[mashhood]

i am from Pakistan 35 years old,
my to-be wife is 26 UK born English,

she is a school teacher earning 1800 pounds a month and teach some private tuition's too and have her own home,car and savings.

her school salary amounts 21000 pounds a year.
she is private tutor too,but tuition income is not permanent as school teaching job and income is permanent.

will 21000 a year be good enough under new proposal?

second she is coming to marry here in Pakistan December or February.
will this new proposal be applicable as it is declared or WHEN this new conditions will be in effect?

will 21000 income will be appropriate for her to sponsor me as spouse?

when we should apply?

when this new condition be in implemented and will be effective?

kindly advise me
regards

[formula]

Originally Posted by Tr1boy This is completely false. There is absolutely no requirement for the UK national to have a job and there never has been.

This thread is about the new proposals and not what the present and past immigration laws have been.

[formula]

Originally Posted by BristolUK Aren't we talking means tested benefits? So that rules out Child Benefit.

Child Benefits are to be means tested from April. I'm not sure how it will work though as it is being worked out on one parents wage.

Originally Posted by BristolUK We had this discussion before. It's arguable that WTC is a benefit in the normal everyday sense.

Arguable? It's listed on government sites as one of the Income Based Benefits; along with other welfare payments like Job Seekers Allowance (Income Based).

Claimants apply for Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits payments every year; if they don't apply for them every year, then their claim stops as it is assumed that they no longer need/qualify for financial help. Claiments fill in a form to give their income, hours worked and numbers in their household; the government uses a formula to work out if they need support from the state and how much money they will be given.

I'm not sure how often those on Pension Credits apply, but that too is an income based welfare payment.

Thresholds for Tax Credits are reducing in April. As a very rough guide, it will drop from claimants with a joint salary in the 40s, to 25K (for one child).

Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits will be phased out when the new Welfare Reform Bill comes into force and will then be part of the new Universal Credit welfare payment. Under current proposals, claimants will also be forced to do more to work and keep their own families, will have to comply with 'look for work' conditions just as Job Seekers are required to now and will get sanctions (again, as Job Seeker claimants do already) if they don't comply. There is no doubt that Tax Credits is seen by the welfare state, as exactly the same as other income based welfare payments.

I'm not sure if Pension Credits is included in the new bill, but I assume that all Tax Credits will be affected by the new Welfare Reform Bill rules too, as capital and assets are now being factored in.

Originally Posted by BristolUK That aside, yes you're correct. I used to work in Benefits. That's the DWP. Tax Credits are not administered by the DWP. I thought you knew that.

I did know that, but I had (wrongly) assumed that your knew about the welfare payments administered by HMRC and local councils' too, as many DWP staff have some knowledge of these.

Originally Posted by BristolUK However, according to what I just read, there are restrictions on WTC where a spouse is subject to immigration control.

Yep, as I said before in this thread; the new rules came in recently and a British citizen can no longer include a foreign partner in their WTC claim if they don't have children. However, if they have children then can still claim WTC for their foreign spouse.

Originally Posted by BristolUK But did you miss, or are you ignoring the part, where I was actually talking about living on more than twice that income and backed by a hefty sum of capital?

If you reread my post, you will see that I was replying to your claim that
"Living on £1000 a month for two mortgage free? Piece of cake. Even without £50k in the bank."
I did put your quote in my post to avoid any misunderstanding.

[formula]

Originally Posted by Squirrel Having a job is no guarantee any more than savings anyway. The UKC could get a job on over £25K just to get their spouse's visa, then give up the job after the spouse moves here. It's all laughable really because if they set the limit too high (I believe higher than say 1.25x the minimum wage), it WILL be challanged in court and the UK Border Agency will have to back down. As I said, it already was forced to amend its policy on the 21 minimum age requirement. So really they can decide what they like, it makes no difference to the eventual outcome down the road.

If they lose in court, then how much harder will the government have to get to control the UKs growing immigration problems? Look what they did to Tier1 (General)? - they proposed caps; caps ruled illegal; government just closed the visa completely? Look at what Spain have done - no access to welfare for those that haven't paid into Spain for 6 years and even then they can only get out what they put in - that will shut the door for a lot more Brits than just asking people to work/have the income to keep, their spouse without being a burden to UK taxpayers.

I assume that with the under 21 age requirement, proposed new laws will sort the problem of forced marriage i.e new spouse visa rules and criminal acts for forced marriages.

[BristolUK]

Originally Posted by formula Arguable? It's listed on government sites as one of the Income Based Benefits

But I did say in the normal everyday sense. In other words how people "think" about it.

You know what I mean, I'm sure. Housing Benefit has been renamed but referring to it as housing benefit people still know what you mean.

How many people still say Inland Revenue? It's wrong but everyone knows who you're talking about.

An everyday normal interpretation of "Benefit Income" is something you get when you are not working (sick or unemployed) or when you are disabled or pregnant.

Something you get for working a minimum number of hours a week is seen as an incentive to work or to increase your hours if you already work. It was called a Credit or, in earlier days, a Supplement, precisely to avoid the stigma attached to Benefits. It's something that is supposed to make you better off by working. In all the take up campaigns about it the words used have traditionally been about getting off benefits not replacing one with another.

You see it in technical terms but if you're giving general advice it's better to use terms that people relate to.

I had (wrongly) assumed that your knew about the welfare payments administered by HMRC and local councils' too, as many DWP staff have some knowledge of these.

And I did and still do to a certain extent. And as much as I like to keep in touch about changes, I'm not obsessive about something that no longer concerns me.

If you reread my post, you will see that I was replying to your claim that "Living on £1000 a month for two mortgage free? Piece of cake. Even without £50k in the bank." I did put your quote in my post to avoid any misunderstanding.

Well you didn't do it very well, because the part of my post that you quoted was in response to your comment about living on the £106 a week and came earlier in the post than the other reference..

If you want to avoid confusion it would be better to deal with things in the right order.

[Squirrel]

I would be very ashamed to live in a country where a high percentage of people who have always worked and never claimed benefits were forced to emigrate from the country where they were born and brought up and had always lived, just because they had the 'misfortune' to fall in love with someone from outside the EU because they 'might' claim benefits they could just as easily be banned from claiming.

[Squirrel]

Originally Posted by formula If they lose in court, then how much harder will the government have to get to control the UKs growing immigration problems? Look what they did to Tier1 (General)? - they proposed caps; caps ruled illegal; government just closed the visa completely? Look at what Spain have done - no access to welfare for those that haven't paid into Spain for 6 years and even then they can only get out what they put in - that will shut the door for a lot more Brits than just asking people to work/have the income to keep, their spouse without being a burden to UK taxpayers. I assume that with the under 21 age requirement, proposed new laws will sort the problem of forced marriage i.e new spouse visa rules and criminal acts for forced marriages.

I could care less if I was banned from claiming benefits, I just wanted to be with the man I love in the country I was born in. As for work visas, I don't see that we have to have those at all.

[Jurls]

Originally Posted by Squirrel I could care less if I was banned from claiming benefits, I just wanted to be with the man I love in the country I was born in.

Hear hear!! I'd like that option in the future as well.

[formula]

Re Tax Credits (Working and Child)

Originally Posted by BristolUK Something you get for working a minimum number of hours a week is seen as an incentive to work or to increase your hours if you already work.

The way Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits work is that if the claimant increases their working hours, then they get less money given to them from the state. i.e. parents only working 20 hours between them and claiming Working Tax Credits, will also get the maximum amount of Child Tax Credits. If they increase their working hours they will lose their WTC; some of their CTC payments; and might lose any associated benefits such as free dentist treatment and free prescritpions. In Scotland, claimants of WTC also get free school meals.

This is why many claimants are loathe to increase their working hours as they will then receive less welfare (Tax Credits) and it's a practise known as 'maximising their benefits'. It's why the Welfare Reform Bill proposals are aiming to make claimants do more to keep their own familes and the incentive to work will be having to be treated like someone on jobseekers, if they don't earn more money.

Making people work more to keep their own children will also stop the many posts from people on the welfare boards, who are staggered to find that there are no welfare payments to replace the loss of their child tax credits, when their child leaves education or reaches the age of 20.

Originally Posted by BristolUK It was called a Credit or, in earlier days, a Supplement, precisely to avoid the stigma attached to Benefits.

Most people are well aware that Tax Credits are welfare payments as they are based on income. You are the first person I have spoken to who thought they weren't welfare payments in the true sense of the word. At least with welfare payments like JSA or ESA, they can be 'contribution based'; but Tax Credits seem to be the only welfare payment that is solely 'income based'.

Originally Posted by BristolUK It's something that is supposed to make you better off by working. In all the take up campaigns about it the words used have traditionally been about getting off benefits not replacing one with another.

But many claimants weren't moving on to increasing their hours and getting off benefits, they were doing the minimum hours to maximise their benefits; see above. Tax Credits also had the knock on effect of firms paying less money as state welfare now picked up the slack in the low wages they could now pay.

Tax Credits is why Labour MP Frank Field resigned his Ministerial post when his own welfare reforms were bypassed by Blair in favour of Brown's Tax Credits welfare payments. Blair called Tax Credits a "vote winner": Frank Field called them a 'poverty trap'. The Labour MP Frank Field is now helping the present government with the Welfare Reform Bill which is a great move for the Old Labour party (as oppossed to Blair's New Labour). The Welfare Reform Bill is supported by the present Labour party too.

Originally Posted by BristolUK Well you didn't do it very well, because the part of my post that you quoted was in response to your comment about living on the £106 a week and came earlier in the post than the other reference.. If you want to avoid confusion it would be better to deal with things in the right order.

I'll thought that putting a quote from someone and then putting a reply underneath, was clear: but I'll make it clearer for you next time.

[formula]

Originally Posted by Squirrel I could care less if I was banned from claiming benefits, I just wanted to be with the man I love in the country I was born in. As for work visas, I don't see that we have to have those at all.

Most of the work visas (even the new visas/made easier visas, invented by the last government) have now been closed; are being closed; having proposals to stop people settling in the UK with work visas.

[BristolUK]

Originally Posted by formula The way Working Tax Credits and Child Tax Credits work is that if the claimant increases their working hours, then they get less money given to them from the state.

Yes I'm aware of that. But then, once again, you missed the part where I referred to getting off benefits and being better off. If you are working full time, you're not on Income Support, but you might be working part time and get I/S.

Increasing your hours might then bring you into the working tax credits, the idea being that increased earnings and the credits give you more income than Income Support. Hence being better off - a phrase I did use in my post. You'd do well to read what people say properly instead of getting all technical all the time.

A term like "better off" is self explanatory.

Originally Posted by formula I'll thought that putting a quote from someone and then putting a reply underneath, was clear: but I'll make it clearer for you next time.

Clear would be in the correct order. I compared what would be my situation in returning to the UK (after all, this is the thread subject ) - ie much better off than someone on JSA. Beneath that quote was where you wrote of the difficulty living on £106 pw. That seemed very odd when I'd already said that would not be my situation.

It was after that where you then recognised that reality and then commented about council tax. My 'problem' was based on the earlier, irrelevant, comment.

[BristolUK]

I was chatting with Brian* this morning. Like me, he married a Canadian but he moved a bit longer ago. He's had his fill of winters here is considering going back to Wales and his wife is receptive to the move. He has a UK pension of about £100 a week and her employee pension is around £200 a week on current exchange rate. Together they'd have no need of pension credits and could probably find a small flat to afford. They have some savings (mostly hers as she was in well paid employment) that would help them in their remaining years. Unfortunately the new requirements won't be satisfied. If he returns on his own, there will of course be no restrictions on any support needed. So all those in favour of the change will presumably be happy at having to foot the bill for his Pension Credits and Housing Benefit even though it would be more sensible to accept them both and and have them provide for each other with no recourse to benefits. *not his real name

No response to this one? Why's that?

[formula]

Originally Posted by BristolUK Yes I'm aware of that. But then, once again, you missed the part where I referred to getting off benefits and being better off. If you are working full time, you're not on Income Support, but you might be working part time and get I/S.

//My bold//
I didn't miss it and I have tried to explain to you as clearly as I can by giving an example in a previous post to you in this thread. Many people are not "getting off benefits and being better off"; they are just 'getting more benefits and being better off'.

Originally Posted by BristolUK Increasing your hours might then bring you into the working tax credits, the idea being that increased earnings and the credits give you more income than Income Support. Hence being better off - a phrase I did use in my post.

Correct, many are "better off" as they are receiving more welfare from the state in benefits known as Tax Credits.

Originally Posted by BristolUK You'd do well to read what people say properly instead of getting all technical all the time.

Many people find Tax Credits confusing, although I don't know why as all it takes is a quick read. However, you are the first one I have met who is reluctant to believe they are a welfare payment in every sense of the word: i.e. money for people to claim if they can't provide for themselves/their family.

The Welfare Reform Bill will make it easier for people to understand welfare payments, as the name 'Tax Credits' will then be gone, along with the names of many other income based welfare payments. They will then all be known collectively as "Universal Credit". UC will have lots of new conditions for welfare claimants. The proposals for UC are quite easy to read and understand too.

[formula]

Originally Posted by formula This thread is about the new proposals and not what the present and past immigration laws have been.

For those that don't believe that foreign national partners can access welfare and welfare related passport benefits through their British partner; partner with ILR, have a read of this thread (or look for other threads on that immigration site on the Claiming Benefits board)
http://immigrationboards.com/viewtop...b93e cb034edb

[BristolUK]

Originally Posted by formula However, you are the first one I have met who is reluctant to believe they are a welfare payment in every sense of the word

Perhaps you've never worked for a government department that ran advertising campaigns and conducted interviews with the public with a view to getting them off benefits and into work, often with the incentive of tax credits in their various guises over many years.

a welfare payment in every sense of the word: i.e. money for people to claim if they can't provide for themselves/their family.

Not sure of figures now but not too long ago people with incomes of £85k could qualify. Go and tell them they were unable to provide. Take a first aid kit with you.