Stop tearing families apart based on earnings! Scrap minimum income requirement

[7by7]

9 hours ago, laislica said:

My point is that the UK Government discriminate against our Thai wives.

 

No.

 

10 hours ago, laislica said:

Why should they not get the same benefits that a Brit wife gets - based on Nat Ins contributions of the husband?

They do.

 

A wife, regardless of her nationality or immigration status, cannot claim a contribution based benefit based upon her husbands NICs; only her own count.

 

The exception being the state pension, where a wife, again regardless of her nationality or immigration status, who has not paid sufficient to receive one in her own right can use her husband's (or ex husband's) NICs provided she has paid the married woman's stamp at some point in the previous 35 years. 

 

A man who has not paid sufficient NICs cannot do the same based upon his wife's contributions; that's discrimination!

 

10 hours ago, laislica said:

 

My ex g/f (Brit) got a state pension on the basis of my NIC....

She was divorced and didn't want to use her ex husbands NIC's to make her claim.

She had been self employed and did not get stamps towards a state pension.

That she did not want to use her ex husband's contributions is her fault, not the system's nor the government's.

 

Self employed NICs do count towards the state pension and always have. 

[7by7]

17 minutes ago, GinBoy2 said:

31 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

I also think that children should be exempt from the charge; British children don't pay for their NHS treatment, why should the foreign step children of a British citizen resident in the UK?

I can't comment on most of your post, but on this one, our old friend Mobi in one of his blogs said that he was in the process of adopting his step daughter now they all live back in the UK, just to ensure her full UK rights.

 

So I guess there is a process

 

 

If she automatically becomes British after her adoption then she will, of course, no longer be subject to the IHS nor any other requirement of the immigration rules.

 

Assuming Mobi is adopting her by order of a court in the UK and he is a British citizen then the she will automatically become a British citizen.

 

But, to do so she would have first had to move to the UK and pay the IHS with that application.

 

Children adopted abroad do not automatically become British; it depends on whether or not the adoption was made under the Hague Convention and on whether or not the British parent(s) was a British resident at the time.

[laislica]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

No.

 

They do.

 

A wife, regardless of her nationality or immigration status, cannot claim a contribution based benefit based upon her husbands NICs; only her own count.

 

The exception being the state pension, where a wife, again regardless of her nationality or immigration status, who has not paid sufficient to receive one in her own right can use her husband's (or ex husband's) NICs provided she has paid the married woman's stamp at some point in the previous 35 years. 

 

A man who has not paid sufficient NICs cannot do the same based upon his wife's contributions; that's discrimination!

 

That she did not want to use her ex husband's contributions is her fault, not the system's nor the government's.

 

Self employed NICs do count towards the state pension and always have. 

Oh, that's interesting.

 

How would my wife pay the married woman's stamp?

Would she need a NI No.?

As you know we do not live in the UK.

My wife does not work and has no income.

 

Until now I have paid tax on my pensions in the UK.

I tried to change to pay in Spain because I'm resident there.

The tax person I asked said I was not allowed to because the pension was created in the UK from untaxed funds and there is a double tax agreement.

This year the Spanish tax authority tell me that I must pay in Spain and my lawyer is gathering all necessary info from me to get the change underway.

Will this change affect a widows pension?

 

How can I find our more about providing a state pension for my wife?

Unfortunately, I was single when I drew my company pension so it goes with me when I go.

I got the benefit of a few percent more money each year so I suppose that this is a fair situation.

 

 

 

 

 

[Aussieroaming]

On 1/15/2019 at 6:31 AM, darren1971 said:

some UK average salaries, if this is your career you are excluded. If you have children the list would be longer

115. Catering and bar managers - £18,535

116. Legal secretary - £18,425

117. Landscape Gardener - £18,010

118. Sales supervisors - £17,812

119. Telephone salespersons - £17,549

120. Counsellors - £17,526

121. Chefs - £17,513

122. Butchers - £17,466

123. Undertakers / crematorium assistants - £17,414

124. Street cleaners - £17,402

125. Bakers - £17,231

126. Travel agents - £17,081

127. Veterinary nurses - £16,746

128. Senior care workers - £16,609

 

129. School secretaries - £16,366

130. Customer service operations - £15,334

131. Call centre workers - £15,206

132. Dental nurses - £14,788

133. Retail merchandisers - £14,738

134. Fishmongers - £14,299

135. Care workers - £12,650

136. Receptionists - £12,543

137. Teaching assistants - £11,916

138. Nursery assistants - £11,734

139. Beauticians - £11,618

140. Fitness instructors - £10,540

141. Retail assistants - £10,296

142. Hairdressers and barbers - £10,019

143. Cleaners £7,919

144. Waitresses - £7,554

145. Bar staff - £7,404

If these are typical annual salaries I cant see how any UK residents survive. I travel to the UK (Poole) regularly and wouldnt want to survive on the above incomes.

[7by7]

1 hour ago, laislica said:

How would my wife pay the married woman's stamp?

Would she need a NI No.?

 Yes, she would need a NI number. To be eligible for one she needs to be resident in the UK with the right to work or to study.

 

However, the married woman's reduced rate NIC scheme ended in April 1977. Those who opted in before then can still pay the reduced rate, but women who married since then  have not been able to opt to pay the reduced rate. 

 

1 hour ago, laislica said:

As you know we do not live in the UK.

My wife does not work and has no income.

My remarks were general, rather than aimed at you and your wife's specific situation. They do not apply to you and her as she is not, and never has been, a UK resident.

 

1 hour ago, laislica said:

Until now I have paid tax on my pensions in the UK.

I tried to change to pay in Spain because I'm resident there.

The tax person I asked said I was not allowed to because the pension was created in the UK from untaxed funds and there is a double tax agreement.

This year the Spanish tax authority tell me that I must pay in Spain and my lawyer is gathering all necessary info from me to get the change underway.

Will this change affect a widows pension?

 

How can I find our more about providing a state pension for my wife?

 

As far as I am aware, because she is not and never has been a UK resident, does not have a NI number and has never paid any NICs she is not entitled to a state pension.

 

The widows pension no longer exists for those whose spouse or partner died on or after 6th April 2017. Instead, they will now, if eligible, get the Bereavement Support Payment. Currently your wife would be eligible for this as you are resident in another EEA country, Spain. Post Brexit; who knows?

 

I suggest contacting the International Pension Centre to confirm what she may be eligible for and how she would claim.

 

International Pension Centre
Department for Work and Pensions

Bereavement and widows’ benefits
International Pension Centre
Tyneview Park
Newcastle-upon-Tyne
NE98 1BA

 

Telephone: +44 191 21 87608

Edited May 4, 2019 by 7by7

[nontabury]

15 hours ago, darren1971 said:

The data on immigrants and benefits is quite clear, they contribute more in taxes than they claim in benefits, so that argument is already mute. My Thai wife will not be entitled to any benefits for at least 5 years regardless of the fact she may have been working and contributing during that period, she will be entitled to use the National health service during that time but will have already paid £2400 whether she uses it or not. 

 

 

 

 Your wife is probably in the same position as my wife. She was obliged to pay for an insurance policy,before she could receive an entry visa, this being to cover any event that would entail her useing the the servises of the N.H.S. However in addition she is also paying N.I. by deductions from her monthly salary. In their words she's Paying twice.

[Stanaris]

 Being self-employed and being able to support myself is an accomplishment that should be celebrated, not insulted by the government.

 

So why does he need a "go fund me" page?

 

Something does not make sense

[gunderhill]

On 1/15/2019 at 7:16 AM, rasg said:

For the simple reason that people will end up claiming from the government fraudulently if they don't have enough money to live on and who loses out? The tax payer, as always ends up footing the bill one way or another. I'm not saying the system is perfect. It's not.

Simply  allow  no  benefits  at  all  unless  you  have  paid  into  the  system for 8  years or  something  like  that.

[GinBoy2]

7 hours ago, Aussieroaming said:

If these are typical annual salaries I cant see how any UK residents survive. I travel to the UK (Poole) regularly and wouldnt want to survive on the above incomes.

We went to a wedding in the UK last year, and I couldn't believe how expensive it was, so living on those salaries...how do you do it, let alone qualify for the income to bring your Thai wife?

 

I seem to recall Andrew MacGregor Marshall, before his wife left him, complaining on his fb page that since as a (failed) freelance journalist he was having trouble meeting the minimum income requirements to keep her in Scotland

 

Now I can see why!

 

Oh and if there are any Americans reading this, once you get your Thai wife US residency, you sail through all other visa applications

[GinBoy2]

On 5/4/2019 at 3:26 AM, 7by7 said:

If she automatically becomes British after her adoption then she will, of course, no longer be subject to the IHS nor any other requirement of the immigration rules.

 

Assuming Mobi is adopting her by order of a court in the UK and he is a British citizen then the she will automatically become a British citizen.

 

But, to do so she would have first had to move to the UK and pay the IHS with that application.

 

Children adopted abroad do not automatically become British; it depends on whether or not the adoption was made under the Hague Convention and on whether or not the British parent(s) was a British resident at the time.

Well Mobi is adopting his step daughter in the UK, which I guess is through the court system

IHS, I have no idea what that is.

 

Very different for us. You can adopt a child overseas, but they acquire automatic US citizenship when the enter the United States, so long as it before their 18th birthday

[7by7]

15 hours ago, GinBoy2 said:

IHS, I have no idea what that is.

Immigration Health Surcharge.

 

 

[darren1971]

 

[darren1971]

 

 

 

2

On 5/4/2019 at 9:41 AM, 7by7 said:

If referring to the data you provided before, that is data on EEA migrants, so not relevant here. If you have equivalent data for non EEA national family migrants, I'd be very interested to see it.

 

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467

[KhaoYai]

On 1/14/2019 at 10:31 PM, ukrules said:

Self employed in this case refers to unincorporated proprietorships, a sole trader.

 

If you incorporate then you're not in this class, you're a director.

 

Lots of people run small business in the UK with this type of informal company.

 

And under the minimum income rules directors of limited companies are treated much the same as the self employed so there's no benefit in having a limited company.

 

One of the main problems with the minimum income requirement is that it takes no account of living costs or disposable income. A person on £18,600 per year (the requirement with no kids) might very well have lower living costs and a higher disposable income than someone on say £25,000 per year.

 

The income minimum requirement was brought in purely to make the government look as if it was doing something about the UK's immigration problems - populism. There was no evidence that Non EU migrants were costing the country money by claiming benefits or otherwise - it was simply propaganda.  The fact is that EU migrants are the ones more likley to cost taxpayer's money and in any case, non EU migration has actually increased since the introduction of the minimum income requirement.

 

Under the old system you simply had to show that you had sufficient funds/income to support your partner when they came to live in the UK. Granted, there wasn't a lot of checking done but it did at least go some way towards identifying whether or not you could actually afford to support your partner rather than simply stipulating a minimum income which may mean nothing. It is perfectly possible that someone earning £18,600 is spending £18,599 already but there is no check on that.

Edited May 6, 2019 by KhaoYai

[darren1971]

Of course, the irony is they are so concerned that you have enough income to support yourselves, and then screw every last penny out of you making 800% profit on your application.

[rasg]

16 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

And under the minimum income rules directors of limited companies are treated much the same as the self employed so there's no benefit in having a limited company.

 

One of the main problems with the minimum income requirement is that it takes no account of living costs or disposable income. A person on £18,600 per year (the requirement with no kids) might very well have lower living costs and a higher disposable income than someone on say £25,000 per year.

 

The income minimum requirement was brought in purely to make the government look as if it was doing something about the UK's immigration problems - populism. There was no evidence that Non EU migrants were costing the country money by claiming benefits or otherwise - it was simply propaganda.  The fact is that EU migrants are the ones more likley to cost taxpayer's money and in any case, non EU migration has actually increased since the introduction of the minimum income requirement.

 

Under the old system you simply had to show that you had sufficient funds/income to support your partner when they came to live in the UK. Granted, there wasn't a lot of checking done but it did at least go some way towards identifying whether or not you could actually afford to support your partner rather than simply stipulating a minimum income which may mean nothing. It is perfectly possible that someone earning £18,600 is spending £18,599 already but there is no check on that.

I don't agree with you.

 

There hasn't been much benefit in having a limited company for a long time. If you want to lease a property nowadays, a landlord will generally want the lease in the directors names not the company.

 

I think they have the £18,600 about right and even then, with the cost of the visas, it's a very tight squeeze for anybody if that is their sole income. You've said yourself, pre 2012, that there wasn't a lot of checking done. How many are working for cash only? I know quite a few. Contributing a minimal amount to the government coffers so the taxpayer has to foot the bill.

 

 

[darren1971]

5 minutes ago, rasg said:

I don't agree with you.

 

There hasn't been much benefit in having a limited company for a long time. If you want to lease a property nowadays, a landlord will generally want the lease in the directors names not the company.

 

I think they have the £18,600 about right and even then, with the cost of the visas, it's a very tight squeeze for anybody if that is their sole income. You've said yourself, pre 2012, that there wasn't a lot of checking done. How many are working for cash only? I know quite a few. Contributing a minimal amount to the government coffers so the taxpayer has to foot the bill.

 

 

£18,600 income, but what about outgoings?. A retired single man living in Manchester who has paid his mortgage off and has an income from investments or a pension of £16,000 is likely to be better off than a single man living in a rented flat in London with an income of £25,000.

 

 

[7by7]

19 hours ago, darren1971 said:

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-24813467

So according to that UK natives and non EEA immigrants take out in benefits and other government expenditure more than they contribute in tax!

 

Even EEA immigrants did the same for most of 2008 to 2011!

 

A strong argument for making things even harder for migrants; shot yourself in the foot slightly there!

 

 

[Jip99]

1 hour ago, darren1971 said:

£18,600 income, but what about outgoings?. A retired single man living in Manchester who has paid his mortgage off and has an income from investments or a pension of £16,000 is likely to be better off than a single man living in a rented flat in London with an income of £25,000.

 

 

 

 

I agree with this 100%

 

Each case is different; someone could be living with parents with zero costs. Someone could have £30,000 income but be up to their eyes in debt and living beyond their means.

 

 

Any financial criteria should be based on an assessment of AFFORDABILITY.

[darren1971]

17 minutes ago, 7by7 said:

So according to that UK natives and non EEA immigrants take out in benefits and other government expenditure more than they contribute in tax!

 

Even EEA immigrants did the same for most of 2008 to 2011!

 

A strong argument for making things even harder for migrants; shot yourself in the foot slightly there!

 

 

Incorrect. 1. EEA immigrant on average are younger and less likely to have children. 2. Non EEA immigrants are no more dependent on benefits than British nationals, infact slightly better than our own citizens. 3. Non EEA immigrants are more likely to be female. (therefore claim more in child benefits)

 

So if you read the whole document it is difficult to compare EEA and non EEA immigrants because they are demographically different. Never the less the argument that immigrants are a drain on the benefits system is over blown as they are no worse than British citizens.

 

If you believe reducing immigration can only have benefits have a look at Japan and South Korea and what they are experiencing

 

 

Edited May 7, 2019 by darren1971

[darren1971]

Just now, Jip99 said:

 

 

I agree with this 100%

 

Each case is different; someone could be living with parents with zero costs. Someone could have £30,000 income but be up to their eyes in debt and living beyond their means.

 

 

Any financial criteria should be based on an assessment of AFFORDABILITY.

or, as long as the spouse is not on benefits and the applicant has no recourse to benefits until they have contributed enough N.I/tax then the income is not important.

[7by7]

19 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

 

Under the old system you simply had to show that you had sufficient funds/income to support your partner when they came to live in the UK. Granted, there wasn't a lot of checking done.........

When my wife and step daughter applied in 2000 we came under the old 'adequate maintenance' requirement.

 

Which meant that I had to supply evidence of my income in the form of pay slips and bank statements; pretty much the same as now.

 

But I also had to supply evidence of my fixed regular outgoings, i.e. rent and loan repayments, so they could calculate my income net of these. If that was equal to or more than the income support figure for a British family of the same size (can't recall what it was then, now it's about £5K pa) then the adequate maintenance test was deemed to be met.

 

This was abolished under May's new scheme and since July 2012, as you say, no account is taken of fixed expenses such as rent at all; leading to the ludicrous situation you describe, and I have and others have described both in this topic, this forum and in submissions to Parliamentary inquiries into this financial requirement since 2012. 

 

BTW, the figure of £18,600 pa. is the income above which a British couple would no longer be entitled to any income related benefits. But, of course, many British couples are expected by the government to survive on incomes far below this figure.

[Jip99]

17 minutes ago, darren1971 said:

or, as long as the spouse is not on benefits and the applicant has no recourse to benefits until they have contributed enough N.I/tax then the income is not important.

 

 

That I don't agree with.

 

Income, inclusive of benefits should be counted.

 

Expenses should be evidenced and deducted, UKVI should undertake credit checks etc.

 

The net figure should then satisfy the minimum requirement set by UKVI. 

[7by7]

@darren1971,

 

The graph you produced did not show what you claimed. But it doesn't matter. 

 

If you read my posts right from the first I made in this topic you will know that I agree the current financial requirement is unfair.

 

I have always said, ever since this requirement was first mooted by the then Home Secretary Theresa May back in 2011, that a fixed minimum which took no account of out goings and the sometimes vast differences in living costs and incomes across the country was not only unfair but illogical.

 

The old adequate maintenance requirement I describe above being far fairer and also far more logical.

 

But we are fighting a losing battle. As has been said before, the vast majority of British citizens want immigration, all immigration, made harder, not easier. I have even seen posts on TV from people who want this to be so (except for their Thai partner!) especially where the family migrants are coming from the Indian sub continent!

[darren1971]

1 minute ago, 7by7 said:

@darren1971,

 

The graph you produced did not show what you claimed. But it doesn't matter. 

 

If you read my posts right from the first I made in this topic you will know that I agree the current financial requirement is unfair.

 

I have always said, ever since this requirement was first mooted by the then Home Secretary Theresa May back in 2011, that a fixed minimum which took no account of out goings and the sometimes vast differences in living costs and incomes across the country was not only unfair but illogical.

 

The old adequate maintenance requirement I describe above being far fairer and also far more logical.

 

But we are fighting a losing battle. As has been said before, the vast majority of British citizens want immigration, all immigration, made harder, not easier. I have even seen posts on TV from people who want this to be so (except for their Thai partner!) especially where the family migrants are coming from the Indian sub continent!

I did read your earlier posts and agree 100%, we had a fairer system before and for me the problem has always been more a benefits system problem than an immigration system problem.

 

We may well be fighting a losing battle, for now, I'm not sure it is a 'vast majority' that want to make immigration harder, maybe a slim majority.

[darren1971]

 

[rasg]

25 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

That I don't agree with.

 

Income, inclusive of benefits should be counted.

 

Expenses should be evidenced and deducted, UKVI should undertake credit checks etc.

 

The net figure should then satisfy the minimum requirement set by UKVI.

A single man on a salary of exactly £18,600 pa will take home around £312 a week or £1348 a month.

 

Most will be paying 50% or more of that in rent or mortgage. Less council tax. Food, gas, electric, water, mobile, internet etc etc. The list goes on and on. Out of that, flights to Thailand/holidays.

 

How on earth does somebody in this position afford upwards of £10k over five years (more with travel to and from BKK, translations, passports etc) to bring their girlfriend back to the UK to live?

 

If you did an outgoings/incomings check, nobody would be getting visas at all!

 

If anything £18,600 is far too low.

[darren1971]

8 minutes ago, rasg said:

A single man on a salary of exactly £18,600 pa will take home around £312 a week or £1348 a month.

 

Most will be paying 50% or more of that in rent or mortgage. Less council tax. Food, gas, electric, water, mobile, internet etc etc. The list goes on and on. Out of that, flights to Thailand/holidays.

 

How on earth does somebody in this position afford upwards of £10k over five years (more with travel to and from BKK, translations, passports etc) to bring their girlfriend back to the UK to live?

 

If you did an outgoings/incomings check, nobody would be getting visas at all!

 

If anything £18,600 is far too low.

ummm so how do 47% of the working population living on salaries/wages less than £18,600 survive

[7by7]

9 minutes ago, rasg said:

A single man on a salary of exactly £18,600 pa will take home around £312 a week or £1348 a month.

 

Most will be paying 50% or more of that in rent or mortgage. Less council tax. Food, gas, electric, water, mobile, internet etc etc. The list goes on and on. Out of that, flights to Thailand/holidays.

 

How on earth does somebody in this position afford upwards of £10k over five years (more with travel to and from BKK, translations, passports etc) to bring their girlfriend back to the UK to live?

 

If you did an outgoings/incomings check, nobody would be getting visas at all!

 

If anything £18,600 is far too low.

 

But if someone does have an income below £18600 pa and can afford all that; why should that person be denied the right to live in the UK with their partner?

 

There are ways and means. I was earning less that the equivalent amount in 2000, but thanks to my father's support, not least in providing accommodation for us for a very low rent, we met the adequate maintenance test.

 

Since 2012, that is no longer an option

[laislica]

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

I agree with this 100%

 

Each case is different; someone could be living with parents with zero costs. Someone could have £30,000 income but be up to their eyes in debt and living beyond their means.

 

 

Any financial criteria should be based on an assessment of AFFORDABILITY.

I can't agree.

 

That's called a Means Test.

They were banned years ago?