UK levies 'health surcharge' for visa holders (longer than 6 month stay)

[MEL_Traveller]

Seems like this slipped under the radar here in OZ - mainly because we are exempt (along with Kiwis as we both have reciprocal health care agreements with the UK).

As of April, the UK will require the payment of a health care levy for all visa holders staying longer than 6 months. This will be levied at a rate of GBP200 per year, and GBP150 per year for students. The charge is intended to off-set the cost of health care services (such as GPs and hospital).

This charge must be paid in advance for the entire duration of the visa applied for. For example... you apply for an Ancestry Visa (5 years), you must pay GBP1000 before the visa is granted.

Visitors staying less than 6 months do not need to pay the charge.

On one level it's a bit unfair... if you are on a skilled visa, or Ancestry visa, you'll be working, paying tax, and NI contributions. So this is sort of double dipping. On the other hand, I suppose it makes some sense to pay for infrastructure and services that have been built up over time.

On a side note... I wonder if we should introduce something similar in Australia? For example, a $10,000 'back-tax' contribution for all voluntary migrants (not those on humanitarian visas).

Migrants get access to libraries, roads, public transport, health, council services... many of which are large infrastructure undertakings and have been paid for by taxes over many years. Those arriving get immediate benefits, and haven't paid towards those.

If I have the figures right, voluntary migration is running at about 190,000 people a year? A 'back-tax' contribution would contribute a good pot of money back into infrastructure (or our debt!)

 

[burrco]

... many of which are large infrastructure undertakings and have been paid for by taxes over many years. Those arriving get immediate benefits, and haven't paid towards those.

On that basis perhaps we should levy a tax on new borns (a reverse baby bonus)?

Some visa types, such as 457, don't provide for access to the medicare system (except for reciprocal nations). Strange set up really - they don't have to pay the medicare levy but have to hold often expensive private insurance - so in effect shifting the lost revenue from the government to insurance companies.

 

[Mattg]

On a side note... I wonder if we should introduce something similar in Australia? For example, a $10,000 'back-tax' contribution for all voluntary migrants (not those on humanitarian visas).

Migrants get access to libraries, roads, public transport, health, council services... many of which are large infrastructure undertakings and have been paid for by taxes over many years. Those arriving get immediate benefits, and haven't paid towards those.

If I have the figures right, voluntary migration is running at about 190,000 people a year? A 'back-tax' contribution would contribute a good pot of money back into infrastructure (or our debt!)

Just on this point, I would have to disagree. Firstly, migrants coming into any new country will most likely have paid tax while they were residing in their previous country. Secondly, they wouldn't have had access to services like roads & libraries while they weren't in the country, so why tax them for it?

I don't think I can agree with these kind of "back-taxes" in principle.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Just on this point, I would have to disagree. Firstly, migrants coming into any new country will most likely have paid tax while they were residing in their previous country. Secondly, they wouldn't have had access to services like roads & libraries while they weren't in the country, so why tax them for it?

I don't think I can agree with these kind of "back-taxes" in principle.

They may have paid taxes in their previous country, but that doesn't provide the infrastructure here in Australia. While I agree they didn't have access to roads and libraries and schools (if they are bringing their families), they will be taking immediate advantage of those as soon as they arrive. And they haven't paid for those.

Same with public transport... the cost of a ticket doesn't come anywhere near the actual cost of providing the service. Building new stations, buying new trains all comes from taxes we have paid. A new arrival gets immediate advantage, without any of the contribution.

Humanitarian migrants excluded... if you want to come to Australia to set up a new life and take advantage of work opportunities, schools, health, libraries, social services... why not pay towards those? Going forward you will pay taxes for new infrastructure, but you haven't really paid for what's already in existence.

It's an expensive proposition for someone wanting to go to the UK to start working. Is there a reason we shouldn't have a reciprocal scheme here? (Perhaps let's not call it a back-tax, how about a 'contribution levy'?)

 

[Mattg]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. They may not have contributed before arriving in the country, but they will be contributing to infrastructure projects that will provide benefit to future generations after they pass away/leave the country. I do think the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

The main reason I could see to introduce this would be to reduce the number of migrants. But I don't necessarily see that as a good thing for Australia.

 

[Princess Fiona]

Seems like this slipped under the radar here in OZ - mainly because we are exempt (along with Kiwis as we both have reciprocal health care agreements with the UK).

As of April, the UK will require the payment of a health care levy for all visa holders staying longer than 6 months. This will be levied at a rate of GBP200 per year, and GBP150 per year for students. The charge is intended to off-set the cost of health care services (such as GPs and hospital).

This charge must be paid in advance for the entire duration of the visa applied for. For example... you apply for an Ancestry Visa (5 years), you must pay GBP1000 before the visa is granted.

Visitors staying less than 6 months do not need to pay the charge.

On one level it's a bit unfair... if you are on a skilled visa, or Ancestry visa, you'll be working, paying tax, and NI contributions. So this is sort of double dipping. On the other hand, I suppose it makes some sense to pay for infrastructure and services that have been built up over time.

On a side note... I wonder if we should introduce something similar in Australia? For example, a $10,000 'back-tax' contribution for all voluntary migrants (not those on humanitarian visas).

Migrants get access to libraries, roads, public transport, health, council services... many of which are large infrastructure undertakings and have been paid for by taxes over many years. Those arriving get immediate benefits, and haven't paid towards those.

If I have the figures right, voluntary migration is running at about 190,000 people a year? A 'back-tax' contribution would contribute a good pot of money back into infrastructure (or our debt!)

We already have something similar and much more expensive for 457 visa holders with children living in NSW, ACT and WA - paying anything upwards of $4K a year for public school education. I know this only too well as I was on a 457 visa for a number of years.
I think those visa holders going to the UK are on a much better wicket - no fees for state school education.
YMMV

 

[Moopere]

How bizarre! Am I wrong to think that without health insurance (travel insurance for non locals) that you'd get billed as a foreigner obtaining health services in the UK? Are they suffering from a significant number of tourists getting hurt in country then reneging on paying their hospital bills?

How does it work here at the moment? I was under the impression, but its only an impression as I've never looked into it, that if you present to a hospital emergency department that first and foremost you won't be denied care. Secondly, though right on the heels of the first (as has been my observation) ... how are you paying sir? Usually its private health card or Medicare card or some-such ... if I were a foreigner I'm guessing that this is the point I'd hand over my travel insurance details.

If you are a tourist, but without insurance I've always assumed you'd get billed directly ... and I suppose if you then return to your home country and simply don't pay ... not much that can be done.

Anyway, most of this type of conversation is lost on me dollars wise, it becomes sort of academic, though it can be an interesting conversation of course. As with fuel surcharges, flight taxes, levies and whatnot - ultimately I don't really care, whats it going to cost me? Save the details of the 'why'. If a specific country wants to reduce incoming tourist/business numbers then one sure way to do it is to increase the price of a visit - I don't know if this is the UK's intention or if it will be an unintended consequence.

Personally, I'll pay a hundred or so aussie dollars to gain a tourist visa to a country ... if its more than this I'll choose another destination, no harm no foul. I've seen this type of thing (high cost of entry) decimate tourist numbers in the past in different countries and its up to them if they want people to visit and spend money or not.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The main reason I could see to introduce this would be to reduce the number of migrants. But I don't necessarily see that as a good thing for Australia.

That was absolutely not my intention in raising the issue of a levy. People still want to go to the UK, I guess they just pay whatever charges there are a the time.

We already have something similar and much more expensive for 457 visa holders with children living in NSW, ACT and WA - paying anything upwards of $4K a year for public school education. I know this only too well as I was on a 457 visa for a number of years.
I think those visa holders going to the UK are on a much better wicket - no fees for state school education.
YMMV

Thanks for the info... didn't realise that was the case! In that sense I guess someone, somewhere, has already looked in to a kind of 'user pays' system. Maybe it's not feasible to extend that to other areas.

How bizarre! Am I wrong to think that without health insurance (travel insurance for non locals) that you'd get billed as a foreigner obtaining health services in the UK? Are they suffering from a significant number of tourists getting hurt in country then reneging on paying their hospital bills?

The latest UK levy is not for visitors in the sense of going on a holiday (even an extended one). This is for visa holders wanting an extended stay - one where you'd consider yourself more 'resident' rather than 'tourist'.

I think it's right that in Australia you are billed the full price (at least for a visit to the doctor). I don't know how it works for emergency care (ie trauma in a hospital). Or what happens in the event someone can't pay it.

 

[Cool Cat Phil]

Seems like this slipped under the radar here in OZ - mainly because we are exempt (along with Kiwis as we both have reciprocal health care agreements with the UK).

As of April, the UK will require the payment of a health care levy for all visa holders staying longer than 6 months. This will be levied at a rate of GBP200 per year, and GBP150 per year for students. The charge is intended to off-set the cost of health care services (such as GPs and hospital).

This charge must be paid in advance for the entire duration of the visa applied for. For example... you apply for an Ancestry Visa (5 years), you must pay GBP1000 before the visa is granted.

Visitors staying less than 6 months do not need to pay the charge.

On one level it's a bit unfair... if you are on a skilled visa, or Ancestry visa, you'll be working, paying tax, and NI contributions. So this is sort of double dipping. On the other hand, I suppose it makes some sense to pay for infrastructure and services that have been built up over time.

On a side note... I wonder if we should introduce something similar in Australia? For example, a $10,000 'back-tax' contribution for all voluntary migrants (not those on humanitarian visas).

Migrants get access to libraries, roads, public transport, health, council services... many of which are large infrastructure undertakings and have been paid for by taxes over many years. Those arriving get immediate benefits, and haven't paid towards those.

If I have the figures right, voluntary migration is running at about 190,000 people a year? A 'back-tax' contribution would contribute a good pot of money back into infrastructure (or our debt!)

Your absolutely correct in saying that this has gone under the radar.....

I'm on the fence on this one.

One side of me understands why the UK may wish to introduce such a health care levy.
The NHS whilst it has its faults , is by far more generous than Australia's Medicare which in turn attracts medical tourists from other nations, which has arguably added pressure onto the NHS.

The other side of me says that is quite a precedent, that I'm sure our Government In Australia may wish to consider as an option to raise revenue, in what is already not exactly a full universal health care system in Australia, where quite a few services are not covered by Medicare.

No doubt may differing opinions on this issue & will be interesting to observe the outcry ( if any) that is generated.

 

[Moopere]

Pondering this thread a bit more - its just a visitor tax, call it whatever ... I understand now (thanks Mel_traveller) that its not currently being directed at short term tourists, but its still a tax, just restricted to certain potential users. Why not charge these same users a road tax and a library tax a historical atmosphere tax, a police tax ... etc, etc? All government provided services and inherent country attributes in all their varied glory have almost certainly cost someone some money at some point in time and these bludging tourists (or longer term stayers) are getting it all for free!!

Shouldn't this just all be wrapped up in the visa cost? Add anything you want in there - as the controlling government - make it more or less expensive and by so doing more or less enticing for visitors to visit your country. If you have a captive audience, ie; people are going to visit no matter what you charge ... well, marketplaces being what they are, charge the maximum you can get away with I suppose.

I reckon 'naming' the levy in such a way just creates a lot of potential argument that doesn't really add to anything - want to stay in the UK for 6 months? Visa costs 500 euro/pounds thats it - how that 'income' is distributed is for the national government to decide ... part goes to NHS, part to consolidated revenue ..okay...whatever.

 

[Princess Fiona]

If you are a visitor to Australia and present to a Public Hospital Emergency Department without Insurance or a reciprocal health agreement then you will be billed for your care. The clerks can and do take these details at or soon after your arrival. Quite how it is enforced down the line I'm not sure. I do know that we have patients who may refuse Hospital admission when they find out what it's going to cost them.

 

[Joshua]

Shouldn't this just all be wrapped up in the visa cost?

Like many government levies they often do get rolled into one in the long run. However with a levy/tax(?) they can compartmentalise the costs involved and not charge those with reciprocal agreements although it is totally understandable to cynically see it as revenue raising.

While I think it is unfair to pay 'upfront' when you're going to be contributing taxes this is effectively similar to elsewhere. Currently moving to NL residency, everyone must have insurance or face fines. With the AU reciprocal agreement a simple form to fill out and you get an exemption certificate.

My view is Australia is about 5 years behind the UK on these types of issues. The predictable politics and divided views aside this appears to be the direction of the UK, AU, CA etc. Things aren't even free in the Nordics although they're still far more progressive and generous.

It could probably be better targeted in income taxes but that's more complicated and it's easier to have some simple modelling saying x visas * 200 GBP = profit, as they often do. At least I'm safe if I ever apply for an Ancestry Visa... if they don't abolish them beforehand!