Phasing out partner allowance AOW starting in 2015
The Netherlands is rapidly phasing out social services. This can have far-reaching consequences for pensioners in Thailand. For example, far-reaching changes are in the pipeline for the AOW partner allowance.
This article was sent to the editors by Hans Bos, who had it sorted out, read and shiver:
The regular partner allowance for AOW allowance will expire on 1 April 2015. You will only be entitled to a partner allowance if you were already entitled to an AOW pension before 1 April 2015 and were married or cohabiting before 1 January 2015 (this has recently been posted on the SVB site) and were born before 1 January 1950
New is the proposal that with an income above € 46.000 ( excluding state pension) the partner allowance will be phased out over 1 years ( 2015 * 4%) as of 4 January 25. It is unclear whether this only refers to income in box 1 and/or whether income in boxes 2 and 3 also counts. Depending on the amount of the partner allowance, the disadvantage is a maximum of 750 euros (30.000 THB) per month. On an annual basis 9.000 euros (360.000 THB). It is also clear that changing partners after 1 January 2015 can in some cases be financially very disadvantageous.
A number of situations:
- Born before 1 January 2015, cohabiting or married as of 1 January 2015 and state pension before 1 April 2015: Partner allowance unchanged.
- Born before January 1, 2015, new cohabiting partner after January 1, 2015 and state pension before April 1, 2015: Cohabitation situation as of January 1, 2015 is terminated in this case and a new cohabitation situation no longer meets new requirements. Entitlement to partner allowance lapses.
In some cases where there is a right to a partner allowance, do scratch your head when ending a relationship after 1 January 2015 and entering into a new relationship with cohabitation. That can cost a lot of money: AOW single gross 1086 euros and with partner (without partner allowance) gross 750 euros. Already a difference of 335 euros approx. 13.000 THB per month.
Conclusion: Those who now receive a partner allowance will also lose the partner allowance if they enter into a new cohabitation after 1 January 2015.
It doesn't get any nicer than that.
This results from legislation that was made around 1999. All people who retire after January 1, 2015 only receive AOW for 1 person, no longer a partner allowance, but also no single allowance. For people who receive the state pension before January 1, 2015 and have a partner, nothing will change as long as there is a partner. People who do not have a partner and do receive state pension will also receive the single supplement.
Previously, everyone could take out additional insurance for the AOW gap, especially for people who had a younger partner.
So the case is not that it is only the case for emigrants, also for people in NL the same legislation on this.
The only question is what they will do with the people who are not yet 65 years old, but would become before January 1, 2015, in case the state pension age is raised to 66 and later 67 years. black hole with insufficient financial security.
There are some errors in the message.
In a number of situations: as born before 1 January 2015.
Google yourself SVB partner allowance AOW and you get the total picture.
Jack CNX
SVB website:
AOW supplement will expire in 2015
From April 1, 2015, the allowance will lapse. You can then only receive a supplement if you:
was already entitled to an AOW pension before 1 April 2015, and
was married or cohabiting before 1 January 2015.
If you were born on or after 1 January 1950, you will no longer receive a supplement. If you were born before 1 January 1950, nothing will change for you if you were married or cohabiting before 1 January 2015. You will receive the allowance until your younger partner receives AOW pension. There is an exception to this. If your allowance expires after 1 January 2015 because your partner's income has become too high, you will no longer be able to receive a new allowance if your partner's income drops or stops.
More information about abolishing the supplement can be found in the leaflet 'AOW supplement will end in 2015'.
In addition, the government wants to adjust the allowance as of 1 January 2015. The adjustment applies to AOW pensioners with an income from € 46.000 per year (without AOW). From 2015, the partner allowance will be phased out in four equal steps of 25%. In 2015, the allowance will be reduced by 25%, in 2016 by 50%, and in 2017 by 75%. In 2018, there will be no surcharge left. If you already receive state pension now or if you will receive state pension before 1 April 2015, you will be faced with this measure. Parliament has yet to consider the proposal.
Consequences of lower allowance / lapsed allowance
By reducing or canceling the allowance, you will temporarily have less income than you may have counted on. Whether you should do something about this depends on your financial situation. One possibility is that your partner starts working (again).
Source: http://www.svb.nl/int/nl/aow/hoogte_aow/toeslag/
Read more: http://www.svb.nl/Images/9104NX.pdf
It has indeed become quite confusing because there are quite a few errors in the data. I think this needs to be corrected.
I myself have already written to various political parties about this problem.
At the moment it is not very much alive in the political top, but this can of course change quickly as the date approaches and the disaster hits hundreds of thousands of people like a tsunami.
Because it is not the well-paid two-earners with possible pre-pension schemes, etc., who will suffer from this. It is the low and middle paid people and who of this target group has a working partner?
As a result, as a new AOW pensioner you first have to draw up your pension and, if you still fall below the minimum, you have to appeal to the AIO. There goes your nice retirement.
You also fall under the AIO regime of the SVB. This means that you are not allowed to go on holiday for more than 4 weeks a year. Really, I already asked about that.
What you can do, if you live in the Netherlands, is to appeal to the AIO, a kind of social assistance benefit for old age pensioners. Do you have to eat most of your house first?
So depending on the age difference, you lose almost € 700 per month until your [partner also starts receiving state pension.
Leuk came up with this plan in 1999 during a boom. We had to start saving for it ourselves.
But how ironic now in this economic downturn, unemployment and large debts. this plan needs to be revised.
Because no one can live on 50% AOW and certainly not a family. You will not receive a partner allowance and you will also be seen as a cohabitant with all the associated extra costs. The general tax credit also disappears for your partner, but the health insurance premium must be paid.
What disaster awaits you. Back to the Netherlands? But it's going to be a terrible time. We go back to the 18th century, where exploitation of the lowest paid is again objective no 1, because in contrast to this, more and more high-tech luxury goods, audi's, etc. are being sold. I hold my heart.
Well, our welfare state has become unaffordable. These measures are therefore inevitable. The working group is getting smaller, while the caring group is getting bigger and bigger.
Without the increase in the retirement age from 65 to 67, in 2040 there would be only two workers for every retiree (2:1). This is in stark contrast to the situation around the 50s, when the ratio was potentially 7:1. Now that working until the age of 67 has become a reality, that ratio has improved slightly: 3:1. But that is still too limited to keep the state pension affordable. Especially since that ratio is not based on the actual number of people in work, but on the potential labor force.
Personally, I therefore welcome the fact that the AOW supplement is made income-dependent. It would be even better if the AOW was made income-dependent in its entirety. I think it's crazy that someone with a pension of € 2.500 net or more per month still receives state pension. The pensioners will of course call now, but I paid for it. That is true, but the current generation also pays for this and it is very questionable whether they will receive state pension!
I think that we can easily maintain our welfare state if billions of taxpayers' money would not have to go to the banks. Now the bonus-grabbing bankers can make a good impression in exotic countries with… public money.
That the welfare state has become unaffordable is nonsense from the top shelf. If only many people keep calling this, more and more people will adhere to this idea fixe and proclaim as if this is indeed true. But nothing could be further from the truth.
This is the view of people who adhere to neoliberal thinking and these are often people who are so well off that solidarity has long been removed from their dictionary. It is political choices and positions that support this. The rich get rich at the expense of the welfare state, because they don't need it. But the welfare state was created precisely to curb neoliberal movements. Unfortunately, this virus has surfaced again. That is why the statement is made from that angle that the welfare state has become unaffordable.
A better proposition would be that excesses in the welfare state must be tackled, as well as the grabbers who are exploiting the welfare state: banks, administrators of hospitals and housing associations, etc. The welfare state can certainly progress in the right way if we to make a political choice.
Nonsense? Look at the ratio of working and unemployed people, that has nothing to do with political choices, but it is the harsh reality. By the way, these figures are generally known!
Statements of neoliberal thinking are therefore statements of left-wing rascals who think that father can pay for everything (big mountain), because they are under the assumption that they are entitled to it. The references to the many billions of aid to banks that are the cause that our welfare state can no longer be maintained is, to say the least, rather short-sighted. If we had not supported those banks, the economic consequences would have been much greater. However, it is no longer about being entitled to, but whether you actually need a facility!
Social benefits should therefore be allocated to those people who really need it and not to those who do not need it. In short, it must be made income-dependent and that applies not only to the AOW, but also to child benefit and a whole lot of other provisions.
Much is clear to me. Only your partner must live here to be eligible for a partner allowance. Living together/married? but partner stays in Thailand
@Nitnoy,
How on earth do you think you can live together if your partner is staying in Thailand?
Leo Bosch
So, having read the article and the reactions and unraveling the tangle of wording and amounts, the question arises: what will that mean for the ordinary AOW man/woman in Thailand, hopefully also provided with some other income such as pension, and some savings in the bank to meet the visa requirements?
Ask yourself the following question: Was I born on or after January 1, 1950?
If so, then I will not receive a partner supplement on the expected AOW payments.
If not, see the second question.
The second question: I was therefore born before January 1, 1950, but was I married or cohabiting before January 1, 2015?
If so, I will continue to be entitled to a partner allowance.
If not, then do my best, I still have about 17 months.
The third and not unimportant question: how high is the surcharge? Well, for each year that the partner has lived in the Netherlands, 2% of the allowance is granted.
This means that the Thai partner must have lived in the Netherlands for 50 years in order to receive full partner allowance. As you say, the accrual of the AOW for the partner also expires: for each year that she stayed in the Netherlands, she will later receive 2% AOW.
Finally: for AOW pensioners with an annual income of 46 euros, the supplement will be phased out over 4 years.
See further: http://www.svb.nl/int/nl/aow/hoogte_aow/toeslag/
Regards, Rudolph
Maybe good to know, if you were born before 1950 and you are married/living together in the Netherlands, you can buy the missing AOW years for your partner, provided she has not lived in the Netherlands for more than 10 years.
This can be very attractive as buying these years is not too expensive as this is also based on the estimated/staged salary receipts one could theoretically have earned in Thailand from the age of 15.
You can request the form for this from the SVB. I did not have to provide proof of salary earned by her.
If you have further questions about this and can I give you advice, you can ask my email.
Cor Verkerk
Dear Cor,
Completely correct. Through the Social Insurance Bank (SVB) it is indeed possible to continue to accrue state pension (or to remain insured for an Anw benefit.) You take out voluntary insurance for this. The premium is equal to that of the compulsory insurance. The only difference is that you do not pay the premium via tax, but directly to the SVB.
The premium is a percentage of your total income in a year. Before 2011, for example, the AOW contribution was 17,9% (and the Anw contribution 1,1% of your income).
If your partner has virtually no income in the Netherlands, you pay € 496 per year.
The more income, the higher the premium up to a maximum of € 4961 per year.
You can calculate yourself how high the premium will be after entering some information on:
https://secure5.svb.nl/wizard-migranten/flow/wizardemigrant?execution=e1s6
Regards, Ruud
But what happens to your monthly total amount of AOW pension if you:
1) Were born before 1950
2) Currently receiving a partner allowance
3) and you lose your partner after January 1, 2015.
By either she dies or the relationship simply ends and you do NOT take a new partner.
Will you then be stuck with a halved AOW benefit for the rest of your life?
Or will you get an AOW for single people?
Who oh who knows the answer?
Of course you will then receive a single person standard of 70%. You only get half as long as you are with a partner in some way. In the event of death or divorce, you switch to the 70% standard.
He who lives together receives his share of the AOW, being say 750 euros per month.
Those who meet the conditions receive a partner allowance, see elsewhere.
If the cohabitation changes due to divorce or divorce or death, you will receive the single person's AOW, say EUR 1160. This amount is more than AOW with a partner allowance, see the text of the article.
If someone starts a new relationship after divorce or the death of a partner, the singles AOW expires and the “normal” AOW” comes into play again. 750 euros. Partner allowance is no longer an issue.
This is the situation where the editors say at the end of the article that someone should 'scratch their heads'.
Suppose that after ending my current relationship after January 1, 2015, I hire my new relationship as a 'housekeeper'. I have three bedrooms and her clothes hang in one of them. Her toothbrushes and other utensils are in one of the two bathrooms. Naturally, I have an employment contract and transfer her 'salary' monthly via the internet. Can we make a difference if we look at what the SVB says about this?
A commercial relationship exists if two persons have shaped their relationship in a business-like manner, both with regard to their accommodation and with regard to mutual care.
Having a commercial relationship is only relevant if elements of mutual care are present. If such elements are not present, it cannot be concluded that there is a joint household on that basis.
There is a commercial relationship if no financial entanglement arises with regard to the housing or the care, since the use of the living space and the running of the household are based on a business relationship, in the sense that for the performance to be delivered a price has been stipulated and is being paid. The price must be in proportion to the services provided and what is customary in commercial traffic. The latter also presupposes the periodic adjustment of the price. The SVB also deduces from case law that a commercial relationship can only exist if the boarder or tenant has access to a space that lends itself to separate, independent occupation (CRvB 18 February 2003 and CRvB 22 August 2006).
A commercial relationship must be demonstrated by the person concerned on the basis of written evidence. In any case, are required:
a written agreement in which the mutual performances are described; and
proof of payment in the form of bank or giro statements.
The following conditions apply to the written agreement:
the agreement must be signed and dated;
the period to which the agreement applies must have been stated; and
the performance to be delivered and the price stipulated for it must be laid down, with a distinction being made between the price for housing and other services.
Finally, the SVB stipulates that the income from the commercial agreement must be reported to the tax authorities insofar as this is required under tax law.
It is up to the SVB to demonstrate that there is more than one employment relationship. However, I would read more case law on this, because you can assume that the SVB will question this construction and will try to start from the factual situation and not the legal situation. Suppose they come one evening and you are watching television together. It's very tricky. I advise you to arrange things very well.
No John, that's not the case. You submit an application to, in this example, the SVB for a (supplement to) benefit or provision, and you provide the evidentiary value/arguments on the basis of which you believe that the SVB should grant you a positive decision regarding the application. That's how it works. If you disagree, you can appeal, but win? You must come from a very good background. See my next response regarding an employment relationship. Regards, Rudolph
I am not talking about the application, but about a possible inspection. If you indicate that you live alone and they come to check you at your house, they must prove that someone lives with you and not the other way around. This of course if they think that you do not really live alone. They must then indicate that you live together and not the other way around. There is already a lot of misunderstanding and case law about this. In other words: they must demonstrate or be able to prove, according to strict rules, that you are possibly bottle-feeding.
@Hans Bos@Jan The SVB is not primarily concerned with the fact that a new relation is regarded as a housekeeper. The SVB does not care about an employment contract either.
Pay attention, because here it comes: what matters to the SVB is whether the old age pensioner and the housekeeper live together. Cohabitation is the central concept in all social insurance legislation where the benefit recipient and the SVB meet.
Living together: that's what it's all about. So someone will receive 50% of the total AOW, and if he does not live together he will receive (m/f) supplemented with the single person's allowance, ie 70%.
Do you have a housekeeper who is tempted by you to participate in the pleasures of bed and table: the SVB pays 50%. The SVB doesn't care if you have an employment contract.
If you have a housekeeper, with or without an employment contract, who has her own home and hearth elsewhere, you will receive the single person's allowance from the SVB. The SVB does not ask you what you are up to at the table and in bed.
But what to do if you still want to bring in the housekeeper full-time, after all she is your new love, and at the same time and at the same time want to get that 70%? Because that's your question, isn't it, Hans?
Well, you can do that by entering into a commercial relationship with the housekeeper (being the new flame.)
How to organize? The SVB says about the commercial relationship that it concerns: a purely business relationship that you have with another person if you rent a room to that person in your own home, or if that person is a boarder. If there is such a commercial relationship, the SVB will not regard you as cohabiting. You will then receive the AOW single person's pension.
In other words, you indicate verbally and in writing that you are renting someone a room.
You thus declare to the SVB in word and in writing that you rent someone a room. That someone acts as a housekeeper is irrelevant. You don't have to report either. However, the rental price must be in line with the market and the rented property plus facilities to be used such as bathroom, kitchen, TV, etc. must be accurately described. For more information and an example of a rental contract, see: http://www.svb.nl/Images/9179NX.pdf
And further? The SSO will check on behalf of the SVB. If the rented property and the facilities to be used are not arranged in such a way, and it is clear to the SSO/SVB that the housekeeper acts as a beloved table and bed companion: I think the turnips are well cooked. Rightly so! Please note: what matters is what is actually found. See further: http://www.svb.nl/int/nl/aow/wonen_met_iemand_anders/huurder_verhuurder/
The SVB goes further in this regard than, for example, if there is a care relationship. In that case, cohabitation is allowed and the single person allowance is paid. However, both the care recipient and the care provider must both maintain their own address to be verified.
Who receives care and who provides care does not matter. Here, too, the focus is on cohabitation, not what one does within a certain relationship.
So Hans: you can safely appoint your new love as your housekeeper. Happens in mostly all relationships, especially the non-commercial ones. It doesn't matter that you're rolling around together. As long as you can demonstrate during an inspection that the situation you have described to the SVB is the only correct one. To be sure, take a picture with toothbrushes hanging out.
People who occasionally read my comments on this blog will not be surprised when I say that I reject a course of action as described above. It is messing around with regulations, which means that the good faith that authorities have in pensioners is seriously damaged by such broad interpretations. Others may fall victim to this later if regulations are tightened again. In addition, this blog often refers to how rules and legislation are flouted in Thailand, and then loudly complained about: look at them doing that Thai. The above may also show how right-thinking a person becomes when circumstances require him to do so.
Regards, Ruud
Ruud, I'm trying to indicate how bizarre the regulations have become. And all this to save a few pieces of silver. The younger your partner, the higher the allowance. If you throw out the girlfriend/partner and you have to care for a child under the age of 18, you will receive a bonus of over 200 euros on your single state pension. How crazy can it get.
Due to all recent changes in legislation and regulations, experts often no longer know what the situation is. This requires a creative approach to the rules. That is not the fault of those involved, but of the government, which in the rush to cut spending does not ask itself what the consequences of the policy are. And that is also the opinion of the Council of State.
Dear Hans,
A few more comments and then I will stop on this subject.
1. Partner allowance has nothing to do with how old or young someone is. It is calculated based on the number of years someone lived in Ned. A younger person who has lived in Ned longer will therefore receive more than an older person who has lived in Ned for a short time.
2. What is against a single person with the care of a child under the age of 18 receiving a supplement of 200 euros because of the costs that this entails. Be glad that our healthcare system is equipped in such a way.
3. I am not an expert but I am aware of recent changes, and if I can do it, so can others.
4. I do not agree with you that the changes in laws and regulations require a creative approach to those rules.
5. The need for cutbacks has nothing to do with the possibility of entering into a commercial relationship with someone living at home, so that your benefits are not cut.
6. The Council of State advises the government and parliament, among other things, and consequently adopts a position on many matters.
Regards, Rudolph
Well, that explains the fact that many men have a large age difference with their Thai wife, that is because of the state pension because the younger she is, the higher the partner allowance. 🙁
Raised up again.