The Tax Thread

Stevo_666

What are you going to ask google if you don't really know what your point is?

surrey_commuter

kingstongraham said:

Actually forget it. I'll ask Google, they are less touchy.

i know I sound like a broken record but history suggests that a broad based low rate with few (no) exceptions raises the most revenue with the least market distortion.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

What are you going to ask google if you don't really know what your point is?

Same I asked you, but you decided I must have been trying to trap you or something.

kingstongraham said:

So if a company invests 10 million, how much less would they pay compared with how much they would have expected to pay before this? And does this change dependent on whether they are a profitable business now, or will be profitable in 5 years time?

Actually, I don't know where I'd find out the second half, so forget it. I'm not that interested.

Stevo_666

"Dear Google, why do nasty rich multinationals get tax breaks that are available to all companies?"

kingstongraham

You think I'm having a go at Amazon for taking advantage? Haha.

I'm not even having a go at anyone necessarily, just asking what the benefit to various companies would be, and if that's definitely the best way to target a giveaway.

If it is, fair enough, might be the right thing.

kingstongraham

But turns out I'm not interested enough to do my own research.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

thistle_ said:

This super deduction thing sounds interesting.

It's being reported as the thing that will enable Amazon to get its UK corporation tax back down to zero.

Maybe I misunderstood your post above when I suggested a search term for you.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

thistle_ said:

This super deduction thing sounds interesting.

It's being reported as the thing that will enable Amazon to get its UK corporation tax back down to zero.

Maybe I misunderstood your post above when I suggested a search term for you.

Quite possibly.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Pross

secretsam said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

But that's what's happened. Austerity was piled onto the public sector, and as a result, real-terms wages fell significantly in the period 2010-2020. Something like 10%.
Nurses (along with teachers, social care workers, etc) are poorly paid in industries and sectors where recruitment is an issue.
"Real Terms pay cuts" are absolutely sound economic concepts, and an entirely reasonable position.
No good sticking your head in your sand, and pretending that they aren't.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand, the fact is that many outside public sector employment in the same period were taking actual pay cuts just to keep their job.

pblakeney

Pross said:

secretsam said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

But that's what's happened. Austerity was piled onto the public sector, and as a result, real-terms wages fell significantly in the period 2010-2020. Something like 10%.
Nurses (along with teachers, social care workers, etc) are poorly paid in industries and sectors where recruitment is an issue.
"Real Terms pay cuts" are absolutely sound economic concepts, and an entirely reasonable position.
No good sticking your head in your sand, and pretending that they aren't.

I'm not sticking my head in the sand, the fact is that many outside public sector employment in the same period were taking actual pay cuts just to keep their job.

Another real world example, I'm currently at -44.2% from 2014. And that's before inflation. I don't expect any sympathy and didn't get any, so don't expect me to give any.
Supply and demand, innit.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

pangolin

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

I mean... it's not imaginary. Over 5 million people work in the public sector.

mully79

Im 100% behind a 12.5% NHS payrise if the government also forces the private sector to make up all employee company pension contributions 20%.
I'm not greedy, I would accept 10% matched.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?

But we've made a really good job of reducing the national debt right?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

Given the public sector pension deficit, I'd have thought it was cheaper to give them all the 12.5% and switch them all over to DC pensions.

Pross

On the other hand 1% is ridiculous. 3-4% would have seemed sensible

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?

Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?

Stevo_666

Jezyboy said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?

But we've made a really good job of reducing the national debt right?

How would this help?

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?

Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?

I think you are confusing expectation with starting position in a negotiation.

rick_chasey

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?

Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?

The current conditions? Nurses? In a pandemic? I bet you were clapping the NHS, give me strength. You’ve spent enough time waxing lyrical about your jab experience.

Aside from the fact there were no conditions in the previous 10 years that meant they deserved a real pay rise?? But in a pandemic, oh nooo.

It’s not like they were put at risk for the PPE debacle over and over again. Forced to work horrendous shifts due to a lack of staff to handle the volume of very ill and dying people.

Decent pay might also reduce the massive staff shortages they have generally anyway.

It would barely even register on the deficit.

https://youtu.be/eyGND49CBYk

rick_chasey

I can’t get over the idea nurses in a pandemic should be be paid more.

You guys are mad.

rjsterry

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

Given the public sector pension deficit, I'd have thought it was cheaper to give them all the 12.5% and switch them all over to DC pensions.

Just worked out the numbers. Each 1% pay rise for the 670,000 people concerned that's an extra £174m. If they were to get the whole 12.5% that's £2.2bn. Current NHS pension scheme liabilities are of the order of £500bn. So clearly much much cheaper to reform public sector pensions than constantly fighting battles over tiny pay rises. It might also stop encouraging people to retire early, which would help with the recruitment problems.

Pross

rjsterry said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

Given the public sector pension deficit, I'd have thought it was cheaper to give them all the 12.5% and switch them all over to DC pensions.

Just worked out the numbers. Each 1% pay rise for the 670,000 people concerned that's an extra £174m. If they were to get the whole 12.5% that's £2.2bn. Current NHS pension scheme liabilities are of the order of £500bn. So clearly much much cheaper to reform public sector pensions than constantly fighting battles over tiny pay rises. It might also stop encouraging people to retire early, which would help with the recruitment problems.

Can you imagine the uproar that would cause? Even minor tinkering to the Civil Service scheme, that still left it being one of the most generous available, caused industrial action.

Pross

rick_chasey said:

I can’t get over the idea nurses in a pandemic should be be paid more.

You guys are mad.

Who said they shouldn't be paid more? I made the comment that the 1% offer is a disgrace. Stating that 12.5% is the minimum they should get (as the one nurse I heard said) is what was being criticised. Even as a starting point for negotiation it was a ridiculous request.

Yes they (some) have been working extremely hard in extremely tough conditions for the past year but (sorry for the whataboutism) what about all those who have, or will, lose their jobs? I would argue they are more in need of financial support.

Besides, I thought you wanted Government to spend on big infrastructure projects rather than give all the money to people who are already fairly well paid (£25k when newly qualified apparently which I would say is on a par with many other graduate jobs).

kingstongraham

After an above inflation increase last year, an increase in line with inflation this year would be the most they would realistically expect.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

Given the public sector pension deficit, I'd have thought it was cheaper to give them all the 12.5% and switch them all over to DC pensions.

Just worked out the numbers. Each 1% pay rise for the 670,000 people concerned that's an extra £174m. If they were to get the whole 12.5% that's £2.2bn. Current NHS pension scheme liabilities are of the order of £500bn. So clearly much much cheaper to reform public sector pensions than constantly fighting battles over tiny pay rises. It might also stop encouraging people to retire early, which would help with the recruitment problems.

Can you imagine the uproar that would cause? Even minor tinkering to the Civil Service scheme, that still left it being one of the most generous available, caused industrial action.

I think if offered with a decent pay rise there would be less fuss. And the current arrangement is just not sustainable. That half a trillion is just for the NHS. Plus, closer parity with the private sector would negate the pointless arguments about whether the generous pension makes long pay freezes justified.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

rick_chasey said:

Stevo_666 said:

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

Pross said:

Didn't know where best to put this but I caught the end of an interview with a nurse and doctor about NHS pay and I'm sure the nurse said that any rise below 12.5% will be unacceptable. I can't help thinking if that is an expectation they will be disappointed. Do I think nurses are underpaid? Yes but a 12.5% rise is just not realistic (there was also the usual comment about "real terms paycuts" which always grates no matter who uses it).

Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?

If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.

Just a personal gripe going back to when I, and many others, in my sector were receiving pay cuts in actual terms of 10% or more (mine worked out about 15%) and public sector Unions, in particular, were complaining that their members were only getting a rise (or in some cases a freeze) that amounted to a real-terms cut. After three years my base salary finally returned to the pre-cut level although the other benefits that were cut never got reinstated. However, with the mass redundancies that were going around at that time in the private sector it could have been far worse.

Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.

So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?

Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?

I think you are confusing expectation with starting position in a negotiation.

I'm familiar with negotiations, and have fun doing this with greedy tax authorities around the region on a regular basis. You may be confusing those doing the negotiation with the beneficiaries of the outcome, some of which may well expect that now that the double digit proposal is out there.

Also negotiations need to have a sensible starting
point or they just get laughed at.

Stevo_666

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

I can’t get over the idea nurses in a pandemic should be be paid more.

You guys are mad.

Who said they shouldn't be paid more? I made the comment that the 1% offer is a disgrace. Stating that 12.5% is the minimum they should get (as the one nurse I heard said) is what was being criticised. Even as a starting point for negotiation it was a ridiculous request.

Yes they (some) have been working extremely hard in extremely tough conditions for the past year but (sorry for the whataboutism) what about all those who have, or will, lose their jobs? I would argue they are more in need of financial support.

Besides, I thought you wanted Government to spend on big infrastructure projects rather than give all the money to people who are already fairly well paid (£25k when newly qualified apparently which I would say is on a par with many other graduate jobs).

Beat me to it Pross. I kind of expected Rick to take an overly simplified view of my comments on a 12.5% pay hike.

They also have excellent job security as you have pointed out. In the current climate a lot of us are glad just to have our jobs. I'll be happy to get some bonus for our financial year which closes end of this month, even if the likely outcome is a fair bit less than a normal year.