"Independent" pay review?

[Onceapilot]

Can someone explain how the Independent Armed Forces Pay Review Body always follows the government line on pay review (behind the scenes) but, the proposal of a 32% pay rise for MP's by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) is merely an average of polled MP's own views on pay? Nobody ever asked me how much I wanted to be paid?

OAP

[Hueymeister]

MP's.....don't get me started! Can't wait to meet the next one to ask him/her why they feel they justify an extra £20 pa!:mad:

[Just This Once...]

The should drop the word 'Independent' from their job description as it is well past its sell by date and frankly it just winds people up.

The pay review board does nothing more than provide a narrative (usually quite accurate) of what is going on and then rubber-stamps the treasury decision taken at the beginning of the process.

[Red Line Entry]

The AFPRB simply provides 'advice' and is mandated to take account of the money available. They cannot rubber stamp any Treasury decision as they have no authority to endorse Govt decisions, merely to follow them.

See the TORs below:

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.The Review Body shall have regard for the need for the pay of the Armed Forces to be broadly comparable with pay levels in civilian life.The Review Body shall, in reaching its recommendations, take account of the evidence submitted to it by the Government and others. The Review Body may also consider other specific issues as the occasion arises.

[Onceapilot]

Thanks RLE. I notice the need to regard "the Government’s inflation target". Now that there is to be a change towards GDP growth at the expense of increasing inflation, I wonder if the Board will recognise this with a decent pay rise?:rolleyes:

OAP

[Melchett01]

Government’s inflation target

Don't get me started on that. We might be on austerity pay rises at the moment, but in reality, we have not had a significant pay settlement for a considerable period of time.

Even before the current pay freeze when times were good, the economy was booming and the private sector, who are currently only too happy to bash the public sector, were raking it in with bonuses up the ying yang, the Armed Forces pay settlements were kept low to avoid inflationary pressures.

Because of course, a few hundred a year extra in your typical serviceman's pocket was going to cause unwanted inflationary effects but the Treasury rubbed its grubby hands in glee at the prospect of the tax take from the City's 6-figure bonuses on top of already high salaries. I just wish Gordon had balls to stand up and say what he was really thinking - I really don't like Defence and the military, it offends my socialist principles and therefore I am going to give you the absolute minimum I can get away with rather than banging on about the need to keep inflation in check :mad:

Politicians, can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em.

[Kitbag]

Politicians, can't live with 'em, can't kill 'em

There seem to be quite a few on this thread (http://www.pprune.org/military-aircrew/504928-dumb-arses-guns.html) who believe that is the first duty of a citizen.

Or maybe they just have a fantasy about guns being the same as big willies

[Lima Juliet]

Ok, it's that time of year, is it going to be 1% or better this year?

I reckon 1% and a bigger raise in allowances...









...well, you can but hope!

[Uncle Ginsters]

A bit of crew-room maths the other day trying to work out how much we'd all be behind after the current pay 'arrangements' end.

By the time you add either CPI or RPI increases to Inflation, our best guess was about 20% down...will that ever be addressed when the books are rebalanced...of course not, just a whole section of society now devalued to the nation.:sad:

[VinRouge]

if you dont like it, leave. thats what many seem to be planning to do now. those with 3/4+ of their pension banked seem to be planning to stick it, those with less seem to be planning to walk at the end of ros. in droves. around the same time it is alleged the market is due to pick up. can you blame them?

[VinRouge]

you could aregue better than a P45.

[Biggus]

Here is one way (not a whinge or a political statement!) of looking at tax. Let us take £1 that I earn above the 40% tax threshold.

Of that £1, 40p goes back to the government in tax, and 10p goes in national insurance. That leaves me 50p. However, if I spend that on something that is VAT rated, then the government gets another 10p (20% VAT rate). So, of my £1 earned, the government gets back 60p one way and another....

Does that mean I'm a lot cheaper to run (to my employer - the government) than someone on an equivalent wage in the private sector?




By the way LJ, I thought it was stated government policy that public sector pay rises would be capped at 1% for the next 2 years, so it can't be more than that. As for a rise in allowances, isn't this the same organization that recently reduced motor mileage rates, despite petrol costs continuing to rise?

[Onceapilot]

Biggus, it is worse than that, The 50p you spend is probably 50% profit to someone (25p) who is taxed at 40% (10p) which sees 70p back to the chancellor!
Best wishes to Caesar

OAP

[Party Animal]

Heard a rumour the other day that it's 1% for those earning up to 50k, tapering off to 0% for those earning above 60k.

Cos' don't forget we're all in this together and the rich have to pay more!!

[racedo]

I really don't like Defence and the military, it offends my socialist principles and therefore I am going to give you the absolute minimum I can get away with rather than banging on about the need to keep inflation in check

If that was Brown's excuse then what was MT, Major, Blair and Camerloons ?

Don't believe there has even been much difference.

[5 Forward 6 Back]

Party Animal,

Oh good; 0% for earners above 60k should put a stop to any pay rise for MPs in the same year :ok:

[Melchett01]

If that was Brown's excuse then what was MT, Major, Blair and Camerloons ?

Don't believe there has even been much difference.

You're probably right about there not being a great deal of difference. I can't really comment on MT and Major - before my time, although I did hear the stories of how in the early 80s MT instigated quite a big rise so military pay caught up after years of being ignored.

For Blair you can also read Brown owing to Brown controlling the purse strings both as Chancellor and later when he became PM and continued to meddle in the Chancellor role. Anything Cameron et al say will be coloured by the current financial situation, so it would be very easy for him to curry favour and say if only we weren't broke then we'd give you a decent pay rise. But hand on heart, I think you are right, there is precious little difference between them all and even in the good times we will be lucky to get a rise that matches let alone exceeds inflation.

That said, I did hear a comment the other day that the X Factor is up for review this year, so that could be a way of helping out without the bad publicity of a 'large' public sector settlement. Somehow I doubt it though.

Oh and watch out for the announcement next week about the revised State Pension. Many on final salary schemes which are contracted out of SERPS - and I believe the military pension is included in this, will find themselves subject to what is effectively a 1.4% tax rise as they raise the NI contributions for previously contracted out schemes to fund the new State Pension.

[CoffmanStarter]

Slightly off thread ... I'm sure you all know that your 2011/2012 Tax Return is due in by the end of the month (if not already submitted) ...

So here's a little help with the question on your dependents :ok:

Q: Do you have anyone dependent on you ?

Apparently someone wrote: “2.1 million illegal immigrants, 1.1 million crackheads, 4.4 million unemployable Jeremy Kyle scroungers, 900,000 criminals in over 85 prisons, plus 650 idiots in Parliament, and the whole of the European Commission”.

HMRC returned the Tax Return to a man in Evesham.

HMRC stated the response he gave was unacceptable. The man’s response to HMRC was: “Who did I miss out ?”

Sorry if you've seen it before ... but worth airing :)

[WarmandDry]

Melchett01
3rd May 1979 - my daughter's 3rd birthday and a 38% pay rise! MT promised and delivered.

[LooseArticle]

Biggus - 'Does that mean I'm a lot cheaper to run (to my employer - the government) than someone on an equivalent wage in the private sector?'


Obviously not as the guy in the private sector does cost the govt anything but still pays tax to the govt.

The guy in the private sector will also be employed because he 'earns money for the business', whereas as a govt employee you are a drain on resources for both the govt and taxpayer.

That is why govt employees should be the minimum required to provide the necessary services that can't be supplied by the private sector.

Excuse me, I need to get back to my copy of Mein Kampf, sorry, Das Kapital........

[VinRouge]

Loose article, you miss the point that a significant minority receive benefits and services to an extent that they are a net cost for the government so the picture isn't as clear as you make out.

Not to forget that the effect tht soft and hard diplomacy as on the likes of uk trade, investment and employment abroad.

[LooseArticle]

VR - a significant minority receive benefits and services to an extent that they are a net cost for the government


I wasn't talking about 'a significant minority', I was responding to Biggus who was asking a question about Biggus......