Unemployed on HSMP

Dear Gurus,

Your advice is really appreciated on the following matter. I had been employed during the 1st HSMP year (my background is Telecom), however my contract was ceased right before the renewal. Although my HSMP extension was approved, I haven’t succeeded in finding any job for about 10 months during the 2nd year. My concern is whether such a gap in employment under HSMP can have any effect when applying for ILR and BC (assuming that I will get a job by the time)?

Thanks in advance,
Hunter

IMHO, so long as you have evidence of economic activity - then the unemployment period should not be a problem, so long as you dont resort to 'public funds'


In considering applications for indefinite leave to remain in this capacity (HSMP) caseworkers must be satisfied that the applicant:

1)Has spent continuous period of 4 years in the UK as under terms of HSMP;
2)Continues to meet the criteria of the programme;
3)Has been able to maintain and accommodate themselves and any dependents without recourse to public funds

Its early days but the rules may have changed slighly by then:

The rules are here:

http://www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/defaul ... ageId=2769

Chess,

I dont think Hunter can resort to public funds.

Hunter,

Rules are not clear on gaps in employment for HSMP But certainly it is important that you have a job at the time of applying for your ILR.

Rgds
Dip

Dip,

Welcome back from your share dealing

I dont think Hunter can resort to public funds.

It is clear from my posting that - public funds are a no go area!

Rules are not clear on gaps in employment for HSMP

I think rules are quite clear - in essence unemployment is allowed so long as there is evidence of economic activity...

If gaps in emplyment were not allowed then many renewals would fail

Chess,

Dont mean to undermine your expertise on the subject. Just wondered if there is any avenue available and could not think of any.

Its a shame that guys on WP and HSMP NI and Taxes but when they lose their jobs prior to their ILR, they dont get any bens. Cest la vie!

Regards
Dip

Ps: Just realised I have loads to catch up on the forum. Currencies keeping me busy. The sterling bull is in the hiding as the pound disappoints.

Actually,

Why DOES someone on WP/HSMP have to pay NI? I understand having to pay Income Tax, but paying NI contributions means that techincally you can get benefits if you lose your job etc. And since foreigners are clearly not allowed those (well, if they want to be on good terms with the HO), then why should they pay? Or is their argument 'well after 4 years you would be eligible for those benefits'?

Any thoughts?

Taxation is not a voluntary agreement between the authorities and the income maker that must work in a just and fair way (as seen by an individual).

Since times immemorial various taxes are imposed on income makers, property owners and other categories regardless of their will or vision of tax justice. Almost any government would consider it fair to tax a foreigner who makes money on its land, without any strings attached (to the government ).

How the authority then deals with this collected revenue is an entirely different matter, which is often legislated and administered separately from legislation and administration on tax collection.

Other frequently perceived tax imperfections include:

- the more you make, the more you pay, but you don't get "more" for your higher taxes;
- the working pay the taxes sustaining the retired;
- the healthy pay the taxes sustaining the sick;
- the children pay the tax on after-tax money and property that they inherit from relatives;

Taxation levels is another frustration sometimes. I used to read my year-end bonus statements from the bottom up: this is my net pay, that's the equal share for Uncle Sam, and that's the total I was awarded this year.

It doesn't help to dwell on tax imperfections - they'll probably be there long after we are gone. It helps to communicate with legislators - if one can; it helps to choose a country with good taxation laws (all other things being equal, better or otherwise acceptable, of course) - if one can; it helps to use the existing laws to maximize the benefits available and minimize the actual amount paid - if one can do so with their income structure.

Hope I didn't sound too square here, just wanted to suggest getting an umbrella instead of complaining it's a rainy town.

Cosmopol,

I wasn't exactly complaining, and yeah, I understand fully the issues surrounding the need to pay 'tax'. My question was: on ones payslip, you pay tax AND NI contribution. Tax issue is crystal clear (as also explained by you ), but NI contribution is technically not a 'tax', but more like a social secutiry contribution. Or am I wrong? I.e. if one wasn't to pay NI (but continue to pay Income Tax as required), shouldn't that mean that they simply don't get unemployed and other benefits?

And in that case, I'm sure its clear that all the NI contributions go into a social security fund, rather than being used on other government spending (as with the income tax).

Other than that, one might prefer a sunny 'Dubai' than a 'rainy' London, avoiding the need for an umbrella

Cheers

kawasaki1 wrote:I wasn't exactly complaining

I also didn't mean you were complaining per se; that was more a figure of speech with rain and all... sorry it came across differently

kawasaki1 wrote:NI contribution is technically not a 'tax', but more like a social secutiry contribution.

Anything collected on mandatory basis is a tax. It can be called different things, and serve different purposes, but it's always a tax.

kawasaki1 wrote:And in that case, I'm sure its clear that all the NI contributions go into a social security fund, rather than being used on other government spending (as with the income tax).

There is no contradiction: citizen/non-citizen is only one aspect; think of someone paying social security tax for many years, and not being age-eligible to draw on it if one decides to retire early. Even if the tax is for a "purpose" and goes into a fund, it doesn't entitle the payer to automatically rely on it. Tax collection and subsequent distribution are still two different matters, although more correlated in this case...

kawasaki1 wrote:Other than that, one might prefer a sunny 'Dubai' than a 'rainy' London, avoiding the need for an umbrella

Cheers

Some people do - there was an article not so long ago in Vanity Fair, I think, about a young American from an ultra-wealthy family who gave up his US citizenship for that of an "island nation" (not the UK, I presume ) in order to save many millions in inheritance and other taxes...
Ah, to be independently wealthy... and with that beautiful thought I should leave to continue my workday

Ah, to be independently wealthy... and with that beautiful thought I should leave to continue my workday

Hehe, yeah, I guess social security, tax, call it what you want... we all still gotta pay it no matter what benefits it brings us!

kawasaki,
Although I understand your query about NI the problems are multiple.

Firstly, although NI was originally introduced to raise revenue to pay for certain benefits, not least the state pension, the money has never been ringfenced and used for those purposes.

The money just goes into general treasury accounts. There are plenty of people...and not rich people, like my parents who have paid NI since it was first introduced and throughout thier working lives who are not now actually getting the pension they were promised all those years ago. They are penalised simply because they also paid for a small private pension. So NI is, in that sense, something that many people pay for and get no benefit from. In some cases where they were given an explicit promise that they would benefit from it.

Another comparable tax might be Road Fund Duty. Motorists pay this tax, which was originally intended to raise revenue for roadbuilding....but nothing like the amount of revenue collected gets spent on roads.

Perhaps there are actually three things in life that are certain. Death, Taxes, and that they won't spend the taxes on what you want them to.