Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 hour ago, Celsius said:

 

She probably means the doubling of financial requirements that happened recently. Although I read that has been put on hold.

No, still happening though they very slightly reduced it the new threshold. Proposed 38,700, settled on 29,000 which is still a huge increase form the current  18,600.

 

The number if retirees with an income of 29,000 is surely much less than the number with 18,600, taking all sources into account.

  • Agree 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

No, still happening though they very slightly reduced it the new threshold. Proposed 38,700, settled on 29,000 which is still a huge increase form the current  18,600.

 

The number if retirees with an income of 29,000 is surely much less than the number with 18,600, taking all sources into account.

I believe that the level of £18,600 was originally set in 2012 and has never been increased. Over the last 10 years inflation has equated to 48%. Just taking this into account would raise the level to around £27,500 so the NEW proposed amount of £29,000 would not appear to be too unreasonable. 

  • Haha 1
Posted
19 minutes ago, MarkyM3 said:

Was supposed to be going back to Canada but hasn't followed through unfortunately 

 

That's a shame. I am allowed to change my mind as I see fit.

  • Confused 1
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

Very few UK retirees have that high an income. Of course they may own thir homes outright but that is nto taken into account under this law.

I definitely feel the proposed income benchmark needs to take account of liquid assets like savings (property isn't liquid) in the qualification criteria where the person is retired. It should be be tweaked to do so, if it doesn't already. That way, most financially secure retirees would be able bring their wives to the UK.

 

But retirees are hardly the focus of this new policy. It's come about because the UK has seen its population increase by 15%+ over the last 20 years. Last year's net migration figures of 750k have prompted action since it's not sustainable on a small island. Housing and infrastructure is creaking at the seams. The government of the last 10+ years was elected on a manifesto pledge of keeping net migration under 100k pa, something it's never met. 

 

Bear in mind the median income in the UK is just under 35k and the new 38k benchmark is being staggered over 2 years - 29k in 2024 and 38k in 2025. The idea is too add skilled people to the working population where a UK citizen can't be found to perform the work rather than allowing employers to suppress wages and use imported cheap labour.   

 

 

Edited by MarkyM3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
31 minutes ago, MarkyM3 said:

I definitely feel the proposed income benchmark needs to take account of liquid assets like savings (property isn't liquid) in the qualification criteria where the person is retired. It should be be tweaked to do so, if it doesn't already. That way, most financially secure retirees would be able bring their wives to the UK.

 

But retirees are hardly the focus of this new policy. It's come about because the UK has seen its population increase by 15%+ over the last 20 years. Last year's net migration figures of 750k have prompted action since it's not sustainable on a small island. Housing and infrastructure is creaking at the seams. The government of the last 10+ years was elected on a manifesto pledge of keeping net migration under 100k pa, something it's never met. 

 

Bear in mind the median income in the UK is just under 35k and the new 38k benchmark is being staggered over 2 years - 29k in 2024 and 38k in 2025. The idea is too add skilled people to the working population where a UK citizen can't be found to perform the work rather than allowing employers to suppress wages and use imported cheap labour.   

 

 

Excellent summarisation. There is a provision for savings to be taken into account and a "combination" method is acceptable. 

Posted (edited)

 

 

When we refer to economic migrants, (not ecomonic), we are usually referring to people who move for better job opportunities and a better standard of living through earnings potential in a new country.

 

You seem to be talking about people relocating that have come to Thailand underfunded, the two are not the same.

 

I wouldn't class people who come here underfunded, without insurance, rely on GoFundMe or enough cash, as economic migrants. I would class them as feckless.

 

If you are Canadian, and you know better, enlighten us!

 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Scouse123
  • Confused 1
Posted
4 hours ago, Scouse123 said:

 

 

When we refer to economic migrants, (not ecomonic), we are usually referring to people who move for better job opportunities and a better standard of living through earnings potential in a new country.

 

You seem to be talking about people relocating that have come to Thailand underfunded, the two are not the same.

 

I wouldn't class people who come here underfunded, without insurance, rely on GoFundMe or enough cash, as economic migrants. I would class them as feckless.

 

If you are Canadian, and you know better, enlighten us!

 

 

 

 

 

It's not as black and white as that. There are many people who relocated here years ago who were well funded but because of global economics and personal circumstances, combined with longevity, became underfunded. There are several classifications and people can move from one classification to another, solely because of circumstances.

  • Sad 1
  • Agree 2
Posted
10 minutes ago, Mike Lister said:

It's not as black and white as that. There are many people who relocated here years ago who were well funded but because of global economics and personal circumstances, combined with longevity, became underfunded. There are several classifications and people can move from one classification to another, solely because of circumstances.

 

So, no contingency plan? Moving to a third world country where you literally have zero rights and not expecting things to go horribly wrong at least at 1 point in your life is somehow a good idea?

 

A lot of people on this forum laughed a Thais during covid because of their inability to save and prepare when times were good,

 

  • Confused 1
  • Agree 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, Celsius said:

 

So, no contingency plan? Moving to a third world country where you literally have zero rights and not expecting things to go horribly wrong at least at 1 point in your life is somehow a good idea?

 

A lot of people on this forum laughed a Thais during covid because of their inability to save and prepare when times were good,

 

I have several but many don't, I think it's boiling from syndrome or the thought that life is shorter than it really is.

Posted
15 hours ago, Sheryl said:

The number if retirees with an income of 29,000 is surely much less than the number with 18,600, taking all sources into account.

A distorted way of looking at it.

The true comparison would be the ratio above and below £18,600 in 2012 compared the same ration for £29,000 in 2024. The revised figure is directly related to UK inflation so anyone who was above in 2012 is likely to be above next year.

The real injustice here is that pensioners, unlike those who work, have no control over their income and become disadvantaged in any legislation that relates to earnings. Frozen pensions don't come into it as if you did apply for spouse visa it woud be based on the pension received when in the UK.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Posted
26 minutes ago, FruitPudding said:

 

So, you make a thread to slag of expats with less money than you, until you come across a member with more money than you.......and all of a sudden you don't want to play the d!ck measuring contest (that you started) anymore.

 

Just take your ball and go home.

 

I don't know if he has more money than me.

 

All I mentioned is that I saved 500k in 10 years. He is the one that started by saying I failed in Thailand.

 

But correct, I don't do d1k measuring contest with liars and sexpats who after years of living in Thailand all they can type in every reply is  "555". Kinda loso thing to do.

 

 

 

 

Posted
10 hours ago, MarkyM3 said:

The government of the last 10+ years was elected on a manifesto pledge of keeping net migration under 100k pa, something it's never met. 

Indeed, and net migration has 2 sides. The number of UK nationals emigrating is now less than half of what it was 20 years ago, only 92K last year.

The government is so narrow minded they only look at one side, a lot more could be done in boosting emigration which would bring down the net migration. Frozen pensions would be a good start.

  • Confused 2
  • Agree 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Celsius said:

 

All I mentioned is that I saved 500k in 10 years. He is the one that started by saying I failed in Thailand.

 

Is that what your thread is about though? You started this thread.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Bday Prang said:

Would any Thai spouses even want to go live in the UK. if they had any concept of what life on the breadline was like there? 

 

No, they don't. They all think they will live in London and share some nice photos on Facebook to make their friends jealous. instead they end up divorcing and leaving their low IQ Farang mugs penniless while they are back enjoying life in Thailand. 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1
Posted
3 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Indeed, and net migration has 2 sides. The number of UK nationals emigrating is now less than half of what it was 20 years ago, only 92K last year.

The government is so narrow minded they only look at one side, a lot more could be done in boosting emigration which would bring down the net migration. Frozen pensions would be a good start.

 

Right,

 

So you are asking British people to emigrate from Britain, to allow illegal boat people to immigrate?

 

I bet the government hasn't thought of that one.

Posted
4 minutes ago, Bday Prang said:

Would any Thai spouses even want to go live in the UK. if they had any concept of what life on the breadline was like there? 

 

They go with pre-conceived ideas and don't want to lose face returning to Thailand without sackfuls of money.

Posted
2 hours ago, Mike Lister said:

It's not as black and white as that. There are many people who relocated here years ago who were well funded but because of global economics and personal circumstances, combined with longevity, became underfunded. There are several classifications and people can move from one classification to another, solely because of circumstances.

 

Yes,

 

That can happen, and then they need to reassess, can they really afford to live abroad.

 

You should always have a contingency plan and money set aside for unforeseen circumstances.

  • Like 1
Posted
9 hours ago, cowellandrew said:

This is easy,

economic migrants enter via dingy UK or tunnel USA, 

Ex Pat's leave on a plane,

😁

 

 

 

And pass through immigration and obtain the relevant visas required.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...