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

Discussion in 'Army Reserve' started by msr, Jan 9, 2013.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. msr

    msr LE

    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...
     
  3. 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
     
  4. 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)
     
  5. OldSnowy

    OldSnowy LE Moderator Book Reviewer

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. msr

    msr LE

    When you mobilise, you cease to be in the TA.
     
  7. msr

    msr LE

    So burning out those who are already stretched to the max. Oh well...
     
  8. msr

    msr LE

    Was that due to MOD funk or HMT intransigence?
     
  9. I think it was the MoD wanting to give everybody the same amount of money extra rather than more to higher earners.
     
  10. 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.
     
  11. msr

    msr LE

    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
     
  12. The_Duke

    The_Duke LE Moderator

    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.
     
    • Like Like x 3
  13. No extra money to pay for anything, no changes, apart from very minor tinkling at the edges, some more guff from SaBRE.
     
  14. 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.