Not sure if anyone saw this, but it appears that the UK Pension may change to a standard amount of £140 a week for all - instead of being contribution based, it may be based on residency.

No real details about the residency bit, but I wonder if it will be a minimum of x years residency or if it will be that you must be resident to claim it.

Hmmmmm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11618019

Interesting considering recent queries regarding voluntary contributions.

The residency bit will be a huge concern for us expats. It could cause a radical rethink for many people. We might want to put off making any voluntary contributions until this is clarified.

In Canada there are two "state" pensions: old age security (OAS) and the Canada Pension Plan (CPP).

CPP is based only on contributions.

OAS is based on residency. You must be a citizen or permanent resident when you collect your pension, or when you left Canada. To get the full amount you must have been resident in Canada for 40 years between the ages of 18 and 65. If you have been resident for less than 40 years the amount is prorated but you must have been resident for a minimum of 10 years to receive any amount of OAS in Canada, or 20 years if you want to receive your pension overseas.

As OAS is not based on contributions the government can set any rules it wants. If the UK switched to a similar residency requirement someone who left the UK in their late 30s (with say a 60% pensions secured under the current rules) could find the pension they have paid for taken away.

Thank you for typing what I was thinking. It is not easy on an iPhone.

There are no exact details on how and when this will be happening ( if at all) .

The proposals are going to be published later in the year.

We watch with anticipation !!!

The Daily Mail, that most hated/untrusted newspaper by BEs, has stated that legislation could/would be introduced in 2015.

Which is how it works at present, you have to have been resident in the UK for at least three years to qualify, so I wouldn't worry about it.

it can't be retrospective for the last 30 years - it would make sense going forward

so one angle might be to pay in while you can until they stop it when i'd guess they would freeze your no. of years contributed so you cannot increase it any more

the amount you pay is so small its worth it in "humble" opinion

now theres a word you dont hear on this forum . . .

Why not? No government in the west can afford it's future entitlements. It's entirely possible that the UK government will renege on state and public sector pensions. Same goes for the US and Canada for that matter.

Unlike the US and UK government pensions the CPP is a seperate organization.
The contributions are invested rather than being part of the governments coffers.
Here is an example of a latest investment.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Canada....html?x=0&.v=1

Of course it could be retroactive. Parliament is supreme and can enact anything it wishes. It could, if it wished to, change all the tax rates for the last 30 years and seek a recovery from all of the taxpayers from the last 30 years. Check out the case of Burmah Oil Co v Lord Advocate - where the decision was negated by Parliament passing a law that, retroactively, took away the Plaintiff's entitlement to damages.

Oh I dunno. I hear (or read) Opinion quite a lot.

i meant the word "humble" but i'm sure you knew that

suprised the BEForum software doesnt ban that word . . .

and substitutes "egomaniac" instead

"Of course it could be retroactive. Parliament is supreme and can enact anything it wishes. It could, if it wished to, change all the tax rates for the last 30 years and seek a recovery from all of the taxpayers from the last 30 years. Check out the case of Burmah Oil Co v Lord Advocate - where the decision was negated by Parliament passing a law that, retroactively, took away the Plaintiff's entitlement to damages."


typical aggressive manic BEForum reply

you picked the most unusual of circumstances to boost your ego

for anyone that isn't a legal megabrain like yourself :-

"Burmah Oil Company Ltd. v Lord Advocate, [1965] AC 75, was a court case, raised in Scotland, and decided ultimately in the House of Lords. The case is an important decision in UK constitutional law and had unusual legal repercussions at the time.

This case concerned the destruction of oil fields in Burma by British forces during the Second World War. The sabotage was committed in order to prevent the plantations from falling into the hands of the advancing Japanese army.

The House of Lords held, by majority, that although the damage was lawful, it was the equivalent of requisitioning the property. Any act of requisition was done for the good of the public, at the expense of the individual proprietor, and for that reason, the proprietor should be compensated from public funds.

The result of the case was that the pursuers, Burmah Oil Company and others, should receive compensation for their destroyed plantations. In the end, the result was frustrated by the passing of a retrospective Act of Parliament, the War Damage Act 1965, which retroactively exempts the Crown from liability in respect of damage to, or destruction of, property caused by acts lawfully done by the Crown during, or in contemplation of the outbreak of, a war in which it is engaged."


so a very unusual WWII story is used to destroy my argument , i think not , talk about an exception to a general and solid rule !

your welcome to your incorrect opinion but i still satnd by my angle that it will be forward based
unless everyone gains with a retrospective law as in £140 for all so in a positive way

first readings on this suggest that current pensioners stay on the current system which would jeapordise the cost savings anyway

looks like this idea needs a bit more development

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-140-week.html

and the day the US and UK renege on state and public sector pensions is the day the west falls and we all speak chinese

i can hear the typing of "of course . . ."

for the couple of quid to pay NI you might as well do it

i could waste all my life on this forum or i could escape . . .

and theres more

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-pensions.html

voluntary redundancy in the state spending cuts will be able to retire at 50 on gold-plated final salary pensions, it emerged yesterday.

I suggest you read this:

http://www.economist.com/node/172518...ry_id=17251840

And what makes you think China has any real power over the US?