I Got A Letter Back From Chris Row Today Regarding The Changes.

[lastlid]

I do not understand this as a Spouse with No Recourse to Public funds CAN NOT access any tax credits, any housing benefit etc whether he/she is earning more or less than 18,600? Nor can the sponsor be entitled to additional public funds or housing benefit due to his Spouse either. So what is the point in having a threshold of 18,000?

This point was made on the forum by JoeBloggs. Yes. A fair point.

[yellowcloud]

Yes, what I didnt understand was why the Home office were saying the reason they have put up the threshold to 18,600 is because the sponsors housing benefit can increase if his/her Non EU Spouse joins him!!! But thats untrue from what I know???

You can see that in the letter I posted by Chris Brown who claims that to be the case, which is quite simply wrong.

[Arthur Little]

Its supposed to cover the extra expense of living in London.

Yes ... commonly known as 'London Weighting Allowance'.

[andy222]

Its supposed to cover the extra expense of living in London. Thats okay, but what about those other areas that are expensive to live in? For example Aberdeen. London isn't the only place where the costs of living are high.

Its exactly what we are saying. How can they work that figure out?

[yellowcloud]

opps

[Arthur Little]

Come on Arthur its the same as a speed camera. (A MONEY MAKING EXERCISE)

ABSOLUTELY ... ... the main difference being that, if you're caught exceeding the speed limit, you are fined for breaking the law by causing danger to other road users. Whereas ... NO laws are being broken when a *British taxpayer legally applies to bring his/her [I quote, to reinforce the point!] "lawfully-wedded spouse" to the land where he/she was born - yet *that person (who has lived there all his/he life) is then penalised by the home Government for claiming a basic human right and doing f all out of line in the process. Now THAT IS [very] wrong!

[lastlid]

Its exactly what we are saying. How can they work that figure out?

Exactly what I have been saying ad infinitum on the forum for the last few weeks. It will be very difficult to work out fairly across the length and breadth of the country. But it ideally ought to be done to attempt to make it fairer than a single sum i.e. 18600 . I dont think they will be 'd to do it. So they will try and do what is easiest to administer and not what would be best for the sponsors.

But, Dave Cameron wants to set up regional benefits instead of fixed rate benefits. So maybe they think that they can regionalise to some degree. Hard to do though.

[lastlid]

My previous employer tried to dish out travelling expenses bonuses based on distance from Aberdeen. The further you lived away, the more you got. That sounds okay in principal. In practice it worked poorly as it was cheaper to fly from London to Aberdeen than, say, Manchester to Aberdeen. Or if you lived far from an airport you were at a disadvantage compared to some one who lived near and thus more expensive to travel. Distance from Aberdeen was the criteria used but it was too simplistic and didnt do what it should have done.

That was just a simple example.

Fairly regionalising benefits and regionalising minimum thresholds for sponsors of visas would be fraught with soooo many complications.......

[andy222]

Another case for the appeal lawyers to home in on.. Im just waiting to see what Damian Green as to say in reply to my mps letter. That should be fun.

[lastlid]

Another case for the appeal lawyers to home in on.. Im just waiting to see what Damian Green as to say in reply to my mps letter. That should be fun.

Yes. A flat 18600 is wrong. Its a one size fits all approach. Like asking everyone to wear size 9 shoes, regardless of foot size.

[gWaPito]

Well my immediate thought on this is if the government doesn't feel you can survive as a couple on less than £18,600 per annum, why are the benefits for the unemplloyed not set at this level.

Why not indeed ...I guess its something to do with giving the unemployed an insentive to do something about there situation.

Bearing in mind the 18, 600 is gross so, taking out tax and ni it wont be far off the unemployment benefit amount. Also you need add the saving the unemployed have like non payment of council tax and social housing rent to name but two.

Yeah, excellent idea about setting unemployment benefits same as minimum wage .....an even bigger insentive to sit on one's thumb all day

[yellowcloud]

I don't think it is that they are saying that any less than 18,600 is not enough to live on, but are saying that any less than 18,600 a spouse can claim benefits in some form as 18,600 is the threshold.

[gWaPito]

I don't think it is that they are saying that any less than 18,600 is not enough to live on, but are saying that any less than 18,600 a spouse can claim benefits in some form as 18,600 is the threshold.

[lastlid]

What I and some are saying is that the government shouldnt really have it both ways.

[Arthur Little]

.....an even bigger insensitive to sit on one's thumb all day

... presumably you mean incentive? There's certainly plenty of insensitivity doing the rounds - on the Government's part!

[yellowcloud]

I don't think it is that they are saying that any less than 18,600 is not enough to live on, but are saying that any less than 18,600 a spouse can claim benefits in some form as 18,600 is the threshold.

BUT the whole point is that the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR. UNless they mean for after they have their ILR??

[lastlid]

BUT the whole point is that the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR. UNless they mean for after they have their ILR??

You are right. I think Joe said this about 10 times the other day.

[Arthur Little]

... presumably you mean incentive?

, mate ... no offence intended!

[yellowcloud]

You are right. I think Joe said this about 10 times the other day.

This is something that needs to be hammered when someone takes T May to court on this.

Why do you think the Home office mean when they say "while the migrant spouse can not access most welfare benefits before settlement, their presence in the UK may increase the sponsors entitlement to certain benefits ie Housing Benefit."

But thats not true is it?? And what other Benefits could a sponsors entitlement be increased??

How can they say that a migrant spouse can be a burden on the tax payer if they CAN not access public funds nor can the migrants spouse have his/her benefit increased due to his/her migrant spouses presence in the UK?

[imagine]

This is something that needs to be hammered when someone takes T May to court on this.

Why do you think the Home office mean when they say "while the migrant spouse can not access most welfare benefits before settlement, their presence in the UK may increase the sponsors entitlement to certain benefits ie Housing Benefit."

But thats not true is it?? And what other Benefits could a sponsors entitlement be increased??

How can they say that a migrant spouse can be a burden on the tax payer if they CAN not access public funds nor can the migrants spouse have his/her benefit increased due to his/her migrant spouses presence in the UK?

very good point

[lastlid]

This is something that needs to be hammered when someone takes T May to court on this.

Why do you think the Home office mean when they say "while the migrant spouse can not access most welfare benefits before settlement, their presence in the UK may increase the sponsors entitlement to certain benefits ie Housing Benefit."

But thats not true is it?? And what other Benefits could a sponsors entitlement be increased??

How can they say that a migrant spouse can be a burden on the tax payer if they CAN not access public funds nor can the migrants spouse have his/her benefit increased due to his/her migrant spouses presence in the UK?

You are right. Start drawing up a list. Thats another one to add to the one mentioned by Andy earlier....

3 big ones so far...

[yellowcloud]

So in layman's terms what are the 3 big ones so far?

• 1
• 2
• 3

[Iani]

Edit - lost my temper there with this blasted government - sorry :(

[lastlid]

[*] 1 Flat rate minimum of £18600 regardless of where the sponsor lives.

Another case for the appeal lawyers to home in on.. Im just waiting to see what Damian Green as to say in reply to my mps letter. That should be fun.

Yes. A flat 18600 is wrong. Its a one size fits all approach. Like asking everyone to wear size 9 shoes, regardless of foot size.

[*]2 There's no recourse to public funds anyway. So why have a minimum income threshold.

BUT the whole point is that the Sponsored Spouse CAN NOT claim any benefits as they have no recourse to public funds until they get their ILR. UNless they mean for after they have their ILR??

[*]3 Having it both ways i.e. Benefits dished out to the unemployed don't even remotely match the £18600 threshold set for sponsors.

What I and some are saying is that the government shouldnt really have it both ways.

[*] 4 Burden on the tax payer at £18600 per annum. At that level the sponsor is making net payment in tax and national insurance.

This is something that needs to be hammered when someone takes T May to court on this.

Why do you think the Home office mean when they say "while the migrant spouse can not access most welfare benefits before settlement, their presence in the UK may increase the sponsors entitlement to certain benefits ie Housing Benefit."

But thats not true is it?? And what other Benefits could a sponsors entitlement be increased??

How can they say that a migrant spouse can be a burden on the tax payer if they CAN not access public funds nor can the migrants spouse have his/her benefit increased due to his/her migrant spouses presence in the UK?

[lastlid]

.

[lastlid]

Why not indeed ...I guess its something to do with giving the unemployed an insensitive to do something about there situation.

Bearing in mind the 18, 600 is gross so, taking out tax and ni it wont be far off the unemployment benefit amount. Also you need add the saving the unemployed have like non payment of council tax and social housing rent to name but two.

Yeah, excellent idea about setting unemployment benefits same as minimum wage .....an even bigger insentive to sit on one's thumb all day

You are 'avin a larf. You just pointed out that the money is gross and would be less than £18600 as one would have to deduct tax. Of course and then that individual would be paying tax and national insurance. Hardly sponging off the state.

[yellowcloud]

What I don't understand is there is a precedent for legislating to tell judges what to think? So May is able to dictate to Judges how to interpretate law?

And can May get rid of an Independent Judiciary lawfully?

[gWaPito]

You are 'avin a larf. You just pointed out that the money is gross and would be less than £18600 as one would have to deduct tax. Of course and then that individual would be paying tax and national insurance. Hardly sponging off the state.

Correct lastlid ...just going through my rabble rousing routine...

[andy222]

Make a list out guys I will send it to my mp.

[lastlid]

What I don't understand is there is a precedent for legislating to tell judges what to think? So May is able to dictate to Judges how to interpretate law?

And can May get rid of an Independent Judiciary lawfully?

She sounds like she wants to give it a good go....