Making TA pay tax free to help fully recruit the TA?

#1
Given that we are going to have to nigh on double the size of the TA in the next few years, would making TA pay tax free be a good enough incentive?

The quid pro quo may be the loss of bounty, but tax free TA pay would not require a large advertising budget to promote the organisation, would help to attract and retain the right sort of chap/ess (who might otherwise see 40% of their TA pay gone in tax) and be very simple to implement?

There is going to have to be a significant spend to achieve the recruiting targets and I would rather see this money in the pockets of the soldiers than those of some pony-tailed ****** called Tristram.

Thoughts?

m-s-r

P.S. Works for the Aussies: http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/army/reserve/benefits.aspx
 
#2
The problem with replacing the bounty with increased pay is that you remove the incentive to attend the minimal training commitment.

As we all agree, folk should be be doing more than this, but reality is that every unit will have individuals who "bottom feed".. If you go down the "pay for attendence" model, the danger is the unit fills up with folk on minimum commitment, who are diffficult to get rid of and do not contribute to the effectiveness of the organisation..

I do think taking reserve pay out of the tax system has some advantages, particulary with individuals on benefit (who would not have it stopped), but not at the expense of the loss of the bounty, which has other advantages...
 
#4
Given that we are going to have to nigh on double the size of the TA in the next few years, would making TA pay tax free be a good enough incentive?
I don't think its worth enough to attract a brand new recruit (about £300pa for a base rate taxpayer). I can't see paying them tax-free when mobilised would go down well with the regulars
 
#5
Nice idea, but given that they couldn't/wouldn't even make pay while deployed on operations tax-free and went for an operational bonus instead, I very much doubt they would consider doing it here. Far more likely (or less unlikely) would be either an increased bounty or recruitment and retention allowance/bonus of some sort. But, given there is no money, I think this is unlikely too.


Posted from the ARRSE Mobile app (iOS or Android)
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#6
Hmm, good ppoint. But firstly, I have not seen any plans to 'double the size' of the TA - that may be a stated aim, but planning for it?.... What you will see is more stress on making those numbers already there more 'deployable' (If you think that Army Command have any intention whatsoever of paying for this politically-driven tripe from their funds, which (in their view) are much better spent on the Regular Forces, then think again!). The entire 2020 review (which cinveniently overtook the previous review, whcih was not implemented either) is designed to soften the blow of reductions in regular numbers. Don't expect many concrete, actual, changes to the Reserves.

Rant over. And the key point here is that any change to tax liabilities would need to be cleared by HMT - and that is simply not going to happen.
 
#7
I don't think its worth enough to attract a brand new recruit (about £300pa for a base rate taxpayer). I can't see paying them tax-free when mobilised would go down well with the regulars
When you mobilise, you cease to be in the TA.
 
#8
Hmm, good ppoint. But firstly, I have not seen any plans to 'double the size' of the TA - that may be a stated aim, but planning for it?.... What you will see is more stress on making those numbers already there more 'deployable' (If you think that Army Command have any intention whatsoever of paying for this politically-driven tripe from their funds, which (in their view) are much better spent on the Regular Forces, then think again!).
So burning out those who are already stretched to the max. Oh well...
 
#9
Nice idea, but given that they couldn't/wouldn't even make pay while deployed on operations tax-free and went for an operational bonus instead
Was that due to MOD funk or HMT intransigence?
 
#11
I will be surprised if the TA increases significantly in size to offset the reductions in the Regular Army. Employers, in the current economic climate, do not wish to employ members of the Reserves. Why should they? There is little in it for them unless you value a kite mark. Tax free pay? It'll never happen.
 
#12
I will be surprised if the TA increases significantly in size to offset the reductions in the Regular Army. Employers, in the current economic climate, do not wish to employ members of the Reserves. Why should they? There is little in it for them unless you value a kite mark. Tax free pay? It'll never happen.
The Army Reserve needs to recruit up to its full manning of 30,000 trained soldiers, with up to an additional 8,000 soldiers in training, to provide an integrated and trained Army by 2018. A programme called Future Reserves 2020 or FR20 has started to support recruitment and retention in the Army Reserve through the introduction of a range of initiatives.

https://www.army.mod.uk/territorial/24649.aspx
 

The_Duke

LE
Moderator
#13
So burning out those who are already stretched to the max. Oh well...
Only the TA as a whole is not really "stretched to the max" is it? Elements of it have been very busy (Inf, DMS etc) and have thrived as a result. Large chunks of it have been relatively untouched due to the nature of the current operations.

Post HERRICK drawdown the TA will return to a state of "normal jogging" for the vast majority with routine operational deployments overseas a thing of the past. Changes (cost minimal, naturally) to try and get better employer support, more robust rules for mobilisation and deeming sandbag filling as a "deployment" etc all tick the "more deployable" box without actually requiring the TA to go anywhere or do anything in the absence of a major threat to the UK shores.
 
#14
The Army Reserve needs to recruit up to its full manning of 30,000 trained soldiers, with up to an additional 8,000 soldiers in training, to provide an integrated and trained Army by 2018. A programme called Future Reserves 2020 or FR20 has started to support recruitment and retention in the Army Reserve through the introduction of a range of initiatives.

https://www.army.mod.uk/territorial/24649.aspx
No extra money to pay for anything, no changes, apart from very minor tinkling at the edges, some more guff from SaBRE.
 
#15
The Army Reserve needs to recruit up to its full manning of 30,000 trained soldiers, with up to an additional 8,000 soldiers in training, to provide an integrated and trained Army by 2018. A programme called Future Reserves 2020 or FR20 has started to support recruitment and retention in the Army Reserve through the introduction of a range of initiatives.

https://www.army.mod.uk/territorial/24649.aspx
The fact that this has been 'quietly' moved to the right from 2015, to 2018 to "the end of the decade" since the original report was published, suggests that people have realised that it is not going to happen, or wont commit the extra resources to make it happen.

I would tend to agree with OldSnowy's view of the world, overall. Factor in that the best recruiting sergeant (Op Herrick) is about to put in for Tranche 3 and I cant see this being made reality. Sorry.
 
#16
The fact that this has been 'quietly' moved to the right from 2015, to 2018 to "the end of the decade" since the original report was published, suggests that people have realised that it is not going to happen, or wont commit the extra resources to make it happen.

I would tend to agree with OldSnowy's view of the world, overall. Factor in that the best recruiting sergeant (Op Herrick) is about to put in for Tranche 3 and I cant see this being made reality. Sorry.
Isn't that the idea ? With yet another obvious failure to deliver by the Army the scene is set for some serious reform, and by reform I mean cuts. I'd expect another trim in full time numbers to be replaced by TA and an eye watering cull at the top end. I can't see a government of any political persuasion looking to do anything else with a failing public body.

It takes more than lunch with the right sort of chap at the DT to turn this sort of perception around.
 
#17
The problem with replacing the bounty with increased pay is that you remove the incentive to attend the minimal training commitment.

So true. I remember each training year the last weekend for Bounty quals was always the most highly attended. We used to see people we hadn,t seen for months. The usual motivation of this is the last chance to get your bounty this year.
 
#18
Oh god, here we go again.... I'm so weary over all this FR2020 crap it's just turning into background white noise. I'm going to continue doing my best with the train set given to us, and if anything new and shiney is given to us by the powers that be then great. If not, I won't be disappointed.
 

Pob02

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#19
I have to admit I do feel a little hard done by in that all my TA pay is 40% taxed. Means my take home from TA is less than somebody of a lower rank on lower tax bracket . . .. In fact it blows goats!
Example: Lower Band Level 1 Full Screw pay = £66.58, less 20% tax = £53.26
Lower Band level 1 Sjt pay = £75.68, less 40% tax = £45.41

Just as well I don't do this for the money.
 
#20
I think we need to look at
Fully recruiting the TA & regular attendance.

It would be fairly easy to fully recruit the TA to full strength, the regular attendance part however will depend on :

What training weekends are there ?
What is their (units) particular role ? (If it's a mundane role, then they will have mundane training and turnover will be high, thus creating the need for constant mundane training)
Shift patterns and outside factors, such as weddings etc. (Bearing in mind they are TA and work in a civvy job during the week. Some 40 - 80 hours, so a weekend off would be nice)

I think the government has just looked on paper at the TA as being a full time army, being used as and when required like a fireman on a shout.

So even if we have a fully recruited TA and units are required to be mobilised, another factor would be the employers of unit members. Most are sympathetic, but if savings are being made in the form of a reduction in the regular army, then some of these can be used to offset employers who have to hire agency, extra people etc to cover their loss while Pte X is mobilised.

What we really need is an army like the IDF, but the reality is far short of that.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads

Top