Winter fuel tax for expats..

[martyn94]

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.

[martyn94]

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.

[Ariègeoise]

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!

[martyn94]

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.

[russell]

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.

[opas]

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.

[martyn94]

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.

[martyn94]

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.

[Smiley G]

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