Dear Sir;
In your September 3 issue you printed two letters on this
issue, both of which require a response in order to achieve some form of
balance.
I would begin by offering my sincere apologies to other
readers of these columns who are not affected by this outrageous situation,
but I hope you will bear with me in responding. I realise it could become
something of a bore, but major issues of principle are at stake.
Firstly, we have a contribution from Rob Maynard in the
UK, who proceeds to give us a lesson about the history of the UK State
Pension, as though we didn’t understand it. He reminds us that its uprating
every year is geared to inflation in the UK and that the fact a person has
paid for forty years has no relevance, and then concludes by telling us how
tough it is people in the UK during this time of global recession.
Sounds convincing? OK well here are a few facts he should
know.
1. Over the last 4 years the pound abroad has, to a large
extent, been deliberately devalued by the UK government and has lost around
25% of its value against almost all currencies, certainly the Thai baht. The
pound in the UK has not been devalued in the domestic market. So, the UK
pensioner living almost anywhere abroad, who is receiving his/her pension in
sterling, has seen at least a 25% drop in purchasing value and that takes no
account of local inflation. Also, any savings accrued by such a pensioner to
subsidise the cost of living now attract about 0.2% interest. The UK
Treasury makes no secret of its strategic long term policy to maintain a
weak pound to help exports and ultra low interest rates to encourage
consumer spending in the UK! The logic of this is that my paltry interest is
subsidising low interest rates for UK house purchases, etc.
As the UK Finance Minster recently stated, “Savers are
the innocent victims of our policy to stimulate the UK economy.”
2. To qualify for a UK state pension used to require
around 46 years of contributions. Now that figure is, I believe, 30 years.
Irrespective, I paid from age 15 to 64 without a break, that is 49 years,
the last 3 of which were not required to qualify, but had to be paid.
3. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR),
which of course was only a majority decision, based its conclusion on two
main issues. Firstly, it agreed the UK State Pension was a Social Security
benefit and also that UK pensioners living abroad make no contribution to
the UK economy.
This I find strange. In addition to my UK frozen state
pension I also receive a modest private pension on which I pay UK income tax
every month, as do many others. Indeed, for the last three years I have
received a tax rebate, caused by the Inland Revenue over-taxing me, a rebate
incidentally I would not have obtained had I not challenged the figures. So,
on the one hand we have the UK Pension Agency denying me a modest indexation
on my state pension and, on the other, the Inland Revenue overcharging me by
300 pounds in the last financial year.
This then begs the question, who is subsidizing whom? Is
my income tax subsidising Rob Maynard in his time of hardship in the UK? Or
is he subsidising me in Thailand as he implies?
Let’s be absolutely clear. This campaign about pensions
is based on the indefensible principles regarding the inconsistencies of the
UK government in the method it uses to implement uprating. If I moved to the
Philippines, the USA, or a host of other countries I would get the increase.
Here in Thailand we do not, and there is no logical defence the government
can or have deployed, except historical precedence. (I have seen the video
of the ECHR hearings and read the transcripts of the judgments.)
Turning now to the second letter on this matter entitled
‘Change in tactics needed’ which suggested we should lobby the Thai
government to enter a bi-lateral agreement with the UK, thus ensuring
uprating.
I agree fully with J. H. that we have now to employ
different tactics, but I fear it would be a waste of time approaching the
Thai government, even if they were sympathetic. The UK would never agree to
such an arrangement. As the barrister representing the government at the
ECHR stated, “We would only enter into such agreements if they were
considered mutually beneficial.” In other words, if there are 50,000 UK
pensioners living in Thailand we need 50,000 Thai pensioners living in the
UK. Clearly that is not going to happen.
No, the only way this matter can be resolved is by the UK
House of Commons being shamed into treating all UK pensioners abroad in an
equal manner. It does not require new legislation, just an amendment to the
existing procedure. The only defence the government have put forward in
addition to the historical one, is the cost - nothing else.
This matter has to be brought to the attention of
ordinary MP’s, in a structured way. Many MP’s are unaware of the issue and
double standards which are being employed in respect of UK pensioners living
abroad, whose ‘rights’ incidentally, fall well short of an illegal immigrant
in the UK.
I’ll just leave you with this thought: Members of
Parliament in the UK have a very generous pension’s scheme that is paid from
their salaries. The salaries of MP’s are paid by the UK taxpayer and those
living abroad such as me.
If an MP chooses to live in Thailand on retirement, his
pension would be automatically uprated each year and the money for such an
uprating would be from my income tax.
I bet they don’t even know that, but would be a bit
embarrassed if it appeared in the UK newspapers.
DW
Nongprue
