Dear readers of this blog. A few days ago there were extensive discussions about the deductions/discounts from AOW benefits, where I noticed that almost none of them were accompanied by a source reference and were written down off the cuff. With this contribution I try to shed some light after 7 years of unsuccessful litigation on this issue with the CRvB.
In the matter of deductions/discounts from the state pension, I would like to clarify how the underlying national laws in force and the international human rights treaties have come about. You will be shocked by the carelessness of our (predominantly right-wing) governments and parliament since about 1970, who have dealt with our democratic rights and property. And this issue is not the only failure that successive cabinets have performed. Think of the dividend tax that recently almost passed the nose of the common man.
History starts in the 1990s when the presumed populist party LPF (Fortuyn list) proclaims, among other things, the proposition (hype) that emigrating fellow human beings will receive the economic resources that NL needs to emerge from the economic crisis that was then developing. develop was. It was grist to the mill of the then ruling purple cabinet Kok-2 and a welcome argument for the development of the BEU (Restriction Export of Benefits Act). A start was made with setting up the BEU law under the leadership of State Secretary Robin van Linschoten, who later had to resign in the cabinet due to a lack of integrity in the “CTSV affair” issue. After his farewell, he was once again in the news because of VAT fraud in his own BV. As far as I know, this case is not yet over after its appeal. We have fine politicians in the Netherlands with high moral authority who we let work on the development of new social laws. From VVD house in the top.
The first law:
You are well aware of the 1st law BEU, with effect date 1-1-2000. With many blatant lies and concealments of important information for and accepted by the Senate and House of Representatives (read the parliamentary documents about the parliamentary debate about it). With this law, the new article 9a was introduced into the AOW, which prescribed the reductions for unmarried AOW recipients and other benefit recipients who emigrated abroad to non-EU countries. Internationally, it is arranged that national laws may not create state power (jurisdiction) beyond one's own state borders. The NL government made the first mistake by adding Article 9a to the AOW Act. That article was precisely intended to have an effect beyond its own national borders. So illegal.
The AOW Act came into effect in 1957, in which Article 1a came into force on 1-2000-9 to allow all single emigrated AOW recipients not living in one of the EU or geass. countries, to withhold a discount of 20%. The CRvB is of the opinion that the withholding measure meets the legitimate aim of combating abuse of cohabitation and living outside the borders of NL. The CRvB appropriates a right it does not have, to formulate an assessment of a human right to live and live together. After all, a human being is born in a commune that names as a family that is the ultimate form of society for happiness. The cornerstone of society. When that person comes of age, he or she finds a partner to start a family again. This is a basic human right that can never be part of a financial deal to prevent cohabitation and be given a legitimate status to base a financial sanction on. The government has never delved into the human rights that underlie cohabitation. To prohibit that right is a violation of a universal human right. The second violation of international human law.
The UDHR-1948. United Nations Human Rights Declaration after World War II. Not a treaty from an international point of view, but it is internationally accepted as such. In the declaration, article 13 describes the free choice of people to settle anywhere in the world without the physical or financial requirements of their own country being such that it has an impediment. Because one can only object to a decision by the SVB late in one's own decision-making process if there is no way back and it is always rejected. The following international human rights treaty contains a corresponding article. However, the NL government does impose obstacles and is therefore in violation of mandatory international legislation. The third violation of international treaties.
Note: The reader should take into account that no Dutch law has any legal effect on persons and goods (this is called jurisdiction) outside the national borders. That also means for tax treaties. Only international treaties apply there. He, the state pensioner, also has the right to organize something in the absence of provisions for his own medical and old-age care. That, that comes with live-in help, so be it. But the NL government has nothing to do with that.
The first human rights treaty to bear the name ICESCR NY-1966. This treaty prescribes that the State is responsible for basic welfare provision, including medical and elderly care. A duty of care! This applies not only to welfare, but also to medical and elderly care. The AOW law excl. art 9a is a good example from 1957 for the welfare part. Now the basic provision for medical and elderly care. Drees was a farsighted politician. This care is unconditional and obligatory for all Dutch people anywhere in the world. Also in prisons. All human rights treaties to date, there are 9 including a children's right treaty, are written in the imperative mood. This means that every treaty must be observed literally and in spirit (assignment and order) and may not be changed on the basis of any personal insight or cultural background. The then affiliated (108 countries) States and lower governments and judicial institutes, not even the Supreme Court of the Netherlands, have that right to do so. The AOW law was established in 1957 against this background. Over the years, the government has not adhered to these strict conditions, unfortunately. But deviating from essential matters when such a large group (chosen old age pensioners) disadvantages citizens is a step too far. This treaty also includes the prohibition that the member countries may not make agreements in new bilateral treaties that undermine the letter and spirit of the main document. NL had to conclude (enforcement) treaties with 163 countries on the basis of the BEU. This is internationally illegal under this treaty. After much effort, this has been successful to date with 40 countries where approximately 110.000 (in 2014) single state pensioners live in treaty countries, including Thailand. In the other 123 countries without a treaty, approximately 4.000 single state pensioners live. Those 4.000 AOW pensioners save €19 million per year on full-time benefits. They are now at an extra disadvantage because these AOW pensioners will never receive the benefits again and for life. The fourth illegal act of the NL government. Violation of the duty of care in combination with discrimination.
The Convention ILO-118. This treaty is the practical implementation of the 1st human rights treaty ICESCR NY-1966, because not all practical examples can be discussed in detail in the source document, ILO treaties have been made by the International Labor Organization. As an example, various ILO conventions have also been drawn up for the specific group of seafarers. This ILO-118 treaty does not have such strict conditions as the other human rights treaties. In a 2003 judgment, the CRvB rejected the deductions based on that treaty, after which the government terminated the treaty. The BEU law that was suspended was revived on 1-1-2006. Of course, this cancellation did not mean that the international insight that benefits should be and remain exportable did not disappear. But the pressure was off for a while. But the second richest country in the world as NL must have good reasons to act this way. Egoism celebrates the predominance in NL (VVD) politics. Not an illegal act, but indecent towards millions of subjects who have yet to and will undergo this in the course of time.
The 2nd Human Rights Treaty ICCPR NY-1966 is more of a treaty dealing with the legal and law violations between government and citizens. Like “no evidence no punishment”. The NL (also the CRvB) has been sinning against this rule for years. The fifth illegal behavior of NL. It is very similar to corruption between the legislature and the controlling jurisdiction (the distance to be observed on the basis of the “trias politica”).
The Dutch Constitution (Gw), in particular Article 1 and Articles 91 to 95, which deal with the application of international treaties. Article 1 protects citizens against discrimination and arbitrariness based on, among other things, marital status and place of residence. In this case, the AOW pensioner has fewer rights compared to he or she who lives abroad other than in an EU country (Note: the duty of care as applies in NL also remains in force outside the borders of NL). Article 95 gives the citizen the right to invoke international treaties in a dispute with the government if national laws do not provide for this. That is always the case with a person living abroad. Until now, the CRvB has applied NL legislation and EU regulations, which are not applicable in this case. In my case, the CRvB refused to apply the human rights treaties at my explicit request. This makes it a basic right that I have as a Dutch citizen not to be able to use. I think this is an abuse of, and is legal injustice. This also negates a cassation possibility. After all, the CRvB is the highest judicial authority in cases involving social security. The sixth illegal act, withholding cassation in the case law of NL. This is debatable because international law has nothing to do with it. It is a restriction of political rights.
The application of the personality principle versus the territoriality principle. Prior to the entry into force of the BEU Act, these principles applied to the nature and purpose of all social benefits. The personality principle applies to laws where contributions paid from gross pay and benefits are made available anywhere in the world and are owned by the contributor. The territoriality principle applies to premium payments from the gross salary and/or which are required to be paid by the employer for one or more social legislation. They are only paid to Dutch nationals and Europeans within the countries of the EU borders. After the entry into force of the BEU law, only the AOW law still falls under the personality principle. The government now has the so-called control over all this money. All premiums from all other benefits now go into the treasury and property passes to the government. Another silent theft of citizens' money in the history of social security legislation. Just think of the previous transfers from the social security funds of the trade unions to the government and the grabs from the pension funds. After all, the owner of the money (property) determines how it is spent. You understand that the surplus premium income now disappears into the government coffers and is no longer used for the purpose for which it was paid. Collect premiums in euros, but pay out in the worthless currencies of the countries of the recipients. All social funds of the past have now been tacitly closed down. Citizens now have no say in where their money goes. Think of the pension reforms that are currently being discussed. It is feared that things will go in the same direction with the state pension and self-administered pension funds. "Big Brother What's You". Due to the aging population, part of the state pension benefits has already been financed from tax revenues (this is called taxation and means even less control). Partly due to the fixing of the state pension premium at 19,7% from 1997, it was not necessary then and is now. The government has been an unreliable factor in our democracy for years. The friends in the coalition in the cabinet and the solidarity behavior in the faction are protected by those in the Chamber. Healthy consultation in the House is often no longer an option.
The new treaties were drawn up for the 40 countries (including Thailand) asking to grant jurisdiction to monitor Dutch people for compliance with Dutch legislation on foreign territory. These treaties are in conflict with the ICESCR treaty (see above under 3). So illegal. This puts single AOW recipients in other non-treaty countries at an extra disadvantage because they have no way of avoiding their lifelong reduction. This discount is a proportional part of their state pension, which can amount to more than € 100.000 in lost income from an state pension.
Taken actions. I have sent letters 5 times to the 2nd Chamber in two compositions, all group chairmen and the committee members for social affairs. Reactions from the committee: “We have taken note of the contents of your letter, we will come back to it if there is reason to do so”. Letters written to the Minister of Social Affairs and Employment 4 times. Response: “I have no plans to change our policy.” So the policy is to keep quiet, exploit those old people and make them poor so that they do not harm the economy. There are stronger descriptions imaginable for this policy, but I will keep them to myself.
Special situations: I have not heard anyone talk about the (owner-occupied) homes that become available in the Netherlands upon emigration. Now, this is added to the housing stock of the Netherlands. The government uses it for free and thus avoids major investments to accommodate first-time buyers on the housing market, asylum seekers and refugees. Checkout! All kinds of supplements will also no longer be available to these AOW recipients. Checkout! It goes without saying that AOW pensioners must continue to pay tax in the Netherlands because they no longer use the provisions there. hiccup hiccup! The conserved income also remains payable for up to 10 years after departure from NL. The benefits for the government now amount to many millions of euros per year due to an accumulation of more and more financial cuts. After 18 years, many billions of euros have now been borne by the state pensioners. And the cash cow are all emigrating benefit recipients, but in particular the AOW citizens. Who represents this group in NL? New initiatives have recently been developed, but they are not specific to older people abroad. Pensions are no longer indexed. Inflation is low in the Netherlands, but the third world countries are raging with sky-high inflation. And the discounts from NL are increasing (no elderly supplement in the costs from 1-1-2015 and elderly income tax reduction from 1-1-2019). Also compare the social status of the NL-AOW recipient in any EU country and that of AOW recipients in (non-) treaty countries. The Europhiles are being pampered, discrimination!
The slogan I hear a lot, “you made the decision yourself and voluntarily”. That was true on the basis of free settlement elsewhere in the world, but then the consequences could be foreseen for countries with a reasonable regime. It is the insights since then and the legal regulations that come into force afterwards and that are only now emerging and that our government is playing tricks on at the expense of the unsuspecting and ignorant citizen. Scandalous abuse of power. There is nothing wrong with what is written here. You can verify it yourself. There is much more to say on this issue but then I could write a whole book.
I believe that this exploitation must come to an end and that all damage must take place retroactively. It affects a defenseless group of elderly people far away from the motherland who cannot defend themselves. It comes down to ordinary money-making under the guise of enforcing a non-existent problem of false research results of so-called abuses in obtaining a justified benefit. It is the government that premeditated this situation. The government does not realize what it is doing to former benefit claimants living in the Netherlands in a physical and moral sense in their last phase of life. All the more so because the target group is so spread over 163 countries where they are difficult to reach in order to organize themselves for resistance. They have no rights and have become pariahs in the country where they now live.
I want to take the lead and file a complaint with the Council of Europe and/or the Human Rights Committee in New York or Geneva, and I am looking for allies, including a lawyer, because I cannot do it alone. I am not an investigative journalist or lawyer. Together we can pay for a lawyer. I have 7 years of procedural documents from which to draw. My email address is [email protected]. I am somewhat deaf so the phone is not a good means of communication for me. But whatsapp is also possible +233249853217. I hope for some response. Thank you for your attention.
Submitted by FJJ Duurkoop
For many years now, the Beu Act has arranged that pensioners, among others, cannot simply go and live somewhere abroad while retaining their state pension. This is allowed if you are going to live within the EU, for example, or in a country with which NL has concluded a treaty for control. NL has such a treaty with Thailand. Angola and India, for example, do not have that.
To now bring a case before the Council of Europe from the NL-Thai situation, because the Netherlands is/remains in default regarding the application of the BEU Act, seems to me too much to ask. Do better than those who live in eg Angola and India.
The call/article is full of subjectivity. All kinds of references, insinuations, insinuations and accusations cloud the evidence, with which it must be demonstrated that the BEU Act does not deserve application.
You can't say that law is wrong because: "the government is playing tricks on ignorant citizens." That is not a fact, just a personal experience.
You also cannot prove that the government is engaged in: “ordinary money-making under the guise of enforcing a non-existent problem of false research results of so-called abuses in obtaining a justified benefit. It is the government that premeditated this situation.”
And furthermore, I do not believe that the group of retirees abroad, especially in Thailand, “defenseless elderly are far away from their motherland.” Bought a ticket today, back in NL next week and back in possession of all conveniences and amenities. Plus: all deficits repaired, including tax benefits.
In addition: I do not think it is wrong that the NL Government is trying to limit and monitor the export of benefits. More than 4 million compatriots receive some form of benefit. Suppose 1 million people have something to do with a foreign country, eg pensioners in Thailand, Philippines, Indonesia, Aruba, Sint Maarten, Switzerland?
Suppose it concerns 1000 euros p. months, so 1 billion euros per year! It's a good thing that there is still some insight into how and where all that money from the NL economy and society is being transferred.
Finally: the Wet Beu has been in force since the beginning of this century. If you are going to live in Thailand or Suriname with state pension: first find out thoroughly what consequences all of this will have for you before you leave. And after that? Put consumption to the trade
Dear FJJ Durkoop,
I agree with Ruud that if you want to build a case, you must use pure reasoning, facts and no emotion. Personally, I quickly tune out if I read a lot of assumptions, insinuations, etc. in a piece. Sorry, but that makes your piece weak.
I completely agree with you, everyone wants to continue eating from the Dutch state rack.
Sometimes under the guise of "I have worked for 40 years" yes who wouldn't I would say, some have worked for 50 years
Dear Thea, are there not many who also eat from the state rack and have never done a job during their life in the Netherlands or have brought anything positive with them.
And I think that people who have worked hard for years to make the Netherlands what it has become today, can safely stay somewhere in the world for their last years without discounts.
Jan Beute.
@RuudB
In my contribution I indicate where the Dutch government is going wrong. That's at 6 points if you read carefully. The introduction of Article 9a in the AOW law is also a violation of human rights from an international perspective. This makes the BEU punishable internationally but also illegal. Unfortunately, legislation from an international source lags behind to be integrated into national legislation. Hence my path to the Council of Europe. Because international laws are not applied with impunity by member countries, only a reprimand via the Council of Europe is possible. You can assume from me, because I have gone through all the House of Representatives debates about the BEU, that these many errors and lies and important treaties have not been mentioned. This misled the House of Representatives and constituted a gross violation of the obligation to provide information to the House. In combination with non-compliance with the IVESCR2 treaty, the BEU was established illegally. Based on this behavior, the Netherlands also has a duty of care for medical and elderly care. This also applies to the 1966 bilateral treaties for compliance with Dutch regulations. There is no reason for a discount at all for the 40 countries without a treaty, as there is no treaty. The Netherlands has no jurisdiction (is jurisdiction) beyond its own borders, which is why all those adjournments (120 of them) are also against the letter and spirit of the ICESCR treaty. Getting informed in advance is nonsense if you only receive notice after you leave that you will be cut. It is not possible to test in advance against the law because there is no notification of a discount. There is no way back except at high cost. It also goes against the human right of unhindered emigration (art 163). Cohabitation is a human right in the Netherlands, but not internationally and cannot be part of a criminal offense for which a financial sanction is possible. Furthermore, no evidence means no punishment. There are more international restrictions, but that is too complicated to discuss in more detail in this blog. But your response shows ignorance of international social context.
Sorry dear Frans, but I didn't come across 6 points. Actually none. Please explain in concrete terms why the BEU Act may not actually be applied if someone decides to live in Cambodia for the rest of their life with their state pension. Cambodia is not a treaty country. Your reasoning is that no treaty countries should be mentioned.
Your reasoning that you cannot know in advance whether you will have to deal with the Tired of Law if you plan to leave for Cambodia, and only afterwards will you be confronted with a discount because only then will you be notified, is nonsense. How do I already know that, even though I don't want to go to Cambodia at all?
Finally: if cohabitation is a human right and if billions of people do so, why is the application of the Wet Beu a criminal offense?
In reality, it is the case that those who go abroad with far too little of their own resources want to see measures from the NL Government to assist them the soonest.
A program called: “Ik Departure” regularly appears on TV. Well, if you want to go, do your best, inform yourself, prepare, and above all: put your shoulders to the wheel. Make something of it. Don't burn ships behind you, because it shows once again how much we need the NL-Government, if things don't go as imagined.
@RuudB
You can't understand reading. The 6 reasons are all mentioned.
The BEU makes it a criminal offense to cohabit with art 9a in the state pension law is the first criminal offence. This makes the entire law illegal and therefore also the deduction or discounts. This is prohibited under the international human rights treaty ICESCR-1966. You should bear in mind that those treaties impose obligations on governments that oblige them to implement them when making national legislation.
Making living together a criminal offense in itself is the 2nd offense because it is a human right. This also applies to legislation at national level, such as the two-home sharing scheme, whereby single elderly people are not allowed to live together under penalty of a sanction.
Opposing to find a place elsewhere in the world other than against a financial penalty (withholding of AOW supplement) is the third international criminal offense.
Concluding treaties that undermine the source (the human rights treaty) is the fourth criminal offense. Such treaties have no international value or legal force whatsoever. You can even look for the other facts in my text.
Attempting to carry out checks on foreign territory is not an offense in itself, but when it comes to permitted acts, it must be based on a valid treaty. And this is not the case in the case of human rights monitoring. You cannot submit an objection earlier or you must already be on site. Such an objection is against the rules of good governance, see the Administrative Law Act.
The government has obligations towards its citizens. Rich or poor doesn't matter.
I do not fantasize but stick to the facts of international law. You think you know it, but you're completely wrong. Learn more about the legal background of making legislation of an international caliber. The NL government is there for it and you are not there for the NL government!
I read from an overview by CBS in 2013, more recently I could not find, that approximately 10% of benefits are sent abroad. I don't think more recent figures will show a big change, so the 25% you write is an exaggeration. In addition, abroad are mainly the neighboring countries Belgium and Germany for all benefits and Spain for state pensioners. Then there remains a small group. So what are we talking about.
If you talk about 10%, you are talking about 115.000 people (anno 2014) emigrating to countries outside Europe. I am not talking about emigrants to Euro countries, they are already being pampered by EU regulations.
Of the 115.000 persons, 110.000 go to treaty countries and more than 4.000 to non-treaty countries. People to treaty countries normally receive their state pension. Only if they are caught cohabiting do they have to pay back with a fine. All 115 persons are also entitled to a basic amount for medical and elderly care on the basis of international treaties, but which they are not reimbursed by the Dutch government.
Why does the EU pamper emigrants and let the other AOWers get lost? I fight against this discrimination on the basis of international human rights treaties.
Mistake: in my example it is about 1 billion per month, so 12 billion on an annual basis.
I lost track of the story after the first few lines, so I didn't bother to read it all.
But still this:
“Internationally, it is arranged that national laws may not create state power (jurisdiction) beyond one's own state borders. The NL government made the first mistake by adding Article 9a to the AOW law. That article was precisely intended to have an effect beyond its own national borders. So illegal.”
You should substantiate this statement better.
The law concerns taxation in and by the Netherlands.
It will be clear that a reduction in the state pension abroad will have consequences for the recipient, but that applies to any change in taxes, level of benefits, etc.
Are they all illegal?
Moreover, I do not see the connection between the amount of a benefit and the jurisdiction of another country.
“The AOW Act came into force from 1957, in which Article 1a came into force on 1-2000-9 for all single emigrated state pensioners not living in one of the EU or geass. countries, to withhold a discount of 20%. The CRvB is of the opinion that the withholding measure fulfills the legitimate aim of combating abuse of cohabitation and living outside the borders of NL.”
This too, although the rule is unknown to me, and which only seems to be a personal interpretation without acknowledgment of the source, it is about a benefit from the Netherlands.
That this will have consequences abroad, but is that illegal?
The connection between a 20% discount for a single person and abuse of society eludes me.
If you live together, you are not single.
The government does not interfere here with whether or not you get married, it simply puts a tax rate on a benefit that is paid by the Netherlands and possibly transferred abroad.
Whether you get married or not is completely your own choice.
RuudB, you write “…De Wet Beu has arranged for many years now that pensioners, among others, do not just go and live abroad while retaining their state pension….”
Why would you think that? Where do you get this from? This is not right.
You can live in ANY country with your state pension, but outside the EU and a limited group of countries you are only entitled to the single person's benefit and to the partner allowance (the remainder of that scheme) if a BEU treaty has been concluded. Other rules apply to supplements such as income support.
Take a look at the SVB site and enter the countries you mentioned (Angola and India). This is what the SVB says about Angola:
” AOW pension
Export restriction from January 1, 2006; if you live in this country, the export restrictions of the BEU Act will apply from 1 January 2006, as a result of which your AOW pension and AOW income support will be limited or withdrawn.
state pension
The AOW scheme is as follows:
For married or unmarried cohabiting state pensioners who have both reached state pension age, the benefit amounts to a maximum of 50% of the net minimum wage; For married or unmarried cohabiting state pensioners with a partner who has not yet reached state pension age, the benefit is 50% of the net minimum wage;
For an unmarried AOW pensioner, the benefit amounts to a maximum of 50% of the net minimum wage.
There are other factors that can affect the amount of your AOW pension and AOW income support. We therefore advise you to contact the SVB if you plan to move to this or another country.
The income support AOW
The income support AOW is an extra amount on top of the AOW. You receive AOW income support if you work in the public interest.
You work in the public interest in one of the following situations:
you work for the Dutch government, or for another Dutch body that carries out government tasks; you work for a development cooperation organization recognized by the Dutch government, such as Oxfam Novib; you work for an international organization of which the Netherlands is a member, such as the United Nations; you work on behalf of the Dutch government and the government pays for your work.
Pardon arrangement
The consequences of the BEU Act do not apply if you: live in this country, and were already living outside the Netherlands on December 31, 1999, and were (and are still) entitled to an AOW pension before January 1, 2000. If you If you belong to this group, you will retain your right to AOW after January 1, 2006 as it was until January 1, 2006, unless another change has occurred in your situation.
This exception does not apply to AOW income support. You are only entitled to AOW income support if you work in the public interest. ”
It follows, RuudB, that the right to the basic AOW is not affected, despite your bold statement.
mr. Duurkoop, have read through your article and respect your knowledge of the subject and your perseverance in eliminating injustice. I am not a lawyer, even if I were, I still need to specialize in this legislation and international treaties. And I don't have that. And I think many with me. What matters to me is the reality principle. After a working life and having made my contribution to the economy and social benefits, I must now be wary of an invasion by the SVB, both in the Netherlands and abroad. The self-determination of the elderly is thereby affected, how and with whom to live wherever. Older people abroad have often paid for their entire working life and then AWBZ and not just a little, now opt for a life elsewhere to escape loneliness and share their life with a foreign partner who can take care of them if necessary . This solves part of the loneliness problem and does not cost the government a penny, while years ago they received money through the AWBZ.
A solution perhaps: A basic income for everyone freely disposable and no longer necessary expensive legislation and control systems. Perhaps in 2185…
You are right that the legislation conflicts with human rights.
If you buy a ticket for the cinema, and then decide not to go to the cinema, you are not saying that the cinema is unjustly making money from you.
Your AWBZ is waiting for you in the Netherlands, where the film is playing.
In the Netherlands it is swarming with people who do not have the right to self-determination to find a partner in Thailand, because they have no money to fly there, let alone live there.
Self-determination is reserved for people who can afford it. (A hard truth behind a beautiful thought.)
You could have simply escaped loneliness in the Netherlands.
Potential partners also live there.
Your opinion is an opinion of egoists and narcissists? We can do without them like a toothache in governing a country. You lack a total sense of empathy and human rights. It sounds like you belong to the upper class? I for myself and God for us all. You will do well in the rest of your life.
And if all treaties and human rights no longer offer a solution, we always have the Bible to distill a suitable solution from it, but after that it ends
I note facts...And I don't belong to the upper ten...In an ideal world, someone can look for his partner anywhere in the world, but the reality is different...If you want to live in Thailand, you have to spend the money there you cannot say that you want to have a – young person, because she has to take care of you when you get old and infirm – partner in Thailand, and expect someone else to pay the bill. Living in Thailand is not a human right, but a luxury, and that comes with a price tag.
In response to Ruud's message, you write: "Your opinion is an opinion of egoists and narcissists?"
I can see you getting a lot of support in this with a rating of +9. That is downright sad!
Without going further into Ruud's response, I consider your comment an insult to him. It contains a serious accusation/conviction.
But which category do you place yourself under, given my reactions to Chander's post about living in Ghana? As someone who wants to eat from all sides and does not shy away from inventing their own rules of law to mislead unsuspecting readers? From a legal point of view, your argumentation rattles on all sides, as I have indicated in another message. You do not have the right to replace our legislature. And fortunately so, because otherwise there would be complete chaos.
Wouldn't it be a good idea to quickly seek professional help in legal and possibly other areas?
Madam or Mr. Duurkoop, I have read your report and see that years of proceedings have not led to the desired result. Good or not good, I can't judge that based on your story.
But I sense an undertone in your epistle. An undertone of an evil political system that is out to harm citizens against international treaties. Then, in case of violation of treaties, the court would have intervened, as has happened before, for example, when the health insurance law came into effect in 2006 and Dutch immigrants in France and Spain went to court. And didn't the predecessor of the UWV even have to back down from the CRvB in the WAO discussion because of the ILO treaty?
That negative undertone dominates your entire article and given the decisions of the judge, I think that your vision is next to the legal reality. And, incidentally, what prevented you from going directly to the EU Court?
You drag along a malicious government and parliament; the VVD, Pim F, and why not Geert W and Thierry B? Or Jesse K? Do you really think that a political game is being played here or do you perhaps not dare to admit that you are completely wrong yourself? The highest court on this matter was wrong.
I wish you luck in your next steps, although I will not participate in the crowdfunding. And what the Council of Europe can do for Dutch people in Thailand? Sorry, that completely escapes me.
For me, the CRvB is incompetent in judging international legislation on social laws. hence their refusal to deal with my issue internationally. The EU court does not have the right to judge higher international legislation (UN legislation) on the basis of the legal order. The NL cabinets were aware of all the ins and outs of international treaties. It is therefore premeditated to bring such a law into Parliament and with lies and concealments. The France issue you raise concerned EU legislation and not international law. The ILO treaty was soon denounced afterwards.
You are right because I do not encounter an international approach in the legal formation of the Netherlands anywhere.
This is also because EU regulations are predominant in the Netherlands. Everything is tested against EU regulations that are not in accordance with international treaties.
Geert W and Thierry B had yet to be born in the 1990s.
The Council of Europe and of course the Human Rights Committee also work internationally outside the EU for justice. What I am arguing here is mainly about globally accepted human rights. And Dutch people also live there who now have no voice and legal security.
I demand from NL application of international treaties nothing more and nothing less. That means responsibility for the well-being of its subjects abroad.
One additional comment. The fact that the CRvB represents the highest legal order in social issues in the Netherlands has been a problem for the legal profession for years. It prevents going to the Supreme Court for review on the basis of application of the law. Almost unique in Europe who do know this road.
Mr Frans Duurkoop, I'm sorry, but here you react like a small child who doesn't get his glass of lemonade…..
I have already said in my earlier response that I doubt your legal knowledge and when I read the responses, especially those from Bill and van Lammert, it strengthens my view.
Yes, that is a much heard and used argument by people who are not proven right. The institution that proved them wrong in incompetent. So I would like a few more.
Dear people, everyone gets AOW, the accrual starts from the age of 15 and grows by 2% every year.
Regardless of whether you have worked, so you do not build up because you have worked, but because you have lived here
This is not the discussion we are talking about now. As a national government, the Netherlands has the right to determine how the state pension is accrued. There are no international aspects to it.
Correction.
AOW accrual starts 50 years before your final AOW age. If, as now, you receive state pension later than earlier, those young people possibly even after reaching the age of 67+, you will lose the years you accrued earlier. Never more than 50 years following the AOW age. Unfortunately they can't make it better.
@ Mr Durkoop
I have read your story with great pleasure. I still feel that I should be able to decide for myself what I do with my money and should be able (and allowed) to determine for myself how to ensure valid health insurance and informal care. if you can find a live-in informal caregiver, this also means that that person has no expectations of a viable pension. I therefore still think that the English system has great advantages.
You may sometimes have confused reasonable expectations and legal requirements, but that's understandable.
Let's keep in touch (tel 0810898815). A sorrow shared is a sorrow half, my mother used to say
I demand from NL application of international treaties nothing more and nothing less. That means responsibility for the well-being of its subjects abroad.
One additional comment. The fact that the CRvB represents the highest legal order in social issues in the Netherlands has been a problem for the legal profession for years. It prevents going to the Supreme Court for review on the basis of application of the law. Almost unique in Europe who do know this road.
I had to read it a few times and looked at the author's previous posts. Now I think it comes down to the 20% discount on AOW benefits to non-treaty countries.
At that time there were more schemes in which it was made very easy for the guest workers of the years before to live an above-average life, while the suckers could just keep going.
It is not without reason that parties such as Center Democrats, LPF, PVV and LPF were created because those golden arrangements felt like an injustice to their “own” population. In Thailand it is completely normal to put your own people first and to admit visitors if they can contribute to the country and to leave as soon as they are not applicable.
Dutch democracy has chosen a different course over the years, but at least as a starting point that hard-earned money is spent in one's own country.
In the ideal situation, all benefit recipients would then have to buy local products from local shops so that the profit cannot be skimmed off to foreign shareholders.
The working population may spend its money everywhere in the context of trade deficits between various countries.
At first glance, a 20% discount is of course not fair, but is it strange that a choice was made to reduce payments to non-treaty countries? No checks encourage fraud in any case, such as cheating with the partner allowance.
The question may also be: why is the Netherlands unable to conclude a treaty with another country?
AOW works according to the pay-as-you-go system and I would like to see the source from the writer that this was different from the start, as he himself indicates to cite sources.
The entire AOW discussion is precisely about the unaffordability because of the pay-as-you-go system and that is why the gaps are closed with tax money and therefore also about the AOW.
Demographers have long known what the future holds as they cover periods of 50 and over.
It's not me, but in 2060 the overpopulation in the Netherlands will be in another world. With the strong will not to admit newcomers, I estimate that people would now like to have about 15 million Nedelanders.
Then everything is manageable because there are plenty of houses and the robots provide the income ;-)
Dear Johnny BG,
I will comment on your contribution.
It is not just about the 20% reduction/deduction, but about the entire financial policy of reductions and deductions from benefits for state pensioners in particular, and then in the context of human rights. The BEU law is the most important law in NL for this, but there are more laws that deal with it. And not only to non-treaty countries, but to all countries in the world. Social treaties apply everywhere (at least 108 countries) that have ratified treaties, including the Netherlands and Thailand without hesitation. They are treaties of the highest order in the UN treaties with legal and judicial scope all over the world. They are written in the imperative, that is, commandment for the countries that have ratified and command to follow them to the letter. No discussion is possible (jurisprudence) to change them according to one's own insight or cultural background. There are countries that do not accept those treaties and NL cannot conclude a treaty with them. The 1st and most important human rights treaty is ICESCR-1966. It stipulates that every country has a maintenance (care) obligation towards its nationals anywhere in the world, including Thailand. The AOW is such a law that came into force in 1957 by Drees senior for basic welfare for the elderly after 65 years. Due to a lack of capital, he invented the apportionment system that is still the basis for the benefit for more than 55 years. The personalization / individualization of benefits in the 70s and 80s created a split between married and unmarried. It was thought that unmarried people should get something extra because they had to endure all the costs of housing. That is still the case today. Then came the guest workers, both Italians and Greeks and later the Turks and Moroccans, now the Poles, etc. They all fell under the umbrella of our social laws, paid contributions in Hfl or later in euros and received benefits. Because of their presence and the simple activities, they gave a boost to our economy, and the Poles, etc., still do that today. And so we became the richest country in the world after Luxembourg. And we want even more, to send these guest workers home with a hunger allowance. Cash in premiums in euros and pay out in the worthless currency of their own country. That's called eating it both ways. Typical Dutch! Exploiting these people for years and removing them from their roots to make them work hard in the Netherlands, while they thought they could use the money they earned in their home country to let their children study or buy nice things. not so. NL is now doing the same in reverse order with AOWers abroad. You understand that this is against human rights and that does not correspond to the duty of care. It is not only about well-being, but also about medical and elderly care. Other benefits enjoyed by state pensioners in the Netherlands should also accrue to state pensioners abroad, otherwise we speak of discrimination under Article 1 of the Constitution. NL does not meet many conditions. That is legal inequality, criminalized elsewhere in NL legislation. The parties you mention are egoists and in all cases only think of themselves. You can't build a country with that, only get into a fight with war as the ultimate result. That is why the UN and EU were set up to prevent war and holocaust. The current population of people don't understand that. That is doing justice to the lesser among us. Under the same treaties, it is allowed to make demands on immigrants that will not harm the economy of that country. NL and Thailand also do this with their immigrants if it succeeds. The refugees and asylum seekers receive no care from their own government. But there are refugee treaties that provide for this on humanitarian grounds. As Westerners, we have obligations to the colonization period, even though many of us find that too far-fetched.
NL does not have the right to exercise (state power) on foreign territory and to control NL laws. NL does not allow this to other countries on its own territory. But the forty treaties that NL has now made go against international human rights treaties and are therefore illegal, including the resulting reductions or deductions. NL knows that but does it consciously anyway. This is all laid down in international treaties. Many people don't know about that. I've warned them and I'm looking higher up.
The unaffordability of the state pension is nonsense. The Netherlands has become rich on the backs of other countries. Better management of money is the remedy. 50 Plus has the right ideas about that. The baby boom will be over in a few years, but you don't hear the economists talk about that. Then the old values will return, unless the number of children increases extremely with people of non-Dutch origin. I will not mince words about your last remarks. I'm reacting to all that illegality.
@JohnnyBG
In order not to complicate the matter unnecessarily, I have not said enough about the ownership of the state pension. The payment is the property of the premium payer because it was paid from previously available gross wages. This is based on the personality principle. That money is now in the treasury and the government must use it exclusively for state pension benefits. Contrary to EU regulation, that property is an “autonomous” property. This means that the government cannot seize it as a discount or deductions. This is therefore different from the fact that the benefit remains within the EU. One of my reasons for forcing the State of NL to pay my benefits in full. The State is therefore only temporary guardian of my property. A reduction or deduction based on an alleged criminal offense of cohabitation is therefore also illegal. Legally very complicated but that's the facts. There are also reasons to tackle the issue internationally.
Thanks for the explanation and the penny has dropped.
As so often you can have the right, but it is terribly difficult to get the right, especially from a government that has enough time and resources (tax citizens).
This is not the discussion we are talking about now. As a national government, the Netherlands has the right to determine how the state pension is accrued. There are no international aspects to it.
Dear Mr Duurkoop,
I see you live in Ghana.
I sympathize with you that your state pension will be cut considerably.
And have deep respect for your fighting spirit for a more just policy of the Dutch Government.
Goodluck!
Chander
If Mr. Duurkoop does indeed live in Ghana, then his AOW benefit will not be taxed in the Netherlands at all, but in Ghana, unless this benefit exceeds € 20.000, which I cannot imagine. So that's a bargain!
"So that's a bargain."
Living in Ghana, he does not pay a penny in income tax, while almost 40% of his state pension is financed from general funds/taxes. He therefore benefits from income tax paid by others.
If, in addition to an AOW benefit (largely paid for by me and others), he also enjoys a private pension, this was also tax-facilitated in the past. The Netherlands will not see a penny of the tax benefit enjoyed at the time.
And just complain about and criticize the State of the Netherlands. It is indeed a corrupt gang here. Yes Yes!!
I will not advise him to move to Thailand. It is true that he can export his AOW benefit there without restriction, but he must then pay double income tax on this AOW benefit. Both in the Netherlands and in Thailand.
The Dutch tax authorities even have a slogan for this, viz.
“We can't make it more beautiful.
And why export to Thailand without restriction? That is quite simple: a treaty has been concluded with Thailand with agreements about the control of the right to benefits. As a result, the Netherlands is certain that the conditions for obtaining an AOW benefit are met, the same as the conditions that apply if you live in the Netherlands.
He would be better off using his time to persuade the Ghanaian government to join the group of countries with which the Netherlands has concluded a treaty. But then Ghana would have to set up a control system. And that could be the biggest stumbling block.
@Ruud.
You are completely wrong. The BEU is not a tax law but a social insurance law with tentacles to about 10 other social insurance laws, including the AOW law. I am not talking about the other laws, but they also undergo discounts. These are partly paid by the UWV. Everything else you write is pure nonsense. I will go no further to refute this nonsense. Wasted effort.
Born in 1932, I lived outside the Netherlands from 1956, first in Ghana and from 1964 in Thailand. I recently submitted an objection letter to the SVB about the AOW discount, promptly received an answer that my objection had been rejected and if I did not agree with it, I would go to court in Amsterdam for so many Euro costs. What struck me was the harsh, arrogant, unsympathetic tone of the letter. From 1970 onwards, I paid the maximum voluntary premium every year for the following years, including for my wife. I have never used any social services in the Netherlands. I also have deep respect for Mr. Duurkoop's fighting spirit and wish him the best of luck!
thea says up
27 May 2019 at 13: 28
Dear people, everyone gets AOW, the accrual starts from the age of 15 and grows by 2% every year.
Regardless of whether you have worked, so you do not build up because you have worked, but because you have lived here
——————————————————————————————————————————-
Chose 2 says
I really lived in the Netherlands until I was 50.
That is 35 years x 2% = 70% AOW. Result 30% discount right?
Unfortunately, the discount is 34% because I moved abroad after my 50th birthday
Then the years before 1957 do not count (when the AOW started) because I was born in 1939
You don't think about that when you go to live abroad at the age of 50, do you?
It's not a problem for me either, but if I read some opinions, you should investigate that when you move abroad. Yes, yes, afterwards you look at a cow ……….
This article is off to a very strange start. After 7 years of litigating (which I cannot imagine) with the CRvB without results, the author will provide some light on the deductions/discounts on the AOW benefit of emigrated Dutch people. He apparently failed to do so at the CRvB. Several other attempts have also failed.
In this contribution I will not go into the numerous suggestive and insinuating remarks. This also applies to the conspiracy theory he advanced that the legislature and the judiciary are colluding. These are purely personal experiences instead of business arguments. And that makes it a lot more readable.
The author of this article bases his story largely on two pillars:
1. “Note: the reader should take into account that no Dutch law has any legal force outside the national borders on persons and property (that's called jurisdiction).”
2. “The Dutch Constitution (GW), in particular Article 1 ……… . Article 1 protects citizens against discrimination and arbitrariness based on, among other things, marital status and PLACE OF RESIDENCE. In this case, the state pensioner has fewer rights compared to he or she who lives abroad, not in an EU country.”
Ad 1, I hope that the writer of this article does not mean to state that Dutch legislation cannot have a major influence on Dutch people living abroad. Considering the rest of his argument, it appears that he is of that opinion and he has committed a major blunder. Then he deletes the following provision in the Income Tax Act 2001 with one sentence:
“Chapter 7. Taxation of foreign taxpayers
Section 7.1. Dutch income
With regard to the non-resident taxpayer, income tax is levied on the following that he/she enjoys in the calendar year:
. a. taxable income from work and home in the Netherlands;
. b. taxable income from a substantial interest in a company established in the Netherlands and
. c. taxable income from savings and investments in the Netherlands.”
Then also consider the protective assessment, also regulated by this law, and the provisions regarding whether or not to qualify as a non-resident taxpayer with all the consequences that entails.
This also applies to the following provision in the Succession Act 1956:
Article
. 1 A Dutchman who has lived in the Netherlands and who has died or made a donation within ten years after he has left the Netherlands, is deemed to have lived in the Netherlands at the time of his death or making the donation.
. 2 Without prejudice to the provisions of paragraph XNUMX, anyone who has lived in the Netherlands and who has made a donation within one year after he has left the Netherlands to live is deemed to have lived in the Netherlands at the time of making the donation.
Ad 2. Article 1 of the Constitution concerns a fundamental principle for the Netherlands, it reads:
“All who are IN THE NETHERLANDS are treated equally in SIMILAR CASES. Discrimination on the basis of religion, belief, political opinion, race, sex or on any other basis is not allowed.”
In this case, “in the Netherlands” only means the European part of the Kingdom.
The principle of equal treatment means that the government may not treat two cases that do not differ from each other differently. And that is where the shoe pinches with the issue at hand.
However, this is an essentially different text than the text given by the author of this article. Of course I cannot judge whether this was done deliberately or whether this is due to ignorance or a huge blunder with which he removes the foundation from under his “structure”, also in view of the following
Let's prevent every Dutchman from writing his own Constitution. In a democratic constitutional state, which I believe the Netherlands still is, we have a legislature for that.
Courts, Courts of Appeal, the Council of State and even the European Court of Justice have dealt with this issue on several occasions. It was always concluded that differences in legislation and therefore in treatment are permitted if this is based on the territoriality principle. And that is the case in the comparison of living in the Netherlands with that of living in Thailand.
I would therefore like to advise the writer of this article to read the following court decisions in particular:
Arnhem Court of Appeal 09-02-2010 ECLI:NL:GHARN:2010:BL5001
Supreme Court judgment 26-06-2009 ECLI:NL:HR:2009:BH4064 (Futura case)
Council of State 10-12-2014 201402189/1/A2
The ruling of the Council of State is very important to him. The recitals in particular discuss the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (the ICCPR), which he so embraces, indicating that all are equal before the law and that all are entitled to equal protection of the law without discrimination. In this context, the law prohibits discrimination of any kind and guarantees everyone equal and effective protection against discrimination on any ground, such as race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.
The Council of State also discussed the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (the ECHR), stating that everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence. .
All this did not prevent the Council of State from ruling that the Tax and Customs Administration had rightly decided to reclaim the allowances it considered unjustified. This judgment was incidentally in accordance with the judgment of the District Court and the Court of Appeal. And then we are talking about a number of clever minds together, of which I dare not say that they were all wrong! The writer of the article may not agree with this, despite his own false statement(s).
I still have full confidence in the Dutch judiciary. Despite the alleged conspiracy theory, she rules completely independently. This separation of powers is laid down in the “Law of May 15, 1829, containing general provisions of the legislation of the Kingdom” in Article 11, which reads: “The judge must speak justice according to the law: in no case may he or judge fairness of the law.”
I am shocked by the comment that the elderly person's discount has been canceled as of 1-1-2019. For a long time I thought that both the general tax credit and the elderly person's tax credit and any single elderly person's tax credit had already expired on 1-1-2015 if you do not qualify as a non-resident taxpayer and what is the case when living in Thailand. Apparently the elderly person's discount has been postponed to 1-1-2019, as the writer of the article I am responding to claims with all certainty. This should not happen to a tax specialist, specialized in international tax law and social insurance, to which I count myself. Or are we dealing here with the next capital blunder?
Dear Mr Durkoop,
I struggled through your speech. As I happen to be very well placed to have such a case investigated by an international law firm, I have also forwarded it to these people.
Their conclusion is that your argument cannot and will not be accepted by any body as it is based on your own interpretations and not on legally founded aspects. You quote, or wrong arguments, non-existent rules and your argument is mainly based on self-interest. You must know. or should it know that every law, measure, regulation, is first approved and advised by the highest authority in the Netherlands. This body is called: 'The Council of States'. You assume that the Dutch government will simply take measures at its own discretion and thus flagrantly contravene international legislation. Especially the 'human judge' seem to you to be very badly violated. However, nowhere, or nowhere at all, does the Dutch government forbid a Dutch person to live where he wants and with whom he wants. The only thing there is and that seems to be hard on your stomach: there are consequences involved and these have been laid down for years in approved laws and regulations.
If, after 7 years of litigation, you still have not achieved a single result, then you should realize that you are even seriously wrong somewhere. The worst thing is that you try to drag other people into your hopeless, and only for the satisfaction of personal gain, adventure. That you didn't even get an answer to some of your arguments didn't surprise them at all as they weren't even worth dealing with because of totally wrong motivation. Such letters, from dissatisfied people, who think they have the right on their side, they receive with the regularity of the clock and irrevocably go into the wastepaper basket.
The international law firm in question even informed me that, even if there is good money to be made from it, they would NOT be INTERESTED in handling this case as it has been a stillborn baby from the start. After all, it will be, as your writer's name already says: 'A DURATION' for the people who would be dragged into this matter
That's a correct conclusion from your law firm, Bill.
Their further approach is also correct: first discuss the chance of success with your customer and if it is nil (as in the present case), then don't start it.
That is also my approach to objection, appeal and appeal procedures. I want to earn quite a bit, but don't drive a customer to unnecessary and often high costs!
Instead of participating in the action to be set up by Mr. Duurkoop, it is better to participate in the State(k) lottery. The chance that you will collect (a lot of) money in this way is many times greater.