NEW Family Migration Immigration Rule efffective July 9, 2002

[Lin]

Introducing a new minimum income threshold of L 18,000 pound for sponsoring the settlement in the Uk . . . . Is it a minimum income of 18,000 pound a year? I think there is no salary in UK that cost 18,000 pound per month. pls help, I need an advice, cause my BF work only in TESCO, I don't think so if his salary morethan 18,000, we are planning to get married next year.

[lastlid]

It is £18600 per year.

[joebloggs]

cause my BF work only in TESCO, I don't think so if his salary morethan 18,000, we are planning to get married next year.

TESCO, gWapito, is Tesco paying just the minimum wage, how can it be when your in the 40% club

[Lin]

Yeahhhhhhhh thanks

[Lin]

yeahhhhhhhh thanks

[Lin]

Correction: July 9, 2012

[imagine]

Hi Lin, i doubt is pay will be more than the £18600 per year. unless perhaps he's a manager

[lastlid]

Hi Lin, i doubt is pay will be more than the £18600 per year. unless perhaps he's a manager

Could be a super shelf stacker....

I have heard there is good money to be had stacking shelves on the night shift, with overtime...

Mind you, that was a few years ago. Since then, they have been known to pay nothing.

[malchard888]

One unjust point about this £18600 threshold is that it doesnt take into account the location of the U.K. based employee.If u work in central London such an amount is probably easily achieveable especially with London weighting which I believe exceeds £3000 p.a. whereas maybe in the north of the country for many it would be more difficult but it doesnt take into account the disparity in the cost of living. London and the south east prices particularly for housing would consume a fair amount from a salary whereas other parts of the country will be far cheaper places to live so maybe disposable income would even itself out. but this government have taken this figure across the board but then again do we expect them ever to be fair when it comes to peoples lives and loves.

[lastlid]

One unjust point about this £18600 threshold is that it doesnt take into account the location of the U.K. based employee.If u work in central London such an amount is probably easily achieveable especially with London weighting which I believe exceeds £3000 p.a. whereas maybe in the north of the country for many it would be more difficult but it doesnt take into account the disparity in the cost of living. London and the south east prices particularly for housing would consume a fair amount from a salary whereas other parts of the country will be far cheaper places to live so maybe disposable income would even itself out. but this government have taken this figure across the board but then again do we expect them ever to be fair when it comes to peoples lives and loves.

Exactly. But it isn't as simple as London / South East compared with the rest of Britain. For example Aberdeen is an expensive place to live. So is the IOM and there are others. I suggested a postcode based system but then that would be difficult to implement thoroughly.

I believe Dave Cameron has been looking at dishing out benefit levels according to region....

[joebloggs]

I suggested a postcode based system but then that would be difficult to implement thoroughly.

I believe Dave Cameron has been looking at dishing out benefit levels according to region....

thats crazy so how could it work , by region - n/w , s/e or by cities ? each city has wealthy and poor areas just as regions, so someone on the other side of the road could be getting more

[lastlid]

thats crazy so how could it work , by region - n/w , s/e or by cities ? each city has wealthy and poor areas just as regions, so someone on the other side of the road could be getting more

Of course. I agree. How to make it fairer? A flat rate isn't fair either.

"Regional rates of benefits - which would presumably see people in more affluent regions getting higher payments than in poorer regions - would be likely to prove controversial."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-18575453

[joebloggs]

the only way to make it fair is the way it was before, its not what you get paid, its how much disposable income you have left, you could be working part time but own your own house or live with your parents so your not paying rent, or even all the utils bills but have more disposable income than someone who has to pay rent or mortgage and earning £20k a year.

[lastlid]

the only way to make it fair is the way it was before, its not what you get paid, its how much disposable income you have left, you could be working part time but own your own house or live with your parents so your not paying rent, or even all the utils bills but have more disposable income than someone who has to pay rent or mortgage and earning £20k a year.

Ah. But that takes some effort on the governments part ( and cost ).

[Tinker]

Aren't you working Lin??? coz if you are also working, there isn't no problem about the £18600 minimum income.

[Terpe]

Aren't you working Lin??? coz if you are also working, there isn't no problem about the £18600 minimum income.

Lin is in the Philippines and her boyfriend is in UK.
As such the £18600 minimum income is a key factor. (unless there are exemptions)

[Mathew999]

i think anyone should be able to marry the woman they love and the government should allow but just ban us from benefits job done i would have thought

[Tinker]

Terpe,
I see..that is really a problem though.

[Terpe]

Terpe,
I see..that is really a problem though.

Yes Tinker, these new rules are just so very unfair and are hitting genuine couple very hard indeed.