Doubling amount husbands must earn to £26,000 would block two thirds immigrant brides

[lastlid]

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/a...ages-2010.html

A few more stats on UK salaries....

[grahamw48]

Not going to look.

I already know I'm poor.

[andy222]

Looks about right laslid if you work down south.

[andy222]

Ok guys I will tell you what me off. I work in the community (rehabilitation) for patients mainly elderly. Helping them get back on their feet after operations and falls. What gets me mad is some of the people I treat are fathers and mothers of immigrants that their sons have brought over here. Never worked or paid into the system. Cant speak english you get what I mean. And now they are making it hard for my wife to come here. Sorry about the rant but thats the way it is.

[lastlid]

I see the irony there Andy. I understand where your coming from on that.

[grahamw48]

Ok guys I will tell you what me off. I work in the community (rehabilitation) for patients mainly elderly. Helping them get back on their feet after operations and falls. What gets me mad is some of the people I treat are fathers and mothers of immigrants that their sons have bought over here. Never worked or paid into the system. Cant speak english you get what I mean. And now they are making it hard for my wife to come here. Sorry about the rant but thats the way it is.

That would really piss me off too.

I'm sure there are plenty of hard-working Filipinas looking after these people too....only to be booted out of OUR country after their contract is up.

[lastlid]

The stats are probably correct, nationally. But there are far more earners below the national average income than above the national average income. Hence, to many folk, they don't look right.

[andy222]

That would really piss me off too.

I'm sure there are plenty of hard-working Filipinas looking after these people too....only to be booted out of OUR country after their contract is up.

Too right it me off Graham but the government wont understand.

[gWaPito]

True....when they're not arguing in the middle of the bloody night !

Arthur was short of forumers last night, it was either be quiet or argue with Mark for 5mins

We are friends really

[grahamw48]

Yeah, I know mate.

I'm wondering why Arthur is up and aboot in the middle of the nicht.....maybe an age thing.

[gWaPito]

The stats are probably correct, nationally. But there are far more earners below the national average income than above the national average income. Hence, to many folk, they don't look right.

If there was more people earning below the national average then surely the national average wouldn't be where it is ....perhaps I have missed something

Graham, I expect Arthur was on sentry duty, being a mod and all that...either that or the waterworks

[lastlid]

If there was more people earning below the national average then surely the national average wouldn't be where it is ....perhaps I have missed something

It depends on your understanding of the word "average".

Add three peoples incomes : £15000 and £15000 and £90000 , for example. Then find the average. It will be higher than the most prevalent number. And more of the three will fall below the average than above it.

[grahamw48]

It's all balls anyway, seeing as half the population are self-employed....including virtually ALL of the highest earners, and these haven't even been properly accounted for.

Have they factored in all those on benefits too ?

Assessment should be based on disposable income and net assets...too complicated of course, although credit companies seem to manage.

[Terpe]

Interesting comments on the thread. Interesting questions raised.

There's no doubt the govt wants to get a grip on immigration, and also importantly wants to get a grip on the 'benefits trap'. The report explains quite a lot of very interesting data.

No offence all, but has anyone actually taken the time to read the report?

It's not really bedtime reading, but if you stick at it is at least interesting and relevant to most here.
At least if you read it you have a much better understanding of why it was done, what were the objectives and what conclusions can be made.

It also explains all the options, all the numbers (and all those income levels that have been bandied about) how those numbers were arrived at and why

Don't forget these are just part of what will eventually become recommendations. Like not being able to apply for ILR until at least 5 years probationary period.
The report details other studies yet to come.

[Arthur Little]

I'm wondering why Arthur is up and aboot in the middle of the nicht..... maybe an age thing.

Graham, I expect Arthur was on sentry duty, being a mod and all that. ..either that or the waterworks

... so you're BOTH right, gents !!

[Arthur Little]

Arthur was short of forumers last night, it was either be quiet or argue with Mark for 5mins

... ... so we agreed to disagree!

[Arthur Little]

We are friends really

... of course we are !!

[joebloggs]

It depends on your understanding of the word "average".

Add three peoples incomes : £15000 and £15000 and £90000 , for example. Then find the average. It will be higher than the most prevalent number. And more of the three will fall below the average than above it.

if 4 people earn the following

15k, 18k, 24k and 43k the average is 25k, yet only 1 person earn 25k or more

[Terpe]

I must be missing something.
I'm not understanding the importance of the various ways to determine average,arithmetic mean,geometric mean,statistical weighted average, median, mode or whatever.

Just read the report!

[gWaPito]

if 4 people earn the following

15k, 18k, 24k and 43k the average is 25k, yet only 1 person earn 25k or more

Thank you for the maths lesson teacher Bloggs

This is going on the assumption that this is how the available data is manipulated. I'd very much doubt it is.

Im going with Graham's last post here....shame it wasn't posted at the start.

[joebloggs]

I must be missing something.
I'm not understanding the importance of the various ways to determine average,arithmetic mean,geometric mean,statistical weighted average, median, mode or whatever.

Just read the report!

yes mean, mode, median and standard deviation i did O' level statistics at school, the most boring subject ever

[gWaPito]

I must be missing something.
I'm not understanding the importance of the various ways to determine average,arithmetic mean,geometric mean,statistical weighted average, median, mode or whatever.

Just read the report!

Exactly!.......alot of inane nonsense about well, you tell me

[joebloggs]

Thank you for the maths lesson teacher Bloggs

This is going on the assumption that this is how the available data is manipulated. I'd very much doubt it is.

Im going with Graham's last post here....shame it wasn't posted at the start.

wheres my apple gWaPito

manipulation of data is carried out by the Gov and the press all of the time

[grahamw48]

Which do you trust less ?

[Terpe]

From the report:-

......we recommend that the income threshold to sponsor a spouse or partner be set between £18,600 and £25,700 gross per year.

Our preferred threshold using the benefits approach is £18,600 per year
This figure was calculated by making the following assumptions, which we believe to be reasonable:-
- Because the question above asks us what the income threshold should be to ensure that the sponsor‟s family does not become a „burden on the state‟, the threshold is set at the point at which the family is not entitled to receive any income-related benefits (including Tax Credits).
- The amount of rent that the sponsor‟s family pays is equal to the unweighted average of the Local Housing Allowance amounts for a one-bedroom property for Great Britain, because this is likely to best represent the „typical‟ family.
- The household consists of two adults, to compensate for the relatively narrow interpretation of „burden on the state‟ under this approach, and to capture the impact in terms of benefit entitlement of the addition of an adult to a household.


Our preferred threshold using the net fiscal approach is £25,700 per year
This figure was calculated by making the following assumptions:-
- The threshold is set equal to mean household income, to capture the approximate point at which a household might reasonably be expected to make a neutral net fiscal contribution.
- The household consists of one adult, because we have assumed that the income of the spouse/partner is not taken into account when calculating the sponsor‟s family‟s income.

[Terpe]

Again from the report:-

The current maintenance requirement assesses the post-tax income after housing costs of the sponsor‟s family against an income threshold based on Income Support. As outlined in Chapter 2, the income threshold (post-tax after deducting housing costs) for a two-adult family, representing the case where a lone spouse/partner joins a sponsor, is £105.95 per week.
In the current maintenance requirement, housing costs are deducted from the sponsor‟s family‟s income, while in Chapter 4 we assumed that no such deduction was made. We make two assumptions regarding housing costs, which are:-
- first, that housing costs are zero; and
- second, as in Chapter 4, that housing costs are £119 per week (i.e. £100 per week in rent plus £19 per week in Council Tax).

Combining the assumptions given above allows us to compare the range for the income threshold that we recommended above with the threshold under the current maintenance requirement:-

- Under the assumption that housing costs are zero, the equivalent current gross income threshold would be £5,500 per year.
- Under the assumption that housing costs are £119 per week, the equivalent current post-tax income threshold is £224.95 per week (i.e. £105.95 plus £119). The equivalent current gross income threshold is therefore £264 per week, or £13,700 per year.

[grahamw48]

So, let's all ignore 'reality' and use spurious data from a computer....so much easier.

IMHO each case should be treated on its own merits to ensure fairness, even though as with passport control () the processing may take a little longer.

The ECO already has the necessary facts and figures to hand.

[John_10]

Sorry Terpe cant get my head round this..like reading the small print on a insurance policy ...is the report saying that £13,700 per year or £264 per week is the minimum amount a person is required to earn before any consideration from the ECO.

[Arthur Little]

Sorry Terpe cant get my head round this.. like reading the small print on a insurance policy ...is the report saying that £13,700 per year or £264 per week is the minimum amount a person is required to earn before any consideration from the ECO.

... as with ALL small print, I doubt if we're MEANT to understand it!

[Arthur Little]

A change in life is just around the corner.

Change OF life ?

Oh well ... ... it's you that's saying it, I suppose !