Canada Follows Australia's Lead

[hk blues]

9 hours ago, bastonjock said:

I have no idea how they will be able to track your exits and entry's from the UK once you are of pensionable age , unless you are of poor health .

I can only assume there is a global information sharing system which means when you enter and exit the Philippines for example, that is shared with the UK government?  Also, when  you buy an air ticket you are recorded somewhere.  In these days on increased terrorism I reckon our whereabouts are better monitored than previously.

Regardless, i doubt we'd be turned away at the hospital in the UK if we required treatment and we could argue the toss later about eligibility. 

[hk blues]

8 hours ago, Viking said:

To me it sounds unfare  denying benefits to someone who have been contributing to the system for the biggest part of their lifes

I tend to agree with you, but it depends on how you look at how the systems are funded i.e. are we contributing now for past benefits, current benefits or future benefits?  

I tend to be pragmatic and recognise that the government pot is limited and they have to utilise the pot as best they can - spending the money on people who actually live in the country makes some sense to me.  Unfortunately, this is to my disadvantage as I live abroad but hey ho!

[Viking]

4 hours ago, hk blues said:

I tend to agree with you, but it depends on how you look at how the systems are funded i.e. are we contributing now for past benefits, current benefits or future benefits?  

I tend to be pragmatic and recognise that the government pot is limited and they have to utilise the pot as best they can - spending the money on people who actually live in the country makes some sense to me.  Unfortunately, this is to my disadvantage as I live abroad but hey ho!

Why separate it into past, current or future benefits? This is not something we as contributors can have any influence on. As long as you contributed you should also get the benefits. A fair system would be based on how many years you contributed. Lets say 40 years give you 100% of the benefits and 20 years give you 50 %, no matter where you choose to spend your remaining time.

[hk blues]

1 hour ago, Viking said:

Why separate it into past, current or future benefits? This is not something we as contributors can have any influence on. As long as you contributed you should also get the benefits. A fair system would be based on how many years you contributed. Lets say 40 years give you 100% of the benefits and 20 years give you 50 %, no matter where you choose to spend your remaining time.

I didn't mean actually separate the benefits - I meant as a concept i.e. if we are paying now for current benefits then we can expect benefits to stop when we stop paying.  Each government must have some kind of principle around this.  

The idea of paying according to contribution sounds great, but how would you deal with an 18 year-old who is in 1st year of employment and needs medical treatment - ask him to come back later when he has paid enough?  Or tell a 25 year-old who is unemployed that they will only get enough money to buy one meal a week because they haven't paid enough yet?  And how about the spouses of citizens who have contributed but they themselves have not - would the couple get only 50% each? I don't see how that would work.   The UK does calculate retirement benefits based on contributions as it works for that type of benefit i.e. it is paid at the end of the contribution period rather than at an unknown time during.  

 

[Viking]

21 hours ago, hk blues said:

I didn't mean actually separate the benefits - I meant as a concept i.e. if we are paying now for current benefits then we can expect benefits to stop when we stop paying.  Each government must have some kind of principle around this.  

The idea of paying according to contribution sounds great, but how would you deal with an 18 year-old who is in 1st year of employment and needs medical treatment - ask him to come back later when he has paid enough?  Or tell a 25 year-old who is unemployed that they will only get enough money to buy one meal a week because they haven't paid enough yet?  And how about the spouses of citizens who have contributed but they themselves have not - would the couple get only 50% each? I don't see how that would work.   The UK does calculate retirement benefits based on contributions as it works for that type of benefit i.e. it is paid at the end of the contribution period rather than at an unknown time during.  

 

The benefits I was talking about was retirement benefits. In my country it has been those who work NOW that is paying for the pensions of the people who is NOW retired. Thats not good and they are trying to change that into a more modern system, but it will take time.

I would not be happy if my government decided that I would loose my pension (after contributing to others for all of my life) just because I choose to live in another country when I get old.

Medical benefits is something you contributed to during the years you been working and paying taxes. If you live on social security, you dont contribute with income to the systems but you are still covered with medical benefits, so I see no reason why a person who actually have been contributing should loose that because they move abroad.

Young people and spouses in medical need should be covered because their parents have been paying.

Sweden is extreme in many ways about benefits and it really have to change, but it needs to be done in the right way. Today someone who have not contributed at all can get the same pension as someone who has had a low paid job for 45 years!!!

Sweden have Always been known for having high taxes and that has been ok with most people here because we felt that we got something back. This is now changing, we still have high taxes but getting less and less back.

 

[hk blues]

3 hours ago, Viking said:

The benefits I was talking about was retirement benefits. In my country it has been those who work NOW that is paying for the pensions of the people who is NOW retired. Thats not good and they are trying to change that into a more modern system, but it will take time.

I would not be happy if my government decided that I would loose my pension (after contributing to others for all of my life) just because I choose to live in another country when I get old.

Medical benefits is something you contributed to during the years you been working and paying taxes. If you live on social security, you dont contribute with income to the systems but you are still covered with medical benefits, so I see no reason why a person who actually have been contributing should loose that because they move abroad.

Young people and spouses in medical need should be covered because their parents have been paying.

Sweden is extreme in many ways about benefits and it really have to change, but it needs to be done in the right way. Today someone who have not contributed at all can get the same pension as someone who has had a low paid job for 45 years!!!

Sweden have Always been known for having high taxes and that has been ok with most people here because we felt that we got something back. This is now changing, we still have high taxes but getting less and less back.

 

The UK government doesn't reduce your retirement pension if you move abroad either,  I thought we were talking benefits in general rather then retirement specifically.   

As for the others, it all comes down to philosophy I guess.

To some extent I was playing Devil's Advocate.

 

[Gary D]

4 hours ago, hk blues said:

The UK government doesn't reduce your retirement pension if you move abroad either, 

 

Not strictly true, unless you move to a country with a reciprical arrangement your pension is frozen at the level that you received when you left the UK. Hence a lot of expats return home after 15-20 years because their pension has been reduceds to next to nothing by inflation.

[hk blues]

9 hours ago, Gary D said:

Not strictly true, unless you move to a country with a reciprical arrangement your pension is frozen at the level that you received when you left the UK. Hence a lot of expats return home after 15-20 years because their pension has been reduceds to next to nothing by inflation.

Yes, that is true - luckily the Philippines has such an agreement. 

But, if I'm being pedantic they are not reducing the pension, they are just not increasing it.  

[bastonjock]

On 3/26/2019 at 5:00 AM, hk blues said:

I can only assume there is a global information sharing system which means when you enter and exit the Philippines for example, that is shared with the UK government?  Also, when  you buy an air ticket you are recorded somewhere.  In these days on increased terrorism I reckon our whereabouts are better monitored than previously.

Regardless, i doubt we'd be turned away at the hospital in the UK if we required treatment and we could argue the toss later about eligibility. 

I had a chat with my brother ,hes a retired intelligence officer , he told me that if you pay by credit card , use a mobile etc it's very easy to trace people and their movements. 

Face recognition software has been refined to a high standard ,  I asked him to elaborate 

I got the usual grunt 

[bastonjock]

On 3/27/2019 at 9:30 AM, Viking said:

The benefits I was talking about was retirement benefits. In my country it has been those who work NOW that is paying for the pensions of the people who is NOW retired. Thats not good and they are trying to change that into a more modern system, but it will take time.

I would not be happy if my government decided that I would loose my pension (after contributing to others for all of my life) just because I choose to live in another country when I get old.

Medical benefits is something you contributed to during the years you been working and paying taxes. If you live on social security, you dont contribute with income to the systems but you are still covered with medical benefits, so I see no reason why a person who actually have been contributing should loose that because they move abroad.

Young people and spouses in medical need should be covered because their parents have been paying.

Sweden is extreme in many ways about benefits and it really have to change, but it needs to be done in the right way. Today someone who have not contributed at all can get the same pension as someone who has had a low paid job for 45 years!!!

Sweden have Always been known for having high taxes and that has been ok with most people here because we felt that we got something back. This is now changing, we still have high taxes but getting less and less back.

 

I cant comment on Sweden,  but our government has been for years dipping their hands into the pension pot and using it for other things 

It's been used by both left wing and right wing governments 

The problem is now that they are running out of money to pay pensions