'Absurd' visa rules on income force UK citizens into exile, court told

[RabC]

why are people still complaining about the income level it really has not been set very high and it has been around for a few years now. I would prefer for it to be higher but I dout it will be. If you swap it around you need to show money to stay in Thailand and then that only allows 1 year at a time. So stop moaning about the income level and if you do not earn enough money to statisfy it then simple get another job.

An extremely blinkered and self-centred view.

Just try applying your logic to those (and there are a great many) who are now retired and obliged to live on the pittance that HMG calls a State Pension.................

You choose your trade you choose your lifestyle. Why oh why do so many now believe they are owed so much by the government? The state pension should be just enough to live by and prevent poverty any more is a luxury and should be funded by the individual. The welfare state really has gone crazy.

[whiterussian]

Manjit Singh Gill QC, said the law barred up to 47% of the working British population from living with a non-EU spouse in their home country.

Hardly justice... or maybe it needs to be over 50%.

Obviously we can't think non-PC thoughts about how British the spouse is - by descent etc...

How scary is that! 47% of of the British population live on around £18,000 year

Back in 1970's I grew up in a house full of lodgers. Was much worse then. Everyone's gone soft, and the govt can tackle benefits rather than giving my family future a price tag and real threat of deportation.

And 64%+ wouldn't meet a proposed £25,700 limit. At least I'll have a story to teach my son - 'Do well in school or they wont let you marry a Thai woman'

If he's on a Thai salary however from say 10,000thb (army officer) to a massive 60,000thb... sorry kid, at least the beer is cheap here...

I suppose the English system of day-care for the child from 1 year old is the way forward according to these pencil pushers. Thankfully I've spared my child this.

a study of 531 case files of those granted entry

clearance in 2009 on the basis of marriage or civil partnerships was undertaken. 94% of UK

partners reported being in paid employment at the point of application with median posttax

earnings of £14,400 per annum, but there was a wide variation between nationalities. The figure

for those with Bangladeshi partners was much lower and the figures of both those Bangladeshi

and Pakistani partners was below the median. That for those with Indian, Chinese, Thai and US

partners was above.

Edited February 24, 2016 by whiterussian

[eaglesflight]

Well, I have £17,000/annum as a pension (after tax), comprising: nothing whatever from the private pension scheme to which I contributed for many years which all went down the tubes in the recession, a trivial sum as a state pension for my many years contributions in the UK and a £13,500/annum Luxembourg state pension (for a mere 11 years working there). I don't own a property and when I did my calculations a year or two before I was due to retire, I realized, fairly rapidly, that there was no way that I could afford to live in the UK or that at least not anywhere south of the Humber Estuary nor indeed anywhere much in Europe and that is how I ended up in Thailand. Personally, I am truly delighted it worked out the way it did as, if I had had just a few £1000 a year more, I would have settled down to a life of relative poverty in the cold, miserable UK, whereas, with that pension, I am obscenely affluent in Thailand.

So no, I don't think their demands are unreasonable at all. I really don't know how any couple could live in Britain today in any sort of comfort on less than about £25,000. If your prospective partner is Thai or from somewhere else with a tropical climate, would you really doing them any favours by taking them back to the UK where you will both be living in relative poverty? Would you you be able to afford to heat your residence to 24° or 25°C so that your partner would feel at least comfortable. Could you afford to stump up the hundreds of £s it would cost to outfit your partner with warm enough clothing and footwear to survive the UK's wonderful climate? These are the questions I would be asking someone in that position.

I agree with your point of view if you are applying the rules to somebody like me who has lived outside the UK for 12 years and not made any contributions in the form of N.I. or tax during that period. If I were to go back to the UK with a salary of less than £18,600 (?), I can't see how I could possibly support both myself and my partner (let alone my child). However, if I lived in the UK full-time and earned say, £17,500 a year, then married a non-UK citizen who I met whilst on holiday, it does seem a little unreasonable that I would not be allowed to bring her back to the UK, especially if I were living down the road from a family of work shy locals, who were living on the dole in a 3-bed council house(paid for with housing benefits).

I think asylum seekers and other immigrants are largely irrelevant to this discussion. There is a certain type of person that loves to get indignant about immigration in the UK but I met far more natives sponging off the state during my time in London than I did immigrants. During hard times, when I had to take whatever temporary work I could find, my companions on the gas bottle filling line, or wherever I happened to be working that week, were mostly Polish and African (not sure which African countries), not British citizens. The locals were probably too busy sleeping off their hangovers in some nearby sink estate and arguing over who was going to walk to the Paki shop to buy some more White Lightning cider and Kestrel Super Strength lager.

[theoldgit]

This issue has been discussed a number of times, in order to keep this thread open please limit your comments to the actual issue of the court case, and maybe the actual subject in hand and associated costs like the Health Surcharge, though this has already been discussed at length elsewhere.

Please refrain from derailing this thread by posting about off topic subjects like asylum seekers and the EU vote. A number of off topic posts have already been removed.

[rickudon]

I personally think the £18,600 barrier is unreasonable, as are the visa fees (with no refund). I am retired (though under 65) and was living quite comfortably on less than £1,000 a month ( so those of you who think that you need over £18,000, you don't know how to budget or economise). I now live in Thailand and support a wife and child. I can return to UK and could take my daughter, possibly claim some benefits as a single parent, but cannot take my wife (even though i would not get any greater benefits!). And as said, 94% of immigrant spouses do work.

I am all for setting the system such that if you return with a foreign wife you don't sponge off the state - that is not an issue, as i don't think i could get anything other than child benefit and a small council tax rebate. But i am on a pension - my income is literally guaranteed - someone else could return and immediately cease work - so what's the point of the £18,600 hurdle? I am free to marry anybody who is a UK resident, regardless of my or their income, but not anyone outside of the EU - that's discrimination.

So, instead of spending my money in the UK, I spend 90% of it in Thailand - Thailand's gain, UK's loss. As for contributing £200 a year to the NHS for my spouse - not an issue.

EXAMPLE UK BUDGET for one (when in UK)

Food - £150 a month

Transport - £50 a month (Have Bus pass)

Utility Bills (my share) - £50 a month

Entertainment, socialising - £50 a month (includes an occasional beer)

Rent - theoretical - £400 a month

Total : £700 a month

And, of course, many in the UK do live on this or less.

[crazydrummerpauly]

So if the people vote in June to leave Europe where will that leave all these cases quoting the European Laws?

The European Convention of Human Rights and it's court have nothing to do with the European Union.

They were established by the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a founder member, in 1950.

The Council of Europe currently has 47 members, including all 28 members of the EU.

The UK was a member of the ECtHR long before we joined what was then the EEC and will still be if we leave the EU.

So even if the UK does leave the EU, that will have no effect on this case nor any other human rights cases or legislation in the UK.

If you could clear up a major question i'd be grateful - whichever court arrives at whatever decision or judgement, to what extent does the government / party in power, have to take notice and/or ACT on the court's conclusions ?

[crazydrummerpauly]

18k a year ? Christ if thats all they are earning how did they afford a holiday in Thailand to find a foreign bride in the first place ? Making 300 quid a week and expecting the tax payer to subsidise their fags, booze and any future kids.. The self entitled gang all expect a millionaires lifestyle on a tuppeny ha'ppenny budget.. What next ? Ferraris for all ?

£300 a week is £15,600 a year.

[Briggsy]

Naturally people on this forum are thinking along the lines of white man, Thai bride.

Of course the majority of spousal applications are from South Asia followed by sub-Saharan Africa.

There is a large industry of arranged marriages in which settlement in the UK can be sold through a network of brokers. This income hurdle provides the very minimum of protection for the British taxpayer.

[crazydrummerpauly]

Naturally people on this forum are thinking along the lines of white man, Thai bride.

Of course the majority of spousal applications are from South Asia followed by sub-Saharan Africa.

There is a large industry of arranged marriages in which settlement in the UK can be sold through a network of brokers. This income hurdle provides the very minimum of protection for the British taxpayer.

Even though the facts show that the vast majority of immigrants are actually net beneficiaries TO the state rather than of it. In other words, that they overall pay in far MORE in taxes and VAT etc TO the state than they take out in benefits. In which case the 'British taxpayer' does not need 'protection'.

[7by7]

So if the

people vote in June to leave Europe where will that leave all these cases quoting the European Laws?

The European Convention of Human Rights and it's court have nothing to do with the European Union.They were established by the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a founder member, in 1950.The Council of Europe currently has 47 members, including all 28 members of the EU.The UK was a member of the ECtHR long before we joined what was then the EEC and will still be if we leave the EU.So even if the UK does leave the EU, that will have no effect on this case nor any other human rights cases or legislation in the UK.

Not 100% correct.It may well have an effect read this article.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/02/david-cameron-prepared-to-break-with-europe-on-human-rights

On another note,why does it take up to 6 months to reach a decision?

Yes, Cameron has threatened to withdraw from the ECHR if the UK is not allowed a veto on decisions of the ECtHR.

But that has nothing to do with the EU. They are completely separate entities. Being a member of one does not make a country a member of the other.

If the UK leaves the EU we will still be a signatory of the ECHR; unless we also leave the ECHR and it's court.

[crazydrummerpauly]

So if the people vote in June to leave Europe where will that leave all these cases quoting the European Laws?

The European Convention of Human Rights and it's court have nothing to do with the European Union.

They were established by the Council of Europe, of which the UK is a founder member, in 1950.

The Council of Europe currently has 47 members, including all 28 members of the EU.

The UK was a member of the ECtHR long before we joined what was then the EEC and will still be if we leave the EU.

So even if the UK does leave the EU, that will have no effect on this case nor any other human rights cases or legislation in the UK.

If you could clear up a major question i'd be grateful - whichever court arrives at whatever decision or judgement, to what extent does the government / party in power, have to take notice and/or ACT on the court's conclusions ?

Answering my own question - Does the UK parliament have to listen to the Supreme Court ? - "One of the slightly bizarre features of our legal system is that we have a supreme court, populated by our most senior and respected judges, which can no more tell our parliament what to do than it can decide the tactics for the England football team. However, by virtue of article 46 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the government must "abide by", that is, it must follow, final decisions of the European Court of Human Rights, a court based in Strasbourg of which hardly a lawyer in England could name a single judge."

From a very interesting and highly relevant article - http://www.theguardian.com/law/2011/jan/27/supreme-court-parliamentary-sovereignty

[rasg]

Even though the facts show that the vast majority of immigrants are actually net beneficiaries TO the state rather than of it. In other words, that they overall pay in far MORE in taxes and VAT etc TO the state than they take out in benefits. In which case the 'British taxpayer' does not need 'protection'.

No they don't. Not when you factor in income support, housing support, child support, educating their kids etc etc etc.

[7by7]

18k a year ? Christ if thats all they are earning how did they afford a holiday in Thailand to find a foreign bride in the first place ? Making 300 quid a week and expecting the tax payer to subsidise their fags, booze and any future kids.. The self entitled gang all expect a millionaires lifestyle on a tuppeny ha'ppenny budget.. What next ? Ferraris for all ?

1) As shown in an earlier post, a significant proportion of the UK working population earn less than this; the government itself reckon around 43%.

£18,600 p.a. for a 40 hour week is £8.94 per hour; way above the current minimum wage of £6.70 per hour and still well above the new minimum 'living wage' of £7.20 which comes into force in April.

The government expect British workers to be able to live on this; why should a British citizen who marries a foreigner have to earn more?

2) The immigration rules, including Appendix FM, apply to all non EEA nationalities, not just Thais.

3)) Not all British people with a non EEA national partner met them while on holiday in their partner's country.

Many met while the foreign partner is in the UIK, as a student or with a work visa for example. Probably not the majority, but a significant minority nonetheless.

Even those who do meet in, for example, Thailand may be there on a holiday of a lifetime which they have saved years to be able to afford.

4) If you earn £18,600 p.a. or above then you cannot claim nor receive any income related benefits; so people earning that are not having anything subsidised by the tax payer.

5) As previously explained; the immigrant partner is banned from claiming any public funds for at least five years, except contribution based ones for which the have paid sufficient NICs.

In addition, although the British partner may claim any and all benefits to which they may be entitled, they cannot claim any extra due to their foreign family member(s) living with them. This includes social housing.

6) Because the requirement is a gross figure and takes no account of outgoings, someone living in, for example, the North East of England doing the same job for the same company as someone living in the South East but not getting a South Eastern pay allowance wont qualify whilst their colleague who does get the allowance will.

Even though the North Easterner's housing and associated costs are lower and so their net income is higher than that of their South Eastern colleague!

We also have the ludicrous situation I described earlier whereby someone with a mountain of debts will meet the requirement, whilst someone with no debts and there for a higher disposable income wont simply because they don't earn at least £18,600.

7) To repeat, prior to July 2012 the financial requirement was based on net income; after all deductions and regular outgoings.

If this amount was deemed enough to live on without the need for public funds, and the base figure being the income support level for a British family of the same size, then the financial requirement was met.

Perhaps you will be good enough to explain why, in your view, the current requirement is fairer to both applicant and sponsor and better for the British taxpayer?

8) You may have worked out that this is an issue I feel strongly about; even though my wife and step #daughter came the UK under the old, sensible and fair financial requirement so we are not personally effected.

But I don't have an "I'm alright, Jack; sod the rest of you" attitude.

[crazydrummerpauly]

Even though the facts show that the vast majority of immigrants are actually net beneficiaries TO the state rather than of it. In other words, that they overall pay in far MORE in taxes and VAT etc TO the state than they take out in benefits. In which case the 'British taxpayer' does not need 'protection'.

No they don't. Not when you factor in income support, housing support, child support, educating their kids etc etc etc.

"What have the immigrants ever done for us? Rather a lot, according to a new piece of research Nov 8th 2014 | From the print edition

PESKY immigrants. They move to Britain, taking jobs, scrounging welfare benefits, straining health services, overrunning local schools and occupying state-subsidised housing. That, at least, is the story recounted by politicians from the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and, increasingly, by members of the Conservative Party. A new study by two economists tells a very different tale.

Concern about the economic impact of immigration has centred on two areas: the effect foreigners have on native workers’ wages and employment; and the extent to which immigrants, in particular those from countries within the European Union who are free to move around at will, take from a system to which they have contributed little. Research by Christian Dustmann of University College London and Tommaso Frattini of the University of Milan focuses on the second.

By calculating European immigrants’ share of the cost of government spending and their contribution to government revenues, the scholars estimate that between 1995 and 2011 the migrants made a positive contribution of more than £4 billion ($6.4 billion) to Britain, compared with an overall negative contribution of £591 billion for native Britons. Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contribution of recent arrivals from the eastern European countries that have joined the EU since 2004 has amounted to almost £5 billion. Even during the worst years of the financial crisis, in 2007-11, they made a net contribution of almost £2 billion to British public finances. Migrants from other European countries chipped in £8.6 billion.

The authors point out that the cost of some government services—in particular “pure public goods” such as defence spending—remains the same no matter what the population, so the overall cost of providing them to immigrants is zero. Calculate the amount per person, and the price for Britons goes down as the number of immigrants rises, since the cost is shared between a larger number of individuals.

Immigrants’ overall positive contribution is explained in part by the fact that they are less likely than natives to claim benefits or to live in social housing. Between 1998 and 2011 as many as 37% of natives were receiving some kind of state benefit or tax credit; European immigrants were nearly eight percentage points less likely to collect them. Those from Europe were also three percentage points less likely to live in social housing than Britons.

Mr Dustmann and Mr Frattini acknowledge that the benefits of immigration may be related to the fact that migrants tend to be young. But, they point out, it is likely that many recent migrants will return home, to enjoy their less productive later years—when they may cost the state more in terms of health care, for instance. They also argue that the youth of many recent arrivals means that they are at the beginning of their careers—and may be underemployed because of a lack of language skills, for example—so have not yet reached their full economic potential. The contributions of those who stay in Britain may well increase. It is a new form of foreign direct investment."

From - http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21631076-rather-lot-according-new-piece-research-what-have-immigrants-ever-done-us

Edited February 24, 2016 by crazydrummerpauly

[crazydrummerpauly]

18k a year ? Christ if thats all they are earning how did they afford a holiday in Thailand to find a foreign bride in the first place ? Making 300 quid a week and expecting the tax payer to subsidise their fags, booze and any future kids.. The self entitled gang all expect a millionaires lifestyle on a tuppeny ha'ppenny budget.. What next ? Ferraris for all ?

1) As shown in an earlier post, a significant proportion of the UK working population earn less than this; the government itself reckon around 43%.

£18,600 p.a. for a 40 hour week is £8.94 per hour; way above the current minimum wage of £6.70 per hour and still well above the new minimum 'living wage' of £7.20 which comes into force in April.

The government expect British workers to be able to live on this; why should a British citizen who marries a foreigner have to earn more?

2) The immigration rules, including Appendix FM, apply to all non EEA nationalities, not just Thais.

3)) Not all British people with a non EEA national partner met them while on holiday in their partner's country.

Many met while the foreign partner is in the UIK, as a student or with a work visa for example. Probably not the majority, but a significant minority nonetheless.

Even those who do meet in, for example, Thailand may be there on a holiday of a lifetime which they have saved years to be able to afford.

4) If you earn £18,600 p.a. or above then you cannot claim nor receive any income related benefits; so people earning that are not having anything subsidised by the tax payer.

5) As previously explained; the immigrant partner is banned from claiming any public funds for at least five years, except contribution based ones for which the have paid sufficient NICs.

In addition, although the British partner may claim any and all benefits to which they may be entitled, they cannot claim any extra due to their foreign family member(s) living with them. This includes social housing.

6) Because the requirement is a gross figure and takes no account of outgoings, someone living in, for example, the North East of England doing the same job for the same company as someone living in the South East but not getting a South Eastern pay allowance wont qualify whilst their colleague who does get the allowance will.

Even though the North Easterner's housing and associated costs are lower and so their net income is higher than that of their South Eastern colleague!

We also have the ludicrous situation I described earlier whereby someone with a mountain of debts will meet the requirement, whilst someone with no debts and there for a higher disposable income wont simply because they don't earn at least £18,600.

7) To repeat, prior to July 2012 the financial requirement was based on net income; after all deductions and regular outgoings.

If this amount was deemed enough to live on without the need for public funds, and the base figure being the income support level for a British family of the same size, then the financial requirement was met.

Perhaps you will be good enough to explain why, in your view, the current requirement is fairer to both applicant and sponsor and better for the British taxpayer?

8) You may have worked out that this is an issue I feel strongly about; even though my wife and step #daughter came the UK under the old, sensible and fair financial requirement so we are not personally effected.

But I don't have an "I'm alright, Jack; sod the rest of you" attitude.

WELL SAID 7by7 - i am also sick of the 'I'm alright Jack so sod off' attitude of so many posts.

[7by7]

Even though the facts show that the vast majority of immigrants are actually net beneficiaries TO the state rather than of it. In other words, that they overall pay in far MORE in taxes and VAT etc TO the state than they take out in benefits. In which case the 'British taxpayer' does not need 'protection'.

No they don't. Not when you factor in income support, housing support, child support, educating their kids etc etc etc.

How many more times does it have to be said?

The immigrant partner cannot claim any public funds until they have ILR, which takes at least five years to obtain.

Except contribution based ones for which they have paid the necessary NICs.

If you still don't believe me, read Public Funds from the Home Office.

During that five years the immigrant partner is, in many cases, working and paying tax and even if not they still pay VAT on most things they buy.

So they are contributing but not taking any benefits out.

Their British partner can claim any and all benefits to which they may be entitled; and this does include child benefit. But in most cases the children are those of the marriage and so British citizens.

The same applies to the schooling for those children; most of them are British citizens.

As for social housing and/or housing benefit; if the British spouse is entitled to it individually and already living in social housing then there is no objection to their immigrant partner living there with them But they will not be moved to a larger property merely because they now have immigrant family members living with them.

They wont get housing benefit because if their income is low enough to qualify for this then they wont meet the minimum income requirement and their partner wont get their visa.

Indeed, if their current accommodation is inadequate then their partner's initial settlement visa application would be refused anyway!

[Trevor1809]

You will not get much of private health plan for £200 a year. Policies do not generally cover GP appointments or emergency treatment either!

£200 is a bargain especially as pre-existing conditions are covered. Not disgusting really.

The real argument strikes me as being how long is it fair to keep charging?

As for visa charges, they do make a 'profit' but children become eligible for free schooling etc. Is this going to be the next target? It is the standard of service that applicants make that is disgusting IMO!

Please explain why UKVI charged me £2000 for my wife's FLR and not the £500 that is the legal figure? Where is the bargain if I am have to pay 4 times as much or not get an FLR.

[Trevor1809]

Why oh why do so many now believe they are owed so much by the government?

Errrr because we paid into it over out entire working lives may be. The trouble some people think a pension is charity rather that we paid for it in the first place.

[Trevor1809]

The same applies to the schooling for those children; most of them are British citizens.

Not forgetting of course that since being in full time education up to 18 is a legal requirement, there is no option of not sending kids to school, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to provide free education.

[7by7]

You will not get much of private health plan for £200 a year. Policies do not generally cover GP appointments or emergency treatment either!

£200 is a bargain especially as pre-existing conditions are covered. Not disgusting really.

The real argument strikes me as being how long is it fair to keep charging?

As for visa charges, they do make a 'profit' but children become eligible for free schooling etc. Is this going to be the next target? It is the standard of service that applicants make that is disgusting IMO!

Please explain why UKVI charged me £2000 for my wife's FLR and not the £500 that is the legal figure? Where is the bargain if I am have to pay 4 times as much or not get an FLR.

The surcharge is £200 p.a, rounded up to the next 6 months.

Something went wrong somewhere in your wife's FLR application, either with the system or because you made errors (although you wont admit to the latter being a possibility).

Presumably you and your lawyer are taking action to discover the reason and obtain a refund.

Or would you rather simply moan about it over and over again on an internet forum than take positive action which should obtain a refund for you?

[Trevor1809]

Well, don't countries have the rights to set some rules and policies on immigration, medical, communicable diseases, means of support, income, net worth etc? If UK laws don't quite line up with some EU documents, that will be interesting to see what the court rules. If the ruling is simply to determine that the UK rule is in conflict with the EU charter or whatever, well, so what? Exactly how binding are the EU things?

Amazing how people don't wince at the 600,000 plus immigrants coming to the UK but then get uppity over the thought of a few thousand that would scrape in if the threshold was lowered.

[Craig krup]

You're probably entitled to feel pretty hard done by if your ancestors helped build (say) Coventry, you worked in Coventry and you can't stay in it, but the descendent of the people who flattened it has an absolute right to stay.

The EU - they've ignored the sentiments and beliefs of the ordinary people for decades and now it's all blowing up in their faces.

[cjw121]

The same applies to the schooling for those children; most of them are British citizens.

Not forgetting of course that since being in full time education up to 18 is a legal requirement, there is no option of not sending kids to school, therefore it is perfectly reasonable to provide free education.

If the child is also in the UK on a setllement visa why should they be given free schooling?

[7by7]

For the same reason any child in the UK is entitled to free state schooling.

Namely because at least one of their parents is working and paying tax.

[makescents]

The visa system in the UK is one of the reasons we came to Canada as it gave my wife a permanent visa. She's also covered by the health system and can claim the dole if needed (employment insurance they call it here).

Bored of the 5 year wait for a permanent visa, the 6 year wait for citizenship.

[cjw121]

For the same reason any child in the UK is entitled to free state schooling.

Namely because at least one of their parents is working and paying tax.

The Uk parent is only going to be a stepparent so why should that entitile that child to free schooling at the tax payers expense

[cjw121]

The visa system in the UK is one of the reasons we came to Canada as it gave my wife a permanent visa. She's also covered by the health system and can claim the dole if needed (employment insurance they call it here).

Bored of the 5 year wait for a permanent visa, the 6 year wait for citizenship.

The UK should adopt the Thai spouse visa system renew every year and your not entitled to anything.

[7by7]

For the same reason any child in the UK is entitled to free state schooling.

Namely because at least one of their parents is working and paying tax.

The Uk parent is only going to be a stepparent so why should that entitile that child to free schooling at the tax payers expense

'Only' a step parent!

I have been more of a father to my now 25 year old daughter than her biological father, who abandoned her and her mother when she was 2, ever was!

But, emotion aside, I am a tax payer, I am contributing to the system and had been for 30 years before my wife and step daughter came to the UK 16 years ago.

30 years of paying into the state education budget without a child to receive any benefit from it.

Why should my step daughter have been denied an education because she is not my biological daughter?

BTW, her mother started work within 6 months of their arrival in the UK, so she was also a tax payer for the vast majority of our daughter's education; and still is.

You do realise that your argument means that British children of unemployed parents shouldn't get a free state education either? After all, their parents don't pay tax!

[cjw121]

For the same reason any child in the UK is entitled to free state schooling.

Namely because at least one of their parents is working and paying tax.

The Uk parent is only going to be a stepparent so why should that entitile that child to free schooling at the tax payers expense

'Only' a step parent!

I have been more of a father to my now 25 year old daughter than her biological father, who abandoned her and her mother when she was 2, ever was!

But, emotion aside, I am a tax payer, I am contributing to the system and had been for 30 years before my wife and step daughter came to the UK 16 years ago.

30 years of paying into the state education budget without a child to receive any benefit from it.

Why should my step daughter have been denied an education because she is not my biological daughter?

BTW, her mother started work within 6 months of their arrival in the UK, so she was also a tax payer for the vast majority of our daughter's education; and still is.

You do realise that your argument means that British children of unemployed parents shouldn't get a free state education either? After all, their parents don't pay tax!

An unemployed person would be automatically entitled to free schooling for there child as a right of being English many people will also find work and pay there taxes.

A step child from another country should not enjoy the same rights as a British Citizen. Apart from a person marrying or being with there mother or father they have NO relationship with the UK and as such why should they be given them Free Schooling.

Many people decide not to have children so should they be given a refund for the amount of money they did not use on schooling?

[rasg]

7) To repeat, prior to July 2012 the financial requirement was based on net income; after all deductions and regular outgoings.

Just because the system prior to 2012 was fairer, in your opinion, doesn't mean it was right. I think there should be threshold and there will always be anomalies.

Also if the people you are referring to don't earn a lot of money, they won’t be buying much to pay loads of VAT. It's a poor argument.