Could Basic Rate Tax Rise By 5p?

hallmark

Why not simply change all public sector jobs (with the exception of certain frontline jobs i.e. nurses, police, firemen, army) so that with immediate effect all NEW employees are on defined benefits instead of final salary pension.

Since it would only apply to new employees the existing ones shouldn't care. The alternative is future years of quite ridiculous tax as we try to fund public sector pensions (which will already be bad enough but at least this measure would cap the damage).

Old_Slaphead

hallmark wrote: »

Since it would only apply to new employees the existing ones shouldn't care. The alternative is future years of quite ridiculous tax as we try to fund public sector pensions (which will already be bad enough but at least this measure would cap the damage).

Better still, for existing employees, freeze current accruals and benefits, move retirement age for all schemes in line with state retirement age, move to average salaries, increase contributions (so that employer contributes no more than 10%) and offer a individual scheme member opt out in exchange for a 10% salary increase.

matbe

thriftybabe wrote: »

Something drastic has to be done. I think eventually it will rise by 5p but they will do it in bits. TBH I would rather get it over and done with and pay it. VAT is going to play havoc with our small business. We do extensions and are already competing with people who are doing cash jobs. What do we do when we can only get a couple of jobs a year as everyone else can do it at least 35% cheaper than us by the time we add our tax and VAT on? We may as well close up shop now and do what everyone else is doing around us and take cash!

I am in similar situation why not make all self employed/ business have to register for vat and remove the threshold?.

The_White_Horse

Nessynoo wrote: »

If income tax rises by 5p per £1, what about reducing all benefit payments by 5p per £1???????

this should be a given. however, the moaning lefties wont allow it. dal and shal have to have enough to get the stella in and fund the 40" plasma.

hallmark

Old_Slaphead wrote: »

Better still, for existing employees, freeze current accruals and benefits, move retirement age for all schemes in line with state retirement age, move to average salaries, increase contributions (so that employer contributes no more than 10%) and offer a individual scheme member opt out in exchange for a 10% salary increase.

But that would be massively unpopular with those affected & therefore difficult to implement (& politically unpalateable).

My suggestion could work because the people that "will" work in the public sector don't work there yet & therefore won't be making a fuss about changes to future benefits etc.

Old_Slaphead

hallmark wrote: »

But that would be massively unpopular with those affected & therefore difficult to implement (& politically unpalateable).

My suggestion could work because the people that "will" work in the public sector don't work there yet & therefore won't be making a fuss about changes to future benefits etc.

Ongoing public sector pensions in the current format are manifestly unfair to and unaffordable for future generations.

Unfortunately there are 6 million public servants who will continue to accrue pensions benefits of £40bn per annum and rising - more than is being spent on education - and which will continue to be paid over the next 40 years.

Anyway, how would you feel working next to someone who was effectively being paid 20%+ more for doing the same job?:sad:

peterg1965

I am in a state final salary scheme - Armed Forces Pension Scheme, I feel it is entirely justifed that the tax payer continues to fund this in its current form, ie non contributory. My wife is in the NHS and pays superannuation, as do many other public servants - it would be entirely correct that these other schemes become defined benefit and self funding. At the moment, I assume, all contributions just go to the Exchequer and the schemes are funded direct from the taxpayer/Treasury. This is not right and needs to be corrected. No doubt the unions would have there say and oppose it, but this is an area of public spending that needs to be addressed as part of a long term strategy to balance the books.

The key phrase there is long term - a term that it clearly lacking from the vocabulary of most politicians.

Harry_Powell

peterg1965 wrote: »

I am in a state final salary scheme - Armed Forces Pension Scheme, I feel it is entirely justifed that the tax payer continues to fund this in its current form, ie non contributory. My wife is in the NHS and pays superannuation, as do many other public servants - it would be entirely correct that these other schemes become defined benefit and self funding. At the moment, I assume, all contributions just go to the Exchequer and the schemes are funded direct from the taxpayer/Treasury. This is not right and needs to be corrected. No doubt the unions would have there say and oppose it, but this is an area of public spending that needs to be addressed as part of a long term strategy to balance the books.

The key phrase there is long term - a term that it clearly lacking from the vocabulary of most politicians.

Why should the Armed Forces Pension scheme be fully funded by the tax payer?

mitchaa

Harry_Powell wrote: »

Why should the Armed Forces Pension scheme be fully funded by the tax payer?

Although it technically is, soldiers/airmen/sailors are often paid less than their counterparts in the civilian world. (Pilots for example) so although they do not directly contribute to their pension, they do so by having lower salaries.

You can pay them more and make them contribute, it makes no difference really.

The FSP in the military is usually only 1/3 of final salary after 22yrs service so although excellent in terms that they can draw it at 40, the amounts are not outstanding at 1/3 FS and even more so that for 15yrs it's not inflation proofed. £1000pm pension would still be £1000 15yrs down the line until it was index linked.

You also need to spend 22yrs in a service being ruled for the privilege. Jump soldier, how high sir. Yes sir, no sir, 3 bags full sir:rotfl:;)

Andy_L

hallmark wrote: »

Why not simply change all public sector jobs (with the exception of certain frontline jobs i.e. nurses, police, firemen, army) so that with immediate effect all NEW employees are on defined benefits instead of final salary

because it means a doubling-ish of the annual cost for 10-20(? wild guess) years as you have to pay both current employee/employer contributions being used to pay the pensions of the currently retired members and the DC contributions for active members. Its the same problem that makes moving form an undunded to funded state pension an almost insumountable problem