UK Petition: Refund immigrants who paid the IHS and then paid NI

Hi all,
I'm sure you're already aware that, as of this year, us non-EU immigrants have to pay a massive NHS fee on top of our visa fees. Well, someone has started a petition asking for a refund for immigrants who have successfully received a visa and then gone on to pay NICs (so are essentially paying for the NHS twice over). If you are resident in the UK and want to sign it, click away:

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/164085

Of course ideally those who aren't able to work would get a refund too, but hey - it's a start!

Thanks! I will sign.

Shared with my UK friends & spouse. Thanks!

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, the NHS is funded by taxation (income tax) as well as NI contributions, with general taxation accounting for roughly 80% of the funding.  Further, NI contributions fund many other things, not just the NHS.

Accordingly, just because someone has paid NIC (or income tax), doesn't mean they have been paying for the NHS 'twice over'.

Your opinion may vary, but personally I don't think this particular petition has a snowball's chance of going anywhere.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but as I understand it, the NHS is funded by taxation (income tax) as well as NI contributions, with general taxation accounting for roughly 80% of the funding.  Further, NI contributions fund many other things, not just the NHS.

Accordingly, just because someone has paid NIC (or income tax), doesn't mean they have been paying for the NHS 'twice over'.

Your opinion may vary, but personally I don't think this particular petition has a snowball's chance of going anywhere.

This is my understanding too. I think it's a common misconception that National Insurance contributions directly cover National Health Service access and it's likely because in the US, (I don't know about SA) you pay Health Insurance to access Healthcare. The terminology is similar.

National Insurance pays primarily for benefits and pensions and is most similar to the US Social Security payment.

I am British and resident in the UK and I'm therefore entitled to NHS care which is free at the point of service. I am not currently working but I choose to pay voluntary NI contributions so that I am still contributing towards my State Pension.

This is my understanding too. I think it's a common misconception that National Insurance contributions directly cover National Health Service access and it's likely because in the US, (I don't know about SA) you pay Health Insurance to access Healthcare. The terminology is similar.

National Insurance pays primarily for benefits and pensions and is most similar to the US Social Security payment.

I am British and resident in the UK and I'm therefore entitled to NHS care which is free at the point of service. I am not currently working but I choose to pay voluntary NI contributions so that I am still contributing towards my State Pension.

Kinda Larrabee.

We have 3 different things coming out of our paychecks in America, that are mostly automatic. You could choose to NOT have your income tax taken at when you're paid but who wants to deal with a huge payment when it comes due?

You've got the Social Security deduction, which is only that. It's what you're paying in for the eventuality that you'll be eligible for money when you retire and you hit a specific age, for me I think it's 65+? So this is like National Insurance.

You've got Medicare & Medicaid, one is free/reduced healthcare for the elderly and the other is free healthcare for those on and under the poverty line.
- This is the one that most people are annoyed at paying, because it's a large chunk of their check and they can't even use it until they're old. It's 'Socialised Healthcare'. And yes, in the States I thought it was VERY unfair that I paid for other people to have healthcare when I couldn't even afford it or be eligible for it myself.

And then there's your Income Tax, which is self explanatory.

You don't HAVE to have insurance to access healthcare, I spent the majority of my life without health insurance. It wasn't something my family could afford to have and we were 'middle class'. So we paid out of pocket to see the doctor when we needed to. We were a healthy bunch, so it didn't happen all that often. Without health insurance, it did leave you with fewer options for emergency care. Hospitals can turn you away if you didn't have a valid credit card or a health insurance card.

I think where the confusion lies, is a lot of people don't go beyond the surface of things.
NHS: National Health Service
NI: National Insurance

They both have 'national' in the name, and people don't bother looking into what National Insurance actually funds and they just read other people ranting about it on the internet and choose to believe what they say without doing any research for themselves. (The thing that bother me most about the internet) My husband set me straight when we discussed it.

Neither of us is happy about the IHS fee, because it's a big chunk of change, but if we have to pay it, we have to pay it. I look at as 'it's cheaper than US health insurance over the same period.' It sucks that you have to pay it in one lump sum is all.

Kinda Larrabee.

We have 3 different things coming out of our paychecks in America, that are mostly automatic. You could choose to NOT have your income tax taken at when you're paid but who wants to deal with a huge payment when it comes due?

You've got the Social Security deduction, which is only that. It's what you're paying in for the eventuality that you'll be eligible for money when you retire and you hit a specific age, for me I think it's 65+? So this is like National Insurance.

You've got Medicare & Medicaid, one is free/reduced healthcare for the elderly and the other is free healthcare for those on and under the poverty line.
- This is the one that most people are annoyed at paying, because it's a large chunk of their check and they can't even use it until they're old. It's 'Socialised Healthcare'. And yes, in the States I thought it was VERY unfair that I paid for other people to have healthcare when I couldn't even afford it or be eligible for it myself.

And then there's your Income Tax, which is self explanatory.

You don't HAVE to have insurance to access healthcare, I spent the majority of my life without health insurance. It wasn't something my family could afford to have and we were 'middle class'. So we paid out of pocket to see the doctor when we needed to. We were a healthy bunch, so it didn't happen all that often. Without health insurance, it did leave you with fewer options for emergency care. Hospitals can turn you away if you didn't have a valid credit card or a health insurance card.

I think where the confusion lies, is a lot of people don't go beyond the surface of things.
NHS: National Health Service
NI: National Insurance

They both have 'national' in the name, and people don't bother looking into what National Insurance actually funds and they just read other people ranting about it on the internet and choose to believe what they say without doing any research for themselves. (The thing that bother me most about the internet) My husband set me straight when we discussed it.

Neither of us is happy about the IHS fee, because it's a big chunk of change, but if we have to pay it, we have to pay it. I look at as 'it's cheaper than US health insurance over the same period.' It sucks that you have to pay it in one lump sum is all.

I wasn't trying  to explain how things work in the US. 
And you seem to be agreeing with the point I was making!

A few months ago I looked up exactly how much of my tax/NI contributions go towards the NHS.

I currently pay approximately £8,500 in tax/NI per year (that calculation is including the extra I've been earning working overseas). About £1,400 of that goes to the NHS.

In comparison, the IHS surcharge is £200 per year... that's just 14% of what I pay for it through tax - so yes, you're paying a bit more, but I wouldn't say you're paying 'twice over' because what you pay towards the NHS in tax if you're working is generally a lot more than the IHS surcharge.

Note: I'm not in favour of the IHS either but the NHS is tragically underfunded and to be honest, it needs all the money it can get if we want to continue receiving our 'free' healthcare.... which I guess is why the IHS was introduced in the first place.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Note: I'm not in favour of the IHS either but the NHS is tragically underfunded and to be honest, it needs all the money it can get if we want to continue receiving our 'free' healthcare.... which I guess is why the IHS was introduced in the first place.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Does anyone know if there was any truth to the rumour I read somewhere that the fee doesn't actually make it to the NHS anyway, and it's all used up in the administration costs to collect it?

I tried looking into it once, but I don't think I was using the right search terms.

which I guess is why the IHS was introduced in the first place.

That is not at all why the fee was introduced. If the Tories were at all concerned about the state of the NHS they are certainly in the position to increase funding. 

And I think you guys are missing the point a bit, and perhaps being a bit exacting when it comes to funding streams. It's sort of like the argument about cyclists and how they don't pay road tax. There is no road tax. But the argument is a bit disingenuous....roads are funded through taxation, we all pay taxes. As with roads, the NHS is not, nor was it ever meant to be, a subscription service.

See, this is why I don't normally get involved in forums - I don't enjoy splitting hairs.

I would only add that it's unfair to single out immigrants as responsible for paying more for the NHS. The amount is somewhat immaterial; I can't accept that it's right that visa holders are "not British enough" to have access to the NHS in the same way as the rest of our families.

Ultimately, my future children are the ones who have to pay for this because mummy and daddy had to make sacrifices to pay fees because "mummy isn't British enough," leaving them worse off compared to the children of British citizens at our age and income level.

That's not fair. The NHS should be funded equally, not on the backs of immigrants and their children. If NICs aren't enough to fund the NHS, then raise them for everyone; don't make immigrants pay for the shortfall.

. The NHS should be funded equally, not on the backs of immigrants and their children. If NICs aren't enough to fund the NHS, then raise them for everyone; don't make immigrants pay for the shortfall.

Absolutely!

Ultimately, my future children are the ones who have to pay for this because mummy and daddy had to make sacrifices to pay fees because "mummy isn't British enough," leaving them worse off compared to the children of British citizens at our age and income level.

That's not fair. The NHS should be funded equally, not on the backs of immigrants and their children. If NICs aren't enough to fund the NHS, then raise them for everyone; don't make immigrants pay for the shortfall.

But that's the thing... we aren't British. We have permission to live in the UK, work in the UK, and pay taxes to the UK but we don't have the same rights as a British citizen. We can't vote, run for public office or access any public funds until we pay for the privilege and have that lovely soon to be blue passport.

But that's the thing... we aren't British. We have permission to live in the UK, work in the UK, and pay taxes to the UK but we don't have the same rights as a British citizen. We can't vote, run for public office or access any public funds until we pay for the privilege and have that lovely soon to be blue passport.

This is true. But there are a few problems with the "you chose to be here" argument.

First and foremost, that sort of stance can lead to a stratification of society, with immigrants becoming second-class people. This might not seem so bad until you think that recently here in Cardiff refugees were required to wear distinctive red wristbands. The Australian situation is worse. And history shows us extreme examples of what this sort of thing can do.

Too, these added financial requirements can have very real effects on the ability for families to unite. Some may just plain not have the extra money. Perhaps we can, like many do, just say "too bad, so sad....work harder or something".....but again this creates stratification.....another harsh line between have and have-not.

But perhaps most importantly, we as a species have embraced (and signed up to) concepts of human rights that state plainly the importance of family life. These concepts are important because in the very recent past (and still today) we see families torn apart. We aren't talking about the ephemeral.....but real people. Human rights are taking a beating lately in the press, but I posit that if we hate the concept so badly, we should withdraw our signatures. And May has spoken of just this.

I also worry about where your line of thought could end. What other "impact fees" can we cook up? Should immigrants pay more for their food? Should our driver license fee be more?

Perhaps most personal to me is that I do not like seeing people in positions of non power being taken advantage of. Refugees....families seeking to unite....there is a cowardice in it that on a personal level rankles, the applying of barriers, and not by us as individuals but by the collective, to those striving to attain. To me treating those without power with respect and fairness is a sign of the nobility of our species.

This is true. But there are a few problems with the "you chose to be here" argument.

First and foremost, that sort of stance can lead to a stratification of society, with immigrants becoming second-class people. This might not seem so bad until you think that recently here in Cardiff refugees were required to wear distinctive red wristbands. The Australian situation is worse. And history shows us extreme examples of what this sort of thing can do.

Too, these added financial requirements can have very real effects on the ability for families to unite. Some may just plain not have the extra money. Perhaps we can, like many do, just say "too bad, so sad....work harder or something".....but again this creates stratification.....another harsh line between have and have-not.

But perhaps most importantly, we as a species have embraced (and signed up to) concepts of human rights that state plainly the importance of family life. These concepts are important because in the very recent past (and still today) we see families torn apart. We aren't talking about the ephemeral.....but real people. Human rights are taking a beating lately in the press, but I posit that if we hate the concept so badly, we should withdraw our signatures. And May has spoken of just this.

I also worry about where your line of thought could end. What other "impact fees" can we cook up? Should immigrants pay more for their food? Should our driver license fee be more?

Perhaps most personal to me is that I do not like seeing people in positions of non power being taken advantage of. Refugees....families seeking to unite....there is a cowardice in it that on a personal level rankles, the applying of barriers, and not by us as individuals but by the collective, to those striving to attain. To me treating those without power with respect and fairness is a sign of the nobility of our species.

Society is already stratified. The human race seeks to add in arbitrary levels of affluence/stratification and they've been doing it for thousands of years. India and it's caste system. Feudalism in China's history and more recently in Europe. The Aztec. The Maya. The Edo period in Japan (Samurai). Egypt's Kingdoms. The Billionaires of today. Airplanes being divided into First, Business and Economy class.  Do you really think it's ever going to stop? I don't, not without some huge world wide culture paradigm shift.

I completely understand that that the financial costs have a deep impact on families. I was one of those families. My husband had to ask his employer for a several thousand pound raise so we could apply. We were lucky that they said yes, or else he would have had to find another/a new job. And this coming FLR renewal, I have to pay the IHS fee. I do so, not gladly, but with an annoyed acceptance that this is what is required of me to live in this country.

We can't forget that the US has a minimum income requirement as well, it's $35k, which is $10.7k higher than the UK minimum requirement. Doing the math (or more accurately google doing the math) the UK minimum currently comes in at $24.3k.  It still came in at under $30k when the pound was at $1.6=1 GBP back when I applied in 2013. The only difference is the US allows you to have a cosponsor. And I couldn't afford to bring my husband to the US without a co-sponsor. I simply didn't earn enough and I made over $14 an hour with full time employment, which was good money for where I lived. Huh, nearly made as much as much as a licensed practical nurse... go figure. http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Location=Grand-Junction-CO/Hourly_Rate

You're using a slippery slope fallacy. I'm fairly certain that there are laws in place that don't allow vendors to have varying pricing based on someone's immigration status. From a quick google search it's Consumer Protection for Unfair Trading and they went into affect in 2008. I have a feeling something similar existed prior, but I didn't look it up.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/284442/oft1008.pdf

These laws aren't just for UK citizens, they apply to anyone who makes purchases in the UK. And if you want to get technical, the prices for goods are cheaper for non-Brits because you can get your VAT back when you leave the country, if you keep your receipts and stand in line...

My line of thinking? Saying that someone isn't British because they only hold a time limited visa to live in Britain and that they don't have the same rights as British citizens? And to have the ability to live in this country we have to grin/grimace and bear it and pay the fees imposed on us by the UK government? I'm talking legal rights as defined by the country who has interpreted what the human rights act means to them. Everything the UK does is technically within the human rights act, or wouldn't the UN have said something by now? Someone should have noticed.

People without power are always the ones that suffer because they often don't have the ability to speak out and to be heard. It often takes one of the privileged groups to take notice and to champion their cause for anything to be done. And immigrants are yet to get most of the British people on our side.

And I'm sorry, I can't go so far as to say people who are immigrants by choice as being in the same boat as refugees. People with refugee status are those who have suffered greatly and their home is no longer an option for them and they have to find someplace else to live and make their lives.

You and me, we did choose to move here. We knew of the rules when we moved and we knew that those rules can and would most likely change. That's part of the reason I'm on this forum, to keep up with the changing requirements. So we just keep on moving forward, hoping that we don't get priced out of the prize. And once we're citizens we should be championing for change for those who come after us. And championing for change on a US to UK immigration forum, doesn't really make much sense, since we're all on the same side...