I retired at 49 and got my occupational pension at 50.  Under the 30 yer rule I would have stopped paying my stamp when I retired as I began work at 19.  My o/h began work at 17 after he took his A levels and retired at 56 when he also stopped paying his stamp (or would have done if the new rules had been in place - it actually happened a year or so later.)  My point is that when we took early retirement we were paying a stamp and would have continued to do so until we reached state pensionable age (64 in my case, 65 in Mr C's).  We can still easily afford to do this and happily would but the rules changed.  That's the bit I don't get.

[Pickles]

[quote user="cooperlola"]Taking the disability out of the equation, Norman, I am referring to my state before the accident.  I retired at 49 and got my occupational pension at 50.  Under the 30 yer rule I would have stopped paying my stamp when I retired as I began work at 19.  My o/h began work at 17 after he took his A levels and retired at 56 when he also stopped paying his stamp (or would have done if the new rules had been in place - it actually happened a year or so later.)  My point is that when we took early retirement we were paying a stamp and would have continued to do so until we reached state pensionable age (64 in my case, 65 in Mr C's).  We can still easily afford to do this and happily would but the rules changed.  That's the bit I don't get.[/quote]

IIRC from an article in the last couple of years, although people resident abroad can make voluntary UK NI contributions, they do not get any benefit whatsoever from them.

Regards

Pickles

[idun]

The voluntary contributions are simply towards the pension and not other benefits, and it really is a bloody good investment, currently about £100 a week's pension.

How much do voluntary contributions cost?

If you want to pay voluntary National Insurance contributions for the 2011-12 tax year you'll have to pay:

• £12.60 a week for Class 3 voluntary contributions

• £2.50 a week for Class 2 contributions

If you're self-employed there are some circumstances when you won't be able to pay Class 2 contributions voluntarily - see the section below on voluntary contributions if you're self-employed.

Would someone living abroad want to be paying towards unemployment benefit  when they can't claim it, or sickness benefit when they can't claim it. Getting the pension is a pretty good deal IMO ofcourse.[Www]

 

 

PS I know that it is towards the pension as we have had forecasts and all the voluntary contributions are included.

 

[breizh]

I pay NI, and my social charges in France.

The 5 year period during which you accrue UK benefit is now up, but I choose to pay. Compared to other countries it's very cheap, and I feel that I should contribute towards the pensions my parents and grandparents receive.

My French pension will be next to nothing, dispite paying 1000s and 1000s. Oh to be a fonc.

[cooperlola]

Exactly, Idun.  Even just for the pension, I considered the Class 3 voluntary contributions to be good value.  I have friends here who have been farming in France for nearly 15 years now but their pensions in France will be worth naff all when compared to what they'll get from the UK by having continued to pay a stamp to take them to their 30 years.  They moved here too late to ever get a decent pension this side of the channel.

Pickles, my understanding was always as Idun says - that it would get me a UK state pension but nothing else.