Tax Free Wage to Fight a War?
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: South of the Fens again!
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
YayYak. Yes, it is possible and depending on his job, it may even be probable. Whilst it is fashionable hereabouts to point out that the aircrew retention measures are simply inadequate and that RAF personnel without brevets are pedantic rules-slaves that have no idea what the RAF is about, the fact is that for the expeditionary warfare that we are engaging upon, the critical shortfall has been revealed to be Movs staff. If your hubby is a muppet, the chance is that he will be back in country for about 7-10 days maximum (less if he is commissioned) before being sent out again. If he is a cook or medic, the timings are currently similar. If he is RW aircrew, he should get a couple of weeks and if he is other aircrew, he is likely to get more.
And Mad_Mark, I hope that you weren't showing contempt over the incredibly professional and dedicated heroes that we call 'firefighters' when they turned down their latest pay offer.
You imply that the union rejected 16% over 3 years and this is flatly not true. It was 16% over the next 16 months! With the initial rise back-dated to Nov 02. And the end to a union-imposed overtime ban. So before you accuse them of being 'lazy, greedy b'stards' you really should review the facts more accurately.
Then you'd see that they're INCREDIBLY lazy, greedy b'stards!
And Mad_Mark, I hope that you weren't showing contempt over the incredibly professional and dedicated heroes that we call 'firefighters' when they turned down their latest pay offer.
You imply that the union rejected 16% over 3 years and this is flatly not true. It was 16% over the next 16 months! With the initial rise back-dated to Nov 02. And the end to a union-imposed overtime ban. So before you accuse them of being 'lazy, greedy b'stards' you really should review the facts more accurately.Then you'd see that they're INCREDIBLY lazy, greedy b'stards!
The RAF 'Total Force Concept' relies upon our regulars being augmented when necessary by auxiliaries first - and then by reservists bring called-out. Those 'reservists' are people who've left the RAF for a new career, but whose terms of service include a 'reserve liability'. When the S of S for Def makes an Order under the appropriate section of the Reserve Forces Act, folk of the appropriate trade then get an envelope through the post.....
The smaller the regular force and the more demands placed upon it, the greater then becomes the need to call-out reservists. Whether this is reasonable, I leave for others to debate. However, someone must have decided what level of conflict our regular forces should be expected to cope with when they were reduced to their current size. Similarly, it doesn't take the brains of a rocket scientist to work out which are the trades which have been 'contractorised' the most - and which, as a result, will need to rely upon ex-regular reservists more and more as the number of conflicts increases.
I seem to remember that we once had a government which ended our 'East of Suez' policies..........
YY - I do hope that your time with himself will be more than brief when he gets back from his current OOA stint!
The smaller the regular force and the more demands placed upon it, the greater then becomes the need to call-out reservists. Whether this is reasonable, I leave for others to debate. However, someone must have decided what level of conflict our regular forces should be expected to cope with when they were reduced to their current size. Similarly, it doesn't take the brains of a rocket scientist to work out which are the trades which have been 'contractorised' the most - and which, as a result, will need to rely upon ex-regular reservists more and more as the number of conflicts increases.
I seem to remember that we once had a government which ended our 'East of Suez' policies..........
YY - I do hope that your time with himself will be more than brief when he gets back from his current OOA stint!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If deployed troops didn't pay income tax, how would the treasury find the money for the really important things in life like giving Andy Gil(anti)christ's whinging, half baked malingerers their utterly deserved 40% payrise they keep harping on about.
Makes me blood boil!! When i were a lad......
If American troops get it then there should be no reason why we don't. Oh yeah we're skint.
Makes me blood boil!! When i were a lad......
If American troops get it then there should be no reason why we don't. Oh yeah we're skint.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: earth
Posts: 92
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have it on good authority that the US Department of Defence have to cough up the equivalent of all the tax free breaks that the US servicemen are entitled to. Therefore, it comes out of the defence budget. If we were to use the same system then we would lose out in some other area, eg equipment or the meagre allowances we already have. Furthermore, the take home pay of a US Serviceman has a much larger proportion of numerous allowances which do not count towards a pension, so when you come down to it, I would rather be in the UK system.
I think that it is far better to pursue a better 'deployment package' whether it be more separation allowance for family left at home or phonecalls (that can actually be used) and then make it one allowance for all. After all, tax breaks favour the well paid and who has the right to say that a senior officer needs compensating more for being apart from his family than an SAC. I heard it recently from a very senior officer recently that out of an air force of approx 50,000, there are an estimated 33,000 OOA deployments to be filled in the next 12 months. You don't need A'level maths to work out that the result is that some poor souls spending more time away than at home. (How many Gp Capts and above are part of the 33,000????)
We should press for better separation packages for all; tax breaks are always clawed back in some other way.
I think that it is far better to pursue a better 'deployment package' whether it be more separation allowance for family left at home or phonecalls (that can actually be used) and then make it one allowance for all. After all, tax breaks favour the well paid and who has the right to say that a senior officer needs compensating more for being apart from his family than an SAC. I heard it recently from a very senior officer recently that out of an air force of approx 50,000, there are an estimated 33,000 OOA deployments to be filled in the next 12 months. You don't need A'level maths to work out that the result is that some poor souls spending more time away than at home. (How many Gp Capts and above are part of the 33,000????)
We should press for better separation packages for all; tax breaks are always clawed back in some other way.
