robin1234

So crass! I prefer "comfortably-off."

Anyway a practical question. From the point of view of a comfortably-off person about to retire, let's say for the sake of argument not much in the way of defined benefit pensions or SS, has (say) one million dollars in savings, investments and retirement savings. Under the new regime of having to document quite a high income, how would one characterize the million dollars? At three percent return that would barely bring in nineteen thousand pounds per annum, at the current dollar/pound exchange rate..?

nun

I agree about improving the system......but free at point of service and the funding from general taxation would not be things I would change

formula

Are you suggesting that those from South Asia don't work when they reside in the UK? Many British Asians will be able to meet the new threshold to bring over their spouse. Nearly a quarter of my office are British Asians and all can easliy meet that new threshold. Just look at all the corner shops that are run by south Asian families who work long hours too.

nun

Yeah, it's true a million dollars isn't what it used to be. However, it's more than you calculate by just applying a 3% return rate. I think you'd calculate the annuity value of that million dollars.....if you are a single male aged 65 you'd generate around 35k to 40k GBP a year. You have to include the spend down of your principal not just use the interest rate.

nun

I didn't take that from it, rather that certain politicians and newspapers might think that. But the real issue is that UK citizens rights are being attacked and the Government is getting overly involved in our private lives.

formula

The income tax received by government is now less than the welfare bill. That fact even scared the last (Labour) government when it appeared on their watch; hence why they started all the new schemes and cuts and gave the contracts to private companies. All being continued by this government. They (Labour) also talked about introducing a charge for each visit to the GP as the figures don't add up.

nun

All true. I would not introduce a charge for each doctors visit I would spread the cost across everyone through taxation while looking to deliver care more efficiently. IMHO cost free access to a doctor is why the UK is healthier and spends half as much on healthcare as the US. There will be hypercondriacs who abuse the system, but they are far outweighed by the benefits of free access to a doctor.

Mummy in the foothills

A set charge per Dr visit is not a fair tax. Those who are less well off will be paying a larger % of their income for each Dr visit and those who have any on going illness and need more frequent follow ups will be punished for being sick
How American of you.

nun

I agree with! you! Individual charges to see the doctor are a tax on the sick, which I think is unfair. Therefore, the NHS should continue to be entirely funded from general taxation and free at the point of service.

BristolUK

Now that's not true and you know it. I answered that when you came out with that lie last time. I'm not returning with my wife. She's not well enough for travel.

Certainly nobody here posted that it summed me up.

Here's what you said:

I responded

But you probably don't see the difference; everything with you is about money, burdens and selfishness.

My commonwealth wife's husband is looked after in her country and so should my wife be looked after if the situation were reversed. It's what civilised countries do.

calliope

And yet Britain is wealthier than ever before. Hmm, what a mystery it is.

Giantaxe

I wonder whether these regulations are going to force retired people to buy an annuity to "prove" income or simply allow an actuarial calculation?

Giantaxe

I like the French model for healthcare, but let's not forget that France spends a significantly higher percentage of its GDP on healthcare than does Britain.

calliope

The British couldn't afford it. They are too committed to low taxes despite seeing the crushing results of it all around them.

formula

Isn't that a big risk with all that is going on with the Euro problems and with Germany trying again to raid money from London to get the UK to prop up their mistakes with the Euro?

After that 1 year in another EEA country that you spoke about, you would need another 6 years on the EU route EU route to get British citizenship.
1 year in an EEA country + 5 years on a permit in the UK + 1 year on PR = 7 years to be a British citizen.

Your 7 year route to citizenship would need a lot of fingers crossing to hope that the Euro doesn't go in that time: or that the UK doesn't leave the EU with all the trouble with Germany trying to raid UK money: and the continual economic problems with the Euro PIIGS countries.

Cameron has already made it very clear again that he will protect Britain. This PM is not Tony (I'll sign anything you want but what's in it for me) Blair. British embassies in the eurozone have already been given instructions on how to evacuate British citizens back to the the UK.

With all this going in in the EEA, I would have thought it's a much safer route to enter the UK under UK immigration rules if your aim is UK citizenship.