American Express changes the minimum income requirement for the free BA card

Links on Head for Points may support the site by paying a commission. See here for all partner links.

In 2023, American Express brought back minimum income requirements for its UK personal and small business cards.

Between 2016 and 2023, the company took a more holistic view of your finances. After all, a single person living at home on a £25,000 salary has a totally different disposable income profile to someone who is married with two kids and a mortgage taking home £35,000. This approach ended in 2023.

The company has just tweaked the minimum income requirement for the free British Airways card, following changes made to the other free cards last year. No limits have increased.

American Express changes its minimum income requirements

The previous limits were not exactly tough for anyone in a full time job. Even someone on minimum wage doing 40 hours per week would qualify for every American Express card except The Platinum Card and the British Airways American Express Premium Plus Card.

The winners from these changes are probably the retired or part-time workers, who may now find they earn enough to apply for specific products.

These are the current PERSONAL income requirements:

British Airways American Express Credit Card – £15,000 (was £20,000 until May 2025)

The American Express Rewards Credit Card – £15,000 (was £20,000 until July 2024)

Amex Cashback Everyday Credit Card – £15,000 (was £20,000 until July 2024)

American Express Preferred Rewards Gold Credit Card – £20,000 (unchanged)

Amex Cashback Credit Card – £20,000 (unchanged)

Nectar Credit Card – £20,000 (unchanged)

Marriott Bonvoy American Express – £20,000 (unchanged)

The American Express Business Gold Card – £20,000 (unchanged)

British Airways American Express Accelerating Business – £20,000 (unchanged)

The Platinum Card – £35,000 (unchanged)

British Airways American Express Premium Plus Card – £35,000 (unchanged)

The American Express Business Platinum Card – £35,000 (unchanged)

For the small business cards, the minimum income figure relates to the personal income of the person applying and not the profits of the business itself.

Limits have been falling in real terms for many years

If we go back to 2016, these levels are often substantially lower than they were, adjusting for wage inflation.

The Platinum Card was £40,000 in 2016 but is currently £35,000. With wage inflation it should be nearer £55,000.

The Marriott Bonvoy American Express Card required a £30,000 personal income in 2016 but is now £20,000, when wage inflation should have pushed it to nearer £40,000.

The only jump is the British Airways American Express Premium Plus Card, which was available on a £20,000 income in 2016 but now requires £35,000.

The other personal cards were £20,000 in 2016. Those which have now dropped to £15,000 over the past year would have been nearer £30,000 had the limit kept pace with wages.

Category

American Express Gold card, American Express Platinum card, Amex Rewards Credit Card, British Airways American Express, Marriott Bonvoy

Simon Freeman says:

17 Jun17 June 08:28

Probably due to new rules being bought in by the FCA called “Product Sales Data Recording (PSD)” which requires lenders to record (and submit regularly to the FCA) affordability data including income, outgoings, residential status and number of dependents. More red tape for lender and borrowers I’m afraid.

Reply
- Donna says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 17:44
  
  How do you bid on Malaysian seats? Do you need to have booked a ticket in economy first?
  
  Reply
Polly says:

17 Jun17 June 08:30

Still think it’s unfair loading against pensioners re the BAPP. They may not actually draw down 35k in personal income, but have access to good savings, especially if they have downsized… Plus, they do appreciate the chance to fly in J long haul using the CV. Will never give up this card. Runs alongside my HSBC WE. OH has Bonvoy. Covers all bases, now we probably won’t retain BAC Silver. Bronze will suffice. Pretty useful when doing inter Asia on OW, avoiding long Y queues, to use J check in. One good benefit of bronze. And we often bid ridiculous low bids for MAS J seats.

Reply
- David S says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 09:34
  
  Me too on the Malaysian flights. Sat opposite their Foreign Minister on my last flight after selecting the lowest bid amount whilst his entourage say back in Y
  
  Reply
- QFFlyer says:
  
  18 Jun18 June 11:00
  
  Why? It’s an income test, not an age restriction. There’s also plenty of pensioners with zero(/near zero) assets and some in their 20s with heaps of cash.
  
  Reply
blue_wolf says:

17 Jun17 June 11:24

Crazy how many people have a negative response to this article. No one loses here, surely, what is there to complain about?

Reply
- SammyJ says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 11:33
  
  Quite!
  
  Reply
  - Nico says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 14:13
    
    Exactly! Always feels like that these days
    
    Reply
    - Lumma says:
      
      17 Jun17 June 14:31
      
      See also, the article on tier points via the BAPP card. Never seen so much whingeing about something that was never available before
      
      Reply
- BBbetter says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 16:30
  
  It’s funny actually.
  The newspapers keep claiming pensioners are poor and they need more benefits.
  While on here, pensioners are like ‘we have too much cash, why don’t you look at our savings?’
  
  Reply
  - NorthernLass says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 16:44
    
    People in their 80s surviving on a state pension undoubtedly need more help. Those of us who were lucky enough to retire in our 50s and can earn a 2nd income are probably far more typical of the HFP readership!
    
    Reply
    - Sandgrounder says:
      
      17 Jun17 June 19:45
      
      Poor old pensioners, living on a Shoestring, prancing in the sun with their swimmers on
      
      Reply
  - Rob says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 17:16
    
    No they don’t. Those arguments are long gone.
    
    The UK has effectively eradicated pensioner poverty in the last 20 years – the problem is that its been eradicated by hollowing out everything else in the UK, and to continue keeping my generation in the same level of pensioner wealth is going to bankrupt you all!
    
    I mean, jeez, assuming I live to 85 you’re going to pay me £240,000 in state pension (in today’s money) on top of all my healthcare costs, and it’s not means tested at all.
    
    Reply
    - D says:
      
      17 Jun17 June 20:29
      
      You as well? Ffs living the dream and complaining about retirees. I did expect better.
      
      Reply
      - John33 says:
        
        18 Jun18 June 04:55
        
        You seriously expected better? Have you not seen how bitter his comments always are?
      - Rob says:
        
        18 Jun18 June 06:33
        
        Address the issue, then. Tell me how the country funds itself long term when an average earner will receive more in state pension than they ever paid in tax and NI.
      - QFFlyer says:
        
        18 Jun18 June 11:06
        
        As someone eligible for the UK state pension who doesn’t even live there, I agree it should be means tested – Australia means test the age pension. It’d take a brave government to introduce that in the UK in the foreseeable future though, increasing the qualifying age is causing enough drama in any country they try it in.
        
        I sort of get it re raising the age, it may be necessary from a fiscal policy POV, but for those paying into it, it’s moving the goalposts after someone’s already started playing the game. Any changes should apply for benefits accrued from the date of the change, not to that already accrued, in my opinion.
    - AJA says:
      
      18 Jun18 June 09:57
      
      @Rob It sounds like you are against the idea of the welfare state?
      
      The reality is the State Pension is a welfare benefit. Just like Universal Credit or getting free healthcare through the NHS, or any one of the multitude of other social benefits such as housing benefit this country offers. And as long as you have paid NICs for 10 years you are entitled to some pension which will then be topped up via Pension Credit to the same amount as someone else who pays the full 35 years of NICs. Arguably we should just stop NI and just increase the rate of income tax. The Tories have suggested this idea but it doesn’t seem to be popular.
      
      You write: “Tell me how the country funds itself long term”. The answer is through general taxation, corporation tax, VAT and the shortfall is made up through government borrowing. The reality is that it doesn’t matter whether any government can manage to deliver a balanced budget. This country stiĺl manages to have enough spare cash to fund overseas development and aid. If you worry about funding the state pension perhaps you should be campaigning to end foreign aid first? After all charity begins at home.
      
      And I think you made an error in your statement about receiving £240k as that assumes you receive it for 20 years which you won’t do if you only live to 85 given that most of us will only receive the state pension at 67 or even older.
      
      Reply
      - Rob says:
        
        18 Jun18 June 10:04
        
        I get it at 65!
      - AJA says:
        
        18 Jun18 June 10:23
        
        Do you? That means you must already be 65 and already receiving it given that today you have to be 66 to get it. That applies to everybody given it rose to 66 for everybody between December 2018 and October 2020.
        
        I suggest you check your state pension age here:
        
        https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-age/y/age/
- Peter K says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 17:44
  
  I spoke to a pensioner at work a few weeks ago who was complaining she “needed” the winter fuel allowance to pay for her annual winter holiday abroad.
  Another pensioner I know was complaining that her state pension (no private pension) tipped her over the threshold to pay tax and she felt she shouldn’t have to.
  On the flip side a friend who was long term on benefits and unable to work due to health has regularly said she’s never been she well off since retiring.
  
  Read into all that what you will.
  
  Reply
  - Navara says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 20:47
    
    I wish £200 would pay for my winter holiday
    
    Reply
  - LittleNick says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 21:03
    
    Pensioners just on state pension over the tax free allowance are not exactly well off and should not have to pay income tax imho. All the pensioners I know are either just over the allowance or under it, I guess my family/friends of pensionable age come from quite different backgrounds
    
    Reply
    - AJA says:
      
      17 Jun17 June 22:41
      
      @LittleNick I agree with you. The freezing of the tax free allowance is fiscal drag and is making people who can ill afford it pay income tax. It amazes me that people think the State Pension is a lot of money and yet it is £10k per annum below what people working full time earn on minimum wage. Imagine the outcry if the NMW was only £12k per annum.
      
      Reply
      - Rob says:
        
        17 Jun17 June 22:53
        
        I think what you meant to say is ‘it’s shocking that the minimum wage is only £10k per annum more than people get for sitting around at home not working, and with no mortgage, no childcare costs and modest expenses’ 🙂
        
        If you run the numbers another way, using 2025 money and assuming a 40 year working life and 20 years of pension, anyone earning less than £35,000 will NEVER pay as much in income tax and NI as they will receive in pension.
        
        (Maths: 20 years of state pension is £244k. Over 40 years this is equivalent to £500 per month. To pay £500 per month in income tax and NI you need to earn £35,000.)
      - AJA says:
        
        18 Jun18 June 10:12
        
        @Rob Your mistake is to assume each of us actually funds our own state pension. You do know its a ponzi scheme ie today’s taxpayers fund today’s pensioners? And that the average UK salary is just that? While there are a lot of people earning significantly less than £35k there are also many more, including you and some of your HfP employees earning significantly more than £35k. And that any shortfall is made up through government borrowing?
        
        And your condescension wrapped up as humour ignores the reality that those people who may be sitting around at home today have worked hard and saved to get where they are. As hopefully you will yourself experience at some point. Also didn’t you started HfP as a hobby once you left your high paid banking job?
        
        Are you against people receiving any welfare benefits?
      - Rhys says:
        
        18 Jun18 June 10:18
        
        It’s always funny to me when you guys think Rob is some blue-blooded Tory, when the opposite is true.
        
        Yes, people claiming their pension in the next ~10 years have paid taxes their entire lives. But that will be in a comparatively low-tax environment, with current tax burden the highest it’s been in 70 years. So my generation will be paying disproportionally more for your pension and benefits than you did for the prior generations. Is that fair? You tell me.
      - Rob says:
        
        18 Jun18 June 11:30
        
        You forget that I could reregister HfP in Dubai tomorrow and immediately slash my tax bill from a huge amount to nothing, as long as I kept the money offshore in a corporate structure and set up a UK Ltd company to simply pay everyones salaries, with me getting only the tax-free limit. But I don’t.
        
        It’s simple maths that the current system cannot support the huge increase in the number of retirees in the next 10-20 years and their increasing life expectancy, as the number of people in jobs (due to the collapsing birth rate) drops very low. This is not a political statement, it’s a factual one. The politics bit is what you decide to do about it, which I’m not discussing.
      - AJA says:
        
        18 Jun18 June 10:38
        
        @Rhys. I don’t think Rob is a Tory. Far from it. I think he’s a champagne socialist who is oddly against the welfare state.
        
        I am not yet a state pensioner by the way. And still some way off getting it since I only get it at 67 (unlike Rob who seems to be under the illusion he gets his at 65, despite me thinking that I am a few years older than him)
        
        I also still pay income tax by the way. So I am funding today’s pensioners. Is the tax burden unfair on those younger than me? Yes. It was also unfair the pension age for Waspi women was equalised with men and raised to 65 with little notice. It was unfair that my pension age increased to 67. It was unfair that the interest rate when I first bought my flat peaked at over 15% within months. But life is unfair.
      - Navara says:
        
        19 Jun19 June 14:11
        
        @Rob Just wondering what your Mum feels about your thoughts on the pension and WFA living in the chilly Filey winter
      - Rob says:
        
        19 Jun19 June 14:19
        
        She can’t even begin to spend her pension. Kids get a big handout whenever they turn up. We worked out she spends £80 per week plus bills.
Garethgerry says:

17 Jun17 June 12:13

It’s absolutely crazy Credit card companies don’t take savings into account . They do look at disposable income. But surely someone with a 6 or 7 figure bank balance is a good bet , even with half the income of someone with no savings. I don’t know if this is Credit card companies or rules forced on them.

Reply
- aseftel says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 14:53
  
  CONC 5.2A.12R and CONC 5.2A.15R specify that a lender can only take savings into account if a borrower has indicated clearly an intention to repay using them. The lender would then have to make an assessment of those savings. Unsurprisingly, mainstream lenders don’t bother.
  
  Reply
  - Lady London says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 15:28
    
    Hmmm sounds like there’s a market for an escrow option where a cardholder could move an amount related to their credit limit, let’s say between 1 and 3x, to an escrow account.
    
    That way the repayment of spending on the card would be guaranteed. How much more than 1x credit limit to be put into escrow on the card being issued to be determined by a very few risk factors plus the time card issuer csn be sure to shut the card down within.
    
    Could be standardized very easily just provide for adjustment of escrow amount when card limits increase or decrease. Should not be complicated and would help dispel any suspicions that those of retirement age, in particular, are being discriminated against on the basis of not being trendy due to age (illegal) under a cloak of claimed higher risk which providers can now choose to hide behind although that’s not the full story.
    
    Reply
- JDB says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 15:26
  
  The reason is that credit card lenders can’t be seen to be expecting you to dip into savings to pay your current expenditure such as credit card bills. A savings figure today also doesn’t mean much; it might be there parked pending a transaction. Lenders want to see a regular income that will be available to repay them.
  
  Reply
Lady London says:

17 Jun17 June 15:30

See my suggesion above JDB.
Btw will I see you at the HfP Party ?

Reply
- JDB says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 16:57
  
  I think there would be an issue with a credit card lender becoming a deposit taker within the same business and keeping all those segregated accounts would be complex and costly. Unfortunately I won’t be at the party; inter alia, it’s Ascot.
  
  Reply
  - Lynx says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 19:55
    
    Yes, and Gold Cup day too. One of the horses I now ride won at Champions Day a few years ago, but never went to RA, and that’s probably about as close as I will get. Will you be in the Royal Enclosure @JDB, or are you in with the lounge suit crowd?
    
    Reply
  - Lady London says:
    
    18 Jun18 June 03:19
    
    Escrow is not deposit taking. It’s security that’s not held by Amex and not accessible by the cardholder – that”s the poimt of escrow.
    
    Reply
NorthernLass says:

17 Jun17 June 15:45

Are lots of people on £15k really going to sign up for the free BA card and spend their annual gross income on it to earn the poor SUB and not-very-valuable companion voucher? Amex would probably be better dropping the income requirement to £25 or £30k for the paid card which gives a much better return.

Reply
- NorthernLass says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 15:46
  
  *£25k, not £25, lol.
  
  Reply
- polly says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 15:58
  
  Just hope they realise their CV only gets them on Y. Could be a disappointment. Many q on here from readers asking this already, not realising what they have signed up for. Beavering away collecting, and still not making J. I would be very disappointed.
  But then again neither BA or AMEX want to hand out too many of those paid J CVs.
  
  Reply
- Rob says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 16:11
  
  You don’t need to earn the voucher. Compared to other cards out there (non travel rewards) 1 Avios per £1 is great.
  
  Reply
  - NorthernLass says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 16:46
    
    It might be a decent, earning rate, but if you don’t spend much and therefore can’t earn loads of avios, you’ll get 6k (?) SUB, then 15k avios if you do hit the spend for the voucher and how far are you actually going to get with that, 2 return flights to Spain maybe? I feel like there are better card options for someone in that position.
    
    Reply
    - Lumma says:
      
      17 Jun17 June 19:57
      
      A moderate Sainsbury’s shopper can easily get over 20k avios a year just from buying the bonus nectar items each week, sub and a few thousand points from spend and you’ve got a couple of return flights to Spain
      
      Reply
- JDB says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 16:54
  
  It’s already highly problematic having the income requirement for the BAPP as low as £35k when you are required to spend £15k of net income to earn the key benefit of the card.
  
  Reply
  - NorthernLass says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 18:05
    
    Problematic in what way? Are there a lot of defaulters on this card? I held it on and off for several years while working part time and earning less than £35k, always spent well over £10k, but of course had access to other household income as do many other people.
    
    Reply
    - JDB says:
      
      17 Jun17 June 22:29
      
      Problematic in meeting the FCA’s product suitability and value for money requirements. If you had a gross salary of £35,000 that leaves you about £28,750 net out of which you need to spend £15k over half to obtain the voucher. That makes the income requirement absurdly low.
      
      Reply
  - Ken says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 22:00
    
    It’s probably only you who sees it as problematic.
    
    A pensioner with income of £35k living in a mortgage free house perhaps with a partner with their own income. Spend £1200 a month on shopping, some bills, car running costs, entertainment and travel ?
    
    What’s problematic about that ?
    
    I don’t imagine it’s the right card for someone on £35k paying a student loan , rent of £1200 a month snd saving for a deposit- but then why would they get it ?
    
    Reply
    - JDB says:
      
      17 Jun17 June 22:55
      
      @Ken – I think you will find it’s Amex that finds it problematic, nothing to do with what I think. Amex would rather have a lower limit on the BAPP but, as things stand today, they can’t and the £35k was already tight when a £10k spend was required.
      
      Reply
    - John says:
      
      17 Jun17 June 23:39
      
      I got my first Amexes as a student… lots of manufactured spending opportunities back then, occasionally spent more in one month than my reported annual income. Can’t do that these days 🙂
      
      Reply
  - QFFlyer says:
    
    18 Jun18 June 11:35
    
    But probably quite good for Amex, there’s plenty of scope for breakage there – people will pay the annual fee, because it’s got an aspirational benefit, but for whatever reason may not keep track, or just not have the means to spend anywhere near enough to trigger the voucher, which is then something Amex don’t have to pay for /cynic
    
    Reply
danimal says:

17 Jun17 June 17:21

Given that CC companies can only ask the self-reported income of an applicant, what is the point of this rule (/rule change)? Surely they use the credit reference agencies’ reports to make a decision?

Reply
- JDB says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 17:36
  
  Card providers have plenty of ways of cross checking the truthfulness of someone’s stated income on their application plus they rely upon the fact that most people realise the seriousness of giving false information for the obtention of credit. Credit reference agencies are a very basic form of check but beyond that each card company uses its own parameters to consider credit applications.
  
  Reply
- Rui N. says:
  
  17 Jun17 June 18:37
  
  They basically bet that 99.x% of the people will tell the truth. From the rest, most will be white lies just to get a higher credit limit and they won’t be problematic. The remaining they hope that the cross check will catch most of them.
  From experience here, personal and acquaintances Amex also seems now to do a lot of approve>block card after few transactions> then ask for payslips.
  
  Reply
  - Lumma says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 19:59
    
    What should you do after a significant pay increase? Put your new salary on the application form and hope they don’t flag it? Or put your old salary and hope it’s enough?
    
    Reply
    - Rui N. says:
      
      17 Jun17 June 20:36
      
      Don’t understand why would you put an old salary.
      
      Reply
    - John says:
      
      18 Jun18 June 00:08
      
      Don’t apply for a credit card one day before your pay increase using your old income figure and then apply for another card the next day using the new figure.
      
      Reply
      - QFFlyer says:
        
        18 Jun18 June 11:36
        
        I’ve never understood why, in the UK, I’ve never once been asked to prove my income. I don’t lie about it, but equally they don’t see it (it get paid into an overseas bank account). Meanwhile, every Australian CC I’ve ever applied for asks for the two most recent payslips.
  - Ken says:
    
    17 Jun17 June 22:05
    
    I’ve never met any group of people where 99% of people are truthful, never mind with the anonymity that an online application brings.
    
    If in doubt use 80% – and that’s optimistic.
    
    Reply
Lady London says:

18 Jun18 June 03:08

@BBbetter people on HfP really are in quite different circumstamces to anyone on state pension only – and that’s without being things like financial advisers or other finsnce professionals who simply don’t encounter ordinary people on things like state pension only – or whatever lesser part of it the person has managed to qialify for.

Future pensioners will be better off but existing pensioners and some still not yet pensioners have it a lot harder on the whole and this will continue in the decades of those curremt amd soon to be pensioners lives. By definition a financial adviser is not going to meet people without savings in low income or precarious situations and regardless of tje view from an HfP reader’s comfortable situation, many of these people will still be in their retirement in the years and decades to come.

Reply