Squirrel

There will always be a minority of bad apples as there are in the US and lots of countries. The fact of the matter is, 13 years ago the only extra cost to me of DH moving in with me was his food. He gives me £200 a month for his share of groceries. That's now, back then food was cheaper. My mortage and gas/electricity didn't increase. As a couple with no kids we wouldn't have even been eligible for benefits anyway even had his visa not been stamped 'No Recourse To Public Funds.' He got a job very quickly but if not we'd have had to ask his family for money. £200 a month equals £2400 a year, assuming a very very bleak scenario of him being almost unemployable.

I think you & I both agree on making it harder to abuse the system. We disagree on how and also on how many innocent (ie those who won't claim benefits) prisoners it is acceptable to punish as a conswequence.

formula

I don't think our feelings on the matter are that far apart at all.

Someone on another list summed it all up really - the last government created an open door policy on immigration (new easy visas and no restrictions on numbers of eastern europeans like other western countries implemented, because the low skilled will vote Labour) that now they have to get hard on immigration, even harder than before the open immigration policy, to protect the UK.

BristolUK

Eh?

You tell me how much a month it is and I tell you that was what I was living on (quite comfortably with three holidays abroad every year, btw) and paying £400 for housing costs that I wouldn't have to pay this time and that proves your point?

And they'd be dead right.

But with housing costs taken care of and more than double that amount to live on it's a little different is it not?

Not forgetting, of course, all that money in the bank for extras.

manny1980

How do you know they have a good chance of getting another job? Last time I check the British economy isn't in a great state just like many other European nations including the US. I don't agree that a sponsor's savings 'will' go if they are out of work as again it depends on every individual's circumstances where some may have a large fixed deposits in a bank account which will provide them regular monthly income from the interest earned without touching their capital.

Of course it is my opinion but, unlike yourself, I clearly specify that I am stating my view/ opinion, I refrain using words like 'must' 'will' on an important information as that comes across too confirmed and can mislead others, which is how many of your statements comes across. Again, you are saying that official statistics show higher number of immigrants to the UK are from non-EU nation without providing an official reference to this 'factual' statement. If non-EU family immigration is more than immigration influx from EU nations (including Eastern Europeans) I will be surprised but will accept it and move on. Only reason the UK Govt is going after non-EU family is because their hands are tied when it comes to controlling flooding of immigrants from within the EU.


I agree with this comment as that does seems to be the case.

BristolUK

Correct. Where immigration restrictions exist the spouse is not paid for on a claim. Although (inconsistently) resources of the foreign spouse are deducted.

Which perfectly illustrates the folly of an inflexible system

I did. Not that it makes a lot of difference but I'm always willing to try.

Why do so many people think it impossible to survive on certain incomes just because they spend so much more?

formula

That would have to be a very hefty amount for a family to be able to live on the interest, for a few years; as you say, the British economy is in a bad way and therefore, they might not get a job. But wouldn't that mean that those families who didn't have three hundred thousand plus in savings, wouldn't be able to bring their foreign national spouse to the UK?

If you read my post again, you will see that I stated that the figures were from the office of statistics; which is quite easy to google. I would do it for you, but I never reward bad behaviour.

formula

No wrong; tax credits (WTC and CTC). Plus other benefits for foreign national step children; LHA (extra room rate) and child benefit are the ones that spring to mind; and I don't even claim any of them.

Was it you who said you use to work in benefits?

formula

If the JSA couple are childless (so don't have access other benefits) and are age 25 or over so they get the full adult rate of £105.95, then they will soon be in debt if they try to live long term on that per week. That payment is a basic survival payment and to encourage people to get back to work. They will have to survive with very little or no heating, during the winter.

I pay £500 per month just in council tax, water rates and gas and electric and I hardly have the heating on as I am out so much! What about funding repairs to that mortgage free house?

dunroving

And make it illegal for people on benefits to get married or have children. That would make about as much sense, too (more, to think of it). (in comparison to the gov't policy, not your suggestion)

Mummy in the foothills

True.
I just think if Dh and I had to meet those requirements we wouldn't be able to move home if one of us were not a UKC. Even though we could support ourselves quite easily living at my Mums and working a couple of minimum wage jobs which is our worst case scenario, we have one child left as a dependent and live so frugally in the US non of my UK friends can believe it.
Lucky for us we are all UKC's. But my UKC son has a USC girlfriend and I see it going long term, so he better make sure he's got a great paying job before any engagements or weddings come about should the relationship survive.

Jurls

This is what worries me!! I can see my scenario (post #12) not fitting in with these requirements and therefore we'd be stuck in Australia with my parents alone in the UK. I suppose I could always leave my husband in Australia and return with the kids, but then I'd probably need to go on benefits!!

BristolUK

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

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

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

There are people who live on that for years. They're rent is taken care of and they manage. They have no choice but to if they can't get a job.

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?

How nice for you.

I just checked my old house. £100 a month there for council tax. Repairs? The capital sum.

Believe me....if I and my wife were living on the income I mentioned (as opposed to what you imagine), backed by the capital I mentioned then I can assure you that based on my realities and budgeting over the last 38 years I would be so much better off than all but the first few years when I was living in my parents' house and saving more money than I could spend.

But it would not meet the new conditions mentioned.

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.

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

Tr1boy

This is completely false. There is absolutely no requirement for the UK national to have a job and there never has been. We've been through the SV process twice (06 and 10) and in both cases I did not have a job upon arrival. We do have funds and I am very employable but that's not what you are saying.