The Tax Thread

kingstongraham

I'll clap for you if you like.

rjsterry

Stevo_666 said:

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.

Despite the apparently high percentage, the absolute figure is pretty modest compared with other expenditure. But sure let's focus on a few hundred million and ignore the hundreds of billions. It's just fiddling around the edges. If they were really interested in cutting costs they'd look at the pensions.

Stevo_666

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

Despite the apparently high percentage, the absolute figure is pretty modest compared with other expenditure. But sure let's focus on a few hundred million and ignore the hundreds of billions. It's just fiddling around the edges. If they were really interested in cutting costs they'd look at the pensions.

Sure, pensions are relevant to the wider debate.

Although clearly if you start chucking large percentage rises at one part of the public sector, they'll all be wanting the same.

verylonglegs

Jesus wept, a discussion about pay rises for healthcare staff during a pandemic and you need to mention you are making do with a smaller bonus. Rather crass don't you think?

Stevo_666

verylonglegs said:

Jesus wept, a discussion about pay rises for healthcare staff during a pandemic and you need to mention you are making do with a smaller bonus. Rather crass don't you think?

No. Unlike some people, I don't regard my annual remuneration as an ever increasing amount. Do you?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

verylonglegs said:

Jesus wept, a discussion about pay rises for healthcare staff during a pandemic and you need to mention you are making do with a smaller bonus. Rather crass don't you think?

No. Unlike some people, I don't regard my annual remuneration as an ever increasing amount. Do you?

When did your salary last reduce?

kingstongraham

I think it's fair that those in the health service who are at a level where they require tax planning do not get a big pay rise/pandemic bonus.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

verylonglegs said:

Jesus wept, a discussion about pay rises for healthcare staff during a pandemic and you need to mention you are making do with a smaller bonus. Rather crass don't you think?

No. Unlike some people, I don't regard my annual remuneration as an ever increasing amount. Do you?

When did your salary last reduce?

Not relevant for those with a significant variable portion of their packages, as bonuses etc are used to manage payroll cost. It's the overall remuneration that matters.

kingstongraham

They're discretionary though?

Given this year you're so grateful just to still have a job, you should tell them they don't have to give you a bonus.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

They're discretionary though?

Given this year you're so grateful just to still have a job, you should tell them they don't have to give you a bonus.

What does this have to do with the point being debated? No Centre leftie smartarse points for you.

rick_chasey

How about giving them a bonus for y’know, nursing through the pandemic.

I mean Christ they are so underpaid anyway.

Stevo_666

rick_chasey said:

How about giving them a bonus for y’know, nursing through the pandemic.

I mean Christ they are so underpaid anyway.

Its a possibility, which the union could try to negotiate. Although those that get paid by the hour have effectively already had that.

pangolin

We've come a long way from clapping for heroes haven't we.

Feel somewhat vindicated for not taking part in that hollow gesture.

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

They're discretionary though?

Given this year you're so grateful just to still have a job, you should tell them they don't have to give you a bonus.

What does this have to do with the point being debated? No Centre leftie smartarse points for you.

You said that in the current climate a lot of us are glad just to have our jobs, so they shouldn't ask for a raise. It's the nurses that don't live in the real world, remember.

Stevo_666

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

They're discretionary though?

Given this year you're so grateful just to still have a job, you should tell them they don't have to give you a bonus.

What does this have to do with the point being debated? No Centre leftie smartarse points for you.

You said that in the current climate a lot of us are glad just to have our jobs, so they shouldn't ask for a raise. It's the nurses that don't live in the real world, remember.

However I didn't say what is highlighted above. RTFQ, as I often have to remind people on here.

So do you think that asking for a 12.5% pay hike is realistic?

kingstongraham

Yep. Do you only ask for what you expect to get?

kingstongraham

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

Stevo_666 said:

kingstongraham said:

They're discretionary though?

Given this year you're so grateful just to still have a job, you should tell them they don't have to give you a bonus.

What does this have to do with the point being debated? No Centre leftie smartarse points for you.

You said that in the current climate a lot of us are glad just to have our jobs, so they shouldn't ask for a raise. It's the nurses that don't live in the real world, remember.

However I didn't say what is highlighted above. RTFQ, as I often have to remind people on here.

So do you think that asking for a 12.5% pay hike is realistic?

I misunderstood. So you think they have got a valid claim for a higher pay rise?

elbowloh

Well, it was a hard task, but you guys have done it.

You've created a thread even more boring than the Brexit one.

Bravo!

👏

Pross

rick_chasey said:

How about giving them a bonus for y’know, nursing through the pandemic.

I mean Christ they are so underpaid anyway.

A bonus would be fine with me although do you then give it to all of them? That would seem unfair on those at the coalface of the pandemic when others have possibly had a lighter year than usual due to routine appointments and treatment of non-Covid illness being reduced.

I agree that more experienced nurses are underpaid but as ever it comes down to what value you place on a job. As someone who helps people earning six figure salaries to earn bigger six figure plus salaries doing jobs most of the country wouldn't understand and / or would moan about being overpaid I would have thought you would appreciate that.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

Yep. Do you only ask for what you expect to get?

I guess the danger is that if you go too far above what is seen as a good all around settlement to start you scare someone off negotiating. If the Government has a figure of 3-4% in mind they would have looked at that starting figure and thought the Unions won't accept less than 6%. It's like if you went for a job where the salary is to be negotiated but the going rate is £50-60k and you went in asking for £80k they would probably drop you from their shortlist.

Personally I'm expecting a re-think and the final number being 1.5-2% (then other public services kicking off).

pinkbikini

elbowloh said:

Well, it was a hard task, but you guys have done it.

You've created a thread even more boring than the Brexit one.

Bravo!

👏

Did you not realise as soon as the topic had ‘tax’ in the title? Like water, toilet paper, undertakers, etc you need to know about the subject but it’s never actually going to be interesting!

Pross

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

Despite the apparently high percentage, the absolute figure is pretty modest compared with other expenditure. But sure let's focus on a few hundred million and ignore the hundreds of billions. It's just fiddling around the edges. If they were really interested in cutting costs they'd look at the pensions.

I agree with your point but Unions know how important it is even if their members see a quick buck as more attractive. If you tried to move them off a DB scheme there would be massive industrial action. The best you could hope for is changing it for new entrants. I also think the pension scheme is the thing that really helps retain staff.

The only things that would tempt me back into the public sector are to improve my pension as I approach retirement or possibly to work on an interesting large project that would take me through to retirement. If salary, pension and leave were all equal I'd find myself hard pressed to make the jump with all the workplace politics.

briantrumpet

pinkbikini said:

elbowloh said:

Well, it was a hard task, but you guys have done it.

You've created a thread even more boring than the Brexit one.

Bravo!

👏

Did you not realise as soon as the topic had ‘tax’ in the title? Like water, toilet paper, undertakers, etc you need to know about the subject but it’s never actually going to be interesting!

Toilet paper is actually quite interesting.

elbowloh

pinkbikini said:

elbowloh said:

Well, it was a hard task, but you guys have done it.

You've created a thread even more boring than the Brexit one.

Bravo!

👏

Did you not realise as soon as the topic had ‘tax’ in the title? Like water, toilet paper, undertakers, etc you need to know about the subject but it’s never actually going to be interesting!

Ah, I know about water and waste water and spent a bit of time at water treatment works and some days they fecking reek.

rick_chasey

Well I’m certainly glad I don’t have the press and public opining on what pay rises I should or shouldn’t be entitled to.

surrey_commuter

A DT. Hap on the news said a 1% pay rise for the NHS (1.3 million staff) would cost £500m.

My bus maths reckons Boris can afford a 36% pay rise

rjsterry

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

Despite the apparently high percentage, the absolute figure is pretty modest compared with other expenditure. But sure let's focus on a few hundred million and ignore the hundreds of billions. It's just fiddling around the edges. If they were really interested in cutting costs they'd look at the pensions.

I agree with your point but Unions know how important it is even if their members see a quick buck as more attractive. If you tried to move them off a DB scheme there would be massive industrial action. The best you could hope for is changing it for new entrants. I also think the pension scheme is the thing that really helps retain staff.

The only things that would tempt me back into the public sector are to improve my pension as I approach retirement or possibly to work on an interesting large project that would take me through to retirement. If salary, pension and leave were all equal I'd find myself hard pressed to make the jump with all the workplace politics.

It's a distortion. No one in the private sector has access to these schemes and their generosity is used as a justification for keeping salaries low. While it might help retain staff until their 50s there's no incentive to stay on and as you say, when you can just retire for longer. As you say, if a few years late in your career also gives access to the pension why not maximise your earnings in the private sector then take it easy for a few years before you retire? Both of these just add more to the public sector pension liabilities, which makes the amount spent on Covid look like small beer.

Going back to the nurses, the thing is the government have rather blown their hand. The argument was always that they couldn't pay more and it is now beyond all doubt that it was actually 'wouldn't'. If the government chooses it just borrows the money from itself and spends it on whatever. What it really boils down to is which people the government want to pay that money to. This one is particularly shameless about paying it to its supporters, but is hardly unique.

surrey_commuter

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

Despite the apparently high percentage, the absolute figure is pretty modest compared with other expenditure. But sure let's focus on a few hundred million and ignore the hundreds of billions. It's just fiddling around the edges. If they were really interested in cutting costs they'd look at the pensions.

I agree with your point but Unions know how important it is even if their members see a quick buck as more attractive. If you tried to move them off a DB scheme there would be massive industrial action. The best you could hope for is changing it for new entrants. I also think the pension scheme is the thing that really helps retain staff.

The only things that would tempt me back into the public sector are to improve my pension as I approach retirement or possibly to work on an interesting large project that would take me through to retirement. If salary, pension and leave were all equal I'd find myself hard pressed to make the jump with all the workplace politics.

It's a distortion. No one in the private sector has access to these schemes and their generosity is used as a justification for keeping salaries low. While it might help retain staff until their 50s there's no incentive to stay on and as you say, when you can just retire for longer. As you say, if a few years late in your career also gives access to the pension why not maximise your earnings in the private sector then take it easy for a few years before you retire? Both of these just add more to the public sector pension liabilities, which makes the amount spent on Covid look like small beer.

Going back to the nurses, the thing is the government have rather blown their hand. The argument was always that they couldn't pay more and it is now beyond all doubt that it was actually 'wouldn't'. If the government chooses it just borrows the money from itself and spends it on whatever. What it really boils down to is which people the government want to pay that money to. This one is particularly shameless about paying it to its supporters, but is hardly unique.

Wait until Rick finds out how much of his taxes go on public sector boomer pensions which will increasingly mean that he can not afford to adequately fund his own retirement.

People undervalue pension benefits so you could probably gain agreement to shut the DB scheme in exchange for a 10% pay rise

rjsterry

surrey_commuter said:

rjsterry said:

Pross said:

rjsterry said:

Stevo_666 said:

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.

Despite the apparently high percentage, the absolute figure is pretty modest compared with other expenditure. But sure let's focus on a few hundred million and ignore the hundreds of billions. It's just fiddling around the edges. If they were really interested in cutting costs they'd look at the pensions.

I agree with your point but Unions know how important it is even if their members see a quick buck as more attractive. If you tried to move them off a DB scheme there would be massive industrial action. The best you could hope for is changing it for new entrants. I also think the pension scheme is the thing that really helps retain staff.

The only things that would tempt me back into the public sector are to improve my pension as I approach retirement or possibly to work on an interesting large project that would take me through to retirement. If salary, pension and leave were all equal I'd find myself hard pressed to make the jump with all the workplace politics.

It's a distortion. No one in the private sector has access to these schemes and their generosity is used as a justification for keeping salaries low. While it might help retain staff until their 50s there's no incentive to stay on and as you say, when you can just retire for longer. As you say, if a few years late in your career also gives access to the pension why not maximise your earnings in the private sector then take it easy for a few years before you retire? Both of these just add more to the public sector pension liabilities, which makes the amount spent on Covid look like small beer.

Going back to the nurses, the thing is the government have rather blown their hand. The argument was always that they couldn't pay more and it is now beyond all doubt that it was actually 'wouldn't'. If the government chooses it just borrows the money from itself and spends it on whatever. What it really boils down to is which people the government want to pay that money to. This one is particularly shameless about paying it to its supporters, but is hardly unique.

Wait until Rick finds out how much of his taxes go on public sector boomer pensions which will increasingly mean that he can not afford to adequately fund his own retirement.

People undervalue pension benefits so you could probably gain agreement to shut the DB scheme in exchange for a 10% pay rise

It might also stop people thinking that it is a sustainable proposition to spend half their adult life living off a pension.

rjsterry

Pross said:

rick_chasey said:

How about giving them a bonus for y’know, nursing through the pandemic.

I mean Christ they are so underpaid anyway.

A bonus would be fine with me although do you then give it to all of them? That would seem unfair on those at the coalface of the pandemic when others have possibly had a lighter year than usual due to routine appointments and treatment of non-Covid illness being reduced.

I agree that more experienced nurses are underpaid but as ever it comes down to what value you place on a job. As someone who helps people earning six figure salaries to earn bigger six figure plus salaries doing jobs most of the country wouldn't understand and / or would moan about being overpaid I would have thought you would appreciate that.

The general public don't pay directly for nursing staff so there is only a very indirect and imperfect mechanism to reflect the value society places on those roles in their remuneration. Despite its size there are not enough people in the NHS to swing a vote. So the only feedback in the system is when the pay level causes enough political pressure from the general public that the government feels compelled to act. In contrast, one of Rick's candidates will have a very direct and measurable impact on their employer's business, making it relatively easy to value that role.