Attack on Lib Dems over overseas pensions (From Daily Echo)

Well done nice bill board post, so if the OAP can't trust Lib/Dems or Torys and will not vote Labour any more, maybe they should think about the TUSC they are the most likly party that will support the OAP now

I retire this year and have just had a state pension forecast.After 50 years of contributions it's £122p.w..How do benefit claimants get £30K a yesr when they haven't paid hardly anything into the system?

I agree with freezing pensions when you leave this country to live in other countries, if you live in this country you spend your money in this country creating jobs etc if you go abroad any pension you get stays abroad so is detrimental to the U.K. economy, i would go further and say that the only money the U.K. should send abroad is a pension full stop, no heating allowance or anything else. And all people claiming disability allowances should be required to attend assessments in the U.K. yearly.

beiroot wrote:
I retire this year and have just had a state pension forecast.After 50 years of contributions it's £122p.w..How do benefit claimants get £30K a yesr when they haven't paid hardly anything into the system?

I could be wrong but i think you are quoting your basic state pension before additional pensions are added, it won't make it up to 30k i am afraid but every little helps and don't forget what our leader say's
WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER ha ha.

ohec wrote:
I agree with freezing pensions when you leave this country to live in other countries, if you live in this country you spend your money in this country creating jobs etc if you go abroad any pension you get stays abroad so is detrimental to the U.K. economy, i would go further and say that the only money the U.K. should send abroad is a pension full stop, no heating allowance or anything else. And all people claiming disability allowances should be required to attend assessments in the U.K. yearly.

Conversely, it is reckoned that expat pensioners save the UK £2.3 billion a year by not using the NHS or social care.

Stephen J wrote:

ohec wrote:
I agree with freezing pensions when you leave this country to live in other countries, if you live in this country you spend your money in this country creating jobs etc if you go abroad any pension you get stays abroad so is detrimental to the U.K. economy, i would go further and say that the only money the U.K. should send abroad is a pension full stop, no heating allowance or anything else. And all people claiming disability allowances should be required to attend assessments in the U.K. yearly.

Conversely, it is reckoned that expat pensioners save the UK £2.3 billion a year by not using the NHS or social care.

I take your point but its their choice to live abroad and the cost of living in many countries is a lot less than it is in the U.K. you are very quick to point out the saving to the U.K.have you got any figures relating to the loss to the U.K.
In these austere times to even contemplate changing the rules would be obscene perhaps one day when and if the U.K. is great again it might be a different matter.

From Pension 100's Frozen Pension Myths:

"Myth no 5.

The country can't afford it.

The National Insurance Fund has a surplus, according to the Government Actuary, and this surplus is steadily growing. In the past it reached a total of over 20 billion pounds.

Currently the surplus is increasing by 2.5 billion pounds a year, which is many times the annual cost which would be incurred in the National Insurance Fund if overseas pensioners were treated with fairness and justice."

Stephen J wrote:
From Pension 100's Frozen Pension Myths:

"Myth no 5.

The country can't afford it.

The National Insurance Fund has a surplus, according to the Government Actuary, and this surplus is steadily growing. In the past it reached a total of over 20 billion pounds.

Currently the surplus is increasing by 2.5 billion pounds a year, which is many times the annual cost which would be incurred in the National Insurance Fund if overseas pensioners were treated with fairness and justice."

In my book they are treated with fairness and justice, the answer is simple if they want their pension updated come home or the alternative is stay where they are and take what they are given as has always been the case, they knew full well what the score was before they left. Its only that the cost of living is now rising that they are complaining, they were quite happy before even laughing and ridiculing the OAPs at home, an old saying springs to mind - you made your bed now lie in it. As for your surplus if there is such a surplus then i can think of far better uses for it than upgrading the pensions of people who have deserted their country for greener grass elsewhere. My sister in law lives in Australia and has done for the last 49 years she still gets a small U.K. pension perhaps you would like hers updated as well.

Over half a million state pensioners living in certain overseas countries receive the annual uprating every year just as if they were living in the UK. However, another half a million state pensioners, living in mainly Commonwealth countries, have their state pension frozen. I expect most people would accept it if everyone overseas was treated the same, but they aren't.

All state pensioners, no matter where they live, have contributed into the National Insurance Fund to qualify for their state pension, under exactly the same rules. All state pensioners qualify for the state pension based on contributory years into the NIF under exactly the same rules. When it comes time to uprate the state pension, different rules are applied depending on where you happen to live.

That is unjust, unfair and discriminatory.

The Liberal Democrats recognised that when in opposition but change their view when in government.

ohec wrote:

Stephen J wrote:
From Pension 100's Frozen Pension Myths:

"Myth no 5.

The country can't afford it.

The National Insurance Fund has a surplus, according to the Government Actuary, and this surplus is steadily growing. In the past it reached a total of over 20 billion pounds.

Currently the surplus is increasing by 2.5 billion pounds a year, which is many times the annual cost which would be incurred in the National Insurance Fund if overseas pensioners were treated with fairness and justice."

In my book they are treated with fairness and justice, the answer is simple if they want their pension updated come home or the alternative is stay where they are and take what they are given as has always been the case, they knew full well what the score was before they left. Its only that the cost of living is now rising that they are complaining, they were quite happy before even laughing and ridiculing the OAPs at home, an old saying springs to mind - you made your bed now lie in it. As for your surplus if there is such a surplus then i can think of far better uses for it than upgrading the pensions of people who have deserted their country for greener grass elsewhere. My sister in law lives in Australia and has done for the last 49 years she still gets a small U.K. pension perhaps you would like hers updated as well.

Those who are entitled to a UK pension should all get the same increases. It's a basic principle. After all, no matter where they are in the world, they've all paid their tax and NI in this country.

ohec, you are so wrong. If you agree that 4% deserve to be frozen then why is it that 600,000 expats around the world get their annual increases? This is the main protest about this injustice. Expats are still UK taxpayers, entitlement to a state pension is dictated by ones contributions into the NI fund, ALL expats have contributed under the same terms, to deny just 4% of their rights is discrimination. The DWP and ministers lie about the reasons for freezing some and not others. NO reciprocal agreements are needed with frozen countries, I have written proof of this. In the recent vote to give part time Judges a pension it was said by, I think David Cameron, that affordability was not an excuse for discrimination. Well he can't have it both ways, the NI fund is around £28 billion surplus, that is our money not government money and is there, not for the government to dip into, it's there to pay EVERYONE their state pension. Where they choose to live in retirement is irrelevant.

Janeybird is absolutely right. Even the Pensions Minister Steve webb said it was wrong and was going to do something about it but when push comes to shove he backed away knowing that this is discrimination against just a minority of pensioners. This is not a freebie or a benefit but a contract between the employee and the government for a pension on retirement. Where a pensioner decides to spend it is his affair and the country of retirement is irrelevant.
No agreement is required even though Iain Duncan Smith cannot remember that when speaking about this issue.

The arguments posted by ohec have really already been demolished by Stephen J, Janeybird, Voyeur and morgeo.

One of the reasons for targeting the LibDems here is because the Pensions Minister, Steve Webb is not only a LibDem himself but actually signed an Early Day Motion when in opposition calling for the abolition of the frozen pension policy; his current stance is quite simply hypocritical.

It has been established that there is no legal, moral, financial or administrative justification for this policy.

It is interesting that janeybird identifies Cameron's apparent recognition of "affordability" not being an excuse. I am aware that the Supreme Court in the UK ruled in favour of part time judges being entitled to the same pension rights as their full time counterparts and, to quote the plaintiff's QC, the court decided that "the reasons put forward by the defendants all came down to a matter of cost and cost can never objectively justify discrimination"

All the frozen pensioner is seeking is fairness, justice and equality for ALL UK pensioners...there is no sustainable argument against this objective; just successive government intransigence and moral corruption.

ohec said :"In my book they are treated with fairness and justice, the answer is simple if they want their pension updated come home or the alternative is stay where they are and take what they are given as has always been the case, they knew full well what the score was before they left. Its only that the cost of living is now rising that they are complaining, they were quite happy before even laughing and ridiculing the OAPs at home, an old saying springs to mind - you made your bed now lie in it. As for your surplus if there is such a surplus then i can think of far better uses for it than upgrading the pensions of people who have deserted their country for greener grass elsewhere. My sister in law lives in Australia and has done for the last 49 years she still gets a small U.K. pension perhaps you would like hers updated as well."
Your book is out of date ohec ! If all of the frozen pensioners returned it would cost the country (meaning the taxpayers) dearly to provide all of the many freebies that those resident in the UK enjoy.
The second point about knowing about it before leaving is also untrue. Many did not know especially if they left before becoming of pensionable age. I know of two for certain and that is just the tip of the iceberg. The DWP would dispute that because that would mean that they have failed in their job. tut tut. You will be saying next that they never told porkies about why the freezing was there.
Why you should think that any pensioner abroad should ridicule those in the UK is a stupid comment. Many have relatives, myself included, that are UK pensioners.
As for spending it on other things that isd a no-no as the fund is ring-fenced although the government can and do borrow from it but have to pay it back with interest. Funnily enough, the interest that was paid back last year was about twice the amount needed to uprate all pensions worldwide.
As for your sister if she qualifies for a
UK pension then yes she deserves the uprating as well.
You should aquaint yourself with the facts before making a fool of yourself.

If you move abroad without checking what your financial status is/will be then you are nothing but a fool, and the amount of comments i have read and even heard about how much better of ex-pats are living abroad and generally trying to rub U.K. pensioners noses in it, and then you expect me to sympathise with their cause.
Whether there is money in the pot or not is irrelevant you don't change the rules halfway through a game of football so why should they change the rules for ex-pats and even if they did change the rules i think it should be for new ex-pats only not retrospective. When the new state pension comes into force it will only be for new pensioners not retrospective there might be some injustice in that but thats how it will work, one pensioner won't get it but somebody born the following day will. The world is full of so-called injustices but thats life live with it.

ohec wrote:
If you move abroad without checking what your financial status is/will be then you are nothing but a fool, and the amount of comments i have read and even heard about how much better of ex-pats are living abroad and generally trying to rub U.K. pensioners noses in it, and then you expect me to sympathise with their cause.
Whether there is money in the pot or not is irrelevant you don't change the rules halfway through a game of football so why should they change the rules for ex-pats and even if they did change the rules i think it should be for new ex-pats only not retrospective. When the new state pension comes into force it will only be for new pensioners not retrospective there might be some injustice in that but thats how it will work, one pensioner won't get it but somebody born the following day will. The world is full of so-called injustices but thats life live with it.

ohec -

It has nothing to do with whether or not those pensioners who now live abroad were aware of pension freezing - although from personal experience in dealing with the DWP, HMRC and Pensions Service over a period of fifteen years about the implications for my NI contributions and subsequent pension; they made no mention of the matter.

It has nothing to do with your hearsay stories about the comparative wealth or the unsubstantiated tales of trying to rub UK pensioners noses in it - frozen or not. That is not even worthy of consideration as a case to justify this iniquity. We are all UK pensioners anyway, remember.

It is not a question of changing the rules half way through a game - a ridiculous argument as amendments to the laws of the land are commonplace- but of all participants being allowed to play equally under the same rules.

As regards the new pension scheme the present discrimination appears set to continue but prior to the appointed day all eligible pensioners, except the frozen 4% will be treated equally. On the following day all pensioners who become eligible will be treated under the new regulations - except the frozen pensioners.

No ohec this is about UK citizens who in their working lifetime contributed to the NI Scheme on the same terms and conditions as everyone else but now, in retirement (and still UK taxpayers by the way), are denied the right to withdraw from the NI Fund on the same terms and conditions as everyone else. Blatant discrimination

This is about justice, fairness and equality for all UK pensioners abroad - nothing more and nothing less.

Whether they knew or not is irrelevant; where they live is irrelevant; what they spend their entitlement on is irrelevant; where they spend it is irrelevant.

Its like talking to a brick wall so i will pick you up on one point and then call it a day, any money paid to U.K.residents is spent in the U.K. so that money is recycled in the U.K. creating jobs amongst other things, any money paid to ex-pats is a 100% loss to the U.K. economy, there are two sides to any argument but in your blinkered view there is only one. You made your bed now lie in it, or is that irrelevant as well.

ohec wrote:
Its like talking to a brick wall so i will pick you up on one point and then call it a day, any money paid to U.K.residents is spent in the U.K. so that money is recycled in the U.K. creating jobs amongst other things, any money paid to ex-pats is a 100% loss to the U.K. economy, there are two sides to any argument but in your blinkered view there is only one. You made your bed now lie in it, or is that irrelevant as well.

So, ohec, you cannot understand the logic of the arguments posted earlier and simply reiterate that "any money paid to UK residents is spent in the UK (which is neither a legal requirement nor necessarily true) so that the money is recycled".

Please, if that argument is to hold any water, explain why pensions are uprated in the Austria, Barbados, Belgium, Bermuda, Bosnia Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France Germany, Gibraltar, Guernsey,Greece, Hungary, Iceland Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Jersey, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxemburg, Malta, Mauritius, Montenegro, Netherlands, Norway, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, the United States of America and the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and how the money spent there is recycled.

Yet, for example, Australia, Canada and New Zealand. are frozen.

I accept that in any argument there are two sides and await with interest to learn your justification for your side,

I fear the reason you think you are apparently talking to a brick wall is because the wall finds it so easy, with right on its side, to rebut your misconceptions.

Yes, in a fight for justice the bed i lie in is utterly irrelevant.

ohec wrote:
I agree with freezing pensions when you leave this country to live in other countries, if you live in this country you spend your money in this country creating jobs etc if you go abroad any pension you get stays abroad so is detrimental to the U.K. economy, i would go further and say that the only money the U.K. should send abroad is a pension full stop, no heating allowance or anything else. And all people claiming disability allowances should be required to attend assessments in the U.K. yearly.

Ohec obviously writes his comments before first checking his facts. I would agree with freezing pensions for those living outside of the EU,(Albeit reluctlantly) if it was applied to EVERYONE, but it isn't.
Emigrate to the USA, the Phillipines, or Israel and your pension is indexed annually. Go to live in Canada, Australia, or Thailand however, and your pension is frozen. How can you possibly agree with that?

Magpied47 wrote:

ohec wrote:
I agree with freezing pensions when you leave this country to live in other countries, if you live in this country you spend your money in this country creating jobs etc if you go abroad any pension you get stays abroad so is detrimental to the U.K. economy, i would go further and say that the only money the U.K. should send abroad is a pension full stop, no heating allowance or anything else. And all people claiming disability allowances should be required to attend assessments in the U.K. yearly.

Ohec obviously writes his comments before first checking his facts. I would agree with freezing pensions for those living outside of the EU,(Albeit reluctlantly) if it was applied to EVERYONE, but it isn't.
Emigrate to the USA, the Phillipines, or Israel and your pension is indexed annually. Go to live in Canada, Australia, or Thailand however, and your pension is frozen. How can you possibly agree with that?

No i know the situation and i have never considered moving abroad so anybody moving abroad should be aware before they go if not they are pretty dim, and if they are aware and still go then thats down to them. There are enough deserving pensioners in the U.K. to worry about without worrying about those that have decided life is better elsewhere.

One of the main reasons the Government is being short sighted over this frozen pension issue is that its policy ignores the thousands, especially migrants who are discouraged at retirement from going home to the Caribbean, India, Bangladesh, Africa etc, because to do so with a frozen pension, the main component of their future income being frozen and depreciating each year, is unattractive. If the pension was indexed in every country overseas as every other OECD country does, except Britain, then many more retirees off all nationalities would leave and save Britain up to a net £7 billions progressively accumulating over 10-15 years. This saving would help reduce the National Debt, but it appears to be a risk of which the Government hasn't the courage to understand or take.

Moreover what the Government is doing by legislating each year to freeze our pensions, is to discriminate and in many legal minds this is actually unlawful, for this legislation discriminates and violates the UK's Conventions on Human Rights and the 2010 Equality Act. Some of us expats in the US, Israel, Jamaica and Barbados and Mauritius are therefore more equal now than others retired in India, Thailand, Indonesia, Morocco and Australia !!!

I ask your conscience; is this the British way today, to treat people?

ohec wrote:

Magpied47 wrote:

ohec wrote:
I agree with freezing pensions when you leave this country to live in other countries, if you live in this country you spend your money in this country creating jobs etc if you go abroad any pension you get stays abroad so is detrimental to the U.K. economy, i would go further and say that the only money the U.K. should send abroad is a pension full stop, no heating allowance or anything else. And all people claiming disability allowances should be required to attend assessments in the U.K. yearly.

Ohec obviously writes his comments before first checking his facts. I would agree with freezing pensions for those living outside of the EU,(Albeit reluctlantly) if it was applied to EVERYONE, but it isn't.
Emigrate to the USA, the Phillipines, or Israel and your pension is indexed annually. Go to live in Canada, Australia, or Thailand however, and your pension is frozen. How can you possibly agree with that?

No i know the situation and i have never considered moving abroad so anybody moving abroad should be aware before they go if not they are pretty dim, and if they are aware and still go then thats down to them. There are enough deserving pensioners in the U.K. to worry about without worrying about those that have decided life is better elsewhere.

ohec is it really beyond your comprehension to understand that whether pensioners knew or didn't know about the frozen pension policy is not the argument and is totally and utterly irrelevant?

This issue is about the discrimination that is perpetrated by this and previous governments between those pensioners who have retired in the UK, or who have retired abroad to those countries I listed earlier and who benefit from index linking and the non indexing to the remainder who live in different parts of the world. All, let me repeat, ALL have contributed under the same terms and conditions and should therefore be able to withdraw under the same conditions.

The reasons people actually retire abroad are many and varied and, let me add, often personal and not the concern of either you or the government. Your assumption that it is " for a better life elsewhere" is subjective and not a justification for this policy.

There may be deserving pensioners in the UK but they are able to draw their full State Retirement Pension entitlement. Denying the frozen 4% their proper entitlement does not, therefore, improve their lot or benefit them directly.

Maybe ohec is beginning to understand the issue here where effectively every 25th pensioner is denied the annual increases. Should a country not at present a member of the EU join them, then a pensioner who was frozen magically becomes unfrozen because the EU demand equality. How do you see this then ? The saving to the UK as has been said is billions through saving on the NHS, Prescriptions, bus passes, winter heating allowances etc and the list goes on but you want this extra demand on the finances if these pensioners returned. Encouraging more to do so is a win win situation and you would prefer that obviously and you have not considered housing this half a million pensioners either.

The Lib Dem spokesperson says "The UK state pension is payable worldwide, but is only uprated abroad where we have a legal requirement or reciprocal agreement. This has always been the case.”

In fact that statement is incorrect. It has not "always been the case". Over the past 50 years different reciprocal agreements have been signed to provide upratings in three countries in the Caribbean, for example. Every time a new member is accepted into the EU, their state pensions are uprated. So it is not a static policy but one that is evolving all the time.

Voyeur wrote:
The Lib Dem spokesperson says "The UK state pension is payable worldwide, but is only uprated abroad where we have a legal requirement or reciprocal agreement. This has always been the case.”

In fact that statement is incorrect. It has not "always been the case". Over the past 50 years different reciprocal agreements have been signed to provide upratings in three countries in the Caribbean, for example. Every time a new member is accepted into the EU, their state pensions are uprated. So it is not a static policy but one that is evolving all the time.

It should also be pointed out that the existence of a reciprocal agreement is not necessary to allow universal uprating. This was confirmed in the House of Commons by former Secretaries of State for the DWP Twigg (1999) and Parnell (2007). The inference that a reciprocal agreement is necessary and used as an argument for denying frozen pensioners the annual uprating was exposed as a myth - a red herring - years ago.

Oliver Letwin MP - a Senior Government Minister has stated that the frozen existence of a frozen pension policy is born of history not rationality.
The comment of the Lib Dem spokesperson simply confirms that government's continue to be morally corrupt in implementing this unwarranted discrimination.

RobtheFox wrote:

Voyeur wrote:
The Lib Dem spokesperson says "The UK state pension is payable worldwide, but is only uprated abroad where we have a legal requirement or reciprocal agreement. This has always been the case.”

In fact that statement is incorrect. It has not "always been the case". Over the past 50 years different reciprocal agreements have been signed to provide upratings in three countries in the Caribbean, for example. Every time a new member is accepted into the EU, their state pensions are uprated. So it is not a static policy but one that is evolving all the time.

It should also be pointed out that the existence of a reciprocal agreement is not necessary to allow universal uprating. This was confirmed in the House of Commons by former Secretaries of State for the DWP Twigg (1999) and Parnell (2007). The inference that a reciprocal agreement is necessary and used as an argument for denying frozen pensioners the annual uprating was exposed as a myth - a red herring - years ago.

Oliver Letwin MP - a Senior Government Minister has stated that the frozen existence of a frozen pension policy is born of history not rationality.
The comment of the Lib Dem spokesperson simply confirms that government's continue to be morally corrupt in implementing this unwarranted discrimination.

And longevity does not of itself make a bad law into a good one!

Ohec - perhaps you would agree to undertake a little test? If you intended to migrate to a country in the Caribbean, which country or countries would you go to in order to receive an indexed state pension?

If you can answer that correctly, can you provide the logic behind that?

Voyeur

On Wednesday 27th February 2013 I gave ohec a complete list of overseas countries that benefit from index linking and asked him to advise how pensions spent in those countries were recycled into the UK economy.

I also asked ohec to to justify why pensioners living in those countries were not subject to pension freezing while others in say Australia, Canada and Thailand were.

The silence from ohec is deafening - hopefully he now accepts he has no case.