No Tax free allowance for you REMF!

oldbaldy

LE
Moderator
#1
The Herald:
Hundreds of service personnel deployed throughout the Middle East to provide vital support for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are being denied the Ministry of Defence's tax-free operational allowances, The Herald can reveal.

The move to limit payment of the £2320 "operational danger, separation and hardship bonus", introduced for service personnel spending six months away from home in combat zones, has emerged from an MoD instruction to commanders issued on November 2.

Under the rules, those "within the geographical boundaries" of the two countries, flying over them or inside Iraq's territorial waters qualify, but the chain of logistics specialists and RAF ground crews deployed to surrounding states do not.

This follows "a six-monthly review of qualifying locations" by the UK's tri-service Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood, Middlesex, late last year.

The change also covers the payment of £140 made to service personnel deployed for six months and who would normally pay council tax at home, though this is not thought to be a huge number.

Even within the new structure, however, there are inconsistencies. While the letter states that personnel about to relocate from Basra to Camp Beuhring, the main supply base in Kuwait, will still receive the allowance, "other service personnel deployed to Kuwait will not".

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, described the policy as "shambolic", adding: "Rather than a fair remuneration package that supports all personnel deployed in support of both Operations Telic (Iraq) and Herrick (Afghanistan), including those in Kuwait and wider Gulf region, the government has produced an inconsistent, incoherent mish-mash," he added.

An MoD spokesman said: "There is no confusion. The allowance was introduced to compensate for an element of personal danger. The people at Camp Beuhring in Kuwait being paid the allowance are deemed to be in an overwatch role and could be sent back to Iraq if the situation called for it. While we recognise the vital role of ground crews and others in Qatar and in Oman, they're not in immediate personal danger."

Under the rules, sailors on warships can claim the daily rates while they patrol the area of the Gulf adjacent to Iraq. Nimrod surveillance aircraft crews flying out of Oman begin to earn the allowance when they cross into Afghan airspace.

The MoD announced the operational allowance in October, 2006, and increased it from £12.31 a day to £12.75 last June as "a way of recognising the increased and enduring nature of danger facing service personnel".

Des Browne, Defence Secretary, said: "We can't underestimate the tremendous work they are doing in Iraq and Afghan-istan when separated from their loved ones."

An RAF officer last night described the revised rules as "utterly nonsensical" and added: "The ageing Nimrods and Tornados would not be flying missions if it were not for the dedication of ground crews living in some discomfort at remote desert bases. It's not as if this saves the MoD much. It's perhaps £500,000. Are they really that broke?

"They can squander billions on procurement blunders, but seem to have no concept of how to foster the goodwill of their most valuable asset, their servicemen and women.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/new...oD_cuts_cash_for_frontline_support_troops.php
 
#3
The big question that you need to think about is -
Where exactly is the money that actually will be paid coming from?

They won't have given any extra money to defence for this so the amount that is actually paid out will have to be found from some where, I hear the new carriers might be delayed for a while.
 
#4
Steven said:
The big question that you need to think about is -
Where exactly is the money that actually will be paid coming from?

They won't have given any extra money to defence for this so the amount that is actually paid out will have to be found from some where, I hear the new carriers might be delayed for a while.
New recruits are being trained to march barefoot into battle putting their boots on only on contact with the enemy. Think of the savings!
 
#5
Unless I am being daft here then I don't see a problem. As the article says the allowance was introduced as an easy political gesture to acknowledge the fact that lots of (mostly) soldiers were being killed and seriously injured in Afg/Iraq at the time. Apart from the dumb crab pilot in the article who has missed the point (ie it is not a hardship allowance for living in nice accom in Kuwait) surely this should remain fundamentally linked to the issue of danger, ie if you are in Iraq or Afghanisatan you are in danger and should get the money, if you aint, you don't. Happy to hear any alternative views on this but seems a no brainer.

Edited for mong spelling
 
#6
wehappyfew said:
Unless I am being daft here then I don't see a problem. As the article says the allowance was introduced as an easy political gesture to acknowledge the fact that lots of (mostly) soldiers were being killed and seriously injured in Afg/Iraq at the time. Apart from the dumb crab pilot in the article who has missed the point (ie it is not a hardship allowance for living in nice accom in Kuwait) surely this should remain fundamentally linked to the issue of dnager, ie if you are in Iraq or Afghanisatan you are in danger and should get the money, if you aint, you don't. Happy to hear any alternative views on this but seems a no brainer.
Well said we happy few, as a REMF myself, I do agree being clerk, But i do know what its like to be in danger, so fair play.. If you have no chance of getting mortared or shot at, why should you be paid it??????
 
#7
Sounds to me like a few Crabs having an unjustifiable whinge
 
#9
oldbaldy said:
The Herald:
Hundreds of service personnel deployed throughout the Middle East to provide vital support for troops in Iraq and Afghanistan are being denied the Ministry of Defence's tax-free operational allowances, The Herald can reveal.

The move to limit payment of the £2320 "operational danger, separation and hardship bonus", introduced for service personnel spending six months away from home in combat zones, has emerged from an MoD instruction to commanders issued on November 2.

Under the rules, those "within the geographical boundaries" of the two countries, flying over them or inside Iraq's territorial waters qualify, but the chain of logistics specialists and RAF ground crews deployed to surrounding states do not.

This follows "a six-monthly review of qualifying locations" by the UK's tri-service Permanent Joint Headquarters at Northwood, Middlesex, late last year.

The change also covers the payment of £140 made to service personnel deployed for six months and who would normally pay council tax at home, though this is not thought to be a huge number.

Even within the new structure, however, there are inconsistencies. While the letter states that personnel about to relocate from Basra to Camp Beuhring, the main supply base in Kuwait, will still receive the allowance, "other service personnel deployed to Kuwait will not".

Liam Fox, the shadow defence secretary, described the policy as "shambolic", adding: "Rather than a fair remuneration package that supports all personnel deployed in support of both Operations Telic (Iraq) and Herrick (Afghanistan), including those in Kuwait and wider Gulf region, the government has produced an inconsistent, incoherent mish-mash," he added.

An MoD spokesman said: "There is no confusion. The allowance was introduced to compensate for an element of personal danger. The people at Camp Beuhring in Kuwait being paid the allowance are deemed to be in an overwatch role and could be sent back to Iraq if the situation called for it. While we recognise the vital role of ground crews and others in Qatar and in Oman, they're not in immediate personal danger."

Under the rules, sailors on warships can claim the daily rates while they patrol the area of the Gulf adjacent to Iraq. Nimrod surveillance aircraft crews flying out of Oman begin to earn the allowance when they cross into Afghan airspace.
The MoD announced the operational allowance in October, 2006, and increased it from £12.31 a day to £12.75 last June as "a way of recognising the increased and enduring nature of danger facing service personnel".

Des Browne, Defence Secretary, said: "We can't underestimate the tremendous work they are doing in Iraq and Afghan-istan when separated from their loved ones."

An RAF officer last night described the revised rules as "utterly nonsensical" and added: "The ageing Nimrods and Tornados would not be flying missions if it were not for the dedication of ground crews living in some discomfort at remote desert bases. It's not as if this saves the MoD much. It's perhaps £500,000. Are they really that broke?

"They can squander billions on procurement blunders, but seem to have no concept of how to foster the goodwill of their most valuable asset, their servicemen and women.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/new...oD_cuts_cash_for_frontline_support_troops.php
Does this mean then that there will be a taxi type meter in the cockpit, that will start when over the border and stopped as they fly out?? :D

Taxi booked!!!
 
#10
In fact, having made my previous post on this subject I have gone back to the article and re-read the RAF officer's alleged comments. What a kn*b! One of the reasons that we are skint at present is that we have procured vastly larger numbers of Typhoon than we need (presumably that will get any crabs on the site up in arms with hoary old excuses about what a great plane it is and how great it will be for all those interceptor tasks that we originally bought it for) We also spend loads on our Air to Air missiles, which don't seem to be getitng much of a run out these days. Anyway the main reason that the crab is a kn*b is the comment about the goodwill of the blokes. Does he genuinely feel that these support staff living far from the front line begrudge those in close and continuous danger some extra allowance - if they do then they are also kno**ers for their attitude and we could do without them in the Services. As always happy to defer to any other view that is not bolloc*s.
 
#11
An RAF officer last night described the revised rules as "utterly nonsensical" and added: "The ageing Nimrods and Tornados would not be flying missions if it were not for the dedication of ground crews living in some discomfort at remote desert bases. It's not as if this saves the MoD much. It's perhaps £500,000. Are they really that broke?

"They can squander billions on procurement blunders, but seem to have no concept of how to foster the goodwill of their most valuable asset, their servicemen and women.
'Some discomfort'. Is this joker having a laugh??? He needs to get his brylcreemed moustachioed face into one of the forward camps to see discomfort. We need to stamp on idiots like this before the entire nation sees us as a bunch of primadonnas demanding extra pay just to do our basic jobs.

Forget the procurement blunders - this sounds more like a recruitment blunder within the RAF.
 
#12
Crabs dripping about having to do their job, whatever next, "sun comes up in morning" maybe?
 
#13
Frankly atour in Al Udeid is hardly arduous, all the swimming you can manage and as much Baskin' Robbins as you can eat.

How many sites other than the new Camp Beuhring are there in Kuwait? BMM staff - well they get loan service rates anyway and so are well and trully compensated.

Mind you I seem to recall that the money was actually paid as a result of a furore over tps paying tax on ops and this was the gov't's way of giving back some money without surrendering the point on tax.
 
#15
The allowance was stopped for those in Kuwait because the troops are not in danger; for the same reason as it was stopped in Kosovo. The only reason it was continued for those deploying from Iraq to the Kuwait Support Facility was they had deployed expecting to be employed for 6 months in Iraq and hence be in receipt of the Op Allowance, to withdraw them to Kuwait and remove the Op Allowance would be a little unfair. However it is not, AFAIK, being paid to those who deploy to Kuwait directly. It is also paid to anyone for each day, or part thereof, they deploy into Iraq.
 

Similar threads


Latest Threads

Top