UK immigration - increased salary threshold
Comments
-
It only becomes absurd if that's the only policy. Plus some vague shit about letting more care workers in. Points systems are well established, fairly flexible, and not controversial elsewhere. I think we have something called the skilled worker visa, which kind of rules out a lot of what is currently the issue, but does apply to academics obviously. So it comes back to the messaging and the half arssed patchwork of policies that fall short of a genuine attempt to devise a functional immigration system.rick_chasey said:
Look I agree the threshold is absurd period.TheBigBean said:
Clearly, I'm not a fan of the proposal, but I do think it is important to report things accurately. Many families struggled to meet the £18,600 threshold*. The increase changes the numbers struggling, but does not change the rules of the game unless something else is announced.rick_chasey said:
It’s more the decisions are already being made. Not everyone wants to wait for the detail.TheBigBean said:
The salary element used to only apply to the initial application. If it was subsequently failed, then it took longer to get indefinite leave to remain, but not refusal of the visa. The government hasn't published the details of its new proposal, so whilst I understand the concern, I suspect anyone in the country on a spouse visa will be ok.rick_chasey said:
*I would have to prove it on the income route.
I think the messaging matters though. If today it's more than doubled, what will tomorrow bring? Why would I schelp my family over to start a life here when the authorities are making it increasingly clear they don't want me to be here?
I spend a lot of time speaking to people who may need to relocate for a new job; the narrative around immigration matters to the attractiveness.
For academia, most of whom are paid less than the newly proposed threshold, why would you risk it? Why accept that 5 year tenure at Oxford Uni when this is all up in the air?
0 -
Politicians would do well to remember that the rest of the world also reads their words. And though they might not vote for you, you may want their services/help in the future.0
-
They'd just replace them with cheap imported Labour.rick_chasey said:I guess it’s a problem when they’re made up of generous people but they should probably get more militant.
Two of my oldest friends are care workers - I've never heard either mention a union - doesn't mean they aren't in one but they don't seem to get involved in industrial disputes.[Castle Donington Ladies FC - going up in '22]0 -
Isn't this the point of unions?DeVlaeminck said:
They'd just replace them with cheap imported Labour.rick_chasey said:I guess it’s a problem when they’re made up of generous people but they should probably get more militant.
Two of my oldest friends are care workers - I've never heard either mention a union - doesn't mean they aren't in one but they don't seem to get involved in industrial disputes.
In monopsonistic labour markets, you need strong unions to get nearer market rate for the labour.0 -
Which countries are more positive about immigration?rick_chasey said:Politicians would do well to remember that the rest of the world also reads their words. And though they might not vote for you, you may want their services/help in the future.
0 -
The LAs being skint is what causes the problem, though I guess there is a circular argument that one reason they are skint is the underfunding of care.rjsterry said:
Local authorities being famously flush with cash. Also, how on earth do people expect private companies to provide for the sector if they can't offer shareholders a return on investment?surrey_commuter said:
Local Authorities use their buying power to screw the private care homes who bump up the prices for private residents.briantrumpet said:webboo said:
Yet these are the people caring for our loved ones when they need 24 hour care. Yes I know there are some fantastic staff doing it for the minimum wage. The majority of the staff looking after my MiL were great and really did care but for £1,050 a week and staff on minimum wage it is an outrage.rick_chasey said:
This is basically me to my clients most days just talking about bigger numbers.webboo said:When I used to visit care homes as part of role as a CPN I would get managers complaining that they couldn’t get quality staff. I would mention as has stated above why would you do it for minimum wage when you could get much more on the tills at Aldi. So therefore you are getting staff who can’t get a job there or similar.
I wonder who’s idea it was to privatise care homes🤔
Yebbut the private sector is always so much more efficient...
If I was borroing £3m to create a care home I would want a lot more than 20% left over to service debts and pay my profit0 -
To be blunt, they have almost no leverage, because no one really notices the people who would suffer.if they withdrew labour.DeVlaeminck said:
They'd just replace them with cheap imported Labour.rick_chasey said:I guess it’s a problem when they’re made up of generous people but they should probably get more militant.
Two of my oldest friends are care workers - I've never heard either mention a union - doesn't mean they aren't in one but they don't seem to get involved in industrial disputes.
Contrast that to already generously renumerated train drivers, for example.
0 -
None at the moment, but that isn't a good thing.TheBigBean said:
Which countries are more positive about immigration?rick_chasey said:Politicians would do well to remember that the rest of the world also reads their words. And though they might not vote for you, you may want their services/help in the future.
(Maybe Ireland?)
0 -
Which is why I don't think it affects people's plans in the way you think. It also means that for a married couple in the UK, they have more security than the headline salary figures, because the UK government needs to prove families can live elsewhere which is hard to do as many other countries are just as objectionable.rick_chasey said:
None at the moment, but that isn't a good thing.TheBigBean said:
Which countries are more positive about immigration?rick_chasey said:Politicians would do well to remember that the rest of the world also reads their words. And though they might not vote for you, you may want their services/help in the future.
(Maybe Ireland?)
0 -
Sure it does if you're in your home country to begin with, which most people are.TheBigBean said:
Which is why I don't think it affects people's plans in the way you think. It also means that for a married couple in the UK, they have more security than the headline salary figures, because the UK government needs to prove families can live elsewhere which is hard to do as many other countries are just as objectionable.rick_chasey said:
None at the moment, but that isn't a good thing.TheBigBean said:
Which countries are more positive about immigration?rick_chasey said:Politicians would do well to remember that the rest of the world also reads their words. And though they might not vote for you, you may want their services/help in the future.
(Maybe Ireland?)0 -
I wouldn't mind so much if they were more transparent.rjsterry said:
Local authorities being famously flush with cash. Also, how on earth do people expect private companies to provide for the sector if they can't offer shareholders a return on investment?surrey_commuter said:
Local Authorities use their buying power to screw the private care homes who bump up the prices for private residents.briantrumpet said:webboo said:
Yet these are the people caring for our loved ones when they need 24 hour care. Yes I know there are some fantastic staff doing it for the minimum wage. The majority of the staff looking after my MiL were great and really did care but for £1,050 a week and staff on minimum wage it is an outrage.rick_chasey said:
This is basically me to my clients most days just talking about bigger numbers.webboo said:When I used to visit care homes as part of role as a CPN I would get managers complaining that they couldn’t get quality staff. I would mention as has stated above why would you do it for minimum wage when you could get much more on the tills at Aldi. So therefore you are getting staff who can’t get a job there or similar.
I wonder who’s idea it was to privatise care homes🤔
Yebbut the private sector is always so much more efficient...
Low profits and dividends sounds good but they load up on asset management fees.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Have a look on Companies House. Low profits and dividends means no care home. Weirdly enough people don't invest in things that provide a poor return.pblakeney said:
I wouldn't mind so much if they were more transparent.rjsterry said:
Local authorities being famously flush with cash. Also, how on earth do people expect private companies to provide for the sector if they can't offer shareholders a return on investment?surrey_commuter said:
Local Authorities use their buying power to screw the private care homes who bump up the prices for private residents.briantrumpet said:webboo said:
Yet these are the people caring for our loved ones when they need 24 hour care. Yes I know there are some fantastic staff doing it for the minimum wage. The majority of the staff looking after my MiL were great and really did care but for £1,050 a week and staff on minimum wage it is an outrage.rick_chasey said:
This is basically me to my clients most days just talking about bigger numbers.webboo said:When I used to visit care homes as part of role as a CPN I would get managers complaining that they couldn’t get quality staff. I would mention as has stated above why would you do it for minimum wage when you could get much more on the tills at Aldi. So therefore you are getting staff who can’t get a job there or similar.
I wonder who’s idea it was to privatise care homes🤔
Yebbut the private sector is always so much more efficient...
Low profits and dividends sounds good but they load up on asset management fees.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
You missed my point.rjsterry said:
Have a look on Companies House. Low profits and dividends means no care home. Weirdly enough people don't invest in things that provide a poor return.pblakeney said:
I wouldn't mind so much if they were more transparent.rjsterry said:
Local authorities being famously flush with cash. Also, how on earth do people expect private companies to provide for the sector if they can't offer shareholders a return on investment?surrey_commuter said:
Local Authorities use their buying power to screw the private care homes who bump up the prices for private residents.briantrumpet said:webboo said:
Yet these are the people caring for our loved ones when they need 24 hour care. Yes I know there are some fantastic staff doing it for the minimum wage. The majority of the staff looking after my MiL were great and really did care but for £1,050 a week and staff on minimum wage it is an outrage.rick_chasey said:
This is basically me to my clients most days just talking about bigger numbers.webboo said:When I used to visit care homes as part of role as a CPN I would get managers complaining that they couldn’t get quality staff. I would mention as has stated above why would you do it for minimum wage when you could get much more on the tills at Aldi. So therefore you are getting staff who can’t get a job there or similar.
I wonder who’s idea it was to privatise care homes🤔
Yebbut the private sector is always so much more efficient...
Low profits and dividends sounds good but they load up on asset management fees.
They declare small profits and dividends but take a shedload of management fees.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
You missed my point.rjsterry said:
Have a look on Companies House. Low profits and dividends means no care home. Weirdly enough people don't invest in things that provide a poor return.pblakeney said:
I wouldn't mind so much if they were more transparent.rjsterry said:
Local authorities being famously flush with cash. Also, how on earth do people expect private companies to provide for the sector if they can't offer shareholders a return on investment?surrey_commuter said:
Local Authorities use their buying power to screw the private care homes who bump up the prices for private residents.briantrumpet said:webboo said:
Yet these are the people caring for our loved ones when they need 24 hour care. Yes I know there are some fantastic staff doing it for the minimum wage. The majority of the staff looking after my MiL were great and really did care but for £1,050 a week and staff on minimum wage it is an outrage.rick_chasey said:
This is basically me to my clients most days just talking about bigger numbers.webboo said:When I used to visit care homes as part of role as a CPN I would get managers complaining that they couldn’t get quality staff. I would mention as has stated above why would you do it for minimum wage when you could get much more on the tills at Aldi. So therefore you are getting staff who can’t get a job there or similar.
I wonder who’s idea it was to privatise care homes🤔
Yebbut the private sector is always so much more efficient...
Low profits and dividends sounds good but they load up on asset management fees.
They declare small profits and dividends but take a shedload of management fees.
https://inews.co.uk/news/health/care-home-operators-billions-pounds-profits-hedge-funds-360816#The report found 7 of the 18 largest for-profit providers spend between 15 per cent and 32 per cent of their revenue on rent payments, totalling £264m a year. This stands in marked contrast to the 8 largest not-for-profit providers, which spend an aggregate of 2 per cent of their income on rent, totalling £25m a year.
For small and medium-sized operators, £7 out of every £100 they receive in fees goes into profit before tax, rent payments, directors’ remuneration and net interest payments, the CHPI found. However, for the 18 largest profit-driven firms, it is £15 per £100. The report claimed that firms use an array of financial mechanisms to boost their profit margins. Debt repayments can be “a source of hidden profits and tax avoidance”, it added.
For example, the 26 largest providers put £261m of fee income into paying off debts, of which £117m goes to companies related to them – which the CHPI described as “a known way of avoiding tax and hiding profits”.
Vivek Kotecha, CHPI research manager and author of the report, said: “Our research shows that some of the largest care home businesses are extracting a lot of profit disguised as rent and loan repayment costs. This makes it hard for local authorities and individuals to know how much extra funding the industry actually needs and how financially sustainable it really is. Without transparency over profitability and costs, any additional funding is unlikely to deliver either an improved level of care or value for money.”
0 -
Quite a bold conclusion that we don't need any additional funding in carebriantrumpet said:pblakeney said:
You missed my point.rjsterry said:
Have a look on Companies House. Low profits and dividends means no care home. Weirdly enough people don't invest in things that provide a poor return.pblakeney said:
I wouldn't mind so much if they were more transparent.rjsterry said:
Local authorities being famously flush with cash. Also, how on earth do people expect private companies to provide for the sector if they can't offer shareholders a return on investment?surrey_commuter said:
Local Authorities use their buying power to screw the private care homes who bump up the prices for private residents.briantrumpet said:webboo said:
Yet these are the people caring for our loved ones when they need 24 hour care. Yes I know there are some fantastic staff doing it for the minimum wage. The majority of the staff looking after my MiL were great and really did care but for £1,050 a week and staff on minimum wage it is an outrage.rick_chasey said:
This is basically me to my clients most days just talking about bigger numbers.webboo said:When I used to visit care homes as part of role as a CPN I would get managers complaining that they couldn’t get quality staff. I would mention as has stated above why would you do it for minimum wage when you could get much more on the tills at Aldi. So therefore you are getting staff who can’t get a job there or similar.
I wonder who’s idea it was to privatise care homes🤔
Yebbut the private sector is always so much more efficient...
Low profits and dividends sounds good but they load up on asset management fees.
They declare small profits and dividends but take a shedload of management fees.
https://inews.co.uk/news/health/care-home-operators-billions-pounds-profits-hedge-funds-360816#The report found 7 of the 18 largest for-profit providers spend between 15 per cent and 32 per cent of their revenue on rent payments, totalling £264m a year. This stands in marked contrast to the 8 largest not-for-profit providers, which spend an aggregate of 2 per cent of their income on rent, totalling £25m a year.
For small and medium-sized operators, £7 out of every £100 they receive in fees goes into profit before tax, rent payments, directors’ remuneration and net interest payments, the CHPI found. However, for the 18 largest profit-driven firms, it is £15 per £100. The report claimed that firms use an array of financial mechanisms to boost their profit margins. Debt repayments can be “a source of hidden profits and tax avoidance”, it added.
For example, the 26 largest providers put £261m of fee income into paying off debts, of which £117m goes to companies related to them – which the CHPI described as “a known way of avoiding tax and hiding profits”.
Vivek Kotecha, CHPI research manager and author of the report, said: “Our research shows that some of the largest care home businesses are extracting a lot of profit disguised as rent and loan repayment costs. This makes it hard for local authorities and individuals to know how much extra funding the industry actually needs and how financially sustainable it really is. Without transparency over profitability and costs, any additional funding is unlikely to deliver either an improved level of care or value for money.”
0 -
surrey_commuter said:
Quite a bold conclusion that we don't need any additional funding in carebriantrumpet said:pblakeney said:
You missed my point.rjsterry said:
Have a look on Companies House. Low profits and dividends means no care home. Weirdly enough people don't invest in things that provide a poor return.pblakeney said:
I wouldn't mind so much if they were more transparent.rjsterry said:
Local authorities being famously flush with cash. Also, how on earth do people expect private companies to provide for the sector if they can't offer shareholders a return on investment?surrey_commuter said:
Local Authorities use their buying power to screw the private care homes who bump up the prices for private residents.briantrumpet said:webboo said:
Yet these are the people caring for our loved ones when they need 24 hour care. Yes I know there are some fantastic staff doing it for the minimum wage. The majority of the staff looking after my MiL were great and really did care but for £1,050 a week and staff on minimum wage it is an outrage.rick_chasey said:
This is basically me to my clients most days just talking about bigger numbers.webboo said:When I used to visit care homes as part of role as a CPN I would get managers complaining that they couldn’t get quality staff. I would mention as has stated above why would you do it for minimum wage when you could get much more on the tills at Aldi. So therefore you are getting staff who can’t get a job there or similar.
I wonder who’s idea it was to privatise care homes🤔
Yebbut the private sector is always so much more efficient...
Low profits and dividends sounds good but they load up on asset management fees.
They declare small profits and dividends but take a shedload of management fees.
https://inews.co.uk/news/health/care-home-operators-billions-pounds-profits-hedge-funds-360816#The report found 7 of the 18 largest for-profit providers spend between 15 per cent and 32 per cent of their revenue on rent payments, totalling £264m a year. This stands in marked contrast to the 8 largest not-for-profit providers, which spend an aggregate of 2 per cent of their income on rent, totalling £25m a year.
For small and medium-sized operators, £7 out of every £100 they receive in fees goes into profit before tax, rent payments, directors’ remuneration and net interest payments, the CHPI found. However, for the 18 largest profit-driven firms, it is £15 per £100. The report claimed that firms use an array of financial mechanisms to boost their profit margins. Debt repayments can be “a source of hidden profits and tax avoidance”, it added.
For example, the 26 largest providers put £261m of fee income into paying off debts, of which £117m goes to companies related to them – which the CHPI described as “a known way of avoiding tax and hiding profits”.
Vivek Kotecha, CHPI research manager and author of the report, said: “Our research shows that some of the largest care home businesses are extracting a lot of profit disguised as rent and loan repayment costs. This makes it hard for local authorities and individuals to know how much extra funding the industry actually needs and how financially sustainable it really is. Without transparency over profitability and costs, any additional funding is unlikely to deliver either an improved level of care or value for money.”
Agreed.
It's just that if we take the US model of privatised health provision as to what can happen when the state withdraws from the equation, we might conclude that the private sector is rather more focused on profit than equitable health outcomes that don't break the bank. And the report quoted backs up @pblakeney's assertion that profits are being hidden from public gaze/scrutiny. Private Eye has been repeatedly saying this for a very long time.0 -
That's not what it's saying. It's saying the structure of the market means any additional funding is unlikely to improve the quality. Not the same thing.
I should add that a tonne of research into care homes has been done and those run by PE firms have a statistically significant higher rate of mortality than state run care homes.
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/when-private-equity-takes-over-nursing-homes-mortality-rates-jumpAfter a nursing home’s purchase by a PE firm, residents’ short-term mortality rate jumped by 10 percent, the researchers determine through an analysis of Medicare and Medicaid data covering more than 18,000 US nursing homes between 2004 and 2019. During this period, 1,700 facilities were bought by PE firms.
“We crunched the figures to determine the main metric—mortality rates—over this 15-year period,” Yannelis says. “What we found is that in the private-equity-acquired nursing homes, this 10 percent hike in mortality
I persuaded my father to move his mother out of a nursing home when it was taken over by PE and it obviously deteriorated.0 -
rick_chasey said:
That's not what it's saying. It's saying the structure of the market means any additional funding is unlikely to improve the quality. Not the same thing.
I should add that a tonne of research into care homes has been done and those run by PE firms have a statistically significant higher rate of mortality than state run care homes.
https://www.chicagobooth.edu/review/when-private-equity-takes-over-nursing-homes-mortality-rates-jump
Indeed, that is what it's saying, but there's obviously no doubt that the sector would benefit massively from extra funding (from some source), but that's wasted if it simply gets squirrelled away in more (hidden) profit, as appears to have happened with all the funding I thought we'd put into the privatised water companies through our bills in the years following privatisation.0 -
Pfft, care sector's taken the equivalent of around £2m from my family, I doubt they're that hard up.0
