dave_j

Now I know that this topic will have been strangled to death by now, but I recently had cause to contact my UK MP, yes I still have one. One James Wharton, MP for Stockton South, was and apparently continues to be, my MP.
I asked him what the current situation with respect to UK State Pensions was, in particular why they remain frozen.
He was good enough to send me a longish document, prepared by, Djuna Thirley of the Business and Transport Department, one of Her Majesty's civil servants outlining the historical nature of the freeze (Standard Note SN 1457 date 6 May 2014). I can make this available on request.
I won't bore you with the details, it is a boring document, Ms Thirley will go far, but three aspects of it woke me up.
The first is that the major reason for continuing the freeze is apparently purely financial, ie the potential cost to the exchequer.
The second was that both the Canadian and Australian governments had approached the UK government in recent months (prior to the 2014 document) in order to sort out the mess and upgrade UK pensions. Both governments were informed that the UK government would 'not be opening formal discussions on this policy'.
The third item definitely woke me up and poked me in the eye. It was hidden right at the end of the document, last paragraph of a 24 page endurance test, in true Yes Minister style when most readers would have bitten their fingers and toes off as they verge on the brink of insanity. Bear in mind that the reason for the freeze is said to be the future burden to the UK Treasury; in a written answer to a commons question dated 8 July 2004, it was stated that indeed expat civil servants who emigrated to Canada would, like ordinary UK citizens, have their UK state pensions frozen, but that unlike ordinary UK citizens where they were covered by the Principle Civil Service Pension Scheme, one that I assume is also funded by the Treasury, this scheme would make up the difference from the frozen pension to that which would have been paid had it not been frozen.
They say that the Devil looks after his own.
It occurred to me that there will be many tens of thousands of angry potential voters in the colonies, voters who could, if well organised, command a sizable block vote come the next General Election or indeed by-election. It would only take a promise from any party to immediately unfreeze the pension to be in receipt of some very grateful votes, and who knows, the next election could be very close.
What do you think?

Novocastrian

I think I want to die now.

Stinkypup

A state of ennui because le Prof is heading of to European rules ?
Or simply that the flogged horse is deceased?

christmasoompa

I think this has nothing to do with visas, so I'll move it to a different forum.

And taking my mod hat off for a moment, personally I think that if one chooses to leave the UK, then one should be thankful for receiving a pension at all. It particularly irks me when people left the UK 30 or even 40 years before retiring and spent the majority of their tax paying years in another country, yet still claim a full UK pension and complain about the lack of uplift for it.

It seems to me that if one is leaving the UK to live abroad then the pension limitations just become part of the financial planning as part of the move, along with all the other monetary considerations.

Right, mod hat back on now.

Pizzawheel

This!

BristolUK

But if one "paid in" then one reasonably expects something back. It's not insurance where one hopes one doesn't have a need.

I know there's an argument that those "paying in" currently are paying today's pensioners, but those receiving pensions now were those paying in previously for then current pensioners.

Whichever way you look at it, you pay in with the reasonable expectation of getting something back.

But they won't get a full pension if they weren't paying in for 30 or 40 years and likely not much at all.

Absolutely.
It doesn't mean it's right though. There is no sensible reason for paying in the same level as someone else and one gets increases in one country but not in another.
Arguably it would make more sense to get increases in a commonwealth country. I mean, if you're a Canadian citizen swearing an oath to the Queen and all....

I'll put that to her majesty the next time she's round for tea.

Incidentally, I came to Canada knowing full well it wouldn't be uprated. But in my ten years here there have been two major changes (not counting the age changes) affecting my likely rate so unless you're close to pension age, it probably shouldn't even be something to consider anyway.

worklifebalance

That is true but mainly for the younger folk. I met and married a Canadian after paying into UK taxes for 35 years so my future UK pension will get frozen. UK made it very difficult for us to live together and Canada didn't so we came to Canada. That's the way it is and we planned for it but doesn't necessarily make it right to penalise folk for marrying a Canadian. As part of our planning we legally avoided (not evaded) a large amount of tax by being non-resident in UK or Canada and consider that as levelling the playing field.

christmasoompa

Personally, I wouldn't feel entitled to anything if I left the country. Not a great analogy perhaps, but IMO expecting a country you've lived in previously to fund your retirement when you may not have set foot there for decades is akin to expecting your parents to buy you a retirement villa in the South of France. JMO though............

They can pay the massively reduced rate of NIC's (far less than if they were working in the UK and a taxpayer here) and still get a full pension.

Ditto for somebody who's worked in the UK all their life and paid Class 4 NIC's versus somebody who's lived abroad almost their whole adult life and only paid Class 2 NIC's, but happens to be a UK citizen. Doesn't seem fair to me that they'd propose to get the same deal at the end of it personally.

To put it in context - my husband pays £430 a month in NIC, a total of over £5000 a year. Somebody living abroad can pay just £145 a year and still get the same pension, so that's hardly level either.

She's popping in to see me next Tuesday, I'll float the idea past her and see what she says.

Former Lancastrian

Here is a radical idea that could work though I doubt it would work.

In my case I paid by NI contributions for about 11 years and was employed by HM Forces and the Lancashire Constabulary. On leaving the UK my pension was frozen.
Im getting nearer to retiring and will have to make the usual enquiries into receiving my pension.
Im one of those who think if the UK would pay me a lump sum of what I am legally entitled to then Im OK with that. As Im now living over here with no intention of moving back to the UK then I shouldn't be receiving the Old Age Pension. If I did decide to move back I think it only fair that I be paid a reduced amount.
Im only concerned about the pension that I paid into when employed and it was an employer pension scheme. I elected not to buy back those years when moving to Canada.
Is this a fair compromise?

BristolUK

But it's only in proportion to what you paid in.

Perhaps a better analogy would be if you had an ISA, putting in the annual maximum allowed for tax free interest and then left the country. You wouldn't then become liable for back tax on the interest. You keep it. Just like keeping the contribution record.

Yes, maybe that needs looking at although I think it's limited.
She told me she couldn't come because she was having the corgis groomed.

dave_j

Well, I seem to have irritated a few well squeezed pimples on the rear ends of some died in the wool posties, so I'll explain my position a little more clearly.
I am a pensioner and was in receipt of a full UK state pension when I moved to Canada.
I have no wish to 'sponge' off the Canadian state and have no wish to re-enter the realm of employment thereby depriving a deserving canadian of a means of living. However, since I have contributed in full to the UK state pension I now receive, I find it somewhat irritating that if I lived literally 10 miles south of my current location my pension would not be frozen, and if I were in receipt of a principal civil service pension then rules could be twisted to my favour.
This anomaly could be resolved but the UK government chooses to ignore representations from involved ex colonial governments.
I knew when I moved that my state pension would be frozen, but that wasn't the issue I was attempting to raise. What I was ranting about was the fragile basis for the continuing freeze and the way some civil servants have behaved in blindly executing governmental instructions while making sure that such instructions don't apply to them.

not2old

Mainly expats living in Canada, Australia & NZ whinge about indexed state pensions. Exapts in the USA get indexed, which is something I think the OP was on about as being unfare.

Choices....

- do what Novo is doing & move back to an EU country
- move to an non EU country that has indexing
- do nothing & shut it because you know the UK government wont index those in certain countries, majority of which are in Canada & OZ

https://www.gov.uk/government/public...-state-pension

From the Britishexpats association in Australia below ...

A Total of 46 unfrozen countries with about 550,000 indexed pensioners uprated annually, plus over 11,000,000 indexed pensioners in the United Kingdom

An overall total of nearly 12,000,000 fully indexed.

Compare that with the 500,000 British State pensioners in countries where they are frozen.

christmasoompa

It's not though is it? As mentioned above, my husband pays over £5000 a year in NIC's, and yet he'll get the same pension as somebody that's paid £145 a year. Basing that on a 30 year working career, he'll have paid almost 35 times the amount that an expat could pay for the same end result.

And an expat can choose to stop paying after they've reached the full entitlement (30 years), whereas a UK taxpayer can't, they must keep paying in until they reach retirement age, so potentially 40 years or even more of contributions. Both of those are far bigger anomalies IMO than some countries not being index linked.

I'm not saying that those who choose to move abroad shouldn't be able to get a full pension, I'm just saying that a lot of those complaining about not getting the full indexed amount could have paid a lot less than others who are working in the UK, so it seems a bit churlish to me. Particularly given that the GBP goes an awful lot further in some countries than the UK. Again, I repeat - JMO though!

I'm grooming them.

That sounds eminently fair and reasonable to me. But I suspect that it won't be considered fair and reasonable to those whinging about the lack of an uplift (despite knowing full well that was the case before they left the UK, and presumably factoring that in to their decision).

My rear end is pimple free thank you very much.

Pizzawheel

To be fair this seems to be a reasonable gripe.

not2old

I was reading your thread on the 'supervisa & tax' and was wondering, since you've been in Canada almost 2 years, do you spend all your whole time in Canada or do you split your time between the UK, Canada or somewhere else?