Red Eric

My question was very straightforward and about the current arrangements, not some hugely hypothetical future.

You are arguing against the UK being responsible for the welfare of expats, with the specific exception of the state pension.

How about healthcare for pensioners? Are you in favour of the current arrangements or should they, in your opinion, be changed?

EMR

As part of the EU if Spanish, Portuguese pensioners etc receive reciprocal treatment when in the UK then the current arrangements should continue.
But on the subject of WFP this is paid once you reach 60, the OAP will soon not be paid until you reach 67.
If the case for paying WFP is to support pensionsers then how can you defend paying it to those under pension age ??

Red Eric

Not so. The earliest age at which WFP is payable is rising in line with the retirement age for women, and will soon be 67. The case for paying WFP was not "to support pensioners" as such - it is also payable to people who are not in receipt of a UK state pension but meet the other criteria.

Back to the healthcare and pensions - you appear to be in agreement with the EU in some regards ie that if your primary Social Security connections are in one country (eg you spent all or most of your working life there and are now retired), that country is the "competent authority" with regards to certain types of welfare and should pay for it, regardless of where you reside (thus honouring the freedom of movement aspect of membership of the EU).

EMR

You are right the qualifying age is now 62 so the gap between qualifying for WFA and receiving the OAP under the new rules is still significant. Note a 62 year old man may no longer receive the OAP at 65.
Freedom of movement has got nothing to do with transferability of benefits.
They are not connected.
With the exception of the OAP no UK benefits should travel with the expat.
If a country has a reciprocal health agreement again that has nothing to do with freedom of movement.

Ingles

I find it extremely interesting that both the 2 posters most apposed to UK ExPats receiving
the WFP are both in "Cyberspace"
i.e. no identifiable country off residence ?

EMR

I live in the UK for 7 months year and in Portugal for 5 ( most of the winter as we save approx 70% of our UK winter heating costs ) if that has got anything to do with this.

If expats are unhappy with loosing their UK benefits then move back to the UK and spend their income benefitting the UK economy.
They would be more than welcome.

Fredbargate

Likewise anyone who spends 42% of their time outside the UK should loose 42% of their benefits.

EMR

I do not get any.

Fredbargate

But many do.
UK benefits should only be paid whilst people are in the UK and not be used to fund holidays of any length.

Red Eric

The reason for the difference is that originally it was to be linked to state pension age (ie different qualifying ages for men and women). An equal rights case was brought against the government and on the (asked for) advice of the CJEU the age was set at a universal level.

I beg to differ. The EU sees the issues as inextricably linked and so do I.

EMR

Enjoy the unnecessary involvement in UK affairs for the time it will last. Like so much of the UK.s relationship with the EU originally " freedom of movement ," mean,t just that and no more.

Red Eric

That's funny - I'm sure I've read posts of yours carping about people moving to the UK (and spending their income benefitting its economy).

Banjoboy

So you keep saying.

You're entitled to your opinion of course but it might help the rest of us to understand your position better if you provide some sort of rationale. Perhaps at the same time you could explain why you (appear to) suppose that someone living their retirement in another country is any more on "holiday" than a person who has moved to, say, Eastbourne for the same reason.

Given that, for the most part, retired expats have contributed to the UK economy all their working lives why should they enjoy less benefit than someone who remains in the UK and who may well, for example, become a far greater burden on the health service than their overseas counterpart?

Fredbargate

Firstly I suggest you read all my posts on this thread. Yes I am entitled to my opinion just as you are to yours, but note I myself would loose my UK benefits.

The person who remains in the UK i.e. moves to Eastbourne is still investing in the UK.

The UK pays for the health services of those who have retired overseas.

EMR

Correct the vast amjority of those who move to or back to the UK are a benefit to the UK economy unlike those who take their wealth abroad but still expect benefits from the UK.