AIBU to think the spouse visa income requirement should not be increased to £38k per year?

[Shardonneigghhh]

My post was moved to politics and activism, so I've amended it and added a poll to make it more suitable for AIBU. Thank you to everyone who already commented or signed the petition.

Can we talk about how the increased income requirement for spouse visas if affecting British citizens with a partner of a different nationality?

The policies it seem we're introduced to reduce the number of migrants, by preventing workers who come to the UK from bringing their family members with them.
This also affects British citizens who with to bring a spouse of family member to the uk to live with them.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-9920/#:~:text=The%20spouse%2Fpartner%20visa%20minimum,report%20by%2014%20May%202024.

If someone falls in love with a non British person, and they want to live together in the uk, it is expected that the British person earns enough money to support their spouse without claiming any public funds. You have to evidence this when applying for a spouse visa, along with proving that your relationship is genuine. This minimum income requirement was £18,600, but was increased on April 11th to £29,000, with a further increase expected in 2025, to £38,000 per year.

This means that the British spouse will have to earn £38,000 in order to live together with their spouse in the uk. This income is out of reach for so many people. Basically if you are on a low income, you have no hope of your partner living with you in the uk. Women are often disproportionately affected by this as we learn less money overall, and if there are children to care for this may impact how much they can earn, bearing in mind if the husband is overseas he cannot look after the children while she works.

There is also a visa fee of £1846 and minimum nhs surcharge of £1035 per year (this is paid upfront to cover 3 or 5 years at point of application).

Please consider signing this petition.
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/652602

Why isn't her partner supporting her from where he is?

£38k may be enough for for a couple who are both working. It is not an achievable amount for many people on their own, particularly women with children and no spouse on hand to take care of the children while they are working.

@Kalevala Tbf, less than half of Americans have a passport and as it’s such a huge country, meeting a non-American who isn’t already living here is less common. My DH was working in the EU when he met me so he’s an exception.

Sadly, there are also undocumented immigrant families who have to live in the shadows, although some states are more forgiving than others. I imagine that’s what happens if someone can’t afford to sponsor their spouse, they come for a visit and overstay their visa.

That’s not the point though, it’s the amount that people will be able to support their partner with without needing benefits top ups. This isn’t another thing the state should pay for. It’s not a priority for limited state funds when there’s much more that needs to be paid for.

I think this regulation is awful purely for the disproportionate impact on women. I know lots of international couples, and my own DH is not a British citizen. If we had decided to stay in his country and had children there I would have lost my option to move home as my earning potential was lowered while having kids. This has happened to a friend of mine and she’s never been able to move back to care for her elderly parents.
There are layers to this question which are completely ignored by the answer ‘yeah that’s what you need to live on so it’s fair.’
The overly simplistic application of this threshold to both male and female British citizens completely ignores the complexities of family life.

No, I think it actually addresses them fully. You need to be able to financially survive without help.

He is helping to support his child. She is working to support herself. When he can come he will easily find work as well. He won't need supporting by her beyond the initial weeks.

It addresses them superficially. And leaves women with children stranded unless they want to move home for at least six months to earn 38k without their children.

I think £38k is too high as the median income for full time work in the UK is less than this (£36k in 2023). That means less than 50% of people will be eligible. Only London has a median income greater than this (£44k) with the Northeast having the lowest at £31k.

It is biased towards London and it's more likely men and older people will be eligible. I also don't like the fact that lots of things where we need skilled workers from abroad are paid less than this, healthcare being the main one. I don't think they've thought through the unintended consequences carefully enough.

Yes but two people on that income would be eligible for benefits potentially. Someone from overseas would not. So it needs to be higher. As it will be one wage supporting two people, so equating to two earners below min wage, significantly below.

So how is she a single parent?

They are not able to claim UC as a couple.

If she is part of a couple how is she also a single parent?

How would a person on an income lower than £38k support two adults?

You can’t bring someone to the country and then expect the taxpayer to fund them.

It seems cruel but in reality it’s just maths. I’m not sure there’s room for feelings when dealing with this at a national scale rather just thinking about Brenda and Jose or whoever.

Curiously, I currently support one adult, one young adult and 2 children on much less than that, as to many many others in this country. If my partner moved in, it would cost a little more in gas and electricity and halal meat, but no where near £38k. And he would work so our household income would be over £38k with us both working.

Currently the state pension is £221.20, for a couple that is £23004 per year. The government views this to be an acceptable amount for a couple to live on. Why £38k? Where does that figure come from?

Thank you so much to everyone who has signed. We are currently just 25 signatures away from a debate in Parliament!

Realistically though, in many areas it's going to be quite difficult to support '1 adult, 1 young adult, and 2 children', and potentially another adult (for a short term at least), on that income - without access to any other support in the form of benefits.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/2024-04-23/debates/197A4BF5-2D70-4087-9ECC-479F740A7C10/PartnerAndSpousalVisasMinimumIncome

There was a debate back in April

Scroll to the end.

"Contributions to the debate came from all parts of the UK and from six political parties represented in the House. We might present our arguments through the prism of our particular party perspective, but I think the same case has shone through all contributions: that this policy is not fair and not in our country’s interests. There are different approaches that should be explored. We need to drop this policy now and to develop a better alternative, and referring it to the MAC would be a useful first step."

I can guarantee nobody in government thinks £23k is enough for a couple to live on. It’s what the taxpayer can afford.

It can’t be easy supporting all of you on your salary. Maybe if we had more people on low incomes in parliament then they’d have a different perspective.

There is some protection for spouse coming over built into the figure. The British spouse needs to be able to afford to provide for their partner without recourse to benefits during times of unemployment, zero hour contracts and anything else that comes along to upset best laid plans.

It will cost more than negligable additional housing costs and a bit of meat. The rest of the food, transport, clothing, the cost of finding employment, OTC medicines. You can’t seriously suggest adding a person to the household doesn’t have a big impact on costs.