FORUM

Here is an atricle from the Connexion

http://www.connexionfrance.com/winter-f ... ticle.html

It beggars belief that people who are SUPPOSED to be running a country can be so bleedin stupid!!!!! How on Earth can they link the DOMTOMs in with mainland France? Last Feb we had 2 weeks of sub zero temps, often -11ºC with a lot of cold weather either side of that and each year seems to be colder than the last. It will be interesting to find out hpw many dozen British expats are living in the DOMTOMs?

I have already signed this along with my OH

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/52121

I wonder if they included the British overseas territories e.g. Cayman Islands, Gibraltar, Virgin Islands etc etc on the hot side and of course British Antartica on the cold side. We have paid all our working life for our pensions and the bits that form part of it. The Government is taking what is rightfully ours.

Let's calm down here.

Under the existing rules not everybody qualified anyway. There were haves and haves not. So some bright spark challenged it. Which gave UKIP and their hangers-on a golden opportunity to bash Brits living in Europe. Not that they need much in the way of encouragement.

Hand on heart I can't say that we really need it. There are only two of us and we live in a thermally efficient house. All of 90 square meters! If retired couples choose to live in rambling properties with five bedrooms that's their problem.

We have to think of the bigger picture. There are people out there who would stop ALL state pension payments to ex-pats. They don't want ex-pats to have a voice in Westminster and would deny us the limited right to vote in the UK. Now that's a fight worth fighting.


Merisin

How could they stop a state pension if the person has paid in all their working lives? For me, I've worked in the uk but the majority has been in france, still not sure what sort of pension ( if any) that I'll get. There are a lot of expats in all countries now , I doubt that each country would pay the pension of somebody who has never worked there . As for voting, well I have never voted in my life, was 14 when moved here and did get offered once to vote in the uk, but how could I vote for somebody in a country I knew hardly anything about? Am not allowed to vote in france because I have kept my british nationality even though I consider myself more french than english and probably know more about the politics here than the uk. I can understand sue though, she has paid into the system all her life and more than likely voted in the uk also, why should she ( and other people like her ) not be entitled to the allowance. There are plenty of immigrants in the uk that have never paid a penny into the system and yet they are entitled to everything from day one.

" We have to think of the bigger picture. There are people out there who would stop ALL state pension payments to ex-pats. They don't want ex-pats to have a voice in Westminster and would deny us the limited right to vote in the UK. Now that's a fight worth fighting. "

I do agree that there could be a much bigger fight to be had, but if the WFA were withdrawn from legitimately paid-up retirees, then that surely would be the thin end of the wedge. IF it goes ahead without challenge, then it would leave the way clear for further inroads into pensioners rights.

As for having a vote in all UK elections, then that right too should be restored to retirees in other countries. Politicians are (slightly) less likely to ride roughshod over potential voters

tia wrote:How could they stop a state pension if the person has paid in all their working lives? For me, I've worked in the uk but the majority has been in france, still not sure what sort of pension ( if any) that I'll get. There are a lot of expats in all countries now , I doubt that each country would pay the pension of somebody who has never worked there . As for voting, well I have never voted in my life, was 14 when moved here and did get offered once to vote in the uk, but how could I vote for somebody in a country I knew hardly anything about? Am not allowed to vote in france because I have kept my british nationality even though I consider myself more french than english and probably know more about the politics here than the uk. I can understand sue though, she has paid into the system all her life and more than likely voted in the uk also, why should she ( and other people like her ) not be entitled to the allowance. There are plenty of immigrants in the uk that have never paid a penny into the system and yet they are entitled to everything from day one.

Tia
In around 1987/1988 there was a change called "Totalization". What this means, if you have some years in France and into the system and then go to the UK and work a few more years, a total amount of your pension will be put together and paid by the larger country which was included.

Totalization is covering many countries in Europe as well as Canada and the US. This touched my pension but in the end, I slipped out of a problem. Overall, Totalization is a good thing. In your situation where you've worked many countries, visit the pension people here in France and see if this can be explained work in your situation.

Blackduff

thanks blackduff, will have to start looking into it, worked mainly in france but hubby and I have 7 years of work in the uk also. kept all the payslips, p60 etc so I can prove it all. Hoping that it won't be too complicated(if that is possible in france!)

Not that I agree with the removal of benefits that you think you were paying towards but once you leave your country and become an expat, you do relinquish certain entitlements and voting power.

For example, I worked for 15 years in the UK, payed a lot of money in NI, got sent by my company to the USA. After 2.5 years I was made redundant while in the US and forced to return to the UK because of my visa. I found that I was not entitled to a single penny of unemployment benefit because I had worked just a little over 2 years abroad.

I think working 15 years is slightly different from working 40 or 50 years. We are talking about people who have worked their whole life in one country paying their taxes and NI. I personally wouldnt go to work in a foreign country and expect redundancy from UK if I lost my job in that foreign country.

Sue wrote:I think working 15 years is slightly different from working 40 or 50 years. We are talking about people who have worked their whole life in one country paying their taxes and NI. I wouldnt be naive enough to go work in a foreign country and expect redundancy from UK if I lost my job in that foreign country.

Redundancy came from his company folded-literally. This was because of the 9/11 situation.

Blackduff

It is not only the ex-pats who are the subject of 'pension bashing'. Check the DWP site for the new Universal Pension coming into Force in April 2016. Anyone having reached retirement age on, or after, that date will get a basic pension of (suggested) £144pw. Anyone reaching retirement age before that date will get the current pension plus an annual increase of 2.5% up to that date, which will end up at around £118pw. So, even though you may have 40 years contributions to the fund, you will not get the full basic pension.

Wolfpeltz wrote:It is not only the ex-pats who are the subject of 'pension bashing'. Check the DWP site for the new Universal Pension coming into Force in April 2016. Anyone having reached retirement age on, or after, that date will get a basic pension of (suggested) £144pw. Anyone reaching retirement age before that date will get the current pension plus an annual increase of 2.5% up to that date, which will end up at around £118pw. So, even though you may have 40 years contributions to the fund, you will not get the full basic pension.

So how do you bring in a new system except by something like this? You will get everything you thought you were paying for, until you decided you were being cheated. Life really is too short.

Yes schemes do evolve, but with any transition, if you meet the new criteria you are usually granted the same privileges. This discrimination is made purely on when you were born, and not how much you paid into the pot. If the new qualifying period for the higher amount was greater than my contributions years, I would have no problem at all. I am not after something for nothing. There again, there are always the beneficiaries on the other side of the fence who will think it is perfectly fair.

Wolfpeltz wrote:not how much you paid into the pot.

The problems have arisen because we didn't pay into a "pot" but into a government black hole. Successive governments have spent our contributions instead of investing them and now complain that they can't afford to pay us. If a private insurer did that it would be fraud.

Russell.

Yes Russell that is precisely the problem. That is why they have had to change contribution qualifications over the years. 40 to 30 (biggest mistake ever) and back up to 35 for the new scheme. A reply to me from the DWP was to the effect that no extra money has been introduced to the new pension scheme, so no-one is better off, and no-one is worse off. (???) Typical politician spiel.

Wolfpeltz wrote:It is not only the ex-pats who are the subject of 'pension bashing'. Check the DWP site for the new Universal Pension coming into Force in April 2016. Anyone having reached retirement age on, or after, that date will get a basic pension of (suggested) £144pw. Anyone reaching retirement age before that date will get the current pension plus an annual increase of 2.5% up to that date, which will end up at around £118pw. So, even though you may have 40 years contributions to the fund, you will not get the full basic pension.

This isn't actually so. I reach pension age after April 2016, but will get much the same as under the old system. That's because I was "contracted out" for most of my working life and paid a lower rate of NIC. Annoying, but not unfair.

russell wrote:

Wolfpeltz wrote:not how much you paid into the pot.

The problems have arisen because we didn't pay into a "pot" but into a government black hole. Successive governments have spent our contributions instead of investing them and now complain that they can't afford to pay us. If a private insurer did that it would be fraud.

Russell.

I don't see how any question of fraud arises. You will never get any less under the new system than you did under the old one. The fact that some other people will do a bit better may be annoying, if that sort of thing annoys you, but it is hardly fraudulent. The new pension setup seems to me one of the few things that the current UK govt has done which seems worthwhile, if hardly earth-shattering.

It may not be legal fraud, but when (like me) you've had your pension age moved forward twice (by a total of 7 years) and you've been told to stop paying contributions when you've paid 30 years and then suddenly told 'oh - we've changed our minds - now you've got to pay 5 more years to get the same result' it sure as hell feels like fraud!

Ariègeoise wrote:It may not be legal fraud, but when (like me) you've had your pension age moved forward twice (by a total of 7 years) and you've been told to stop paying contributions when you've paid 30 years and then suddenly told 'oh - we've changed our minds - now you've got to pay 5 more years to get the same result' it sure as hell feels like fraud!

I can see how it would hurt. But it is hard to see how the differential retirement age for women ever made any sense, given that they have lived longer than us men since anyone kept records. (I was tempted to add that they were only working for pin-money anyway, but perhaps I should keep that to myself.)

If anything, it is surprising, and encouraging in a way, that UK pols ever found the spine to change it. I'll be surprised if our masters here prove quite so firm with the downtrodden notaires, greffiers, pharmacists etc.

martyn94 wrote: I don't see how any question of fraud arises.

I didn't say it is. I said that if a private company did the same, ie., misappropriated funds, it would be. The government can, of course, do what they like unless challenged by the courts.

Russell.

martyn94 wrote:

Ariègeoise wrote:It may not be legal fraud, but when (like me) you've had your pension age moved forward twice (by a total of 7 years) and you've been told to stop paying contributions when you've paid 30 years and then suddenly told 'oh - we've changed our minds - now you've got to pay 5 more years to get the same result' it sure as hell feels like fraud!

I can see how it would hurt. But it is hard to see how the differential retirement age for women ever made any sense, given that they have lived longer than us men since anyone kept records. (I was tempted to add that they were only working for pin-money anyway, but perhaps I should keep that to myself.)

If anything, it is surprising, and encouraging in a way, that UK pols ever found the spine to change it. I'll be surprised if our masters here prove quite so firm with the downtrodden notaires, greffiers, pharmacists etc.

You arrogant sod! I knew women who worked 3 jobs.....not careers, but as hard if not arder than some blokes.

opas wrote:

martyn94 wrote:

Ariègeoise wrote:It may not be legal fraud, but when (like me) you've had your pension age moved forward twice (by a total of 7 years) and you've been told to stop paying contributions when you've paid 30 years and then suddenly told 'oh - we've changed our minds - now you've got to pay 5 more years to get the same result' it sure as hell feels like fraud!

I can see how it would hurt. But it is hard to see how the differential retirement age for women ever made any sense, given that they have lived longer than us men since anyone kept records. (I was tempted to add that they were only working for pin-money anyway, but perhaps I should keep that to myself.)

If anything, it is surprising, and encouraging in a way, that UK pols ever found the spine to change it. I'll be surprised if our masters here prove quite so firm with the downtrodden notaires, greffiers, pharmacists etc.

You arrogant sod! I knew women who worked 3 jobs.....not careers, but as hard if not arder than some blokes.

Oh dear. I thought I had laid it on sufficiently thick for my intentions to be obvious. But for the record, yes, so have I known such women.

russell wrote:

martyn94 wrote: I don't see how any question of fraud arises.

I didn't say it is. I said that if a private company did the same, ie., misappropriated funds, it would be. The government can, of course, do what they like unless challenged by the courts.

Russell.

So challenge them in the courts. If you had a shred of a case, I am sure somebody would be happy to make a name for themself by taking it on pro bono.

So far as I can gather, the complaint here is about some people not getting a windfall increase in the NIRP. That may be all sorts of bad things, but I can't see how it's misappropriation. It seems to me like a reasonably desirable change, implemented in a way that doesn't cost too much. The sort of judgment that any govt has to make, any day of the year.

Latest news;
http://www.connexionfrance.com/Winter-F ... ticle.html