Ensure all ex-pats receive their full indexed pension

Brits who have paid the mandatory NI pension contributions are being cheated if they move to certain countries…specifically some Commonwealth countries. Their pensions are FROZEN at the amount they first receive. This is outright robbery. These people have paid the exact same amount as all other Brits and yet are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs. For instance, those who emigrate to Canada or Australia have their pensions frozen. While those who move to the USA do not. This is outrageous and goes against all Human Rights.

It's time the new Government did the RIGHT and MORAL thing and righted this wrong.

Why is this idea important?

Brits who have paid the mandatory NI pension contributions are being cheated if they move to certain countries…specifically some Commonwealth countries. Their pensions are FROZEN at the amount they first receive. This is outright robbery. These people have paid the exact same amount as all other Brits and yet are being robbed of what is rightfully theirs. For instance, those who emigrate to Canada or Australia have their pensions frozen. While those who move to the USA do not. This is outrageous and goes against all Human Rights.

It's time the new Government did the RIGHT and MORAL thing and righted this wrong.

Eliminate freezing of pensions

Currently UK old age pensions are frozen for British citizens who reside in certain countries overseas, for example, Canada, Australia, South Africa, but not if they reside in the USA or EC. This is not a comprehensive list but it serves to illustrate the clear disparity in the way in which the Britain Government has chosen to treat large numbers of its citizens who are fully entitled to receive a UK pension but may choose to live overseas and receive their pension where they live.

To illustrate, once you retire and receive your UK pension, you will receive the annually awarded increase if you reside in the UK, anywhere in the EC, the USA and many other countries around the world. However, if you choose to go and live in Canada, Australia and certain other Commonwealth countries in order to be near family, your pension will be frozen at the amount first granted if you live overseas or at the figure when you left the UK.

There can be no legitimate reason why this standard entitlement is refused to people simply based upon the place where they live. It is palpably unfair and urgently needs to be rescinded.

 

Why is this idea important?

Currently UK old age pensions are frozen for British citizens who reside in certain countries overseas, for example, Canada, Australia, South Africa, but not if they reside in the USA or EC. This is not a comprehensive list but it serves to illustrate the clear disparity in the way in which the Britain Government has chosen to treat large numbers of its citizens who are fully entitled to receive a UK pension but may choose to live overseas and receive their pension where they live.

To illustrate, once you retire and receive your UK pension, you will receive the annually awarded increase if you reside in the UK, anywhere in the EC, the USA and many other countries around the world. However, if you choose to go and live in Canada, Australia and certain other Commonwealth countries in order to be near family, your pension will be frozen at the amount first granted if you live overseas or at the figure when you left the UK.

There can be no legitimate reason why this standard entitlement is refused to people simply based upon the place where they live. It is palpably unfair and urgently needs to be rescinded.

 

Frozen Pensions in Australia, Canada and South Africa

Restore the indexing of pensions to people who migrated to the above countries.We are not asking for 'hand-outs', only for our 'rights' and contributed (paid our stamps) through our working lifes. Why are pensions index-linked in all other countries, except the above three?

Why is this idea important?

Restore the indexing of pensions to people who migrated to the above countries.We are not asking for 'hand-outs', only for our 'rights' and contributed (paid our stamps) through our working lifes. Why are pensions index-linked in all other countries, except the above three?

Pensioners migrating abroad should not have pensions frozen.

UK pensioners should all be entitled automatically to the statutory increases in state pensions but this is not the case at present.

Pensioners who have children living abroad, eg in Australia, often consider migrating to spend their latter years with their families.   Something that can put them off doing this is that increases in the UK state pension are not allowed for those going to certain countries [such as Australia].  This is desperately unfair to UK nationals who have earned their pensions and have a right to them.  It is a deterrent to the natural inclination to be with children and families in people's declining years.  It is a denial of their human rights.

The cost to the UK of allowing the increases would be offset by the fact that the burden of care in those last years of life would be removed from UK services such as the NHS and Social Services.   Full state pension rights including increases should be restored to these hard-working and deserving older people.

A start could be made by granting the state pension increases to those migrating to join their children or families in Australia and New Zealand – but preferably to all areas right away.

Why is this idea important?

UK pensioners should all be entitled automatically to the statutory increases in state pensions but this is not the case at present.

Pensioners who have children living abroad, eg in Australia, often consider migrating to spend their latter years with their families.   Something that can put them off doing this is that increases in the UK state pension are not allowed for those going to certain countries [such as Australia].  This is desperately unfair to UK nationals who have earned their pensions and have a right to them.  It is a deterrent to the natural inclination to be with children and families in people's declining years.  It is a denial of their human rights.

The cost to the UK of allowing the increases would be offset by the fact that the burden of care in those last years of life would be removed from UK services such as the NHS and Social Services.   Full state pension rights including increases should be restored to these hard-working and deserving older people.

A start could be made by granting the state pension increases to those migrating to join their children or families in Australia and New Zealand – but preferably to all areas right away.

Abolish Council Tax it is Obsolete Replace it with Local V.A.T.

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

Why is this idea important?

Council tax is a tax that is extremely unfair. It is devisive and discriminatory. Each home was banded according to a value which was determined by an estate agent driving round the street giving values to each property.  These values placed each owner in a particular band. This way of banding property took no account of the ability to pay by the owner and subsequently became a tax/demand.  The whole sorry episode was a knee jerk reaction to the failed community charge, and was not thought out properly or calculated fairly. It is also impossible to get your banding changed if as an individual think you are in the wrong band. I know to my own experience. I am placed in band "E" wheras alll my neighbours are band "C". It is obvious to me that there was an error in the valuation probably the estate agent whizzing past my property but try to get it changed not a chance. I have even had veiled threats by the Valuation  Office to drop my request to reband me.  But back to the system as a whole. Why should a pensioner on a small pension be in the position of a potential jail sentance if they cannot pay their Council Tax, just because they bought a property say in the 1960's when house prices were affordable. Why should this person be expected to be able to support those who are on benefit and do not pay these taxes. Example (not me) an Old lady  ( it always has to for example purposes)near me who is just above the benefit level who just subsists, she has no holidays, no car, her only entertainment is the Radio. She does not go out at night. Why should this old lady be expected to support a household of four adults who do not work they are subsidsed to the hilt. These four adults are down the pub getting drunk. Feeding themselves on cooked junk food, because they are too idle to cook for themselves. They come out of the pub straight to the Kebab shop. Causing general mayhem vomitiing over the street damaging the council infrastructure. They can afford to have some lifestyle but the old lady who just subsists does not but she has to contribute to their lifestyle and pay to clear up after them. This tax is unfair when looked at like this but it does happen in life.

So my proposal and I expect you have already had this is Local V.A.T.    This would be a fairer system. The old lady would only pay for what she uses. The four adults on benefits would pay for what they use. The setting of the rate would be down to the local council. Example seaside town quite small but in the summer its visitor numbers are vastly greater than the local inhabitants. The local inhabitants have to support the visitors who use the local services and therefore under the current system pay quite a large amount of Council Tax . Under the local V.a.t. those visitors would contribute to the local economy and infrastructure. These extra local tax incomes could be ploughed back into the town and the whole town improved thereby attracting more visitors and everyone is a winner. This system could be used to improve not just the hypothetical seaside town but most areas of the U.K.  But most of all it gives you choice. Choice over how you wish to live. Choice of where you want to visit. Choice of whether you can afford it and greatest of all there will be no chance of being jailed because you cannot pay your current Council Tax.       

SUPERMARKET HOURS RESTRICTION

I want you to imagine the situation, you walk in your supermarket on your way home from work, you've had a busy day, but need to pick up a few items for your evening meal. You walk in, your head drops with disappointment, yet again you go in to find it incredibly busy and you know it's going to take a while to get to the aisles you want, let alone actually get to the checkout to pay.

What makes it worse is the realisation that the supermarket is not full with other people in similar positions who have been at work (yes there are some), but there are large numbers of old people, and young ladies with their babies wandering through debating what they need, not rushing feeling they have all the time in the world, without a second thought for the fact you just want to get back home and eat and relax after a stressful day at work.

I therefore, must propose that a law be brought in that prevents people who do not work in the day from using supermarkets during lunchtime hours, and between 17.00 and 20.00. A small sacrifice for them, that enables people who cannot go during the quieter hours of the day due to work commitments, to be able to do their shopping quicker, and hence improving the efficiency of the country as a whole.

Why is this idea important?

I want you to imagine the situation, you walk in your supermarket on your way home from work, you've had a busy day, but need to pick up a few items for your evening meal. You walk in, your head drops with disappointment, yet again you go in to find it incredibly busy and you know it's going to take a while to get to the aisles you want, let alone actually get to the checkout to pay.

What makes it worse is the realisation that the supermarket is not full with other people in similar positions who have been at work (yes there are some), but there are large numbers of old people, and young ladies with their babies wandering through debating what they need, not rushing feeling they have all the time in the world, without a second thought for the fact you just want to get back home and eat and relax after a stressful day at work.

I therefore, must propose that a law be brought in that prevents people who do not work in the day from using supermarkets during lunchtime hours, and between 17.00 and 20.00. A small sacrifice for them, that enables people who cannot go during the quieter hours of the day due to work commitments, to be able to do their shopping quicker, and hence improving the efficiency of the country as a whole.

Council Tax

Disallow all councils from issuing summons against residents for non payment of council tax until at least one full month of non payment is recorded. It is beyond belief that Mole Valley Council in particular, issues a summons in the same month when the account is not in arrears but they feel that because it was not recorded as paid on the 1st of the month – it was considered "late" No reminder issued.

 

This is just a simple ploy to force people to pay by direct debit instead of (in my case) Bacs payment and an unscrupulous method of increasing revenue.

 

Freezing council tax next year will see many councils employing the same underhanded tactics to increase revenues because it costs not a snippet of the surcharge they levy to issue a summons. Payment received does not cancel out the costs (even when the payment has been received before the date of the summons) they are supposed to have incurred.

 

It is the poor and the struggling who suffer from this outrageous policy. It should be outlawed and councils forced to make allowances for the fact that people are often not paid when the council tax is due but have insufficient resource to build a backlog of funds to cover such intransigence.

Why is this idea important?

Disallow all councils from issuing summons against residents for non payment of council tax until at least one full month of non payment is recorded. It is beyond belief that Mole Valley Council in particular, issues a summons in the same month when the account is not in arrears but they feel that because it was not recorded as paid on the 1st of the month – it was considered "late" No reminder issued.

 

This is just a simple ploy to force people to pay by direct debit instead of (in my case) Bacs payment and an unscrupulous method of increasing revenue.

 

Freezing council tax next year will see many councils employing the same underhanded tactics to increase revenues because it costs not a snippet of the surcharge they levy to issue a summons. Payment received does not cancel out the costs (even when the payment has been received before the date of the summons) they are supposed to have incurred.

 

It is the poor and the struggling who suffer from this outrageous policy. It should be outlawed and councils forced to make allowances for the fact that people are often not paid when the council tax is due but have insufficient resource to build a backlog of funds to cover such intransigence.

Abolish Pre-Owned Asset Tax !

Pre-Owned Asset Tax is intrincically unfair and anti-family in nature. It was introduced under the Labour Government in 2005 to attack arrangements made predominantly by elderly people who sought to live together with their children and grandchildren in the family home.

As a tax law it was badly drafted, rushed in without published guideliness, and, most cruelly of all, retrospective in action. It consigned thousands of families to stressful uncertainty and then forced many of them to break up family living arrangements.

A lot of elderly people find themselves living in the old family home when their children with young families are struggling to find the deposit to buy a big enough house. What could make better sense that to all live together and share resources, not least as it brings the elderly built-in care, company and support?

The problem is that tax law states that granny cannot give her house to her children and carry on living there with them. Either the gift is deemed invalid because she has 'reserved a benefit' and her children will have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house when she dies, which usually means they have to sell it thereby negating the whole point of moving in to it. Or, under Pre-Owned Asset Tax, granny has to pay an annual tax based on the market rent of the proportion of the property she occupies.

Pre-Owned Asset Tax particularly targets those elderly people who used a deferred lease method whereby they gave their house to their children but retained a lease to continue living in a part of the house until their death. They did this so that their children would not have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house at their death (after all the house you live in – your principle private residence – is meant to be free of tax) knowing that this would probably force them to sell the house.

The Revenue publicly acknowledged that such lease arrangements made before February 2001 were valid, but then they introduced Pre-Owned Asset Tax which operates retrospectively forcing granny or grandad to make annual tax payments based on the market rental value, a sum far beyond the means of most old aged pensioners.

The end result of this tax is that some elderly people have had endure great financial hardship to pay the tax, but most have been unable to pay and so have had to leave their own houses and be parted from their families and the care and support that living together brings.

Why is this idea important?

Pre-Owned Asset Tax is intrincically unfair and anti-family in nature. It was introduced under the Labour Government in 2005 to attack arrangements made predominantly by elderly people who sought to live together with their children and grandchildren in the family home.

As a tax law it was badly drafted, rushed in without published guideliness, and, most cruelly of all, retrospective in action. It consigned thousands of families to stressful uncertainty and then forced many of them to break up family living arrangements.

A lot of elderly people find themselves living in the old family home when their children with young families are struggling to find the deposit to buy a big enough house. What could make better sense that to all live together and share resources, not least as it brings the elderly built-in care, company and support?

The problem is that tax law states that granny cannot give her house to her children and carry on living there with them. Either the gift is deemed invalid because she has 'reserved a benefit' and her children will have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house when she dies, which usually means they have to sell it thereby negating the whole point of moving in to it. Or, under Pre-Owned Asset Tax, granny has to pay an annual tax based on the market rent of the proportion of the property she occupies.

Pre-Owned Asset Tax particularly targets those elderly people who used a deferred lease method whereby they gave their house to their children but retained a lease to continue living in a part of the house until their death. They did this so that their children would not have to pay 40% tax on the value of the house at their death (after all the house you live in – your principle private residence – is meant to be free of tax) knowing that this would probably force them to sell the house.

The Revenue publicly acknowledged that such lease arrangements made before February 2001 were valid, but then they introduced Pre-Owned Asset Tax which operates retrospectively forcing granny or grandad to make annual tax payments based on the market rental value, a sum far beyond the means of most old aged pensioners.

The end result of this tax is that some elderly people have had endure great financial hardship to pay the tax, but most have been unable to pay and so have had to leave their own houses and be parted from their families and the care and support that living together brings.

Minimum Speed Limits to be introduced on motorways

Do you ever get fed up by that pensioner with his flat cap on in a small car driving along at less than 50 mph on the motorway? Its time this is stopped – introduce a minimum speed limit on motorways to forces people to drive at a set speed when the traffic is moving, thus promoting quicker journeys and less queues on motorways as people wont get stuck behind them and slow other lanes down when overtaking.

Why is this idea important?

Do you ever get fed up by that pensioner with his flat cap on in a small car driving along at less than 50 mph on the motorway? Its time this is stopped – introduce a minimum speed limit on motorways to forces people to drive at a set speed when the traffic is moving, thus promoting quicker journeys and less queues on motorways as people wont get stuck behind them and slow other lanes down when overtaking.