Pay Review Body - Inflation?

[SaddamsLoveChild]

Just wondered if any one thought as I did, that just because we got the pay increase that the AFPRB asked for in full, did they sell us short in the long run. With inflation being reported as it is (3.8%), having risen and been expected to rise. We have a pay rise of 2,6% within the month of April when the pay rise is to take effect; did they get it wrong?

In addition fuel and metal for vehicle repairs have risen, can we expect to see an increase in the Motor Mileage Allowance.......I think not. :\

[Winch-control]

A..Yep screwed over once again...ah well at least you still have a wage to pay your mortgage, ....good job that isnt running at twice the rate! or B!

[tucumseh]

Did anyone notice the sneaky changes last month to the Retail Price Index "basket"?

Some foodstuffs were removed (just as the price is going through the roof) only to be replaced by such basic essentials as Compact Disc singles (almost obsolescent now) and Flash Drives for PCs (practically being given away due to the worldwide glut of RAM).

[Wader2]

It's all in the timing and the various indexs used.. One of my pensions has increased by about 4%.

At one point the AFPRB was constrained, or thought they were constrained, only to recommend a pay rise within the government public sector guidelines. If that was 2% then fiddle around at 2% they did.

However someone realised that their remit was to recommend pay rises within the private sector pay and job comparisons. I believe that that is what they have done in recent years. It may have pissed off the Brown Study but it was for Government to accept or reject the recommendation not for them to work within the guidelines.

[sisemen]

It's actually worse than that. The staffing process for the AFPRB commences about a year before the announcement and that staffing process relies on statistics gathered the previous year.

Not a lot of help but, as has been previously stated, at least you've got a regular wage coming in.

[Biggus]

If you actually read the AFPRB report (no doubt somebody will eventually provid a link) I seem to remember it states several things they take into consideration - ONE OF WHICH IS WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS IT CAN AFFORD (approx 2%).

Hence they are not likely to recommend a 10% rise, even if they think we deserve it!!!


From page iii of the report, note the last point....


TERMS OF REFERENCE
The Armed Forces’ Pay Review Body provides independent advice to the Prime Minister and the
Secretary of State for Defence on the remuneration and charges for members of the Naval, Military
and Air Forces of the Crown.
In reaching its recommendations, the Review Body is to have regard to the following considerations:
• the need to recruit, retain and motivate suitably able and qualified people taking
account of the particular circumstances of Service life;
• Government policies for improving public services, including the requirement on the
Ministry of Defence to meet the output targets for the delivery of departmental
services;
• the funds available to the Ministry of Defence as set out in the Government’s
departmental expenditure limits; and
• the Government’s inflation target.

[davejb]

So although the 'independent' review is just the sort of thing that the government love to be able to point to - 'we're giving them exactly what this totally independent body recommends' - the terms of reference limit the body to suggesting pretty much what the government has told them is up for grabs.

Then the 'basket' contents change whenever one or more items gets inconveniently expensive, otherwise the inflation figure that gets banded about would increase (jump past, blow through, apply any phrase you deem appropriate at this point) beyond the figure the chancellor needs his next soundbyte to refer to. I read an amusing take on this a while ago - can't recall where (Daily Mash?) that described the typical shoppers basket, containing such essentials as gentlemen's moustache wax and the like.

Overall the budget has been pretty much set already - the rest is massaging the figures to try to persuade people that it's fair. I guess the sad truth is that if pay goes up to much then something else has to be cut to compensate - would you want a 50% pay rise if you had to work 50% longer each day to cover for the reduced manning required to keep the pay budget within limits?

In reality, if you stay in long enough you'll experience periods of lousy pay, and occasional big jumps which make you feel quite well off for a while.

That's economics. To be fair (more than) to the chancellor (or 'that thieving *******' as I like to call him and his nefarious minions at HM Income and Ruination Dept. and their assorted lickspittles, not that I'm bitter) he sets taxes, and then hands the cash out, trying to balance one against the other to ensure maximum benefit to the majority... so a cash boost to A ensures a reduction in cash to B... we only get to bash him when total ineptitude shows that the decision could have been better made by a deranged sea lion during his first LSD trip. (Or 'Northern Rock' as the media tended to refer to this particular episode in financial legerdemain).

Dave

[cazatou]

Just thought I would mention that when I joined as an Off Cdt in 1965 I was paid 86.25p per day before tax and NI. Mind you, that was more than those who had signed on for a shorter engagement.

Because I joined on 25th January it meant I got 5 weeks pay at the end of Feb; more money than I had ever had before - and more spare money than I have ever had since!!!

[vascodegama]

MMA in the forms of PCR and HtoD have gone up wef 1 Apr-there is a policy letter (or whatever they are called) out about it. JPA automatically works out most things but if you are on manual HtoD you need to work out the daily figure yourself.

[November4]

when I joined as an Off Cdt in 1965 I was paid 86.25p per day before tax and NI.

Which according to Measuring Worth (http://www.measuringworth.com/calculators/ppoweruk/) was around about £12.20 in 2007 allowing for inflation etc.

[Melchett01]

Yep, I was quite chuffed with the pay rise too when I first heard about it. Had a look at my April pay statement online today, thought it would be nice to see what my pay had gone up to.

I spent half an hour checking and double checking as I thought there had been a mistake. Unfortunately not. I really do get a whole £25/month extra after our 'good' payrise :sad:

[VinRouge]

Bloody good job we have got the mother of all recessions round the corner then (depression?) to depreciate asset prices..

It ALWAYS happens like this, you get a huge spike in inflation than BOOM! Recession hits.

Good job I have got a kevlar helmet because I dont think the tin one I had reserved will stop the crap that is coming the UKs way. This summer is going to be the start I reckon, return to trade unionism asking why they are getting sub-inflationary pay rises, house prices collapsing, together with oil at $150 by december, Chinese now importing inflation, increasing unemployment, bankrupcy and cutbacks to public services. Oh, we may lose another mid-sized bank or two, unless the government lend out even more of our taxpayers pounds in return for mortgage security, or as many economists call "Toxic ****". Oh, forgot to mention, a trade deficit and public accounts deficit the size of the moon, Private debt = the sum of the rest of Europes, a tax rate of 42p in the pound. Not exactly as if they can spend their way out of this one like they did in 2001 without the pound = 1 Zimbabwe dollar sometime soon...

No more boom or Bust my arse. Its a shame the Labour government are using wage inflation to keep inflation low, rather than running a stable economy for the past 10 years. Which any old idiot could have done to be frank. A Wise man once said (Milton Friedman, much wiser than that commie Keynes)

Inflation is the one form of taxation that can be imposed without legislation.Same % tax on inflated asset prices = $$$$$$$ for the treasury.

I predict a vote of no confidence and LAbour out by the new year. :ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok::ok: