New pension rules for overseas spouses

[Andy]

New pension rules come into effect in 2016 for overseas spouses of British citizens

BBC News.......

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22423878


Daily Telegraph.......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/pensions/10039357/Pay-no-tax-live-abroad...-and-get-a-UK-pension.html

[stevewool]

well lets wait and see where this takes us

[Terpe]

Just for the record here's what it's all about:-

Overseas UK pensions 'blocked for spouses'

[grahamw48]

Hmm. Difficult one.

Basically though, I agree with the proposals.

This system was designed in the days when married women stayed at home to look after the kids...in the UK, hence their lack of sufficient NI conts of their own. Divorce wasn't as common in those days either..

[stevewool]

sounds like whats mine is mine and cant be shared, pity they did not do that with the pension for the cheating exwives,i may have been retires this year, but hey that was then this is now and whos more happy, ME:xxgrinning--00xx3:

[johncar54]

Terpe
"Say you are an American man and you marry a British woman, you can claim, if she has a full record of contributions, a pension of £3,500 a year for your entire retirement having never paid a penny in National Insurance."

I am a bit confused here.

When I got married in 2006, and my wife came to live in Spain, my State OAP increased by around £50 p.w. ( now around3,500 a year).

However, I have been assured by the DWP that when I die my widow will get a couple of thousand lump sum and nothing more.

That does not square with what you said. What did I miss ?

PS When I die, my wife will also lose the medical cover which now has as my wife.

[Terpe]

Hmm. Difficult one.

Basically though, I agree with the proposals.

This system was designed in the days when married women stayed at home to look after the kids...in the UK, hence their lack of sufficient NI conts of their own. Divorce wasn't as common in those days either..

Yes, I agee. These proposals do make sense.

I'd also like to see the Winter Fuel Allowance stopped for those people living overseas.
And child benefits for children living abroad.

[stevewool]

.I'd also like to see the Winter Fuel Allowance stopped for those people living overseas.
And child benefits for children living abroad.

me too

[somebody]

I can see why this needs looking into the figure sounds huge and let's face it as we have seen pension funds can hardly pay for those who pay in for let alone to carry on for spouses who might be far younger than the pensioner.
What will happen when many of the non UK based eu workers retire the figures will possibly be unsustainable surely?

[johncar54]

Yes great idea, stop these greedy spouses getting it and save up to £3 in every £1,000,000 at present spent on State Pensions.

And Yes stop the Winter Fuel allowance.

But if it is intended to help with heating, why do those in the sunny South of UK get the same payment as those in Very Chilly North of Scotland. Sorry of course, it was a vote catcher idea introduced by labour as a universal payment, which all should get and the subsequent governments have not had the bottle to end it.

Bit like the generous £10 Christmas Bonus, which should also be withdrawn from those greedy pensioners who have chosen to live abroad and not be eligible to claim the myriad of benefits enjoyed by, in the main, those who contributed less to the UK during their working lives.

[grahamw48]

We all make our own choices in life and have to take personal responibility for the outcome.

I could have stayed in the cosy, undemanding civil service, retired early and lived off my nice pension, but chose something different and slightly more adventurous.

People are just living longer now, the country is in recession, so we all have to tighten our belts. :smile:

[lordna]

I think this is wrong!
I have worked since i was 15 and obviously paid contributions to secure a pension. ie my pension is paid for. My wife may have been unable to work AND has supported me making it possible for me to work. So if i die then she should be entitled to a pension based on my contributions until such time as she re-marries, the idea being she has some means of support. By getting rid of this the government are stealing the contributions i have made already.

If this goes through, when i move to the Philippines and eventually die, i will make sure the authorities are not informed so my pension continues to be paid.

I am sick and tired of these Tory money grabbing .......s. They wont have the problems most of us hard working people have when they retire on their comfortable pensions and expenses stolen from the taxpayers.

If they introduce this then the only fair way is for those who have yet to start contributions.
Its irrelevant that the spouse is here in the UK or abroad, they still should be entitled to the contribution paid by the spouse. Most of the contributions will have been made by couples during their married life. Isn't it right that a mother (or father) should be at home to support children while the other works? I know there is HRP (home responsibility protection) but often after rearing children for many years its not possible for a spouse to find work.
The government are also stupid in raising retirement age given that ageism is present in employment. How the .... are we supposed to find a job at 55 onwards when nobody wants to employ anyone that age?
More stupid , stupid,stupid short sighted policies!

[Arthur Little]

Damned GOOD POINTS, Lordna - especially the one about there being a partner at home to look after young children - which is how it was with my first [late] wife throughout OUR two kids' schooldays. As had been the case with my mum - and (dare I say?) MOST caring, sensible mothers - when my brother and I were growing up in the 1950s. Indeed, mine only decided to go
out to work again (for the first time since marrying my dad in 1941) AFTER I, myself, got married in 1967 ... and that, I still remember her telling me, was MAINLY to escape the boredom
of being stuck in the house alone all day.


However, I wouldn't just vent your :cwm23: on the Tories :nono-1-1: when,
in reality, it's more a "sign of the times" ... aided and abetted, of course, by successive Administrations (Conservative AND Labour alike) hell~bent on repeatedly dangling "carrots" to encourage married women to combine a full time job with raising offspring - instead of providing proper incentives that would enable them to concentrate wholly on their familial roles.

:yeahthat: ... therein lies the root of the problem!

[lordna]

However, I wouldn't just vent your :cwm23: on the Tories :nono-1-1: when, in reality, it's more a "sign of the times" ... aided and abetted, of course, by successive Administrations (Conservative AND Labour alike) hell~bent on repeatedly dangling "carrots" to encourage married women to combine a full time job with raising offspring - instead of providing proper incentives that would enable them to concentrate wholly on their familial roles.

:yeahthat: ... therein lies the root of the problem!

Your probably right Arthur. I was just so annoyed when i read the article!

[DaveyWallis]

If people read the article they will see that it applies to those resident in the UK as well as overseas. There is no discrimination against those who choose to live overseas.


"From 2016 onwards the state pension will be based entirely on your individual record and there will be no inheritance of state pension rights," he said.

I don't see what is wrong with this.

They are changing the rules from 2016 and giving 3 years notice of those changes.

Those fortunate enough to already receive this will continue to receive it.

There is a massive financial black hole and it has to be dealt with.

People used to work for 50 years and get a pension for 5 before they passed away. With current life expectancy of say 85 you can get your pension for 20/25 years based upon contributions over 30 years.

The maths ain't difficult - something has to give.

Not only are people living longer they are staying healthier for longer. Quite capable of working beyond 65. 65 is the new 50.

For those that want to retire earlier take out a private pension or make alternative arrangements.

[Arthur Little]

:yeahthat: ... therein lies the root of the problem!

Yes :icon_rolleyes: ... and - by extension - the more married women (those with young kids, I'm talking about, here!) that are working ... the fewer job opportunities will be available for school leavers and/or College/University graduates. :anerikke: ... it's a vicious circle! :cwm12:

[lordna]

Lets take another very real example:-
I first married in 1987 and we were fortunate enough to have 3 children which due to the childrens ages and money we decided my wife would care for the children. OK until she got advanced Breast cancer and died after being ill for 3 years during which time i cared for her. When she died i was also made redundant and because of the age of my children had to give up my career to care for them. We lived on redundancy pay, a very low pension based on my wifes earnings and tax credits. It was very difficult to say the least and without the pension i would not of been able to manage, particularly when the redundancy ran out.
If pensions will no longer be inherited then what will happen to people in similar circumstances? If you have young children then sometimes its not possible to work.
I was lucky in that i managed to secure a part time job working from home but these are few and far between, particularly now.

[grahamw48]

The benefit system will round up the money of those who are left (in this country) with no partner, but children to care for...as happens now with child benefit, child tax credit and working tax credit.

[lordna]

The benefit system will round up the money of those who are left (in this country) with no partner, but children to care for...as happens now with child benefit, child tax credit and working tax credit.

Well it was totally inadequate when i needed it 11 years ago and its probably even worse now!

[andy222]

I think this is wrong!
I have worked since i was 15 and obviously paid contributions to secure a pension. ie my pension is paid for. My wife may have been unable to work AND has supported me making it possible for me to work. So if i die then she should be entitled to a pension based on my contributions until such time as she re-marries, the idea being she has some means of support. By getting rid of this the government are stealing the contributions i have made already.

If this goes through, when i move to the Philippines and eventually die, i will make sure the authorities are not informed so my pension continues to be paid.

I am sick and tired of these Tory money grabbing .......s. They wont have the problems most of us hard working people have when they retire on their comfortable pensions and expenses stolen from the taxpayers.

If they introduce this then the only fair way is for those who have yet to start contributions.
Its irrelevant that the spouse is here in the UK or abroad, they still should be entitled to the contribution paid by the spouse. Most of the contributions will have been made by couples during their married life. Isn't it right that a mother (or father) should be at home to support children while the other works? I know there is HRP (home responsibility protection) but often after rearing children for many years its not possible for a spouse to find work.
The government are also stupid in raising retirement age given that ageism is present in employment. How the .... are we supposed to find a job at 55 onwards when nobody wants to employ anyone that age?
More stupid , stupid,stupid short sighted policies!
Well said Lordna it appears they are targetting the wrong ones again its always the same mate 1 boot fits all.

[andy222]

Damned GOOD POINTS, Lordna - especially the one about there being a partner at home to look after young children - which is how it was with my first [late] wife throughout OUR two kids' schooldays. As had been the case with my mum - and (dare I say?) MOST caring, sensible mothers - when my brother and I were growing up in the 1950s. Indeed, mine only decided to go
out to work again (for the first time since marrying my dad in 1941) AFTER I, myself, got married in 1967 ... and that, I still remember her telling me, was MAINLY to escape the boredom
of being stuck in the house alone all day.


However, I wouldn't just vent your :cwm23: on the Tories :nono-1-1: when,
in reality, it's more a "sign of the times" ... aided and abetted, of course, by successive Administrations (Conservative AND Labour alike) hell~bent on repeatedly dangling "carrots" to encourage married women to combine a full time job with raising offspring - instead of providing proper incentives that would enable them to concentrate wholly on their familial roles.

:yeahthat: ... therein lies the root of the problem!
Back in the days there was a choice Arthur the man of the house could scrape by on his wages so that his wife could stay at home and look after the kids. Now it seems impossible for the average working man to do that.

[grahamw48]

My dad did that, and mother stayed home to look after us 4 kids, but then again, we had no TV, telephone or car...(these days cable TV, internet, computer in every room, a car each ,etc etc).
We did however have a mortgage, not a subsidised council house, read books, went out and got fresh air and exercise, went to church every Sunday, joined the Boy Scouts/Girl Guides had a happy childhood, a great family life and all of us passed our exams and went to Grammar School.

I think the rot started back in the 70s when people started watching Dallas and Dynasty.
Suddenly everyone seemed to think that we're all supposed to live like that in some sort of fantasy world.:icon_rolleyes: