Freezing of expats British OAP's resident outside the EU

[YCCMB]

[quote user="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)

[/quote]

Taking issue with a word, as you have done elsewhere, Norman: nice to see that you consider "working harder, longer, getting promotion.." as "options". [:D]

[idun]

I didn't think that any farmers in France got a half decent pension. I do believe that they pay a lot in, but the government are stingy with them.

[Pickles]

[quote user="cooperlola"]Pickles, my understanding was always as Idun says - that it would get me a UK state pension but nothing else.[/quote]

That's why I mentioned it. I don't have time at present to dig it out, I'm afraid, but I seem to recall reading something relatively recent (ie in the last two years) that indicated that voluntary NI contributions made by non-UK residents were no longer being counted towards the 30 years requirement. Obviously I am happy to be corrected, but I just wanted to raise the issue in case it is actually true.

Regards

Pickles

[cooperlola]

[quote user="Pickles"][quote user="cooperlola"]Pickles, my understanding was always as Idun says - that it would get me a UK state pension but nothing else.[/quote]

That's why I mentioned it. I don't have time at present to dig it out, I'm afraid, but I seem to recall reading something relatively recent (ie in the last two years) that indicated that voluntary NI contributions made by non-UK residents were no longer being counted towards the 30 years requirement. Obviously I am happy to be corrected, but I just wanted to raise the issue in case it is actually true.

Regards
Pickles
[/quote]Whether this changed when the contributions level changed then, I don't know, but I don't think it was the case when we came over 7 years ago.  Perhaps it all changed at the same time?  I was one year short of my 30 years when I moved and I do remember getting a letter from the DWP when the 30 year rule came in suggesting that we both check to see whether or not we needed to continue to pay the voluntary stamp as we might have already paid the full whack. 

[idun]

There would be no need to pay then.

Voluntary National Insurance contributions and how to pay from abroad

HMRC can tell you if you can pay UK Voluntary National Insurance contributions for a period spent outside the UK and how much you need to pay.

Voluntary National Insurance contributions are paid to protect entitlement to UK National Insurance benefits such as basic State Pension.

This is all I can find.

 

EDIT, had to smile at 'such as basic state pension'. I think that that is all anyone gets.

[Pickles]

[quote user="idun"]There would be no need to pay then.

[/quote]

Precisely, if my menory is correct.

[quote user="idun"]Voluntary National Insurance contributions and how to pay from abroad

HMRC can tell you if you can pay UK Voluntary National Insurance contributions for a period spent outside the UK[/quote]

This is the issue - I got the impression that although you CAN pay, there were a set of rules that determined whether they would actually count. I'm not sure enough of my source to give chapter and verse - bit rushed today - but it might be something for those wishing to do this in the future to check for themselves with HMRC.

Regards

Pickles

[allanb]

[quote user="you can call me Betty"]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.[/quote]You have, and I understand. 

But what you still haven't answered is this: if we compare two people, both receiving the UK old-age pension, one living in France and the other in Australia, why should one get the inflation adjustment and the other not?

Perhaps I should have asked this question about eight pages back.

By the way, I do know about the agreements that provide the legal basis for the difference.  But I think we're discussing what is "fair" or "right" or "moral" in the pension entitlement.  If the political will existed, the agreements could be amended.

[idun]

The rules say that they don't get increases if they move to Australia. Then as grown ups they say, can we afford this or not. These rules have been in place for a very long time now. Cannot people take responsibility for themselves and their choices any more?  I don't mind them stating a fact, ie I don't get an increase, but whinging, why? No one makes anyone move, to France or Australia.

 Chasing kids sounds a silly idea to me. I know people who have done that and then their kids have got jobs at the far end of the country and they've been left in a place, where they have no friends or ties and cannot afford to move on.

And one woman moved next to her mother and her mother died just after she had sold her old home and signed for the new one, far far away from her friends and family.

 

And they won't amend and shouldn't amend. Everything is being tightened up, every last thing, so if grown ups make a choice let them live by it. As I said, if there was a campaign against this I would sign.

 

 

[YCCMB]

[quote user="allanb"][quote user="you can call me Betty"]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.[/quote]You have, and I understand. 

But what you still haven't answered is this: if we compare two people, both receiving the UK old-age pension, one living in France and the other in Australia, why should one get the inflation adjustment and the other not?

Perhaps I should have asked this question about eight pages back.

By the way, I do know about the agreements that provide the legal basis for the difference.  But I think we're discussing what is "fair" or "right" or "moral" in the pension entitlement.  If the political will existed, the agreements could be amended.

[/quote]

I'm sure you're correct, allanb. I just wonder, sincerely, why it's taken the people affected around 40 years to get round to seeing this as an issue, and why they've decided now that it's so important? So, in answer to your question, another question. Why now?

[Russethouse]

 I suspect that you are incorrect about it being now Betty, I was just talking to my sister about this (she is a IFA who knows a lot about pensions)  and she says it has been rumbling on for years,  this shows the European Court turned down the idea last year : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8568970.stm and now the petitioners want to get 100,000 names on the petition so they can force it in front of parliament.

Interestingly the article in the link says the South Aftrican lady who started the petition continued paying contributions......

[andyh4]

Why now?

 

Probably because they can now and couldn't before.

 

A few thousand people spread over nearly 20% of the earth's land mass could hardly build a groundswell of opinion before the days of internet forums and instant messaging.  In the past complainants would have been lone voices without theear of anyone.  Today you set up an action group (2 people) and a forum (+1 IT savy person) and if you have a good case then the world will lsiten.

 

Much as the Arab Spring could not have happened 15 years ago, I think this issue would not have gotten any publicity before.

 

All of which is not to say that I agree with them.  Yes the system isn't fair, but isn't secret either, it is part and parcel of a package of advantages and disadvantages that you take by opting for a particular choice in life.

 

If we all want fairness across the world then I'll start by opting for Poland's 10% flat rate taxes.

I'll take the US standards of medical care but backed up with and NHS style funding system.

 

Life isn't fair - so let's get over it.

 

[YCCMB]

I'm sure you're right RH..I think my "now" referred partly to the contrast between the length of time this legislation has been in force, and the fact that the various appeals have already been effectively thrown out by the ECHR.

If the lady in SA has been paying voluntary contributions, I wonder what she expected for them? I mean to say, did she have no inkling that she might get only the rate at the time she moved? Because this begs the questions: how old was she when she moved, and did she ever work in RSA? And why, perhaps, didn't she consider some sort of private pension provision which might have given her a better return?

Tongue FIRMLY in cheek, I suppose it could be argued that if "the British Taxpayer" is required to foot the bill for the financial mistakes of several high-street banks, what's a couple of quid more to foot the bill for some financially misguided expats? Because I think that there's the rub, as far as some of the half-million are concerned. They backed the wrong horse at some stage, and now....

ETA: Andy, you posted whilst I was writing, but I think you are right about the "why now"

[allanb]

Betty, your question in answer to my question is a good question.

I don't think there's anything new about the pension rules themselves.  What is new is that the pensions office is considering whether it should draw people's attention to the indexing anomaly when it is asked to give a pension forecast.

At least, that's how I read the original story.

And I don't think it's taken anybody 40 years to see it as an issue.  My relative in Canada saw it as an issue long before retirement, and still sees it as an issue on every visit to the shops.

[NormanH]

I think that even Betty

and I agree (although it is up to her to say ) that the petition in

the OP is ill-timed, and that people had the opportunity to know

about this before they left the UK.

I think that there is

some of unfairness in the geographical element, but as I showed that

could also work to some peoples' advantage depending on local

economic conditions, so index linking is impractical.

We may even agree that

the major need for Europe is getting the economy moving so young

people can find work and earn enough to have a decent life, raise a

family, and pay the contributions which will fund pensions.

(Personally I don't see this happening with Gormless Gideon and

Camewrong in charge in the UK, but that is another question)

The maths is

frightening, but so is the idea that the old are an unsustainable

burden who have to be subsidised. I am convinced that this is part of

a strategy to undermine the Welfare State, and I refuse to collude in

it, or in the idea that the villains are 'benefit cheats' rather then

the real cheats who hide their money in tax havens.

The early-retired have

some share of the blame to bear in this, as they can appear to be

enjoying the good life on an index-linked pension while others

struggle on till 65+, but they too are instrumentalised by the same

media-owning forces who sell us the ideas of the undeserving

underclass and the 'gold-plated pension'

Betty is right that

selfish points of view are to be heard from all sides as people begin

to panic.

This is the intention

“Divide et impera” .

Set the people against

each other so they don't see the common enemy.

I have suggested above

that retired people could pay an element of NI in their country of

residence to contribute to such things as health care.

Pensions linked to the

rise of average earnings rather than one of the price indexes could

also be a way of easing resentment between generations.

The important thing to

me is to preserve the 'solidarity' between generations that was the

intention of the Welfare State, and to recognise who are the enemy

that wish to destroy it and install a free for all in which they,

starting as they do with all the tools at their disposal can take

all.

[idun]

Brilliant, militant old folk demanding their rights, whether they looked into before they left the UK or not.Gimme gimme gimme! No wonder I am afraid of the 'old'.

What a brave new world awaits us all.

 

Incidentally, what will have to go to pay for all this. The politicans won't go without, that is for sure. And these new militant old will want all their hospital treatment so what'll go? Cut pediatry, maternity care, education............ started with, so I'll finish with, brilliant!

 

 

[Russethouse]

Norman, what most older people know is this : 'Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen nineteen six, result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.' as Dickens said....

[YCCMB]

[quote user="allanb"]Betty, your question in answer to my question is a good question.

I don't think there's anything new about the pension rules themselves.  What is new is that the pensions office is considering whether it should draw people's attention to the indexing anomaly when it is asked to give a pension forecast.

At least, that's how I read the original story.

And I don't think it's taken anybody 40 years to see it as an issue.  My relative in Canada saw it as an issue long before retirement, and still sees it as an issue on every visit to the shops.

[/quote]

allanb, I think your earlier suggestion that your relative and I meet on neutral ground is an excellent one, having done a spot of reading round the situation regarding Canada's immigration requirements and criteria for acceptance. However, I can't be aware of his/her personal circumstances, and (s)he may well have been there for a long time....but if so, it's even more puzzling...Anyway, I digress.

Individuals having seen this as an issue for some time, as evidenced by your family member, would indicate that, in general, those concerned therefore knew what was going to happen. So, knowing it was going to happen, they took a considered decision to emigrate. It seems a little disingenuous, perhaps, to say "This was not SPECIFICALLY pointed out to us. Now the DWP is considering specifically pointing it out, so we should be financially compensated* for the fact that it wasn't made clear to us" The DWP pensions forecast may not make this clear, but a five-minute google around the immigration websites for several of the affected countries seems to throw up many references to frozen pensions, so it seems that the information is fairly well publicised.

 What I'm also saying (sorry, maybe my bad choice of  words earlier, or perhaps semantics) is not that no-one thought it was an issue until now, but that it's taken till now for a disparate group of geographically separated people to mobilise...and I think that Andyh4's point about the "why" is probably the answer.

* I apologise in advance if this form of words is inappropriate or offensive to anyone, but please be assured it was not chosen to be so.

Where I think we're walking a bit of a tightrope, and several (including me) have alluded to this, is that you can't move over here any more for people trying to argue that they're a "special case". Teachers, firemen( in fact any public sector group you care to mention), students, librarians,women born on ar about 1954.....and as Norman said, pensioners (militant ot not) are right there in the queue. Unfortunately, setting aside the argument as to whether it's "fair" that retirees to some countries get more than those who retire to others, the fact is that this interest group is asking for something they (at the moment) don't have and aren't entitled to (and I must beVERY clear here that I mean "under current legislation" and not "morally"), whereas most of the other groups are asking to be able to hang onto what they do have and are entitled to (or at least, they have been up to now). Regrettably,  unlike Norman, I don't exclusively blame the political machine as I'm afraid human nature makes all of us quite ugly at times.

I'm not convinced I'm making sense, nor adding any  more to this debate by going on, so I'll stop.

[allanb]

Betty, your argument about the "special cases" can be turned upside down.  My argument is that one specific group of countries is not a special case, and residents there should not be treated differently from those in the rest of the world.

I can't expand on this without repeating myself, so I'll stop also.

[Russethouse]

How long has your sister been in Canada, Alan ?

[allanb]

[quote user="Russethouse"]How long has your sister been in Canada ?[/quote]I don't know exactly, but a very long time - why do you ask?

If you're making the point that she should have known before she went, I would agree - and she probably would, too.  But I don't accept that something that is unjust or unfair should never be corrected as long as it was in the small print. 

Perhaps it depends on how clearly the "freezing" was explained to people asking for pension information.  An honest disclosure would have said something like "if you emigrate to countries X, Y or Z, your pension will probably become less valuable every year until you die."

[Russethouse]

 If she has been there a long time surely she has adequate time to address the problem and make alternative arrangements to supplement her income ?To be honest I've known several people emigrate over the years and all them have known the situation regarding this....

[YCCMB]

[quote user="allanb"]Betty, your argument about the "special cases" can be turned upside down.  My argument is that one specific group of countries is not a special case, and residents there should not be treated differently from those in the rest of the world.

I can't expand on this without repeating myself, so I'll stop also.

[/quote]

Yes, my argument probably can (and will) be turned upside down, sideways, shaken vigorously and spun on its own axis[:D]

However, a teacher with, say, 15 years service or 10 years from retirement (arbitrarily) is now faced with being treated significantly differently from a teacher who can retire anytime now, a student in the first, second or third year of a degree course is being treated differently from a student wanting to study the same course at the same University from September 2012, and so on, and so on. All these "interest groups" have exactly the same problem.  I, like any of my contemporaries, was paid a grant to pursue my tertiary education.....Laws, bilateral agreements and what-have-you are put in place and can certainly be changed, as this group of pensioners is lobbying to achieve, but successive governments, not just the current one, have failed to just roll over and capitulate, as the queue of financial losers grows ever longer.

[NormanH]

Individual and group interests often diverge sharply. Economic competition often leads to "arms races", that provide no

lasting advantages for individuals. One way of reducing wasteful one-upmanship on items such as fast cars

and mansions would be to scrap income tax and instead put in place a

progressive consumption tax

Not my idea, but interesting from

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/audio/2011/nov/09/business-podcast-italy-debt-darwin

[Chiefluwie]

[quote user="Russethouse"]

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

When debating please attack the argument, not the poster.

[/quote]

Ohhh, don't you just love a woman with authority, go on get the whip out!

Didn't you crib that first sentence from some TV program(me)?