This has probably been covered before on forums but as a 41 year old starting the process of emigration I think it is a discussion which should be kept alive and ongoing for current and future ex-pats as we should really take action against this robbery by the British Government….especially the older generation of us!!!

I will have paid NI contributions for 25 years by the time we move to Canada and with the payment period dropping (hopefully) to 30 years to qualify for full state pension I really need to consider if it is actually worth paying the extra 5 years of NI’s to qualify….or feel when I do qualify for a 25 year element of state pension I have wasted money….even though it is MY decision to leave and go to Canada. BUT why should a country like Canada who is still part of the Commonwealth with massive UK ties be excluded from the increase in pensions for the ex-pats as is Australia & South Africa etc etc……yet BOSNIA isn’t. Canada would benefit as detailed below as we would but there again being cynical this is probably the reason.

I think It’s an utter disgrace and I will support the action being taken by

www.britishpensions.com

Some people might already be aware of this issue but as I read through various threads it becomes apparent some people can’t even decide which area to live and work let alone the future state of their finances which in latter life (not too far away for some of us) this could have implications so I thought I would bring it up and the above website to people’s attention.

I’m sure people will let me know what they think regarding this but here is some info meanwhile.

Cheers Dave






The Canadian Experience
UK Frozen Expatriate Pensioners Living In Canada
142,000 British expatriates living in Canada are receiving some level of UK state pension from the period they worked, paid taxes, served their country, and contributed to the mandatory state pension plan whilst residing in the UK.
We believe that there are thousands of others who have an entitlement, based on their contributions whilst living in the UK, but may not be aware of it and have not applied for it.
Many of them, in the two decades after the war, were aggressively encouraged to emigrate to Commonwealth countries by the British Government.
Their pensions were frozen from the date they received their first cheque in Canada and they have never received any uprating. The same situation exists for a total of some 460,000 frozen expatriate pensioners.
390,000 other pensioners, who contributed in exactly the same way, but happen to live in the EU, USA, Israel, Bosnia-Herzegovina, amongst other countries, receive the same annual uprating as UK-resident pensioners.
Although you may not be in great financial difficulty personally, there are many non-uprated pensioners in Canada who are. Even more desperate are those non-uprated pensioners who are living in countries without any social net such as those in South Africa and Zimbabwe.
The Impact On A Pensioner's Income
A couple who decided to move to Canada to be near their children, following retirement on a full pension in Britain, were in their mid-nineties and living in a provincial nursing home. They had run out of money, yet they should not have done. By 1998, Pension freezing had short-changed them £71,000 ($175,000) since retirement. If they had lived twenty miles to the south, in USA, their pension would not have been frozen! It is reprehensible to treat these individuals in such a way. No matter how financially secure a frozen pensioner, a loss of such a quantity of money must have an adverse effect on one's standard of living. The important and valuable benefits to Canada and all the Canadian Taxpayers from an end to pension freezing will mean:

1. a direct injection of some $200 million/year (1998 UK estimate) into the Canadian economy
2. frozen pensioners will be better able to afford the standard of living they should have expected in their retirement years
3. from the Government point of view, it will also result in a significant reduction in pressure on the Canadian and provincial economies as Britain will be paying for the portion of social costs which is properly the responsibility of the UK Government. Individuals on lower incomes will be in a better position to be able to pay for many of the social services they may now be receiving, and probably need, but which are unaffordable to them.

If the potential for increased revenue from the UK tax payer is important why not move somewhere that you would get it, the US for example, or, for that matter, just stay in the UK?

In any case, I think the odds of getting any kind of state pension from the UK in 20 years are pretty slim, so I wouldn't much worry about it.

Personally I regard all the money I've had to pay in National Insurance as a total loss and expect to have to work at least part-time for the rest of my life. The demographics in the UK simply do not work when combined with a bloated welfare state.

Mark

This is exactly how we think about it. By the time Phil and I are pensionable age there will be nothing left in the pot or if there is it wont make that much difference to our retirement income.

Gaynor
x

Without a doubt the freezing of pensions is a disgrace. In my opinion so to is the whole QROPS thing - does anyone have any experience with this? I am having a hard time transferring a UK personal pension to Canada. I Have treid a couple of institutions that are supposedly QROPS approved but the transfer always seems to get bogged-down in buearocracy and they end up walking away from it. I think the key thing is that I don't want to transfer into a "locked-in" fund and although there are pension products listed on the QROPS list that are supposedly not locked-in I cant seem to get anyone to transfer into a non-locked in fund.

Can I ask - to all those people who have successfully managed to transfer - have you all transfered into "locked-in" funds or has anyone managed to transfer into a regular RSP?

Yawn

It's important coz I have paid money into it and just because your somewhere else in the world why should you be disadvantaged.

Thought it might take a little bit longer than post No2 for someone to come up with a sarcastic answer but hey ho….either it doesn’t affect you or you don’t care so why bother replying.

As MarG said the amount of money we would prob get from the pension will be miniscule and not worth bothering about anyway but we have paid it so why should we not be entitled to it as the other many 1000’s have.

Thats the dilema realy aint it. Some people say sack it all and forget it others say pay the remainder of your stamp...you won't get any increase but would be a waste to throw away 20 odd years of contributions.

Maybe the way forward is to pay the total amount then when elligeable take a max amount one off lump sum then right it off after that.

Didnt this already get all the way to being appealed and losing in the house of lords a couple of years back. I dont see what is to be gained by trying again, legal precedent has been established by the highest court in the country.

It is what it is, once you start claiming the pension, it will be frozen at that amount. As long as you go into this emmigrating business knowing that you wont be surprised.

Relying on state pension provision isnt my plan A anyway, anything I get from them by the time I retire will be considered a bonus.

It's not a sarcastic answer. People leaving the UK now are not being mislead or cheated if they decide to choose a destination where pensions are not indexed over one where they are. If you choose Canada then you know you won't get that money and there's no case for changing the rules to suit you.

cousin joe has been in st thomas for over 40 yrs . he has just applied and got 15 yrs of credit pensions . the cost to him to pay back for those yrs was , because he had underpaid was just under £1. that is the time between leaving the u k and whilst working in the u k

Well why can't rules be changed thats what they are there for are the not.

Can anyone then shed any light on WHY it is these commonwealth contries that suffer and places like the USA and Bosnia etc don't.

What's the difference then please.

I also will not be relying on my state pension it would be foolish to rely on that....However I think if you have paid into something for X amount of years you should get the benefits...you can keep tax free ISA's going when you leave and other savings plans prob coz the country still has your money invested in it therefore it just seems to be a money saving exercise by the Gov.

BUT there are many implications and arguments I suppose for and against.....it's my money so I guess I'm for...and why would you not be afterall

Hey, I think we would all be for it. BUT. ITS. NOT. GOING. TO. HAPPEN.

It's been thought over by the great and the good, they made their decision, its been appealed as high as you can go. It is what it is, you might as well stand on the beach and command the tide not to come in.

I dont know the reasoning behind it, its probably something to do with reciprocal agreements, it usually is in cases like this. Llike everyone else it seems grossly unfair to me, but it isnt the first unjust ruling ever made, and it wont be the last. Cant change it, not going to worry about it.

Yeh totaly agree.

There are others though for example who are starting to claim the pension like parents of people who have emmigrated and would like to come and retire to one of these countries who may rely on pensions but may not be able to.....which is a shame but then again as you say above if they are aware of it they can't be caught out...but it is sad in that respect.

What about dressing as BATMAN and climbing Big Ben.....B*****S been done.

My campaign is over....we could always blame Man Utd for it say it was their Idea

It has gone to the ECHR now and hopefully they will come up with a decent response. There are many older Brits here and in South Africa, Australia and New Zealand who do not get the pension increase from the date of leaving the UK. And yet those who go to the Caribbean, US and Europe do get the increases. Has never seemed fair and though it might be correct legally, according to legislation, it is not equal human rights. ECHR stopped making it compulsory for women to retire at 60 in the UK so they do come up with some sensible solutions.