Preparing for the lean years - effect on pay

#1
from the FT, 02 July - Warning of 10-15% reduction in defence budget. The pay bit is in the final paragraph. Comments?

Britain's defence budget will be slashed by between 10 and 15 per cent in real terms between 2010 and 2016 as a result of fiscal pressures and the political need to maintain spending on health and education, a leading think-tank will argue today.

In a detailed examination of the constraints facing defence expenditure, the Royal United Services Institute says cuts on this scale - equivalent to a £4bn reduction in the annual budget - are its "best estimate" of the outlook for the Ministry of Defence budget.

As the UK prepares for a Strategic Defence Review, which is likely to begin immediately after the next general election, the RUSI paper "Preparing for the Lean Years" is one of the first to put a hard figure on the scale of the cut the armed forces will face...

The RUSI argues that the government has already determined that a large part of its planned spending cuts in future years will come in the capital budget. This will hit the MoD hard, the institute says, because of all the big departments, defence is one of the most investment-intensive, accounting for 16 per cent of total capital expenditure in 2009-10.

Second, the RUSI argues that history shows that the MoD is unlikely to obtain an overall budgetary settlement comparable to that of most other departments. "This is something which [the MoD] has not been able to achieve since the early 1980s, the high point of concern over renewed Soviet expansionism," writes Professor Malcolm Chalmers, the paper's author.

The RUSI looks at areas where the MoD could find necessary savings.

One idea is to scale down the UK military presence in Afghanistan, where operating costs amounted to £2.6bn in 2008-09. "The conditions for this clearly do not exist at present . . . yet it is a possible source of savings over the years to 2016," the paper says.

Another potentially promising area is pay. In recent years the Armed Forces Pay Review Body has recommended rises significantly above the levels for which the MoD has planned. "Persuading the AFPRB to accept a reversal of this trend could yield significant savings," says the RUSI.
 
#3
If the government must cut back on spending how about all overseas aid for a start followed by limiting child benefit to the first two children per couple, stop all tax benefits to charities and religious groups, at present we all have to subsidise charities and religious groups whether we wish to or not. Then stop all benefits to so called single parents , having children is a life style choice , they want them let them keep them.
 
#4
Fallschirmjager said:
It is a good idea to slash our military budget.

How else would we pay asylum seekers, immigrants and chavs to the life they are accustomed to?
Socialism is a means to buy votes in perpetuity. One generation feeding the next generation of chav who all will vote Labour.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
See below:
 
#6
Caravans are the answer! All caravans must have their own VIN, paid for by the owner. Have MoTs, paid for by the owner and then pay an additional road tax! :twisted:

There are always millions of them when I need to get down the 303 :x

And I think Pykies like them too :roll:
 
#7
How about a government that doesn't tax and doesn't spend? There is never enough money in government coffers even with all the taxes being paid, and our pay would go much further. Pass a law at the same time to make the richest 1% eradicate poverty (no details or guidlines). Gosh I feel bitter this morning, I had better go to work.
 
#8
OldTimer said:
If the government must cut back on spending how about all overseas aid for a start followed by limiting child benefit to the first two children per couple, stop all tax benefits to charities and religious groups, at present we all have to subsidise charities and religious groups whether we wish to or not. Then stop all benefits to so called single parents , having children is a life style choice , they want them let them keep them.
a very well presented and educated point of view. particularly the bit about charity tax benefits (and us paying them) :roll:
 

CountryGal

MIA
Book Reviewer
#9
Everyones feeling the pinch, I work for a large multinational 100 company and we are on the second year of a pay freeze, we havent had one at all ;O(

The goverment has to balance the books, he cant keep borrowing as he has to pay it all back. We have the largest debt as a nation in Europe, and in the world second only to the states (i seem to recall from a recent telegraph commentary), and look at the differences in raising coffers between us and the states.

Its gonna be a hard 10 years or so, regardless of when the recession ends, as taxes will have to increase and more goverment departments will see there money and resources decrease but keep the same or a greater level of service.

Lets hope the money is doled out where we need it rather than wasted away like so many labour decisions of recent years, the ID card fiasco an ideal example of this! ;o)
 
#10
OldTimer said:
If the government must cut back on spending how about all overseas aid for a start followed by limiting child benefit to the first two children per couple, stop all tax benefits to charities
So you want RBL & H4H etc to start paying tax?
 
#11
OldTimer said:
If the government must cut back on spending how about all overseas aid for a start followed by limiting child benefit to the first two children per couple, stop all tax benefits to charities and religious groups, at present we all have to subsidise charities and religious groups whether we wish to or not. Then stop all benefits to so called single parents , having children is a life style choice , they want them let them keep them.
Stop payments to charities? So when your heart kicks in the British heart foundation should ask their specialist nurses that they fund to stop next door instead? Or when you get prostate cancer Cancer Research shouldnt bother putting you foward for a clinical trial. Whether or not you require the aid of a charity is luck and you should respect that luck instead of trying to exempt yourself from the suffereing of others thinking its never going to touch on you. You dont choose where you are born or when you get ill and no one here is starving so I wouldnt start throwing our humanity overboard to add buoyancy to our economy just yet.
 
#12
mightyduck said:
OldTimer said:
If the government must cut back on spending how about all overseas aid for a start followed by limiting child benefit to the first two children per couple, stop all tax benefits to charities and religious groups, at present we all have to subsidise charities and religious groups whether we wish to or not. Then stop all benefits to so called single parents , having children is a life style choice , they want them let them keep them.
Stop payments to charities? So when your heart kicks in the British heart foundation should ask their specialist nurses that they fund to stop next door instead? Or when you get prostate cancer Cancer Research shouldnt bother putting you foward for a clinical trial. Whether or not you require the aid of a charity is luck and you should respect that luck instead of trying to exempt yourself from the suffereing of others thinking its never going to touch on you. You dont choose where you are born or when you get ill and no one here is starving so I wouldnt start throwing our humanity overboard to add buoyancy to our economy just yet.
Hang the f*ck on, I pay national insurance and income tax so that the NH f**kingS can square me away when my heart packs in, how good they are at that is the subject for another thread. Old Timer was not suggesting stopping payments to charities he was suggesting stopping Govt subsidy of charities, a particularly ridiculous situation where charities are being subsidised by HMG to do things that our taxes are supposed to be funding in the 1st place. Eg most Hospitals are also registered charities and collect funds via this to buy eqpt, that should be provided from our taxes in the 1st place.
 
#13
OldTimer said:
If the government must cut back on spending how about all overseas aid for a start followed by limiting child benefit to the first two children per couple, stop all tax benefits to charities and religious groups, at present we all have to subsidise charities and religious groups whether we wish to or not. Then stop all benefits to so called single parents , having children is a life style choice , they want them let them keep them.
Stopping tax benefits to charities would greatly affect the Armed Forces at present.

We are doing quite well with charities such as H4H, this would soon plummet if taxed.

Who would raise money for charity knowing it was helping that cunt Brown out?
 
#14
Gift aid is the principle tax benefit recieved by charities from the goverment and its a tax refund of normally 28p for every pound donated or raised by a tax paying uk citizen, its accounted for roughly a billion pounds a year to uk charities since its inception and without it alot of charities; medical, development and environmental would suffer. The truth is the NHS doesnt have you covered and whether you like it or not specialist charities are attempting to fill the gap and recieve more money regestered as charities through voluntary donations than the goverment could possibly ever spare. If you dont like it write to your MP about it, but nothing about gift aid or goverment subsidizing of charities is ridiculous, we still have more econmic pull than most countries out there and therefore have a responsibility to support, consented or otherwise those willing to lend a hand at home or abroad. If your not happy with goverment spending because you think the basic human rights and standards of care of others should be set aside to secure your right to accumilate 'stuff' then move abroad. Sorry to rant but I have worked for a charity for a while now and I am tirred of people defferring the responsibility of care in anyform to the goverment or anyone else except themselves.
 
#15
mightyduck said:
Gift aid is the principle tax benefit recieved by charities from the goverment and its a tax refund of normally 28p for every pound donated or raised by a tax paying uk citizen, its accounted for roughly a billion pounds a year to uk charities since its inception and without it alot of charities; medical, development and environmental would suffer. The truth is the NHS doesnt have you covered and whether you like it or not specialist charities are attempting to fill the gap and recieve more money regestered as charities through voluntary donations than the goverment could possibly ever spare. If you dont like it write to your MP about it, but nothing about gift aid or goverment subsidizing of charities is ridiculous, we still have more econmic pull than most countries out there and therefore have a responsibility to support, consented or otherwise those willing to lend a hand at home or abroad. If your not happy with goverment spending because you think the basic human rights and standards of care of others should be set aside to secure your right to accumilate 'stuff' then move abroad. Sorry to rant but I have worked for a charity for a while now and I am tirred of people defferring the responsibility of care in anyform to the goverment or anyone else except themselves.
ditto. One thing that this (awful shambolic greedy amoral wretched) government have actualy done that is truly good was the introduction of gift aid. In reference to previous 'posters' who say that charity should be withdrawn for hospitals etc. I would suggest that this very (charitable) funding in the main comes from individuals who choose to donate to that particular organisation. All the government are doing is allowing the tax (aready paid at source) to be returned (indirectly) to the payee in the form of allowing said charitable organisation to have that tax refunded within the charitable contribution.

In laymans terms, the money belongs to the individual who donated the gift in the first place (and becomes part of the gift). It would therefore be logical to assume that if the government have returned gift aid contributed tax to the charity and you have not donated any money yourself, you therefore have no right to critisise or indeed no moral scope to suggest that we should 'stop all tax benefits to charities'.

You know who you are :wink:
 
#16

Latest Threads

Top