nomoss Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 The latest campaign from that highly respected defender of rightshttp://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4821718/Expensive-expats-get-92m-benefits-under-Britains-bonkers-system.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanH Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 "This means that even though they no longer pay into the tax pot, British expats still receive payouts from home."I for one still pay into the UK "tax pot"...even though I have no vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 Nice to see that the Sun is continuing the News of the World's sick journalistic traditions of the malevolent Australian dwarf. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Regrettably, this is the kind of journalism that has convinced a large percentage of the UK's population that "immigrants" get benefits without paying any taxes.I'm sure they will manage, with equal success, to convince those same people that "emigrants" are doing the same.Here's the rub, though. People on forums like this one believe, and are happy to accept, that the second one isn't true. Isn't it odd, then, that so many believe the first one IS??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chancer Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Some judicious pruning would remove 80% of that bill.Remove the winter fuel allowance, incapacity and bereavement benefits from those that choose to move overseas and there is an instant £75 million saved. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Let's keep things in proportion. £75m is a lot of money to an individual although less than some people have won on the Euro lottery but it is a very small proportion of the total benefit bill. These recipients have after all contributed to the UK tax account for some or all of their working life so don't lets have a witch hunt just because the Sun says so. Better to have better checks on tax and benefit cheats and make sure that companies like Starbucks pay their fare share of tax. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frederick Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 However much you look at it with an "I have paid I am entitled " view . Its hard to accept a "Cold weather payment " and that's what it is .When living in 19 degrees average winter temperature on the Costa del Sol .. And expect that to go down well with people paying huge heating bills in the UK . I can see a temperature table coming to qualify soon . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 When I first started getting the WFA it paid for nearly a full tank of Oil. Now it only pays about a quarter of a tank. As I need several tanks over a winter it may well be time to means test this benefit so only those that really need it actually get it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanH Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I think that there is a difference between "Cold Weather Payments" and "Winter Fuel Allowance"For the first a temperature table already exists I believe. For the second it could be argued that all pensioners have higher bills in the winter, and that it what it is for. As has been said before the winter can be harsher in some parts of France than in the UK The situation prior to this year was flawed because it was based on an arbitrary factor based on the age at which a person moved abroad.I certainly don't think that the present system can continue indefinitely as it needs to be financed in a more logical way if allowances are to be defended on the grounds of need.For any of these allowances there are a number of ways one could do it.1) Make them means tested 2) Give them to UK tax payers only3) Pay for them in part by charging NI contributions on Pensions, as in France. There may well be others..I add that I get no benefits (although I believe I could claim WFA) so I am not defending any personal interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 [quote user="Frederick"] When living in 19 degrees average winter temperature on the Costa del Sol .. [/quote]You seem to have done about as much research as the Sun "journalists"http://www.holiday-weather.com/costa_del_sol/averages/The winter average minimum temperatures are also there, these are more relevant when considering whether heating is required. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickP Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 [quote user="Rabbie"]When I first started getting the WFA it paid for nearly a full tank of Oil. Now it only pays about a quarter of a tank. As I need several tanks over a winter it may well be time to means test this benefit so only those that really need it actually get it.[/quote]You must be (a) very old (b) have had a very small oil storage tank. Also as you have to fill up several times over the winter maybe you still have a very small storage tank. [:D] What everybody forgets the WFA is not just a benefit like other benefits, it was a political move; given in place of a raise in the pension pot. If they want it back I want a raise of the equivalent in my payout by the state each year. They've had my dosh, I want what I'm entitled to, that was the deal and I kept my part of it no matter where I lived or worked. Nobody said when I worked abroad "oh alright as you 're working away from home don't pay any tax" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 Edit: Remove double post and add comment.I would add, as Norman, that I get no benefits, and have never claimed any, for self or family, since I claimed a week's unemployment pay in about 1960.I received about three pounds, and decided it wasn't worth the effort to queue up and sign on three times a week [:(] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted March 3, 2013 Author Share Posted March 3, 2013 [quote user="NickP"] What everybody forgets the WFA is not just a benefit like other benefits, it was a political move; given in place of a raise in the pension pot. [/quote] Exactly. Brown's way to cheat people who had no vote, so could have no say. And as he probably anticipated, long forgotten now by most. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbie Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 [quote user="NickP"][quote user="Rabbie"]When I first started getting the WFA it paid for nearly a full tank of Oil. Now it only pays about a quarter of a tank. As I need several tanks over a winter it may well be time to means test this benefit so only those that really need it actually get it.[/quote]You must be (a) very old (b) have had a very small oil storage tank. Also as you have to fill up several times over the winter maybe you still have a very small storage tank. [:D] What everybody forgets the WFA is not just a benefit like other benefits, it was a political move; given in place of a raise in the pension pot. If they want it back I want a raise of the equivalent in my payout by the state each year. They've had my dosh, I want what I'm entitled to, that was the deal and I kept my part of it no matter where I lived or worked. Nobody said when I worked abroad "oh alright as you 're working away from home don't pay any tax"[/quote]I am not that old. I have only had the fuel allowance for 10 years. I don't consider our tank to be that small. It takes about 1200 litres at each filling. It is our only source of heating so that is why we need to fill it more often than some.When I worked abroad I paid tax in the country I was resident in and not in the UK but as I don't know your details I can't comment on your situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sid Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I don't know why this debate continues on here; it's not going to change anything, is it, nor will it change anyone's mind. But here's my two-penneth.People of a certain age are entitled to WFA because they need to keep warm. It's not cheating. Broadly speaking those same people receive a state pension; would the detractors propose that the pension be removed too? And if not, why not; where's the logic? I for one would be bl00dy furious! I planned my retirement years based on what I knew I would be entitled to; it's wrong to move the goalposts for those already in receipt, and the fact that one has contributed to the system (in my case for 42 years, and I'm still contributing to a lesser degree) is still a powerful argument when you know that others who haven't contributed get free health care, housing, etc etc. It's not about where you live, it's about being a UK citizen!Better to clamp down on the benefit fraudsters! There is a difference. [:@] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gardener Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I have noticed that the more right wing elements of the uk press and the tory party seem to have renamed welfare payments as "handouts". However there are a number of issues here. Firstly workers pay National Insurance to ensure when they fall on hard times and lose their jobs or cant work through illness that they are "insured" but too many people now see this as some kind of private savings pot to which if they have had full employment throughout their working life that they are suddenly entitled to in retirement. Secondly there are those that cannot work through disability illness who suddenly find that the rules are being changed and those who were classified as disabled/ unable to work through illness one month suddenly find thanks to IDS that the rules have changed although their illness may have not , and they lose their benefit with little warning or planning and are then labelled as " fit for work" or benefit cheats by the daily wail.The real fraudsters in whatever shape and guise are there, but I don't think they are prolific as the government would have us all think and of course they need clamping down on.but thee NATIONAL INSURANCE system was set up to help those in most need and that is how it should remain, if a person has had the ability or luxury or working full time in secure employment for 40 years,, they should give thanks not moan that they haven't been able to take anything out. Would I or could I survive on a state "handout",? not blooming likely and neither would I want to try. The UK has a duty of care towards its citizens , and should support the less able and I am glad that I live in another country which does the same.If the rules are that people who leave the UK can claim winter fuel allowance , then that is that.Though I think it should be means tested, so that those who need it most get it regardless as to how much you may have "paid in". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 [quote user="NickP"]They've had my dosh, I want what I'm entitled to, that was the deal and I kept my part of it no matter where I lived or worked. Nobody said when I worked abroad "oh alright as you 're working away from home don't pay any tax"[/quote]I'm not sure when you worked abroad, or under what circumstances, but certainly when I first started travelling overseas on business in the early-mid 1980's I got a significant tax rebate based on the number of days I was out of the country on business in a tax year. Admittedly, it was discontinued after I'd benefitted from it for a couple of years, but you did used to get tax concessions for being overseas on business.And if the "they've had my dosh, I want what I'm entitled to" argument holds true, can you let me know how you get on, because there are about half a dozen instances I can think of where they've had mine and subsequently moved the goalposts leaving me worse off, and I wouldn't mind that being reinstated, either. In fact, the only thing in recent years where I've heaved a sigh of relief and thought "Wow! we actually got away with that one" is the family allowance... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickP Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 [quote user="You can call me Betty"][quote user="NickP"]They've had my dosh, I want what I'm entitled to, that was the deal and I kept my part of it no matter where I lived or worked. Nobody said when I worked abroad "oh alright as you 're working away from home don't pay any tax"[/quote]I'm not sure when you worked abroad, or under what circumstances, but certainly when I first started travelling overseas on business in the early-mid 1980's I got a significant tax rebate based on the number of days I was out of the country on business in a tax year. Admittedly, it was discontinued after I'd benefitted from it for a couple of years, but you did used to get tax concessions for being overseas on business.And if the "they've had my dosh, I want what I'm entitled to" argument holds true, can you let me know how you get on, because there are about half a dozen instances I can think of where they've had mine and subsequently moved the goalposts leaving me worse off, and I wouldn't mind that being reinstated, either. In fact, the only thing in recent years where I've heaved a sigh of relief and thought "Wow! we actually got away with that one" is the family allowance...[/quote]Well it's like this Betty, I was freelance for 40 years and spent many years working abroad for American and British companies on short term contracts, in fact up to 2011, longest I ever had was for 10 months. My wages were paid into my British bank and at the end of the year along came the Tax man who said "you owe me £x's" This I paid; naturally under protest, but never ever did anybody including various accountants, tell me that I was able to claim a rebate for the time I spent out of the country. All I can say is you must have had one hell of an accountant. Also if they moved the goalposts for you then they moved them for everybody else, but of course if I do find a way of stabilising them I let you know straight away [:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 Nick, it was, I can assure you, standard. I haven't ever employed an accountant until about four years ago, and I can assure you that, just after I got married, this was the case...so around 1982-3 for at least a couple of years, and probably prior to that, when it didn't affect me as I wasn't working abroad. My husband also benefitted as he was sent out to work in Hong Kong on a contract for his UK employers for 3 months. All I know is that the nice little rebate we both enjoyed (working in completely different sectors for completely different companies at different periods of time) paid for our house extension. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NormanH Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 I certainly want to see this film, but even the revue is full of insights:"One for all and all for one, homes for the many, not luxuries for the few, that's what we wanted," says 90-year-old Eileen Thompson,"As a child," she tells me, "my father took me to see the unemployment queues, a long, long line. He said, 'Never let this happen again.' "and"Today, the market penetrates everywhere. It's time to put back on the agenda the importance of public ownership and public good, the value of working together collaboratively, not in competition.""politics of the common good invites us to think of ourselves less as consumers and more as citizens,""the rapid dismantling of it (the welfare State) with the arrival of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. She espoused a very different ideology based on small-government, low-tax, free-market, neo-liberal, anti-union, pro-privatisation, "no such thing as society" monetarism." the assumption that the private sector is more efficient is not proven."" Labour spent less on the public sector as a proportion of GDP (39%) than Thatcher (41%) or Major (40%).""There are other scripts that can be written. Ones that put the importance of solidarity ahead of competition and the need to defend the common and the public from the incursion of the private. We need a credible alternative story to disintegrating Osbornomics. Or we can say goodbye to the welfare state."Well at last! It needed to be said..http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/mar/02/spirit-45-ken-loach-nhs-history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickP Posted March 3, 2013 Share Posted March 3, 2013 [quote user="You can call me Betty"]Nick, it was, I can assure you, standard. I haven't ever employed an accountant until about four years ago, and I can assure you that, just after I got married, this was the case...so around 1982-3 for at least a couple of years, and probably prior to that, when it didn't affect me as I wasn't working abroad. My husband also benefitted as he was sent out to work in Hong Kong on a contract for his UK employers for 3 months. All I know is that the nice little rebate we both enjoyed (working in completely different sectors for completely different companies at different periods of time) paid for our house extension.[/quote]Betty I can assure you I'm not accusing you of telling porkies, but I must have had the proverbial in my eyes to miss that gag, and I didn't miss many . The funny thing was that when I retired the pensions people told me that I needed 44 years contributions to qualify for a full state pension, I said well that as I had paid in for 50 years could they be kind enough to reimburse me the 6 years over pay, they told me to depart in no uncertain terms. Also another gag, although I was freelance; due to an HMRC ruling about master servant relationships and the type of contracts people in my profession had to sign, I was stopped class 1 NI by all employers.So now; between longer contracts I regularly did short contracts sometimes 1 day or maybe 2 days. So it was possible for me to over pay in one week by large amounts. No problem for me as I got re-paid any excess at the end of the year, i.e. so I only paid over 52 weeks the same as a normally employed person on maximum contributions. But, and a big but I suddenly realised that although I got my money back, the company's who I had worked for didn't, so the revenue people pocketed the extra cash. Also after I was 65 I got a dispensation from paying class 1 NI as do all OAP's, But once again the company's employing me didn't.[:D] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
powerdesal Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 [quote user="nomoss"]Edit: Remove double post and add comment.I would add, as Norman, that I get no benefits, and have never claimed any, for self or family, since I claimed a week's unemployment pay in about 1960.I received about three pounds, and decided it wasn't worth the effort to queue up and sign on three times a week [:(] [/quote]Sign on three times a week ??????????I too have claimed ''the dole'' - once. When I left the RAF, I was unemployed for about 6 weeks. I certainly only needed to queue up and sign on once per week ( Thursday as I recall ). mind you, that was in 1978 so perhaps things had changed a bit.Regarding the WFA, which we get. I consider it to be part of the state pension 'deal', a deal which I paid the required premium for, even when working overseas.The knowledge that I would, in return for my NI payments, get a state pension on reaching 65 was part of my retirement planning. Otherwise I could have not paid into the insurance scheme.There have been calls in some of the red top press for pension payments to be withdrawn from those retirees who are ''well off'', even though said retirees have paid their dues in accordance with the rules at the time. Such a call is definitely the politics of envy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolybanana Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 [quote user="NormanH"]I certainly want to see this film, but even the revue is full of insights:"One for all and all for one, homes for the many, not luxuries for the few, that's what we wanted," says 90-year-old Eileen Thompson,"As a child," she tells me, "my father took me to see the unemployment queues, a long, long line. He said, 'Never let this happen again.' "and"Today, the market penetrates everywhere. It's time to put back on the agenda the importance of public ownership and public good, the value of working together collaboratively, not in competition.""politics of the common good invites us to think of ourselves less as consumers and more as citizens,""the rapid dismantling of it (the welfare State) with the arrival of Margaret Thatcher in 1979. She espoused a very different ideology based on small-government, low-tax, free-market, neo-liberal, anti-union, pro-privatisation, "no such thing as society" monetarism." the assumption that the private sector is more efficient is not proven."" Labour spent less on the public sector as a proportion of GDP (39%) than Thatcher (41%) or Major (40%).""There are other scripts that can be written. Ones that put the importance of solidarity ahead of competition and the need to defend the common and the public from the incursion of the private. We need a credible alternative story to disintegrating Osbornomics. Or we can say goodbye to the welfare state."Well at last! It needed to be said..http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/mar/02/spirit-45-ken-loach-nhs-history[/quote]Trite Ken Roach rubbish. Death by collectivism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomoss Posted March 4, 2013 Author Share Posted March 4, 2013 [quote user="powerdesal"]Sign on three times a week ?????????? I too have claimed ''the dole'' - once. When I left the RAF, I was unemployed for about 6 weeks. I certainly only needed to queue up and sign on once per week ( Thursday as I recall ). mind you, that was in 1978 so perhaps things had changed a bit. I remember having to go there three times a week to both sign on and check for any work which had become available. But then again, I do get a touch of the Oldtimer's now and again[:D] Regarding the WFA, which we get. I consider it to be part of the state pension 'deal', a deal which I paid the required premium for, even when working overseas. The knowledge that I would, in return for my NI payments, get a state pension on reaching 65 was part of my retirement planning. Otherwise I could have not paid into the insurance scheme. There have been calls in some of the red top press for pension payments to be withdrawn from those retirees who are ''well off'', even though said retirees have paid their dues in accordance with the rules at the time. Such a call is definitely the politics of envy.[/quote]I don't get WFA, although I also made my NI payments when I was working outside the UK. No-one mentioned I would get a different deal from someone working in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YCCMB Posted March 4, 2013 Share Posted March 4, 2013 [quote user="powerdesal"]The knowledge that I would, in return for my NI payments, get a state pension on reaching 65 was part of my retirement planning. [/quote]As it was for so many. In my case, I spent the best part of my full-time, no half-a-stamp working life believing I'd get one on reaching 60. Then 65. Currently 66. Shortly, who knows? Sometimes, no matter how comprehensive your plans, life just doesn't quite turn out the way you expect....In fact, to honour your "deal", a helluva lot of people have had their deal revoked or amended.There's a new call for a whole posse of women, who will have to retire later, but will fall between the rock and the hard place of new pensions legislation, to have their cases reviewed. They will retire considerably later, but will fall only a few months short of receiving the upscaled pension payments..It's not so much the politics of envy..I've said this before. It's that when times are hard, everyone believes they are a special case. One thing that has become increasingly evident over the past few years of financial crisis is that times like this bring out the very worst in just about everyone. I don't envy anyone their pension payments, if they've made their contributions (or even if they haven't). I do regard people who retired at the previously standard age as lucky, because what they planned for came to fruition. Lots of people with similar plans have had their hopes of retirement put on hold, and for some there has been the double, or even triple blow of seeing their state retirement age modified a number of times. In some cases, people who thought they were within a stone's throw of retirement have found they've got to carry on for another 5, 6, 7 or more years. I'm exactly five years younger than my husband. For the whole of our respective working lives, we assumed we would be able to retire together, and, quite conveniently, within a week of one another. Not now. I've got another six years to go after he can draw his state pension.Once upon a time, I stood back and thought that the view that change was a necessary thing unless it hit you in the pocket was something typical of France. Now I realise that it's everywhere. Human nature is quite ugly, sometimes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.