Foreigner had his bank account closed for not paying national insurance?

[TokyoJoeblow]

So my wife messaged me earlier this week saying that she came across a news article about a foreigner that is working and living here in Japan that hasn't been paying his national insurance, so his Japanese bank account was closed?

I know that it is required to pay for insurance in Japan, but I didn't know they close any bank accounts you have set up...I'm assuming they fined him and closed his account as well.

I always pay my national insurance, but I'm hoping they don't start punishing people like this in the future for falling behind on their pension payments...

Has anyone heard of any issues like this with people not paying their national insurance here in Japan?

P.S. She wouldn't send me the link and forgot where she read it. She verified that it isn't the story about Carlos Ghosn lying about his earnings to the tax office, getting fired, arrested, etc.

 

[MikeH]

Has anyone heard of any issues like this with people not paying their national insurance here in Japan?

The national health insurance is a tax so they can do a lot to collect it. Though before they go and freeze your account and seizure your assets quite many things have happened. If I remember correctly it takes at least one and half years from the point you stopped the payments.

 

[Sudsy]

a foreigner that is working and living here in Japan that hasn't been paying his national insurance, so his Japanese bank account was closed?

Your wife misunderstood the article, or she explained it to you poorly.

His bank account contents were seized to pay his debt. It's called a lien, and it's common practice in other countries as well.

The pension agency can - and do - do this as well.

If I remember correctly it takes at least one and half years from the point you stopped the payments.

They can seize up to two years' worth of payments. But they can (in theory) start proceedings if you're even a month behind. They won't, but they could.

There's legislation before the Diet right now to make pension and health insurance compliance a requirement for renewing visas. If it passes, there's going to be a lot of people who suddenly can't afford to renew.

 

[MikeH]

There's legislation before the Diet right now to make pension and health insurance compliance a requirement for renewing visas. If it passes, there's going to be a lot of people who suddenly can't afford to renew.

Well, finally there is one good reason to get the PR.

I didn't know they seize your assets for pension payments too. How many years they can go back, 2 or 3 or something like that?

 

[Sudsy]

How many years they can go back, 2 or 3 or something like that?

Two. And they are becoming much more aggressive about it lately.

They should really be being more aggressive about forcing employers to enrol employees in shakai hoken. That's where the real shortfall is - so many large employers trying every dodge they can to keep from making those payments.

 

[MikeH]

They should really be being more aggressive about forcing employers to enrol employees in shakai hoken. That's where the real shortfall is - so many large employers trying every dodge they can to keep from making those payments.

I was once asked by one of the big name companies "you will opt out from shakai hoken, right?" when signing the papers. They were seriously surprised when I said no, I want to pay.

That stint was actually the only one I have ever paid the pension too...

 

[TokyoJoeblow]

Your wife misunderstood the article, or she explained it to you poorly.

His bank account contents were seized to pay his debt. It's called a lien, and it's common practice in other countries as well.

The pension agency can - and do - do this as well.



They can seize up to two years' worth of payments. But they can (in theory) start proceedings if you're even a month behind. They won't, but they could.

There's legislation before the Diet right now to make pension and health insurance compliance a requirement for renewing visas. If it passes, there's going to be a lot of people who suddenly can't afford to renew.

Yes, she tends to explain things poorly outside of the realm of teaching me and other foreigners Japanese, which seems to be a passion.

I figured the account contents were seized due to his debt. You mentioned that it does happened even with pension cases? How often does this happen?

I try to make payments when I can and I have taken the time to go to the pension office to apply for exemption...are most of the cases with seizures related to pension debt aimed at people that don't even try to make payments or bother to take the time to apply for exemption or do they just punish everyone not paying now?

Well, then I guess I'm glad I have permanent residence that I don't need to renew for 7 years. I still believe that if I face such a situation in general, I will just move to another country regardless of my permanent residence status.

P.S. Do you have a reliable online source about this new legislation?

I'm doing some searching on here:

http://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_english.nsf/html/statics/guide/dietfun.htm

 

[Sudsy]

TJB, PR doesn't need to be renewed. Just your residence card.

Pension and NHI seizures happen when you pop up on their radar, get billed, and refuse to pay in a timely fashion.

You've really got to ignore a LOT of warnings to end up getting assets seized.

Now, if it does go there, they can seize anything you own, including vehicles and homes, and sell them to pay your debt.

As to the new legislation, it's before the diet - meaning that it's being debated, not that it's law.

 

[warubuta]

Yes, she tends to explain things poorly outside of the realm of teaching me and other foreigners Japanese, which seems to be a passion.

I figured the account contents were seized due to his debt. You mentioned that it does happened even with pension cases? How often does this happen?

I try to make payments when I can and I have taken the time to go to the pension office to apply for exemption...are most of the cases with seizures related to pension debt aimed at people that don't even try to make payments or bother to take the time to apply for exemption or do they just punish everyone not paying now?

Well, then I guess I'm glad I have permanent residence that I don't need to renew for 7 years. I still believe that if I face such a situation in general, I will just move to another country regardless of my permanent residence status.

P.S. Do you have a reliable online source about this new legislation?

I'm doing some searching on here:

http://www.shugiin.go.jp/internet/itdb_english.nsf/html/statics/guide/dietfun.htm

There really is no excuse for not paying NHI and pension. They are both a good deal in terms of what you pay and what you get back. Now foreigners can receive pension after only 10 years of contributions. And if you are just scraping by, the payments are very, very low. I wish they would be stricter with the scofflaws who "try to pay" but don't. They should be tied to a post in front of the Koma Gekijo and stoned and whipped and generally humiliated by all of the fine upstanding folks who are paying.

 

[MikeH]

They are both a good deal in terms of what you pay and what you get back. Now foreigners can receive pension after only 10 years of contributions

People who think the pension plan is a good deal are the same ones who visit JanJan.

And it's of course not only foreigners who can get pension after ten years of paying, everyone can. Though you are probably right in that they made the change so that all foreigners too would need to pay. Previously you could opt out by being too old to have the payments done before retirement.

 

[TokyoJoeblow]

TJB, PR doesn't need to be renewed. Just your residence card.

Pension and NHI seizures happen when you pop up on their radar, get billed, and refuse to pay in a timely fashion.

You've really got to ignore a LOT of warnings to end up getting assets seized.

Now, if it does go there, they can seize anything you own, including vehicles and homes, and sell them to pay your debt.

As to the new legislation, it's before the diet - meaning that it's being debated, not that it's law.

Yes, I realize it hasn't become a law yet...but aren't most laws that make foreigners' lives harder usually not really debated, but agreed upon quickly by all the members?

I can't imagine anyone debating against the idea.

 

[TokyoJoeblow]

There really is no excuse for not paying NHI and pension. They are both a good deal in terms of what you pay and what you get back. Now foreigners can receive pension after only 10 years of contributions. And if you are just scraping by, the payments are very, very low. I wish they would be stricter with the scofflaws who "try to pay" but don't. They should be tied to a post in front of the Koma Gekijo and stoned and whipped and generally humiliated by all of the fine upstanding folks who are paying.

Stoned and whipped huh? Sounds quite barbaric...maybe move to the middle east and join ISIS? lol

I like getting stoned off cannabis, but not so much a fan of being whipped, unless it is by some hot dominatrix.

I pay my national insurance all the time and have never been late once and as for pension, I make the low payments when I can...even while I'm exemption status, which I highly doubt anyone else does.

 

[Sudsy]

aren't most laws that make foreigners' lives harder usually not really debated, but agreed upon quickly by all the members?

The last time this was up for debate, they approved tying residence tax payment to visa renewals, and rejected NHI and pension. So no, not at all.

 

[LeonGRAY]

Has anyone heard of any issues like this with people not paying their national insurance here in Japan?

If you don't pay, they can slap a lien on your bank account and take any funds incoming until the debt is paid. They can also send collection agents around to your home to seize your personal property to resell to apply to the debt. I know a couple of people that had this happen. Worst case scenario is they can seize the assets of the person, the person's spouse, or those of the head of the household.

Don't mess with the government - they always get their pound of flesh.

 

[TokyoJoeblow]

The last time this was up for debate, they approved tying residence tax payment to visa renewals, and rejected NHI and pension. So no, not at all.

So the people that argued against NHI and pension, which led to the rejection...what was their reasoning for being against it?

Surely, since you seem to know so much, you could enlighten all of us?

Do you attend some of these meetings yourself?

 

[TokyoJoeblow]

If you don't pay, they can slap a lien on your bank account and take any funds incoming until the debt is paid. They can also send collection agents around to your home to seize your personal property to resell to apply to the debt. I know a couple of people that had this happen. Worst case scenario is they can seize the assets of the person, the person's spouse, or those of the head of the household.

Don't mess with the government - they always get their pound of flesh.

Well, I plan to get divorced anyway.

I got their pound of flesh in my pants lol.

 

[LeonGRAY]

Well, I plan to get divorced anyway.

I got their pound of flesh in my pants lol.

Lol I knew someone was going to quote that line. I thought it would be Mike but I guess you beat him to it

 

[Sudsy]

So the people that argued against NHI and pension, which led to the rejection...what was their reasoning for being against it?

Surely, since you seem to know so much, you could enlighten all of us?

Do you attend some of these meetings yourself?

The primary reasoning was that some higher level expats (read: executives and traders), particularly in the finance industry, are on international company health and pension packages, and these particular people objected to the significant financial burden that they would incur should they be required to enrol, and thus their employers lobbied against the inclusion of NHI and pension. As an example, a trader friend of mine makes nearly 40 million a year. If he was to pay into NHI and the national pension via shakai hoken, it would cost him approximately 5.6 million yen a year for coverage he already has through his firm's international plans.

There were also objections raised by the large eikaiwa chains, who are some of the largest employers of foreign workers in Japan, though in those cases, the objection is presumably self-serving, as they continue to attempt to avoid their responsibility to enrol their workers in shakai hoken, and a requirement to verify NHI and pension might lead to immigration requiring shakai hoken enrolment as part of visa sponsorship.

These objections were covered in the news while the debate on the changes to the immigration act were in progress. They weren't exactly secret, but also not exactly interesting to people who weren't directly affected.

 

[Maxblack]

The foreign traders’ insurance point is both valid and moot: if they have intl insurance it pays for any medical expenses in Japan so the Japanese system isn’t missing out on anything. I.e. the system isn’t covering for someone who isn’t paying into the system. So it’s a valid exception.

 

[Sudsy]

The foreign traders’ insurance point is both valid and moot: if they have intl insurance it pays for any medical expenses in Japan so the Japanese system isn’t missing out on anything. I.e. the system isn’t covering for someone who isn’t paying into the system. So it’s a valid exception.

The counterargument, of course, is that they are profiting unfairly by dint of that exemption, and not contributing their fair share to the social insurance systems in Japan despite making a very good living from being in Japan.

so the Japanese system isn’t missing out on anything

Except the support to low income earners that the system was designed to provide.

 

[TokyoJoeblow]

The primary reasoning was that some higher level expats (read: executives and traders), particularly in the finance industry, are on international company health and pension packages, and these particular people objected to the significant financial burden that they would incur should they be required to enrol, and thus their employers lobbied against the inclusion of NHI and pension. As an example, a trader friend of mine makes nearly 40 million a year. If he was to pay into NHI and the national pension via shakai hoken, it would cost him approximately 5.6 million yen a year for coverage he already has through his firm's international plans.

There were also objections raised by the large eikaiwa chains, who are some of the largest employers of foreign workers in Japan, though in those cases, the objection is presumably self-serving, as they continue to attempt to avoid their responsibility to enrol their workers in shakai hoken, and a requirement to verify NHI and pension might lead to immigration requiring shakai hoken enrolment as part of visa sponsorship.

These objections were covered in the news while the debate on the changes to the immigration act were in progress. They weren't exactly secret, but also not exactly interesting to people who weren't directly affected.

So, in this debate over having to pay NHI and pension or face penalties was rejected, but were the voting results about even across the board as in a close call from being a new law?

Because now you are saying this rejected idea is now back on the table for review. Seems like the people that are pushing this toward law are really motivated...

 

[Sudsy]

So, in this debate over having to pay NHI and pension or face penalties was rejected, but were the voting results about even across the board as in a close call from being a new law?

Couldn't tell you what the split was, these were the discussions prior to drafting the law as it was submitted, and the people drafting the legislation at the time thought it stood a better chance of being passed if NHI and pension were left out. They were right, the revisions to the immigration laws passed easily.

Because now you are saying this rejected idea is now back on the table for review.

It is. It was inevitable that it was going to resurface, as there are some fairly significant amounts in the balance and both NHI and the national pension system are underfunded. With the results from the previous legislation, now they can point to the decrease in residence tax delinquency among foreign residents as support for their arguments as well.

Seems like the people that are pushing this toward law are really motivated...

Of course they are. As mentioned above, NHI and the pension service are underfunded and they need to reduce delinquency on all fronts. One fat cash cow for them is that this is a way to force eikaiwa and dispatch chains to enrol their employees in shakai hoken, as well as collect on two years of national pension premiums from those who haven't been paying. There are roughly 100,000 English teachers in Japan, almost none of them are on shakai hoken, and I've seen estimates that roughly half of them are delinquent on their pension payments - largely because they are (wrongly) told by their employers that they don't need to contribute. Based on that estimate the outstanding national pension payments alone are worth around 20 billion yen. Getting all of them properly enrolled in shakai hoken is worth nearly 50 billion yen a year to the national pension. The industry, of course, is pushing back because half of that is paid by the employers.

I'm sure you also saw that they're going to start requiring photo ID to accompany health insurance cards soon. Ostensibly this is to crack down on foreigners fraudulently using others' cards to receive discounted medical care, but they're adding this requirement for Japanese nationals as well - supposedly in the name of racial equality and definitely not because this is where the majority of health insurance fraud is occurring. Just more socially palatable to publicly blame the fraud on foreigners.

 

[warubuta]

comparatively speaking the Kosei nenkin is not a bad deal. compared to the UK or the US. Company pays half. just consider it to be the most conservative element of your retirement portfolio. you have no choice anyway.

The primary reasoning was that some higher level expats (read: executives and traders), particularly in the finance industry, are on international company health and pension packages, and these particular people objected to the significant financial burden that they would incur should they be required to enrol, and thus their employers lobbied against the inclusion of NHI and pension. As an example, a trader friend of mine makes nearly 40 million a year. If he was to pay into NHI and the national pension via shakai hoken, it would cost him approximately 5.6 million yen a year for coverage he already has through his firm's international plans.

There were also objections raised by the large eikaiwa chains, who are some of the largest employers of foreign workers in Japan, though in those cases, the objection is presumably self-serving, as they continue to attempt to avoid their responsibility to enrol their workers in shakai hoken, and a requirement to verify NHI and pension might lead to immigration requiring shakai hoken enrolment as part of visa sponsorship.

These objections were covered in the news while the debate on the changes to the immigration act were in progress. They weren't exactly secret, but also not exactly interesting to people who weren't directly affected.

5.6 out of 40 mil is less than 15% which includes pension and NHI. His Kosei nenkin will pay him back quite a bit of this if he lives for 25 years after he retires at 65. It is not a bad deal for high earners or for the strugglers either. I really don’t get why people complain about it so much.

 

[Sudsy]

I really don’t get why people complain about it so much.

Oh, I get why they complain.

With the finance guys, it's because they think they can get better returns elsewhere.

With the English teachers, it's because they're being paid so little that the pension contributions really do hurt.

 

[MikeH]

With the finance guys, it's because they think they can get better returns elsewhere.

With Kosei Nenkin that is definitely not very difficult. Even the government has went into the record to say people who now enter the workforce and start paying will be getting out less than they contribute.

Calculating with the current payments over 40 years you just need to earn 5% to cover 32 years worth of pensions. So the only way to get your monies back is to live to be over 100.