The NVT and the GOED Foundation (Boundless Under One Roof)
On the Facebook page of the Dutch Association Thailand we read that a partnership has been entered into with the GOED Foundation (Grenzeloos Onder Een Dak).
The essence of the GOED Foundation – the message states – is to gain broad support for promoting the interests of Dutch people abroad, regarding specific obstacles or restrictions associated with living or working abroad and with maintaining Dutch citizenship.
GOOD Foundation
On the website www.stichtinggoed.nl states that the GOED Foundation was established in January of this year with the aim of allowing as many Dutch associations, foundations, organizations, clubs, online social networks, etc. abroad as possible to work together under one umbrella. You can achieve much more with each other and for each other, without costing the partners – for those who do not charge their participants membership fees – a penny and hardly requiring any intensive effort.
In short, Stichting GOED is committed to the joint promotion of rights and obligations for members or participants with all those partners. Solving obstacles of Dutch origin that come with living or working abroad as a Dutch citizen is also part of the focus of Stichting GOED.
Dutch Association Thailand
The Facebook message comes from the Dutch Thailand Association in Bangkok, but I am inclined to assume that the partnership with the Good Foundation was done in consultation with the sister associations in Pattaya and Hua Hin. In any case, it is commendable that the NVT will now, in addition to the many social activities, also devote itself to promoting the interests of the Dutch in Thailand.
Partnership
The partnership of Stichting Goed is described on their website as follows:
“Partners can influence the prioritization of those interests while fully retaining their own identity, profiling and approach to overarching interests for Dutch people who have joined them or feel connected to them. The Foundation does this by periodically coordinating priorities and then regularly informing the partners about the progress in that influence. The partners themselves decide to what extent they want to and are able to participate in projects.”
Active participation
I expect that the NVT will now adopt an active attitude and not, now as a partner, sit back and see what will come of it. The Good Foundation has only just started and deserves all the support to be able to carry out the good work they intend to do.
The NVT will undoubtedly report to the Dutch community in Thailand to make an overview of the matters that should be given priority from this country.
Let's help the NVT in this one. What would be your priority that the NVT should put forward to Stichting Goed? Mind you, it is of course not about a personal priority, but about matters that concern Dutch people in Thailand in general.
Finally my priority
I am aware that my priority will be a European illusion, but I still hope that the difference between the Dutch in European countries and the Dutch outside Europe will receive more attention. It is my belief that the latter group is discriminated against in important matters such as health insurance and other social matters.
So, let's hear it!
Source: websites of NVT and Stichting Goed
I think it would be wise to first find out who, what and why the foundation is GOED, who helps the foundation with money, and how and how much.
For now I'm just reading a somewhat vaguely beautiful story.
You are absolutely right, Ruud, but that is up to the NVT. There will be thought though
before signing up as a partner?
I still have some question marks, but let's wait for NVT's response!
Hey Gringo,
Sad but true. The Dutch government creates work for a number of underprivileged people who make agreements with so-called treaty countries. Thailand is not part of this. You wonder why. This usually concerns the export of the rights of social insurance and health insurance. Remember that you pay tax in the Netherlands on benefits/pension/income paid by the Netherlands. This club also looks at the level of healthcare costs in other treaty countries. . If you live or stay here, they will cancel your right to Dutch health insurance and refer you to the insurer in the treaty country. Obviously, this saves a lot. With a 2 x average income, the health insurance costs Total 12x approx. 125 euros + the deductible of 365 + The employer's contribution is approx. So if the average costs for medical assistance in a treaty country are 9000% lower, they will save €750/month. If you live in a non-expired country like Thailand, this is 50.- euros/year. Add to that the healthcare allowance that is lower or that you no longer receive, then you know how much people save on the large group of AOWers with pension rights who live / stay outside the Netherlands.
Two countries are needed to conclude treaties. Who says the Netherlands is in default? I just do not know.
I do hate people who only think in one direction. Basic living is cheaper in Thailand, driving a car, buying or renting a house, water, electricity, fines, (women?)……..and yes, health insurance is more expensive than in the Netherlands. Should we now focus all attention on the latter and feel wronged? Don't you think you'll be blamed for looking at those other things? We may be negatively discriminated against in health care, but positively discriminated against in many other areas. The latter is often seen as a free choice.
Think if it were agreed in a treaty between Thailand and the Netherlands that the Dutch here would have to pay the same for all kinds of products and services as in the Netherlands, while they also remain insured according to Dutch standards? Would you (could) live here?
I can't quite follow the calculation and the assumptions to be honest, but you emigrate yourself and you do it voluntarily.
If you cut ties with your country of birth, you cannot invoke all kinds of rights.
If it saves the government money, if you emigrate, that is good for the remaining taxpayer.
But I do not think – which seems to be the line of the article – that the government should pay for all kinds of costs incurred by an emigrant abroad, over which the government cannot influence.
If you are going to live in Thailand, for example, you are responsible for your own medical expenses there, just as you are responsible for your own groceries and your own electricity.
Health insurance is also a kind of consumer item, just like your food.
Dear Ruud,
You compare health insurance with your food. That is allowed by me, but that is mandatory food. If you are not insured you are punishable. Not if you don't eat the groceries.
Oh and the concept of emigrating is also one of those. I believe that you have only emigrated if you take on a different nationality.
And the government does collect the tax. As a Dutchman, you only stay in another place in the world.
I believe that the government should not discriminate between people of the same nationality.
That's what it's about.
I agree with that. The government makes it easy. You have almost all obligations, but hardly any concessions.
I am married and if I lived in Europe I would have a different tax group and would pay much less tax. However, because I live in Thailand, I am simply taxed as single. In addition, when it came to alimony, it was also cheerfully said: your wife can go to work if you don't have enough money.
So double: she can work, but no allowance. I think that if you pay taxes in your home country no matter where you live, you should also be able to reap the benefits and be treated the same as someone living in the home country.
After all, you pay for the economy and the money the government spends, but doesn't have left for you.
Then if I forfeit all my rights to benefits by living abroad, then they must also return the withheld tax.
Dear Anthony,
In Thailand you are not obliged to take out insurance.
The government (both Dutch and Thai) actually does nothing more than distinguish between people of the same nationality: on the basis of being married or not married, the place where you live, the type of house, how many children you have, your age, the car you drive, where your children go to school, how much income you have……………should I continue?
As a Dutchman who lives and works in Thailand, I get income tax refunded because I am officially married to a Thai. My Dutch acquaintance, who has been living with his girlfriend for several years, never gets anything in return. In fact, most years he has to pay extra. I therefore also have an exemption from payroll tax on my private pension that I have received since I turned 65. Black on white from the Tax and Customs Administration.
The government collects taxes, but you also pay an old-age pension.
Why should the Dutch government provide for your maintenance if you do not live in the Netherlands and do not spend your AOW in the Netherlands, so that the Netherlands also gets something back from the AOW you receive?
Same with health care costs.
In Thailand you only pay tax to the Netherlands, and no social insurance contributions, so why should you be allowed to benefit from those social insurances?
You no longer pay capital gains tax on your savings that may be in the bank in the Netherlands, unlike the Dutch in the Netherlands.
You also do not pay tax on this in Thailand.
@Sjaak: I'm not exactly sure about the state pension, but can you give a good reason why the Dutch government should take care of your Thai wife in Thailand?
She is your responsibility, and her own.
If you lived in the Netherlands, as far as I understand the system, you would just receive your own share of the married AOW (is that 70% of a single person's AOW?) and your wife would receive nothing, because she never the Netherlands has built up.
Furthermore, it is also normal in the Netherlands that if the breadwinner's income is not sufficient, the partner will also look for a job.
Why should it be any different in Thailand?
I think there are a lot of complaints about the Dutch rules, but I read very little about the tax advantages of the rules.
It was not the intention at all to provoke a discussion about taxation,
AOW, health insurance and so on.
It is about the NVT and a Stichting Goed, who want to work for the
the interests of the Dutch in a broad sense. So the question is, do you think so
a good idea and if so what would you see as a priority to look into and
possibly rectify?
Dear Gringo,
Naturally, the equal treatment of people with Dutch nationality. This also includes the group of AOW pensioners and the disabled who reside/live outside the Netherlands. And not working there !!!!. ,Do not use all kinds of facilities that are in the home country and can fend for themselves. I also include the group of older women who live in countries along the Mediterranean Sea. In most articles I read about men in Thailand. I think worldwide.!!!! By the way, I have no problem with it if you also set up a branch (union) for workers outside the Netherlands.
I have tried to draw attention to some important differences so that the foundation can commit to them.
Regards Anthony
That should be clear by now: there has been a long-standing annoyance with regard to the AOW that it is paid out later and later in someone's life. But that has nothing to do with Thailand. Exactly the same situation applies in the Netherlands. Complaints about the AOW system therefore concern dissatisfaction with the government. Just wait if the pensions have to be cut: I foresee great unrest.
1- What GOOD could do is advocate/ensure that the (punitive) measures regarding taxation or abolition of tax credits are withdrawn if you have moved to live outside the EU as a pensioner. After all, this step also saves a lot of money for the Netherlands.
2- The NL-Fiscus should also help pensioners with their transfer to, for example, the Thai Fiscus. This transition is now being made more difficult/opposed/delayed administratively/administratively. If the NL-Fiscus does not want all this, cancel the tax treaty with Thailand, which clarifies the situation.
3- The most important thing is to give retirees who choose to live outside Europe the choice to remain in a Dutch basic “health insurance fund”, for a reasonable premium. It is therefore reasonable that these pensioners are not provided with healthcare allowance.
4- A final priority should be to establish a database and knowledge base on SVB,
Pension funds, Tax Authorities, (My) Government/DigiD, access to Embassies, Schengen visa applications, Passport renewal, Repatriation, etc. This means that there is a single point of contact where relevant, clear information can be obtained about matters affecting pensioners, and prevents all kinds of strange things. discussions and cowboy stories. It always strikes me that although the SVB website, for example, is very clear, there are people who do not read it properly, do not know how to contact such an agency, and often start proclaiming something based on assumptions.
2. Applying for a tax number in Thailand (at a head office), seems to me to be your own responsibility.
3. If the Netherlands were to arrange a compulsory basic health insurance policy for you, you might start longing for the commercial insurers in Thailand.
A health insurance fund is unreasonable, because the Dutch do not have that either in the Netherlands.
Then it would have to become a kind of commercial insurer, which has a cost-covering premium, with all kinds of restrictions, which also exist in the Netherlands.
And they should also check all your medical expenses.
And that would have to be the case for all countries in the world, including those countries where 1 stray Dutch person lives.
It doesn't seem feasible/affordable to me.
Dear people,
Another nice one. for many years it has been the case that you accrue state pension rights in 50 years. 2% per year. By raising the state pension age to 67 years, this will be 52 years for some of us. do you also receive 104% of the AOW?
No, because the accrual of the AOW starts 2 years later, so from when someone is 17 years old. Now it is also the case that you are not exactly paying AOW premiums for someone who is 17 years old. For example, I took early retirement at the age of 61 years and 6 months, received state pension when I was 65 years and 3 months old, I trained until I was 21, so I started contributing from the age of 21, while my accrual started at the age of 15. already started. You won't hear me complaining. More people should do this!
Dear Frits.
I'm not complaining either. But AOW is a right to money. By moving the date 2 years, this will apply to people who will be entitled to aow in 48 years. The group I'm talking about has been building since they were 15 years old. so when you retire at the age of 67, the accrual is 52 years x 2% = 104%.
Legislation cannot deprive people of their acquired rights. Hence