NHS Surcharge again.

[crazydrummerpauly]

These days everyone states that the NHS surcharge for a Leave to Enter (spouse) visa is £500.

(when it first came in i seem to remember it was going to be rounded UP for every part of a year,

to a whole year, so the 2.5 yrs visa would cost £600, but i've been corrected on that.)

I paid this a short while back - 

Description: Immigration Health Surcharge Payment
Unit price: $912.00 USD
Qty: 1
Amount: $912.00 USD

That's the Paypal confirmation email.

How does that convert to £500 ?

 

Edited August 2, 2016 by crazydrummerpauly

[crazydrummerpauly]

From the uk govt website - 

"You’ll pay half of the yearly amount if your application includes part of a year that is less than 6 months.  You'll pay for a whole year if you're [sic] application includes part of a year that is more than 6 months."

So if the visa is for 33 months, the surcharge is £600 not the £500 everyone is quoting ?

 

[rasg]

And you pay in US dollars so you get ripped off big time on the exchange rate as well as the rate being very poor right now.

[wooloomooloo]

3 minutes ago, rasg said:

And you pay in US dollars so you get ripped off big time on the exchange rate as well as the rate being very poor right now.

 

The government cottoned on to a nice little earner ages ago and won't be giving it up any time soon.  

 

Even before the USD scam, they shafted my wife and I with their fantasy GBP/THB exchange rate that was impossible to replicate at the money changers.  

 

Agreed, it's a huge con.

[TCA]

6 hours ago, crazydrummerpauly said:

From the uk govt website - 

"You’ll pay half of the yearly amount if your application includes part of a year that is less than 6 months.  You'll pay for a whole year if you're [sic] application includes part of a year that is more than 6 months."

So if the visa is for 33 months, the surcharge is £600 not the £500 everyone is quoting ?

 

 

If you use the NHS surcharge calculator on the UKVI website (below) and try as if applying from outside the UK (i.e. initial visa/entry clearance), it calculates £600. If you then click through as if applying from within the UK (i.e. for FLR) it calculates £500.

 

https://www.immigration-health-surcharge.service.gov.uk/checker/type

[rasg]

It would. FLR is 30 months. The way I understand it, if you get married in Thailand the visa lasts for 33 months.

 

2 years and 6 months years versus 2 years and 9 months.

 

What annoys me, apart from the cost, is the quality of the government websites. They don't make things simple. I had to change to somebody applying on their own. It's just not that clear.

[crazydrummerpauly]

Yep - agree with all responses - it IS a rip-off and the forms ARE very challenging.

 

Apart from wanting to check that the $912 i'd been charged wasn't a mistake, i also wanted to question the fact that every expert i have ever read on this charge states dogmatically that the NHS charge for a UK spouse visa is £500.  I can't understand why this error has persisted so long.  I rememberd reading about the surcharge when it first came out and that it would be £600 for the 33-month visa.  Yes the basic idea is that the visa is for 2.5 years before applying for further-leave-to-remain in the UK, but it is issued for a 33-month maximum period.  

 

The other scandal is that the £500 payable at the Further Leave to Remain stage is still compulsory even if the applicant is employed and paying National Insurance contributions.  So they pay twice.  

[7by7]

5 hours ago, crazydrummerpauly said:

Apart from wanting to check that the $912 i'd been charged wasn't a mistake, i also wanted to question the fact that every expert i have ever read on this charge states dogmatically that the NHS charge for a UK spouse visa is £500.  I can't understand why this error has persisted so long 

With respect, as far as I am aware the regular posters on TV, including myself, have always stated that the surcharge for the initial visa is £600.

 

As I said to you in another topic, it is calculated at £200 p.a. rounded up to the next 6 months; so for the initial 33 month visa that is £600.

 

The calculation I used in that other topic to reach a figure of £500 was for an FLR application, which as the topic is about FLR I thought was clear. Apologies for any confusion.

 

As for charging in USD rather than Sterling; yes it's a rip off.

 

When UKVI moved to an online application and fee paying system I fully understood that having the one system covering every applicant worldwide meant that charging everyone in the same currency made sense.

 

What I didn't understand was why that currency was USD.

 

So I contacted the then Immigration Minister to ask why as the fees are set in Sterling by Parliament UKVI charged in USD; especially as many fees, especially for settlement, are paid by British citizens from their Sterling accounts.

 

The reply I received was meaningless waffle which does not answer the question! (N.B. I tried several times to attach the whole reply, but the attachment option doesn't seem to be working for me!)

 

Particularly telling is

Quote

The currency options are not driven by the UK Government but by global financial services markets, banking regulations and operational requirements within our global visa services network and our online payment service providers

(7by7 emphasis)

 

The first part of that is waffle; those factors would exists whichever currency they used.

 

Their online service provider is World Pay UK, who have confirmed that they will accept and process payments on most currencies, including, of course, Sterling. The choice is up to the customer, in this case the British government who have, for their own reasons which they refuse to explain, chosen USD; converting the Sterling fee set by Parliament into USD at a rate very favourable to them..

 

When I complained about all this to my MP he basically gave me the brush off, using as his excuse the fact that I was not personally affected.

 

I strongly urge those who have been affected by this rip off by the British Government to complain to their MPs. If no one complains, nothing will be done; if enough people complain, something may be done.

 

Pedants corner.

About 1.5% of NHS funding comes from charges (prescriptions etc.), about 18.5% from NICs and the rest, about 80%, from direct and indirect taxation. So even if someone is not working and paying income tax, as they are still paying VAT (and possibly excise duty, e.g. on petrol)  on almost everything they buy they are still contributing to the cost of the NHS.

 

That, plus this surcharge, does indeed mean that they are paying twice.

[rasg]

Pedants corner.

About 1.5% of NHS funding comes from charges (prescriptions etc.), about 18.5% from NICs and the rest, about 80%, from direct and indirect taxation. So even if someone is not working and paying income tax, as they are still paying VAT (and possibly excise duty, e.g. on petrol)  on almost everything they buy they are still contributing to the cost of the NHS.

 

That, plus this surcharge, does indeed mean that they are paying twice.

 

If somebody is not working they are unlikely to paying much VAT and I have no idea how they would afford to run a car, let alone buy one to pay fuel duty. If they are working it's likely that they are on a low salary. The money that they do pay is a drop in the ocean in comparison to the potential liability to the NHS if they, for example, had a serious accident similar to my brother in law that I mentioned below.

 

An almost identical thread is running on another forum and it's simply easier to paste my answer to a similar question here.

 

I'm not defending the Government at all here but many Thai people coming here are the partners of Brits and probably end up working on pretty low wages. No tax payable on £10K and minimal NIC and they can use all of the resources and specialist care of the NHS. Brother-in-law was run over by a skip lorry five years ago. Terrible injuries. Helicoptered in to a specialist hospital and 12 weeks in hospital with all of the aftercare etc. Total cost to the NHS, at least £250k.

£200 a year is a bargain in that sense.

If your argument had been about partners paying tax into the system all of their lives it would be valid, imho. I have no kids so I've never needed to have kids educated or NHS'd and I've paid a fortune in tax and NIC. More than 26K for the last two years. Had two knee ops as an adult and an eye op as an 11 year old and a broken collar bone. That is it. My total drain on the system in close to 60 years.

My wife has a Thai BUPA travel policy that runs until next March so after FLR goes in in early September I am paying twice. I was surprised to find it was only £80 when I bought it in March this year but it doesn't cover A&E etc. You still have to use the NHS for that. And it only covers up to 4 million baht...

[7by7]

The surcharge is not just paid by family migrants, it's paid by those coming to the UK from outside the EEA to study and work as well.

 

Family Migrants.

 

These are, of course, family members of UK taxpayers; otherwise the financial requirement would not be met. Even if it has been met by savings, tax is being paid on the interest earned by those savings.

 

A lot of immigrant spouses work, and many of them earn more than the lower earnings limit for income tax and NICs; my wife and most of our Thai friends who work do so, and did from their first job in the UK. So they are, and have been, paying NICs and income tax.

 

So they are paying twice.

 

Those who are not working are supported by their partners, who do pay tax. Many of them drive (when I was a driving instructor I taught a lot).  In most cases the immigrant spouse is not working as they have young children and, like non working British mothers, drive a car to do the school run, shopping etc. They pay excise duty and VAT on the fuel for that vehicle; or rather, like a non working British mother, their working spouse does, but it's still being paid.

 

So they may not be paying twice themselves, but their British partner is.

 

Unemployed people, and remember that an immigrant spouse cannot claim any benefit, buy things, they pay tax on those things. Many drive; not least because they need a car to get to interviews etc. if they live outside a large city where public transport is scarce. If they have no money of their own, their British spouse pays for this.

 

So they may not be paying twice, but their British partner is.

 

The argument that an immigrant family member of a UK taxpayer should pay this surcharge because they, themselves have never paid NICs or income tax, even though their spouse has, applies equally to British children; they have, after all, never paid either!

 

No one expects their parents to pay twice.

 

Students

 

Maybe an argument can be made here.

 

But many students do work, and even those who don't buy things and so pay VAT and other indirect taxes.

 

So they are paying twice.

 

Workers.

 

These people are definitely paying NICs and income tax. After all, if they were not earning enough to do so they would not have got their work visa.

 

They also pay indirect taxes as well, of course.

 

So they are paying twice.

 

Of course, many people, British born or immigrant, cost the NHS far more than they have ever paid in because of a serious accident or long term illness (BTW, helicopter ambulances are not funded by the NHS; they are funded by charities; although the government does at times make a contribution towards the cost of purchasing them.)

 

Many other people never have a serious illness or accident and so cost the NHS less than they have contributed over their working lives.

 

 

 

 

[crazydrummerpauly]

1 hour ago, 7by7 said:

The surcharge is not just paid by family migrants, it's paid by those coming to the UK from outside the EEA to study and work as well.

 

Family Migrants.

 

These are, of course, family members of UK taxpayers; otherwise the financial requirement would not be met. Even if it has been met by savings, tax is being paid on the interest earned by those savings.

 

A lot of immigrant spouses work, and many of them earn more than the lower earnings limit for income tax and NICs; my wife and most of our Thai friends who work do so, and did from their first job in the UK. So they are, and have been, paying NICs and income tax.

 

So they are paying twice.

 

Those who are not working are supported by their partners, who do pay tax. Many of them drive (when I was a driving instructor I taught a lot).  In most cases the immigrant spouse is not working as they have young children and, like non working British mothers, drive a car to do the school run, shopping etc. They pay excise duty and VAT on the fuel for that vehicle; or rather, like a non working British mother, their working spouse does, but it's still being paid.

 

So they may not be paying twice themselves, but their British partner is.

 

Unemployed people, and remember that an immigrant spouse cannot claim any benefit, buy things, they pay tax on those things. Many drive; not least because they need a car to get to interviews etc. if they live outside a large city where public transport is scarce. If they have no money of their own, their British spouse pays for this.

 

So they may not be paying twice, but their British partner is.

 

The argument that an immigrant family member of a UK taxpayer should pay this surcharge because they, themselves have never paid NICs or income tax, even though their spouse has, applies equally to British children; they have, after all, never paid either!

 

No one expects their parents to pay twice.

 

Students

 

Maybe an argument can be made here.

 

But many students do work, and even those who don't buy things and so pay VAT and other indirect taxes.

 

So they are paying twice.

 

Workers.

 

These people are definitely paying NICs and income tax. After all, if they were not earning enough to do so they would not have got their work visa.

 

They also pay indirect taxes as well, of course.

 

So they are paying twice.

 

Of course, many people, British born or immigrant, cost the NHS far more than they have ever paid in because of a serious accident or long term illness (BTW, helicopter ambulances are not funded by the NHS; they are funded by charities; although the government does at times make a contribution towards the cost of purchasing them.)

 

Many other people never have a serious illness or accident and so cost the NHS less than they have contributed over their working lives.

 

 

 

 

Quite agree - the NHS is a socialised ( many argue 'socialist') system of insurance against illness which changed the lives of millions of working-class people as we know.  All that is required in terms of fairness,is that individuals pay in a proportionate amount of their income to keep the system running effectively - the lottery of life which lets some off scot-free, and others harmed grievously, can have no bearing on what each should pay in.  That's how i see it anyway.

[rasg]

With interest being as low as it is you can earn £1K a year in savings and pay no tax. A higher rate tax payers allowance is £500. Unless you have a lot in the bank you pay no tax on savings. 

 

Many other people never have a serious illness or accident and so cost the NHS less than they have contributed over their working lives.

 

And many do.

 

As I said previously, £200 a year for a few years is a bargain and a very good insurance for the years to come. Too many people think the NHS is a bottomless pit, financially. It's not and never has been.

 

The day that they do stop the health tourists and make sure that people who are using the NHS are entitled to do so will be a good day.