Ex Pats To Lose Winter Fuel Allowance

Surely the same argument applies though, Victoria?

If you believe your taxes in Portugal, coupled with those in the UK and US are steeper than those one would pay in total in the UK ... that is the decision *you* made (and other ex-pats) when choosing when, and where, to make your final home? Therefore, it was down to the research you did beforehand, coupled with your personal predictions on how stable (or not) those terms would be?

Unfortunately, economies are never static, can't be expected to be, and will always be at the mercy of the vicissitudes of the times.

Let me give you a local scenario to counterbalance the one of your local friend, which you quoted: a former colleague of Mr M's paid into his pension pot all his working life; the % was higher than the national average, as per the terms of his employment. He retired earlier than the national retirement age (as required by that particular profession). He died within 12 months of his retirement, so never got back anywhere near what he contributed; a lot like the person you quoted. Only difference is, he never moved abroad. It's called: the luck of the draw! C'est la vie!

Does his wife spout sour grapes that she will not have the income and standard of living he had worked his whole life for, with a view to their shared retirement? Hardly. She would rather have her man than money.

Research is all well and good and can even give a good line of debate. The facts remain: Governments have the power to make changes based on the economy of the country at the time. People within that country have to be at the mercy of those decisions (both good and bad); people who have contributed at some point, and maybe at some length, but choose to retire/relocate elsewhere cannot expect to have their (perceived) entitlements upheld without question or redress.

Coats are cut according to the cloth available, at any given time.

People are allowed their opinions, criticisms included, with or without research, because we live in a country which permits freedom of speech!

Now, how much 'value' you personally place on someone's "opinion" is down to you, as an individual, and you can base that on whatever criteria you choose to apply It doesn't mean people have to apply *your* chosen criteria before they give their opinion

Val has given her opinion (which she is entitled to) and expressed how she feels on the matter.

You have given yours, but it's conditional. You are saying that no one can voice a contrary opinion unless, and until, they have fully researched the subject. Naturally you are feeling defensive about something which may (or may not: I don't know your personal circumstances) be retracted. Likewise, others may form an opinion based on what "feels" right (ethically? Morally? Necessity?)

As I say, people have opinions and they are free to express them (researched or knee jerk/gut reaction); you are free to put what ever value you will on those opinions; but you cannot demand someone 'researches' your scenario before voicing their opinion.

Have you researched theirs? Or, why they think the way they do? Why they feel the way they do? Or, what their lifestyle is? Or, how local and national cuts are affecting their lives?

See? It works both ways.

By your own admission, you paid 23yrs worth of working subs into this country. For many in this country, starting work at 17yo, that would only take you to 40yo and still have 20-25yrs of contributions remaining! So, does that mean, as you only paid half the national average, that your entitlement (at best) is half of the winter fuel allowance? Or, maybe one third (as a third of that would have been spent as a youth/student)?

Soooooo, controversial! (as are all cost cutting exercises)

 

'M' you are a legal begal like I am and have been all my life ... I will not discuss this with you on forum. xx

 

As you wish

Aye, aye, C'ptain

 

I live on the Isle of Man, not part of the UK, not part of the EU. When we left England twenty odd years ago we had to sign ourselves out, we can't claim for anything from the English government after nearly forty years there, yet the island is still part of the British Isles and owned by the crown, it's semi-independent.

So why when we can't claim here can all the ex-pats claim in countries that are a great deal warmer than this island. It doesn't make sense. However, we are not quite at pensionable age and couldn't claim for the fuel allowance even if it was available to us because of where we live.

I'd like to point out that the island hasn't been a tax haven for many years, even though many on the mainland think it is. The island pays a huge amount in taxes to the English government as well as the taxes that we as earners have to pay to our own government here, so why aren't we allowed the benefits that the ex-pats receive. The cost of living here is also more expensive than the mainland and pay lower.

What happened to charity begins at home?

 

The trick is in the word "heating"...............our need is greater than warmer climates.
It's simple......... need not greed.
Entitlement does not make it right.
So, if they take away the entitlement in my eyes thats right.
Heating allowance in hot countries ......absolutely bazar.

 

Not getting at you personally Victoria, just expats in general, would hate to fall out with you so am leaving this thread now!!

Val

 

I'm sorry, but I honestly don't see why there's such a problem with this. If you choose to absent yourself from a country which pays a Winter Fuel Allowance and take up permanent residence in a country where you don't need it .... why would you expect to be entitled to it?

And, whilst we're on the subject ... this from https://www.gov.uk/winter-fuel-payment/eligibility
You’ll usually qualify for Winter Fuel Payment if:

• you were born on or before 5 January 1952 ....."

i.e. Anyone over the age of 60 - so I don't see why those over the age of 60 but still in full-time employment shouldn't also be excluded.

 

National Insurance is a compulsory scheme that pays out a pension to those who have subscribed. The fuel allowance is also for those subscribers, given to make the government appear caring whilst being withdawable without the pension appearing to be cut. These people have paid in all their lives to an insurance scheme, so they now get their payback. Cutting the fuel allowance is a cut in pension. Those with more income from other sources have generally paid more into national insurance anyway. Who cares where they live? They have paid for their pension.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

It isn't. The winter fuel allowance was introduced to try to stop pensioners dying in their own homes due to hypothermia. Its no more a part of their pension than, say, free medical treatment is. Its one of the few good things our government has done to actually help keep people alive and well.

What was (and still is) happening is that people, mostly elderly people, we dying in winter because their homes were literally freezing. The fact that it is for older people is nothing to do with pensions. It is a medical fact that as we get older, the part of our brains responsible for sensing how warm or cold we are becomes less efficient. This is why biddies get ill with heat related problems because they wear their big coats on hot summers days, and get ill due to cold in winter when they don't realise they are literally freezing. When the winter fuel allowance was introduced, it was because many old people, faced with the choice of eating well or heating their homes, chose to eat well and scrimp on heating.

I'm guessing it was even worse when the scheme was first introduced, when many old people's houses were in dire need of modernisation. I remember my mam's house, which used to be my grandad's, had no insulation or double glazing or anything right up until well after he'd passed away and my mam inherited the place and started to use some of the money my grandad had saved to do the house up. Since those days there's been a number of government schemes to help cut costs in winter, including free or subsidised loft and wall insulation and double glazing etc, and I even seem to remember one half baked attempt and an awareness campaign about the hidden risks of the cold.

So none of this is about pensions. Its about looking after a section of society most at risk in winter, which medically speaking is the older folk.

 

Don't agree

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2

 

All the facts are in the public domain.

 

Governments are very clever, (well kind of clever anyway), when they bring these extra payments in they are very careful not to add it to the pension, its kept as a separate payment.

Reason being, they can stop paying them whenever they feel like it.
Had the heating allowance been incorporated into the pension it would have been very difficult to with draw it.
Also some pensioners are on a higher rate of heating allowance than others, depending on age.

 

Maybe if this cut was purely about winter temps, then pensioners in Torquay should also have their winter fuel allowance abolished, rather than any pensioners living in places deemed 'warm' such as Calais having theirs cut completely ?



Calais:



Torquay:


Hang on, if Hastings, Brighton, Bournemouth, Weymouth, etc. are all South of loads of places in 'warm' France, shouldn't pensioners there also have their Winter Fuel Allowance cut/abolished?

EDIT: Flippin eck, Eastbourne is South of Calais (now deemed too warm for winter fuel payments!), that would really cause a stir if all the pensioners there lost their winter fuel payments