Could Basic Rate Tax Rise By 5p?

peterg1965

Harry_Powell wrote: »

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

Why? Isn't it rather obvious? No other group of people are routinely asked to put their lives on the line, and regretably too many are lost. How many civilians face that - Firefighters to a lesser degree I admit. How many civilians/public sector workers routinely are away from their families for 6 -10 months at a time? There is something nebulous called the 'military covenant', unwritten but embedded deeply in the psyche of most people which translates that the State looks after people who serve in the Armed Forces; a generous, and well deserved pension scheme, is part of that.

That is why, in my opinion, they stand out from other Public Sector workers in the pension debate at least.

mitchaa

peterg1965 wrote: »

Why? Isn't it rather obvious? No other group of people are routinely asked to put their lives on the line, and regretably too many are lost. How many civilians face that - Firefighters to a lesser degree I admit. How many civilians/public sector workers routinely are away from their families for 6 -10 months at a time? There is something nebulous called the 'military covenant', unwritten but embedded deeply in the psyche of most people which translates that the State looks after people who serve in the Armed Forces; a generous, and well deserved pension scheme, is part of that.

That is why, in my opinion, they stand out from other Public Sector workers in the pension debate at least.

I disagree.

In terms of danger and harm, the police force in their majorities put themselves at more risk than what the majorites of soldiers do.

Granted INFANTRY TROOPS put themselves on the front line and are in great danger when they are in Afghanistan/Iraq but the majority of those serving in the armed forces will never be anywhere near the front line risking life.

Some stats for you....

British Army strength = 102,000
Deployable fully fit war strength = 56,667 (55% of 102,000)
So there is 45% of the British Armys numbers undeployable to the front line, some 45,000 troops.
Out of this 56,667, only 22,667 of them are classed as infantry and 10% of these 22,667 are unfit to fight,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/one-in-five-troops-unfit-to-fight-on-the-front-line-1863352.html

So to sum up the numbers, around 20% of the British Army put their lives in danger, 80% do not. Add in the other 100k from the RAF and the Navy and this 20% drops down to around 15%.

I think the numbers of those in the police force putting their lives on the line daily is somewhat higher than 15% of police force numbers;)

The Infantry guys are the real war heroes. The supporting troops, engineers, chefs, medical, drivers, clerical etc are no more heroes than your average civilian. They do what they are told and are at as much risk as losing their life than what I am down the pub on a saturday night. (Heavily fortified Camp Bastion/Kandahar airfield with pizza hut, cinemas and bowling alleys)

Sorry, but the amount of bullshi* about how everyone in the military is some kind of war hero is unfounded nonsense. 10-15% are yes, the remainder, well they are just taken along for the ride. The figures above speak volumes.

I have big big respect for the lads out on the front line, they are heroes yes. Those sitting in air conditioned tents playing xbox and stuffing their faces with burger king some 100 miles back from the front line under a heavily fortified base are no more heroes than myself or Hamish.

Truth hurts but you know fine well it holds truth:p

peterg1965

mitchaa wrote: »

I disagree.

In terms of danger and harm, the police force in their majorities put themselves at more risk than what the majorites of soldiers do.

Granted INFANTRY TROOPS put themselves on the front line and are in great danger when they are in Afghanistan/Iraq but the majority of those serving in the armed forces will never be anywhere near the front line risking life.

Some stats for you....

British Army strength = 102,000
Deployable fully fit war strength = 56,667 (55% of 102,000)
So there is 45% of the British Armys numbers undeployable to the front line, some 45,000 troops.
Out of this 56,667, only 22,667 of them are classed as infantry and 10% of these 22,667 are unfit to fight,

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/one-in-five-troops-unfit-to-fight-on-the-front-line-1863352.html

So to sum up the numbers, around 20% of the British Army put their lives in danger, 80% do not. Add in the other 100k from the RAF and the Navy and this 20% drops down to around 15%.

I think the numbers of those in the police force putting their lives on the line daily is somewhat higher than 15% of police force numbers;)

The Infantry guys are the real war heroes. The supporting troops, engineers, chefs, medical, drivers, clerical etc are no more heroes than your average civilian. They do what they are told and are at as much risk as losing their life than what I am down the pub on a saturday night. (Heavily fortified Camp Bastion/Kandahar airfield with pizza hut, cinemas and bowling alleys)

Sorry, but the amount of bullshi* about how everyone in the military is some kind of war hero is unfounded nonsense. 10-15% are yes, the remainder, well they are just taken along for the ride. The figures above speak volumes.

I have big big respect for the lads out on the front line, they are heroes yes. Those sitting in air conditioned tents playing xbox and stuffing their faces with burger king some 100 miles back from the front line under a heavily fortified base are no more heroes than myself or Hamish.

Truth hurts but you know fine well it holds truth:p

I will not give you the courtesy of a response. However, saying the police put their lives on the line daily is a joke!

chucky

peterg1965 wrote: »

I will not give you the courtesy of a response. However, saying the police put their lives on the line daily is a joke!

i don't totally agree with the police argument but i'd like to see the argument with regards to how many in the army (apart from infantry) who do put their life on the line.

peterg1965

chucky wrote: »

i don't totally agree with the police argument but i'd like to see the argument with regards to how many in the army (apart from infantry) who do put their life on the line.

Don't know, ask some who is in the army! I am not!

Harry_Powell

peterg1965 wrote: »

Why? Isn't it rather obvious? No other group of people are routinely asked to put their lives on the line, and regretably too many are lost. How many civilians face that - Firefighters to a lesser degree I admit. How many civilians/public sector workers routinely are away from their families for 6 -10 months at a time? There is something nebulous called the 'military covenant', unwritten but embedded deeply in the psyche of most people which translates that the State looks after people who serve in the Armed Forces; a generous, and well deserved pension scheme, is part of that.

That is why, in my opinion, they stand out from other Public Sector workers in the pension debate at least.

As chucky has already stated, how many realy put their lives on the line and is the best way to repay that bravery to give them a higher pension? Surely a large daily allowance paid for every day they spend 'on the front line', would be better, especially for their families at home?

mitchaa

peterg1965 wrote: »

I will not give you the courtesy of a response. However, saying the police put their lives on the line daily is a joke!

Why dont they?

Everytime they make an arrest they are in some sort of relative danger. There are a lot of halfwits around that have no respect for the law. A rowdy city centre on a friday or saturday night is a scary place.

Why does a military chef or a clerk or a PT instructor put their lives on the line? The only members of the armed forces that do are those that use their weapons in anger, i.e infantry troops. I know a lot of people in the Army, the only firing they get to do is an APWT (Annual personal weapons test) once a year on a shooting range somewhere here at home. The only danger they face in Afghanistan is arrival and departure on the plane in and out.

Don't kid yourself that they are all there jumping around like Rambo.

I backed up my post with some evidence of the numbers, I didn't make them up

mitchaa

Harry_Powell wrote: »

As chucky has already stated, how many realy put their lives on the line and is the best way to repay that bravery to give them a higher pension? Surely a large daily allowance paid for every day they spend 'on the front line', would be better, especially for their families at home?

They do get an increased daily allowance already. It can range from anything between £6 to £26 per day depending on how many days they've previously accrued in their Army careers away from home. £26pd x 31 is an extra £800pm in their pay packet. There are a few other allowances that they get. A £2200 tax free bonus for a 6mth tour, along with not having to pay living/food costs. It soon amounts up.

Don't get me wrong, I support our armed forces and particular the boys on the front line. My point being was that they do not ALL put their lives on the line Those that do are heroes, those that do not are just along for the ride.

How can you use an SAS soldier or a PARA in the same line as a chef or a clerk? Both sets are soldiers afterall, but completely different, worlds apart in every sense technically.

peterg1965

mitchaa wrote: »

Why dont they?

Everytime they make an arrest they are in some sort of relative danger. There are a lot of halfwits around that have no respect for the law. A rowdy city centre on a friday or saturday night is a scary place.

Why does a military chef or a clerk or a PT instructor put their lives on the line? The only members of the armed forces that do are those that use their weapons in anger, i.e infantry troops. I know a lot of people in the Army, the only firing they get to do is an APWT (Annual personal weapons test) once a year on a shooting range somewhere here at home. The only danger they face in Afghanistan is arrival and departure on the plane in and out.

Don't kid yourself that they are all there jumping around like Rambo.

I backed up my post with some evidence of the numbers, I didn't make them up

Interesting, you don't hear of too many policemen who die each year in the course of their duties.

Anyway, you are all clearly fixated on Afghanistan, it is not, and has not been, the only theatre of operations in recent years. I think you will find that casualty figures and stats for Iraq, Bosnia, Afghanistan et al have included, soldiers, airman and sailors of a variety of specialisations, but I agree that those in most danger at present in Afghan are EOD specialists and those troops who are on the front line.

This particular woman was actually a Royal Navy Medical Assistant. I doubt she would like being called infantry and I bet she didn't expect to be in Afghanistan on a battlefield when she joined the Navy. There are plenty of others from all Services and specialisations in a similar sitaution conducting operational tours away from their normal duties and in danger of being killed.

However, I would postulate that anyone from our services in Afghanistan is effectively in harms way, agreed those in Camp Bastion are relatively safe and protected but it is still a hostile environment.

This is not an argument that I am likely to win via message ping pong, and you have clearly got your views. I hear what you say and the statistics tell a story, but you know what they say about statistics.

peterg1965

mitchaa wrote: »

Don't get me wrong, I support our armed forces and particular the boys on the front line. My point being was that they do not ALL put their lives on the line Those that do are heroes, those that do not are just along for the ride.

I am beginning to find your views offensive, and you do not know what you are talking about. Not all Servicemen are 'heroes' as you put it, but I know of no one who is just along for the ride.