The Brand New PIO Parents Visa thread

[LindaH27]

@Ferrets the U.K. NI contribution rate is 12%

Employers  also pay in for every employee as well -  I believe that is 13.8%?

So there's a fair bit going in for every person who pays in which will increase the number of years pension is paid for. Given that not all people survive that long some may in fact not receive what they've paid for and their contributions will go towards funding other people's 

It also sounds as though Australians are also not paying  in enough according to your figures and wonder how how much the "average" pension is in Australia given full UK pension is £8546 pa

 

Im sure I read somewhere that Australian means tested pension is claimable if your  income as a single  person is below approx $55000?  That sounds way more generous for your 9.5% contribution than £8546 for UK 12% contribution!! 

I'm not an accountant so obviously my figures are just based on my musings!! 

[Ferrets]

11 minutes ago, LindaH27 said:

@Ferrets the U.K. NI contribution rate is 12%

Employers  also pay in for every employee as well -  I believe that is 13.8%?

So there's a fair bit going in for every person who pays in which will increase the number of years pension is paid for. Given that not all people survive that long some may in fact not receive what they've paid for and their contributions will go towards funding other people's 

It also sounds as though Australians are also not paying  in enough according to your figures and wonder how how much the "average" pension is in Australia given full UK pension is £8546 pa

 

Im sure I read somewhere that Australian means tested pension is claimable if your  income as a single  person is below approx $55000?  That sounds way more generous for your 9.5% contribution than £8546 for UK 12% contribution!! 

I'm not an accountant so obviously my figures are just based on my musings!! 

You are right on the contributions, but there are also thresholds that impact the amount.  Based on that average going in to cover pensions and NHS p.a. is about £4,400 (employer and employee).  I don't believe that adds up to cover the liabilities of the pension element, let alone the NHS part!

I have not looked too much into average Aussie pensions as under the super scheme I go on my own defined contributions, but overall it's still too low (9.5% with no NHS contributions as it is all pension).

Musings are always good, especially in an area where the Pollies are too scared to have meaningful conversations.  Even as an accountant I have paid little attention to the UK state pension as I have always assumed I will get nothing and made my own provision.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Ferrets

[Catlady2014]

7 minutes ago, Ferrets said:

Lol that is me told and schooled!!

You are right, currently it would be about the same employer contribution, i.e. £2,200 month.

Digging a bit it looks like the expenditure on pensions and NHS p.a. s roughly the same (Pensions £165bn for 2019 vs. NHS £150bn) so it figures that on average the current scheme is still only supporting 9-10 years of pension financially, which is certainly not in line with people's expectations.

I make the total of employee and employer contributions about £6,000 odd per annum.  So, somebody working for 46 years would have 'paid in' £276,000, way higher than £77,000.  

[Ferrets]

20 minutes ago, Catlady2014 said:

I make the total of employee and employer contributions about £6,000 odd per annum.  So, somebody working for 46 years would have 'paid in' £276,000, way higher than £77,000.  

Employer rates are 13.8% over £8,400, so based on average salary of £27,600 it's approx £2,649.  Plus £2,200 employer contributions = £4,849.

I've based my thoughts on an average 35 years contributions but yours is based on a max 46 year working life.  Given various circumstances (maternity, paternity, etc.) I'd argue 35 is more realistic at this point, which gives £170k (so a big whack above my initial ramblings).  But then take off 50% for NHS contributions and that brings you back to £85k.  Can that support an £8,500 pension based on current life expectancy and expectations?

I know it's moot for most here as stamps have been paid against promises made, but it's still a looming issue.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Ferrets

[Catlady2014]

4 minutes ago, Ferrets said:

Employer rates are 13.8% over £8,400, so based on average salary of £27,600 it's approx £2,649.  Plus £2,200 employer contributions = £4,849.

I've based my thoughts on an average 35 years contributions but yous is based on a max 46 year working life.  Given various circumstances (maternity, paternity, etc.) I'd argue 35 is more realistic at this point, which gives £170k (so a big whack above my initial ramblings).  But then take off 50% for NHS contributions and that brings you back to £85k.  Can that support an £8,500 pension based on current life expectancy and expectations?

I know it's moot for most here as stamps have been paid against promises made, but it's still a looming issue.

I stand corrected on the amount of employer NI contribution!  As I said, I'm not up to speed on payroll.  But I based the number of working years on my own working life (46 years) and I have friends of a similar age to me who are still working and have no intention of retiring (they must be gluttons for punishment but they apparently like working). I even have an older friend still working at age 77 and a brother in law still working at age 82.  I believe they don't have to pay NI over a certain age but my point is that a 35-year working life sounds wrong to me.  I don't know of anyone who has retired at the age of 50 - even allowing for maternity leave, and paternity leave wasn't available to my generation. 

[Ferrets]

3 minutes ago, Catlady2014 said:

I stand corrected on the amount of employer NI contribution!  As I said, I'm not up to speed on payroll.  But I based the number of working years on my own working life (46 years) and I have friends of a similar age to me who are still working and have no intention of retiring (they must be gluttons for punishment but they apparently like working). I even have an older friend still working at age 77 and a brother in law still working at age 82.  I believe they don't have to pay NI over a certain age but my point is that a 35-year working life sounds wrong to me.  I don't know of anyone who has retired at the age of 50 - even allowing for maternity leave, and paternity leave wasn't available to my generation. 

We are getting closer to each other each reply 

That said I would stick with an average working life of 35.  I will do 46+, my wife will do 15-20 (in terms on tax and contributions - her work is unpaid but far harder than mine as the children are....lively). 

[Tidang]

2 hours ago, Zaki said:

Hi @Tidang

 

Did they mention any tentative period? Like new f.y

Just said that and nothing else . I think my case like Merryweather

[Tidang]

2 hours ago, Zaki said:

Hi @Tidang

 

Did they mention any tentative period? Like new f.y

Just said that and nothing else . I think my case like Merryweather

[ant111]

7 hours ago, Lenses said:

I called The Dept of Human Services and asked how it would work if I was the assurer and was on mat leave.  Mary, the lady I spoke to said it would be fine, there would not be a problem.  I was give a record number and noted her name, the date and time of the call. 

I'm now concerned as it looks like your daughter was assessed on her mat income and you had to find co-assurer.

Would you be able to clarify, as I can't see info on how it works if your'e on mat leave as the assurer on the Dept of Human Services website and it I may have been given incorrect info over the phone! 

Thanks in advance.

We was told it was because she put a tax return in for her mat year they had to use that year. Then they said the quickest way to resolve it was to get a co assurer . I recommend you confirm everything. Call again and perhaps ask an agent.

[Kathss56]

6 hours ago, Alan Collett said:

Can you post a link to that post, Quoll - I don't recall seeing it.

Thanks.

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/great-grandmothers-deportation-fight-nears-end-ng-b88860185z

[ant111]

7 hours ago, Lenses said:

No, but I'm trying to decide if worth spending $100K for 2 contributory visas.  What is the benefit?  Access to Medicare?

More certain. The 103 got discontinued a couple of years back.

[Tulip1]

3 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

quote from Marisa....

“We're talking about two totally different things here.   I am talking about the misconception that the UK pension is something you pay into, therefore you have a right to get that money (and its profits) back.  My cousins are getting their knickers in a knot because of that perception, because they feel the UK government is stealing theirmoney.  It's not.  Why you should get offended because I criticise the government for not increasing the contributions beats me.

I am not  disputing your right, or anyone else's to claim the pension which you have a legal right to claim (though the legal name for it, by the way, is a "contributory benefit").   I am not aware of anyone rubbishing people's credit ratings.”

 

My view for what it’s worth. ...As mentioned in the quote above the legal term is contributory benefit. The key word there is “contributory”  ie it’s something you have to pay into. In fact you have no choice it’s part of your NI contributions. 

So Brits pay a contribution towards the pension whether it’s to fund the previous generation or their own -  the underlying premise is that you contribute to something in order to get something back. The more you earn,  the more you pay in NI therefore the more you pay towards the pension.   

It’s also contributory in the sense that  people can and do make extra contributions in order to increase the amount they get back in pension!! I believe, though am not sure, that the extra contributions are in fact less than someone might pay on a good salary  

If you have less than 10 years contributions you don't get anything at all and currently need 39 years of contributions to get the full pension,  so yes Brits contribute to get something back. 

I rather think it’s like the debate about 143 visa cost and Medicare.  I would suspect there are examples where peoples’ eventual payments from Medicare exceed the amount paid in!

 

 

 

Even if you pay nothing in as many do you still get given money. It may be called something else but no pensioner is left with nothing. Anything under the lowest amount considered to live on is tooped up by pension credit.  So yes, people who've paid in all those years like me will get the full amount, if my neighbour had been on benefits all her life she'd still get the same from the government

[Rosiejaq]

1 hour ago, Ferrets said:

Employer rates are 13.8% over £8,400, so based on average salary of £27,600 it's approx £2,649.  Plus £2,200 employer contributions = £4,849.

I've based my thoughts on an average 35 years contributions but yours is based on a max 46 year working life.  Given various circumstances (maternity, paternity, etc.) I'd argue 35 is more realistic at this point, which gives £170k (so a big whack above my initial ramblings).  But then take off 50% for NHS contributions and that brings you back to £85k.  Can that support an £8,500 pension based on current life expectancy and expectations?

I know it's moot for most here as stamps have been paid against promises made, but it's still a looming issue.

If the whole thing had been done properly from the start the money would’ve been invested as in a private pension and there would’ve been more than enough to pay for the pensions.  Don’t forget some people die young ie just after retirement! 

[Rosiejaq]

1 hour ago, Ferrets said:

Employer rates are 13.8% over £8,400, so based on average salary of £27,600 it's approx £2,649.  Plus £2,200 employer contributions = £4,849.

I've based my thoughts on an average 35 years contributions but yours is based on a max 46 year working life.  Given various circumstances (maternity, paternity, etc.) I'd argue 35 is more realistic at this point, which gives £170k (so a big whack above my initial ramblings).  But then take off 50% for NHS contributions and that brings you back to £85k.  Can that support an £8,500 pension based on current life expectancy and expectations?

I know it's moot for most here as stamps have been paid against promises made, but it's still a looming issue.

If the whole thing had been done properly from the start the money would’ve been invested as in a private pension and there would’ve been more than enough to pay for the pensions.  Don’t forget some people die young ie just after retirement! 

[Kathss56]

7 hours ago, Lenses said:

No, but I'm trying to decide if worth spending $100K for 2 contributory visas.  What is the benefit?  Access to Medicare?

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/great-grandmothers-deportation-fight-nears-end-ng-b88860185z

 

read above what could happen if no pr and the worse of it is she has appealed to Peter Dutton!

Edited June 8, 2018 by Kathss56

[Tulip1]

30 minutes ago, Kathss56 said:

https://www.perthnow.com.au/news/wa/great-grandmothers-deportation-fight-nears-end-ng-b88860185z

They've certainly got something wrong here. She didn't move to Oz with her family. You move somewhere if you have a visa in place. She obviously didn't and subsequently went onto a bridging visa. The terms and conditions of that visa are very clear. Now suddenly it's cruel that she has to leave.  She doesn't have to. She just has to pay the high cost of treatment which she always knew she'd have to as a bridging visa doesn't cover it.

[Kathss56]

1 minute ago, Tulip1 said:

They've certainly got something wrong here. She didn't move to Oz with her family. You move somewhere if you have a visa in place. She obviously didn't and subsequently went onto a bridging visa. The terms and conditions of that visa are very clear. Now suddenly it's cruel that she has to leave.  She doesn't have to. She just has to pay the high cost of treatment which she always knew she'd have to as a bridging visa doesn't cover it.

Hopefully her family can help pay  towards this $1000?? Treatment cost??

[Nemesis]

38 minutes ago, Tulip1 said:

They've certainly got something wrong here. She didn't move to Oz with her family. You move somewhere if you have a visa in place. She obviously didn't and subsequently went onto a bridging visa. The terms and conditions of that visa are very clear. Now suddenly it's cruel that she has to leave.  She doesn't have to. She just has to pay the high cost of treatment which she always knew she'd have to as a bridging visa doesn't cover it.

She will have to leave, as they have refused her PR application. That means she will no longer have a bridging visa and whether she or her family can pay her bills is irrelevant. Thats the price you pay when you arrive on a tourist visa and go onto a bridging visa while awaiting PR. If your PR application is refused at the end of the day, then you have to leave because you were only ever there on a temporary basis. 

Edited June 8, 2018 by Nemesis

[Nemesis]

35 minutes ago, Kathss56 said:

Hopefully her family can help pay  towards this $1000?? Treatment cost??

It doesn't matter if they can pay, she was here on a temporary visa and her PR application has been refused. That means she no longer has a visa to live in oz.

[Merryweather]

6 hours ago, Zaki said:

Hi @Tidang

 

Did they mention any tentative period? Like new f.y

They didn't in mine. But I sent a cheeky email thanking them and asking if I'd have to wait until ne FY.

No answer

We just have to wait. 

I'm trying 'Mindfulness"

[Tulip1]

3 hours ago, Nemesis said:

She will have to leave, as they have refused her PR application. That means she will no longer have a bridging visa and whether she or her family can pay her bills is irrelevant. Thats the price you pay when you arrive on a tourist visa and go onto a bridging visa while awaiting PR. If your PR application is refused at the end of the day, then you have to leave because you were only ever there on a temporary basis. 

Oh yes I see that now. That's how it works, if you fail the medical you don't get a visa. Not quite sure why she feels she's entitled to use vast amounts of tax payers money to pay for her treatment. 

[Fisher1]

6 hours ago, Tulip1 said:

Oh yes I see that now. That's how it works, if you fail the medical you don't get a visa. Not quite sure why she feels she's entitled to use vast amounts of tax payers money to pay for her treatment. 

Obviously the family are ramping up the pathos of this 'injustice' but this is one case that has come into the frame of a public that has little knowledge of the whole parent visa circus. It's patently heartbreaking for her to have to leave now, but you have to take the consequences of your own decisions. She made the decision to come over on a visitors visa and presumably to apply for an onshore PR. She must have known the risk she was taking, So I wonder why she hasn't made an effort to keep up her contacts in the UK. We've all seen people on here who have waited their turn and then had to bow out because they can no longer afford the move. At least this lady has had nine years' residence and the happiness that goes with it.

[ant111]

8 hours ago, Merryweather said:

They didn't in mine. But I sent a cheeky email thanking them and asking if I'd have to wait until ne FY.

No answer

We just have to wait. 

I'm trying 'Mindfulness"

What about sitting crosslegged  palms up and repeating the word pom.

[ramot]

25 minutes ago, Fisher1 said:

Obviously the family are ramping up the pathos of this 'injustice' but this is one case that has come into the frame of a public that has little knowledge of the whole parent visa circus. It's patently heartbreaking for her to have to leave now, but you have to take the consequences of your own decisions. She made the decision to come over on a visitors visa and presumably to apply for an onshore PR. She must have known the risk she was taking, So I wonder why she hasn't made an effort to keep up her contacts in the UK. We've all seen people on here who have waited their turn and then had to bow out because they can no longer afford the move. At least this lady has had nine years' residence and the happiness that goes with it.

As I wrote on the other thread, we never know the full facts, only the sob story. In one newspaper report they showed a copy of the supposed visa, VE 75, class VE resident class 175.which makes no sense in this case, unless I googled it wrong, so none of us actually know how she was in the country.

Countries must have the right to impose visa conditions however tough they appear. The hard part is that if one person is allowed laxity then it opens the floodgates for many many more people trying to baulk the system.

I think this sort of story annoys those of us doing the right thing and having to wait our turn for the parent visa.

[Bridgeman]

13 hours ago, ant111 said:

More certain. The 103 got discontinued a couple of years back.

Yes, but only for a short while.  It was reinstated.  Whether this visa will still be available in the long term remains to be seen.