in telegraph article half population could be banned from foreign partner

[mertle]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...sa-reform.html



Turns out according to article half Uk population only on 18,000 or less. Surely this cant be right no wonder uk economy dead in the water if its accurate.

Thats alot population on not a massive income. You get real big scale of the inadiquicies of pay. When you consider cost GONE up can we be really suprised with that sort figures if acurate we not spending.

Hell government hell bent on blaming lower scale surely we should be aiming to increase pay to drive economy forward. Certainly shows pay might surely not be regulated indexed linked.

Now some will say there would be many businesses cut back or go under if its done properly regulated then firms should not be allowed to layoff if they can afford the rise.

Another is hopefully regulate bonus pay bosses.

I am sure money in peoples pockets less squeeze would be supported.

On the note of the article find it disgraceful quite frankly someone even on 25,000 could end up burden what happens if they lose there job.

Under current climate very likely indeed. Its again policy change without actually anybody reading it or even impact study.

Personally each case should checked on merit yes we have to look at foreign influx. This not the answer. If they want be flipant they could throw 95% of uk residents into boats as we not true british. Many come from interacial marrieges down the bloodline.

If people in true love who the hell do they think they are saying they cant marry.

[Damien]

I have a friend who recently married his American Girlfriend. Presumably she'll get her Visa before these suggestions either find their way into law but still a bit awkward.

[BenMcr]

Nowhere does it say that you can't marry anyone, the issue is whether you have the resources to then support them (if needs be) when they come to the UK

[Ignitionnet]

I read the link but have no idea what you're talking about with regards to the incoherent and virtually unintelligible ranting afterwards. It reads like a stream of consciousness flowing out on a keyboard rather than any attempt to stimulate debate or present a coherent point of view.

As far as the actual policy goes potentially fine, devil is in the detail. No-one's stopping anyone from marrying, merely saying that you should have the financial resources to support dependents you bring into this country without recourse to the state - what's wrong with that?

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

I read the link but have no idea what you're talking about with regards to the incoherent and virtually unintelligible ranting afterwards. It reads like a stream of consciousness flowing out on a keyboard rather than any attempt to stimulate debate or present a coherent point of view.

As far as the actual policy goes potentially fine, devil is in the detail. No-one's stopping anyone from marrying, merely saying that you should have the financial resources to support dependents you bring into this country without recourse to the state - what's wrong with that?

I think the problem is the level of financial resources required, as the higher proposed threshold would mean half the population would be unable to bring a foreign spouse into the country.

[BenMcr]

If you actually read the article the 'half of uk' comment is based on them setting the threshold at £25k, and the figures are:

The lowest figure in the range, £18,600, is the point at which benefits, including housing benefits and tax credits, are withdrawn, while the highest figure, £25,700, represents the typical income of a one adult household, which should not be a burden to the state, the Mac said

Setting it at £18,600 would rule out one in four

[danielf]

Yes, that's what I meant when I said 'the higher proposed theshold'. I could have been more specific though.

[mertle]

Originally Posted by danielf

I think the problem is the level of financial resources required, as the higher proposed threshold would mean half the population would be unable to bring a foreign spouse into the country.

thats correct sorry Ignitionnet try make the post easy to read but health makes it hard sometimes.

The problem I see is this who to say the partner which none british will ever be drain to government whatever the person earns.

Thats whats so proposporous of the changes.

Example said partner has accident this was so bad air ambulance fire service, paramedic doctors and police present at scene. Tell me how much that would cost taxpayer including if the injuries was really bad months in hospital. Before you say insurance what if insurance refused due to circumstances. I would suspect that would turn out to be quite abit cost. The only thing is partner took out private health but still some costs to government such the incident would have to be met.

So that partner has become a drain. This seems strange why they think they can be clairvoyant.

Nobody knows the future person could end up on the dole, person could be in accident.

So what will be next banning NHS to foreigners what about EX PATS who come back for NHS treatment or even send there Partners. Surely that should be denied.

Damien thats the issue some already in relations before the changes its so wrong the goalpost will be moved. My sister son in relationship although he plans to get out of this country live in hers. Dont blame him either.

Wonder how many if they had the oportunity and resources to get out would get out.

---------- Post added at 13:35 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

Originally Posted by BenMcr

If you actually read the article the 'half of uk' comment is based on them setting the threshold at £25k, and the figures are:



Setting it at £18,600 would rule out one in four

Thank you I got the info from another forum they referenced it gospel half the population.

Still 1 quarter is quite alot population on small wages. Like said questions whether the need to increase pay in these levels to help drive economy.

[Hugh]

Surely, if pay is increased to "help drive economy", won't this come from higher taxes (public sector) and higher prices (private sector) to pay for the increased salaries, which would negate the pay increases?