The Tax Thread
Comments
-
Those fat fees investment managers charge to run these expensive schemes help pay for expensive recruiterssurrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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 said:
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.rjsterry said:
I think you are confusing expectation with starting position in a negotiation.Stevo_666 said:
Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?rick_chasey said:
So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?Stevo_666 said:
Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.Pross said:
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.kingstongraham said:
Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?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).
If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.
Also negotiations need to have a sensible starting
point or they just get laughed at.
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.
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.
People undervalue pension benefits so you could probably gain agreement to shut the DB scheme in exchange for a 10% pay rise0 -
Not sure where you got that from, sounds like deliberate misunderstanding on your part.kingstongraham said:
I misunderstood. So you think they have got a valid claim for a higher pay rise?Stevo_666 said:
However I didn't say what is highlighted above. RTFQ, as I often have to remind people on here.kingstongraham said:
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 said:
What does this have to do with the point being debated? No Centre leftie smartarse points for you.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.
So do you think that asking for a 12.5% pay hike is realistic?"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
See my comment above to RJS about a realistic starting point. At what level of percentage pay rise would you start to say 'that's ridiculous' ?kingstongraham said:Yep. Do you only ask for what you expect to get?
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I can almost picture the look on your face when you find out it is unfunded and the costs are paid out of current taxation.rick_chasey said:
Those fat fees investment managers charge to run these expensive schemes help pay for expensive recruiterssurrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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 said:
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.rjsterry said:
I think you are confusing expectation with starting position in a negotiation.Stevo_666 said:
Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?rick_chasey said:
So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?Stevo_666 said:
Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.Pross said:
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.kingstongraham said:
Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?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).
If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.
Also negotiations need to have a sensible starting
point or they just get laughed at.
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.
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.
People undervalue pension benefits so you could probably gain agreement to shut the DB scheme in exchange for a 10% pay rise
And if that does not cheer you up just think how huge the the BT and BA pension deficits are and what the public sector pension liabilities would look like if calculated in the same way.0 -
I'll try it more obviously as a question.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure where you got that from, sounds like deliberate misunderstanding on your part.kingstongraham said:
I misunderstood. So you think they have got a valid claim for a higher pay rise?Stevo_666 said:
However I didn't say what is highlighted above. RTFQ, as I often have to remind people on here.kingstongraham said:
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 said:
What does this have to do with the point being debated? No Centre leftie smartarse points for you.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.
So do you think that asking for a 12.5% pay hike is realistic?
Do you think they have got a valid claim for a higher pay rise?
0 -
Maybe it is the benefit of seeing things from the outside but if I was back in the public sector I wouldn't swap a 10% payrise for giving up a DB pension scheme. It would be interesting to work out how big a percentage rise you would need to self-fund a pension pot likely to payout the same amount.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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 said:
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.rjsterry said:
I think you are confusing expectation with starting position in a negotiation.Stevo_666 said:
Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?rick_chasey said:
So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?Stevo_666 said:
Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.Pross said:
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.kingstongraham said:
Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?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).
If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.
Also negotiations need to have a sensible starting
point or they just get laughed at.
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.
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.
People undervalue pension benefits so you could probably gain agreement to shut the DB scheme in exchange for a 10% pay rise0 -
Higher than whats is being offered? Not sure, that's down to the negotiations.kingstongraham said:
I'll try it more obviously as a question.Stevo_666 said:
Not sure where you got that from, sounds like deliberate misunderstanding on your part.kingstongraham said:
I misunderstood. So you think they have got a valid claim for a higher pay rise?Stevo_666 said:
However I didn't say what is highlighted above. RTFQ, as I often have to remind people on here.kingstongraham said:
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 said:
What does this have to do with the point being debated? No Centre leftie smartarse points for you.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.
So do you think that asking for a 12.5% pay hike is realistic?
Do you think they have got a valid claim for a higher pay rise?
Higher than 12.5%? No.
Now you answer my question."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I tried asking you a question about tax which would have kept it on topic.Stevo_666 said:
KG was clearly a bit bored.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!
👏
It's about pensions now which is somehow even more tedious.0 -
I told how the tax stuff worked. What didn't you understand?kingstongraham said:
I tried asking you a question about tax which would have kept it on topic.Stevo_666 said:
KG was clearly a bit bored.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!
👏
It's about pensions now which is somehow even more tedious."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Apologies if you answered my questions and I missed, but I don't think so - they were:Stevo_666 said:
I told how the tax stuff worked. What didn't you understand?kingstongraham said:
I tried asking you a question about tax which would have kept it on topic.Stevo_666 said:
KG was clearly a bit bored.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!
👏
It's about pensions now which is somehow even more tedious.
"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 depend on whether they are a profitable business now, or will be profitable in 5 years time?"0 -
OK, just answer my question above so we are clear on the pension point then we can move back to the tax. Question was: "At what level of percentage pay rise would you start to say 'that's ridiculous'""I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0
-
I doubt it's a single figure for all staff. If it takes 12.5% to get some onto a reasonable level, so be it. That would make up the lag caused by austerity post the last recession, as I understand. For others, that's probably 0% because there's people working in the health service who are not exactly struggling.Stevo_666 said:OK, just answer my question above so we are clear on the pension point then we can move back to the tax. Question was: "At what level of percentage pay rise would you start to say 'that's ridiculous'"
Not across the details to be able to say what is a ridiculous request, but understand where the 12.5% comes from.
So I don't know.0 -
"Ridiculous" is a pretty subjective measure. The affordability argument has vanished in a puff of smoke, so what other reasons are there for it being ridiculous?Stevo_666 said:
See my comment above to RJS about a realistic starting point. At what level of percentage pay rise would start to say 'that's ridiculous' ?kingstongraham said:Yep. Do you only ask for what you expect to get?
You could argue that other sectors - hospitality is the obvious one - need the money more. I'm not sure "it's more than I got this year" is that strong an argument.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I know, but I was asking KG's opinion. At some point people will consider a pay request ridiculous. What's your threshold in this case?rjsterry said:
"Ridiculous" is a pretty subjective measure. The affordability argument has vanished in a puff of smoke, so what other reasons are there for it being ridiculous?Stevo_666 said:
See my comment above to RJS about a realistic starting point. At what level of percentage pay rise would start to say 'that's ridiculous' ?kingstongraham said:Yep. Do you only ask for what you expect to get?
You could argue that other sectors - hospitality is the obvious one - need the money more. I'm not sure "it's more than I got this year" is that strong an argument."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Pross said:
Maybe it is the benefit of seeing things from the outside but if I was back in the public sector I wouldn't swap a 10% payrise for giving up a DB pension scheme. It would be interesting to work out how big a percentage rise you would need to self-fund a pension pot likely to payout the same amount.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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 said:
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.rjsterry said:
I think you are confusing expectation with starting position in a negotiation.Stevo_666 said:
Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?rick_chasey said:
So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?Stevo_666 said:
Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.Pross said:
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.kingstongraham said:
Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?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).
If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.
Also negotiations need to have a sensible starting
point or they just get laughed at.
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.
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.
People undervalue pension benefits so you could probably gain agreement to shut the DB scheme in exchange for a 10% pay rise
But 80% would swap it for two weeks in Benidorm because they have no idea of the value.Pross said:
Maybe it is the benefit of seeing things from the outside but if I was back in the public sector I wouldn't swap a 10% payrise for giving up a DB pension scheme. It would be interesting to work out how big a percentage rise you would need to self-fund a pension pot likely to payout the same amount.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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 said:
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.rjsterry said:
I think you are confusing expectation with starting position in a negotiation.Stevo_666 said:
Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?rick_chasey said:
So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?Stevo_666 said:
Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.Pross said:
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.kingstongraham said:
Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?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).
If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.
Also negotiations need to have a sensible starting
point or they just get laughed at.
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.
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.
People undervalue pension benefits so you could probably gain agreement to shut the DB scheme in exchange for a 10% pay rise
If you earn £30k and pension accrues 60ths then each year is £500 in today’s money, to buy an annuity would need circa £20k, at 4% drawdown you would need £12,500 so they would need a 40-60% increase.
Of course one reason they can’t afford a large pay rise is the implications for pension liabilities0 -
OK, so £10m invested creates a tax deduction of £13m, which at the current corporate tax rate of 19% generates a net tax benefit of £2.47m for they year you invest the money. (This compares to the old rules where you get a gross deduction of £10m, worth £1.9m net, which is spread over a few years depending on exactly what classes of assets you are investing in).kingstongraham said:
Apologies if you answered my questions and I missed, but I don't think so - they were:Stevo_666 said:
I told how the tax stuff worked. What didn't you understand?kingstongraham said:
I tried asking you a question about tax which would have kept it on topic.Stevo_666 said:
KG was clearly a bit bored.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!
👏
It's about pensions now which is somehow even more tedious.
"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 depend on whether they are a profitable business now, or will be profitable in 5 years time?"
So the benefit is partly timing - you get the tax benefit sooner - in year 1 - and partly an absolute extra saving of £0.57m which is the extra 30%. Hence my point above about it being mostly timing. Available until March 2023.
If the company has enough taxable profits to offset then they get all the benefit in the year: if not then they can either carry back any tax losses (1 year normally, extended to 3 in the budget for a limited period) to set against earlier years profits or carry forward any tax losses (indefinite) to set off against future profits, although with limitations on how much can be used in each year. So they will get the benefit at some point if they make enough profit over time, but clearly it's better to be profitable in the year the spend happens.
Put simply, that is."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]1 -
What you or I feel to be ridiculous is irrelevant. Pay levels in my profession have been flat for a few years now, so I may feel that footballers' pay is ridiculous but I can understand that they can demand that much because of the even larger amounts they generate for their employers. If it were one of my staff, the threshold would be the point at which I can hire someone with the same experience and skills for less. But as they can't even fill the tens of thousands of vacancies, clearly we're not at the threshold where they could find someone else to do the job for less.Stevo_666 said:
I know, but I was asking KG's opinion. At some point people will consider a pay request ridiculous. What's your threshold in this case?rjsterry said:
"Ridiculous" is a pretty subjective measure. The affordability argument has vanished in a puff of smoke, so what other reasons are there for it being ridiculous?Stevo_666 said:
See my comment above to RJS about a realistic starting point. At what level of percentage pay rise would start to say 'that's ridiculous' ?kingstongraham said:Yep. Do you only ask for what you expect to get?
You could argue that other sectors - hospitality is the obvious one - need the money more. I'm not sure "it's more than I got this year" is that strong an argument.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Whilst the detail is what increases your own personal value the most important thing is that the new headline rate is a screaming signal that the UK is no longer a pro business, low tax destination.Stevo_666 said:
OK, so £10m invested creates a tax deduction of £13m, which at the current corporate tax rate of 19% generates a net tax benefit of £2.47m for they year you invest the money. (This compares to the old rules where you get a gross deduction of £10m, worth £1.9m net, which is spread over a few years depending on exactly what classes of assets you are investing in).kingstongraham said:
Apologies if you answered my questions and I missed, but I don't think so - they were:Stevo_666 said:
I told how the tax stuff worked. What didn't you understand?kingstongraham said:
I tried asking you a question about tax which would have kept it on topic.Stevo_666 said:
KG was clearly a bit bored.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!
👏
It's about pensions now which is somehow even more tedious.
"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 depend on whether they are a profitable business now, or will be profitable in 5 years time?"
So the benefit is partly timing - you get the tax benefit sooner - in year 1 - and partly an absolute extra saving of £0.57m which is the extra 30%. Hence my point above about it being mostly timing. Available until March 2023.
If the company has enough taxable profits to offset then they get all the benefit in the year: if not then they can either carry back any tax losses (1 year normally, extended to 3 in the budget for a limited period) to set against earlier years profits or carry forward any tax losses (indefinite) to set off against future profits, although with limitations on how much can be used in each year. So they will get the benefit at some point if they make enough profit over time, but clearly it's better to be profitable in the year the spend happens.
Put simply, that is.
These people are Tories in name only0 -
Personally I would have preferred a 1% hike as it makes the maths easier and changes some fairly esoteric stuff. It would also keep the rate down at the bottom end of the G20 etc and keep the headline rate attractive while not making us a tax haven from other countries point of view, which can trigger other issues.surrey_commuter said:
Whilst the detail is what increases your own personal value the most important thing is that the new headline rate is a screaming signal that the UK is no longer a pro business, low tax destination.Stevo_666 said:
OK, so £10m invested creates a tax deduction of £13m, which at the current corporate tax rate of 19% generates a net tax benefit of £2.47m for they year you invest the money. (This compares to the old rules where you get a gross deduction of £10m, worth £1.9m net, which is spread over a few years depending on exactly what classes of assets you are investing in).kingstongraham said:
Apologies if you answered my questions and I missed, but I don't think so - they were:Stevo_666 said:
I told how the tax stuff worked. What didn't you understand?kingstongraham said:
I tried asking you a question about tax which would have kept it on topic.Stevo_666 said:
KG was clearly a bit bored.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!
👏
It's about pensions now which is somehow even more tedious.
"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 depend on whether they are a profitable business now, or will be profitable in 5 years time?"
So the benefit is partly timing - you get the tax benefit sooner - in year 1 - and partly an absolute extra saving of £0.57m which is the extra 30%. Hence my point above about it being mostly timing. Available until March 2023.
If the company has enough taxable profits to offset then they get all the benefit in the year: if not then they can either carry back any tax losses (1 year normally, extended to 3 in the budget for a limited period) to set against earlier years profits or carry forward any tax losses (indefinite) to set off against future profits, although with limitations on how much can be used in each year. So they will get the benefit at some point if they make enough profit over time, but clearly it's better to be profitable in the year the spend happens.
Put simply, that is.
These people are Tories in name only
Although it only kicks in 2 years down the line and can be changed in the meantime - the 17% rate never saw the light of day despite being passed into legislation."I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Was going to mention that there were a few commentators asking whether the higher rate will actually come to pass. It certainly feels largely symbolic at the moment although it is an odd signal to send. Maybe when it doesn't happen they can spin it as a (sort of) tax cut.Stevo_666 said:
Personally I would have preferred a 1% hike as it makes the maths easier and changes some fairly esoteric stuff. It would also keep the rate down at the bottom end of the G20 etc and keep the headline rate attractive while not making us a tax haven from other countries point of view, which can trigger other issues.surrey_commuter said:
Whilst the detail is what increases your own personal value the most important thing is that the new headline rate is a screaming signal that the UK is no longer a pro business, low tax destination.Stevo_666 said:
OK, so £10m invested creates a tax deduction of £13m, which at the current corporate tax rate of 19% generates a net tax benefit of £2.47m for they year you invest the money. (This compares to the old rules where you get a gross deduction of £10m, worth £1.9m net, which is spread over a few years depending on exactly what classes of assets you are investing in).kingstongraham said:
Apologies if you answered my questions and I missed, but I don't think so - they were:Stevo_666 said:
I told how the tax stuff worked. What didn't you understand?kingstongraham said:
I tried asking you a question about tax which would have kept it on topic.Stevo_666 said:
KG was clearly a bit bored.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!
👏
It's about pensions now which is somehow even more tedious.
"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 depend on whether they are a profitable business now, or will be profitable in 5 years time?"
So the benefit is partly timing - you get the tax benefit sooner - in year 1 - and partly an absolute extra saving of £0.57m which is the extra 30%. Hence my point above about it being mostly timing. Available until March 2023.
If the company has enough taxable profits to offset then they get all the benefit in the year: if not then they can either carry back any tax losses (1 year normally, extended to 3 in the budget for a limited period) to set against earlier years profits or carry forward any tax losses (indefinite) to set off against future profits, although with limitations on how much can be used in each year. So they will get the benefit at some point if they make enough profit over time, but clearly it's better to be profitable in the year the spend happens.
Put simply, that is.
These people are Tories in name only
Although it only kicks in 2 years down the line and can be changed in the meantime - the 17% rate never saw the light of day despite being passed into legislation.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
People at the top of any field like percentage pay rises and those at the bottom should be very suspicious of them. How has the gap between a doctor and a nurse grown over the last 20 years with percentage rises assuming they managed to negotiate equal percentages.
I think my first boss in engineering was flummoxed when I seemed unimpressed with my 3% on 24k versus his 3% on 60k back in th day. He either had never thought about percentages like this or was trying to sell me a turd.0 -
True, it's fairly common even in the private sector though. I always saw it as all the more reason to push for a higher starting salary, as all your following salary reviews / bonuses are likely to be based off the last year's number.john80 said:People at the top of any field like percentage pay rises and those at the bottom should be very suspicious of them. How has the gap between a doctor and a nurse grown over the last 20 years with percentage rises assuming they managed to negotiate equal percentages.
I think my first boss in engineering was flummoxed when I seemed unimpressed with my 3% on 24k versus his 3% on 60k back in th day. He either had never thought about percentages like this or was trying to sell me a censored .- Genesis Croix de Fer
- Dolan Tuono0 -
True. A lesson I learned in my 20s and which I passed onto a colleague* who started the same day, with the same experience, doing the same job, for less money.pangolin said:
True, it's fairly common even in the private sector though. I always saw it as all the more reason to push for a higher starting salary, as all your following salary reviews / bonuses are likely to be based off the last year's number.john80 said:People at the top of any field like percentage pay rises and those at the bottom should be very suspicious of them. How has the gap between a doctor and a nurse grown over the last 20 years with percentage rises assuming they managed to negotiate equal percentages.
I think my first boss in engineering was flummoxed when I seemed unimpressed with my 3% on 24k versus his 3% on 60k back in th day. He either had never thought about percentages like this or was trying to sell me a censored .
The most important wage negotiations are your starting salary.
*He learned well and is now retired in Perth, Australia with a pool, Porsche, and yacht. He can thank me anytime 😉, but he was much more ambitious.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
In my first job, working in public sector, it was actually more nuanced than the headline figure with those on lower salaries getting a higher percentage and those higher up getting less (which is as it should be).john80 said:People at the top of any field like percentage pay rises and those at the bottom should be very suspicious of them. How has the gap between a doctor and a nurse grown over the last 20 years with percentage rises assuming they managed to negotiate equal percentages.
I think my first boss in engineering was flummoxed when I seemed unimpressed with my 3% on 24k versus his 3% on 60k back in th day. He either had never thought about percentages like this or was trying to sell me a censored .0 -
Quite - my OH's late Grandad did 30 years in the Police, retired in his early 50s and got about 33 years out of his (index-linked I think?) final salary pension. Clearly none of us as individuals would turn that down if that was the rules at the time, but it's ridiculous that no-one in Government noticed this was going start being an issue at some point, especially as we have got very good at keeping people alive a lot longer.rjsterry said:
It might also stop people thinking that it is a sustainable proposition to spend half their adult life living off a pension.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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 said:
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.rjsterry said:
I think you are confusing expectation with starting position in a negotiation.Stevo_666 said:
Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?rick_chasey said:
So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?Stevo_666 said:
Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.Pross said:
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.kingstongraham said:
Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?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).
If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.
Also negotiations need to have a sensible starting
point or they just get laughed at.
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.
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.
People undervalue pension benefits so you could probably gain agreement to shut the DB scheme in exchange for a 10% pay rise0 -
You'd need to know how long you were going to live wouldn't you?Pross said:
Maybe it is the benefit of seeing things from the outside but if I was back in the public sector I wouldn't swap a 10% payrise for giving up a DB pension scheme. It would be interesting to work out how big a percentage rise you would need to self-fund a pension pot likely to payout the same amount.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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 said:
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.rjsterry said:
I think you are confusing expectation with starting position in a negotiation.Stevo_666 said:
Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?rick_chasey said:
So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?Stevo_666 said:
Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.Pross said:
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.kingstongraham said:
Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?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).
If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.
Also negotiations need to have a sensible starting
point or they just get laughed at.
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.
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.
People undervalue pension benefits so you could probably gain agreement to shut the DB scheme in exchange for a 10% pay rise
In DB it doesn't matter - you get the known level of benefit ongoing.0 -
They have known about longevity for 50 years and it is a surprise that somebody like Thatcher did not put measures in place that would kick in decades down the line.yorkshireraw said:
Quite - my OH's late Grandad did 30 years in the Police, retired in his early 50s and got about 33 years out of his (index-linked I think?) final salary pension. Clearly none of us as individuals would turn that down if that was the rules at the time, but it's ridiculous that no-one in Government noticed this was going start being an issue at some point, especially as we have got very good at keeping people alive a lot longer.rjsterry said:
It might also stop people thinking that it is a sustainable proposition to spend half their adult life living off a pension.surrey_commuter said:
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.rjsterry said:
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.Pross said:
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.rjsterry said:
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 said:
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.rjsterry said:
I think you are confusing expectation with starting position in a negotiation.Stevo_666 said:
Expecting a double digit rise in the current conditions?rick_chasey said:
So they had a real wage drop over the past 10 years. What’s fantasy about that?Stevo_666 said:
Public sector, welcome to the real world...again.Pross said:
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.kingstongraham said:
Why does that grate when it accurately describes the situation?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).
If prices rise and pay doesn't, then you can buy less than you could before. That's a real terms pay cut.
Also negotiations need to have a sensible starting
point or they just get laughed at.
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.
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.
People undervalue pension benefits so you could probably gain agreement to shut the DB scheme in exchange for a 10% pay rise
I suspect that the Public Sector was copying the private sector who could afford it with stellar investment returns. Public sector then took the p1ss by going unfunded and alowing too many people to retire at 50 and then not shutting them to new accruals when the size of the liabilities started to balloon.0 -
I honestly am surprised that so many of you think 12% is too much for nurses or indeed anyone who’s been working in hospital.
Nuts. I bet you clapped for them. I’m not a signed up member of the hypocrisy police but that takes the p!ss.
Genuinely thought you lot were not that awful.0 -
Maybe one for the unpopular views thread however I did not clap for them as nurses and all the other NHS staff as a group are not much if any more worthy than the countless jobs that get done by people throughout this pandemic. Did you clap for binmen, posties and check out workers through the pandemic. Did you clap for all the young families working in the tourism sector that were lucky if they could get on furlough and destitute if they could not. The governments job is to set the pay of public sector workers at a level where enough people are interested in doing it, enough stay in the profession to balance the cost of training excessive new staff to give the maximum benefit to the public purse and keep skills at a acceptable level. By all means criticise the governments position if they don't deliver on their nurse numbers they have stated as the pay was obviously too low or the soft benefits not sufficient. Remember that more than 50% of the population do not work for the government and therefore have a vested interest in the government not splashing cash around.rick_chasey said:I honestly am surprised that so many of you think 12% is too much for nurses or indeed anyone who’s been working in hospital.
Nuts. I bet you clapped for them. I’m not a signed up member of the hypocrisy police but that takes the p!ss.
Genuinely thought you lot were not that awful.1
