Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
interestrateripoff

Public Service And Armed Forces Pay Rise Decisions Due

Recommended Posts

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26556047

Public sector workers and members of the armed forces are to find out on Thursday by how much their pay will increase in the next financial year.

Ministers are expected to announce if recommendations from pay review bodies will be accepted.

Unions representing NHS staff urged the government to approve a "fair" rise and not ignore their recommendations.

The government is understood to want the increase in public service pay be to be limited to an average of 1%.

An election looming will they give a bigger pay increase to boost the economy?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.bbc.co.uk...litics-26556047

An election looming will they give a bigger pay increase to boost the economy?

Public sector pay rises are a funny one....if they give a big pay rise out then prices will rise but with no sign of any real recovery in the private sector, who in reality pay for the public sector, then all it is doing is transferring wealth from the private to the public sector will increase borrowing.

The correct solution was not to have an economy based on housing and public sector jobs....opps...too late/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are any pay rises they will be offset for many/most by an increase in pension contributions - as a result of the reforms being introduced by the Government.

So while their long term pensions are in principle protected - their net pay will probably be going down in April even if they get the promised 1% rise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If there are any pay rises they will be offset for many/most by an increase in pension contributions - as a result of the reforms being introduced by the Government.

So while their long term pensions are in principle protected - their net pay will probably be going down in April even if they get the promised 1% rise.

Squaring the pensions circle is going to be an enduring headache and not just for the public sector.

UK faces 'crippling' tax rises and spending cuts to fund pensions and healthcare

Britain faces tax rises within two years equivalent years to more than 17pc of GDP, says Institute of Economic Affairs

By Szu Ping Chan 6:30AM GMT 13 Mar 2014

Britain faces "crippling" tax rises and spending cuts if it is to meet the needs of an ageing population, according to the Institute of Economic Affairs.

The IEA calculated the Government would need to slash spending by more than a quarter or impose significant tax hikes because official calculations had failed to factor in future pension and healthcare liabilities. "As populations age, tax bases will grow more slowly while government spending rises faster," its report said.

In a stark warning, the think-tank said Britain faced tax rises equivalent within just two years to more than 17pc of GDP – more than £300bn - in order to meet all future spending commitments. This is larger than the entire annual NHS budget and would increase taxes from 38pc to 55pc of national income.

Philip Booth, the IEA's programme director, said tax increases of this magnitude would be "impossible" to implement "without choking off economic growth and actually reducing tax revenues.

"The underlying problem is that successive governments have made promises which can simply not be honoured from the existing tax base. The electorate is grazing a fiscal commons at the expense of future generations," he said.

In the absence of further tax hikes, Jagadeesh Gokhale, the author of the IEA's report: the Government Debt Iceberg, said total spending would have to be cut by more than one quarter or health and welfare expenditure by 53pc compared with the current implied level if all future spending was to be met out of tax revenue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some of the unions are asking for an average of 1% over all bands but that it should come as a flat rate.

It is argued that those on the top bands get several times the amount of money a low paid worker would get.

So the idea is for example £1 uplift per hour for all staff.

I like this idea as one of those in a lower band!

However i think the real choice is whether to give 1% or 0%

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes it's what we all know, apart from the boomers who insist that they've paid in all their life and its more than covered the costs.

I would be more sympathetic for them if they hadn't joined in the generation bashing of the younger generation whilst ignoring their own amazing luck.

What's the saying the Americans have? The started on 3rd base but think they got a home run.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public sector pay announcement - Details

And here is a summary of the key points.

These are pay awards for 2014-15.

• All NHS workers except senior managers to get 1% “additional pay” - but for 600,000 workers that will be less than expected. But the Treasury is describing this as “additional pay” and not a pay rise. That is because 600,000 people (more than 50% of NHS staff) who get progression pay - extra pay because they have stayed in the same job for a certain period of time - will get the 1% increase through this mechanism, but not a 1% increase on top. People not on progression pay will get 1%.

• Around 400 very senior managers will not receive any pay rise.

• The Department for Health says its decisions regarding progression pay and pay for senior managers will save more than £200m in 2014-15, and more than £400m in 2015-15.

• Contract doctors and nurses to get a 1% rise.

• Members of the armed forces to get a 1% rise.

• Police and crime commissioners will not get a pay increase.

• Most prison officers to get a 1% pay increase.

• Judges to get a 1% increase.

• Departments will be given flexibility about how to allocate a 1% pay increase set aside for senior civil servants.

A shame that it's only 1% but for now this seems relatively fair.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Public sector pay announcement - Details

And here is a summary of the key points.

These are pay awards for 2014-15.

• All NHS workers except senior managers to get 1% “additional pay” - but for 600,000 workers that will be less than expected. But the Treasury is describing this as “additional pay” and not a pay rise. That is because 600,000 people (more than 50% of NHS staff) who get progression pay - extra pay because they have stayed in the same job for a certain period of time - will get the 1% increase through this mechanism, but not a 1% increase on top. People not on progression pay will get 1%.

• Around 400 very senior managers will not receive any pay rise.

• The Department for Health says its decisions regarding progression pay and pay for senior managers will save more than £200m in 2014-15, and more than £400m in 2015-15.

• Contract doctors and nurses to get a 1% rise.

• Members of the armed forces to get a 1% rise.

• Police and crime commissioners will not get a pay increase.

• Most prison officers to get a 1% pay increase.

• Judges to get a 1% increase.

• Departments will be given flexibility about how to allocate a 1% pay increase set aside for senior civil servants.

A shame that it's only 1% but for now this seems relatively fair.

Seems like it's an inflation-beating 3% rise for 50% of the NHS though.

Progression pay is why all the talk of public-sactor pay freezes is often hot air.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squaring the pensions circle is going to be an enduring headache and not just for the public sector.

Lord Hutton's plan is to fix it with inflation and later retirement.

Inflation link is now to CPI not RPI

All have moved - or are moving - to a career average salary (indexed to CPI) basis rather than final salary.

Retirement dates for most are now linked to the government mandated "Normal Retirement Age" which is whatever the government of the day says it is (it's the age you can get the state pension).

They'll keep pushing up the retirement age as needed, and fiddle the CPI to decrease the obligation.

The final salary pension scheme as we knew it is effectively dead in the water for most public sector workers.

The scandal - as always - is that all historical benefits are locked in and the reduced benefits disproportionaly hit the younger people who will be funding those benefits either through their contributions to these schemes (now automatic with auto enrollment) or with their taxes if the new entrants can't be milked for enough cash to cover the historical obligations.

Those with time served maintain everything accrued to date with the exception of the switch from RPI to CPI, and in some cases maintain the final salary link even for for future service.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like it's an inflation-beating 3% rise for 50% of the NHS though.

Progression pay is why all the talk of public-sactor pay freezes is often hot air.

It depends how you look at it. If I took a job with progressive pay I'd argue that I wanted to start at the top of the scale because I think I'm worth the top rate. Being lower down the pay scale means I'm being underpaid compared to less skilled people who just happen to have been in post longer :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In last 5 years of 'no rises', actual public sector pay rose c 4% pa. Grades, promotions, outsourcing etc

How ugly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Squaring the pensions circle is going to be an enduring headache and not just for the public sector.

But I thought over 3 and a half million people in 10 years was supposed to have increased the tax take to pay for pensions?

What's that, most groups have had a large number of children, that was completely unpredicted, with most immigrant groups having a birthrate above 3 per woman? Thus billions extra have been needed to be spent on primary schools, and in the coming 5 years billions more for extra primary places plus secondary as they age. Then there's the fact that working and child tax credit payments have risen substantially with the increase children. Add in maternity fees, childcare costs, squeeze on housing etc.

So this source of tax revenue to help plug the pension gap have ended up making finances worse.

And if they hope second generation will improve things in 10-20 years, they should note that second generation of many previous immigrant groups have continued having children at a high rate. This is all on the latest ONS release. It almost seems as though the leading statisticians are realising this when you read through.

Edited by sf-02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In last 5 years of 'no rises', actual public sector pay rose c 4% pa. Grades, promotions, outsourcing etc

How ugly.

I suspect that this, if true, applies largely to the better paid.

The dustmen in my area seem mostly to be on zero hours contracts, and low pay is now feeding into the collapse of the Big Supermarkets. If you can't pay, you can't buy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But I thought over 3 and a half million people in 10 years was supposed to have increased the tax take to pay for pensions?

What's that, most groups have had a large number of children, that was completely unpredicted, with most immigrant groups having a birthrate above 3 per woman? Thus billions extra have been needed to be spent on primary schools, and in the coming 5 years billions more for extra primary places plus secondary as they age. Then there's the fact that working and child tax credit payments have risen substantially with the increase children. Add in maternity fees, childcare costs, squeeze on housing etc.

So this source of tax revenue to help plug the pension gap have ended up making finances worse.

And if they hope second generation will improve things in 10-20 years, they should note that second generation of many previous immigrant groups have continued having children at a high rate. This is all on the latest ONS release. It almost seems as though the leading statisticians are realising this when you read through.

Im sure it would all have worked out fine and Dandy IF there were any Public sector pension funds at all..

What we have are paper envelopes with money coming in and money going out....anything they have saved doesnt cover the outgo, and a lot of funds own property...god help them in the final hours of the boom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest spp

I suspect that this, if true, applies largely to the better paid.

The dustmen in my area seem mostly to be on zero hours contracts, and low pay is now feeding into the collapse of the Big Supermarkets. If you can't pay, you can't buy.

What dustmen? How often do they come around anymore?

Services disappearing...yet council TAX just went up 5%!!

How long before people say enough is enough or simply leave? what happens to the pensions then?

Can you really be removed from your land/home if you stop paying? What about some sort of constitutional rights?? We pay the electric company, the water company and road tax...so why not just cut out the council??

Answers on a postcard!

Edited by spp

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It depends how you look at it. If I took a job with progressive pay I'd argue that I wanted to start at the top of the scale because I think I'm worth the top rate. Being lower down the pay scale means I'm being underpaid compared to less skilled people who just happen to have been in post longer :)

Well. It is a bargaining chip. It's not unknown for people to start most of the way up the pay scale, if they are good enough and argue the toss hard enough.

That said, just looking at gross pay alone isn't the whole story. There have been a number of reforms to public sector pensions, notably the NHS pension. Certainly in my case, the pension reforms mean that my nominal take home is less than it was 3 years ago, despite "pay progression", a more senior job and more hours, while my pension benefits are substantially less.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What dustmen? How often do they come around anymore?

Services disappearing...yet council TAX just went up 5%!!

How long before people say enough is enough or simply leave? what happens to the pensions then?

Can you really be removed from your land/home if you stop paying? What about some sort of constitutional rights?? We pay the electric company, the water company and road tax...so why not just cut out the council??

Answers on a postcard!

You're very unlucky if council tax went up 5%. it requires a referendum above 2%.

With the council tax benefit changes of April 2013 over 40% of people previously exempt are not paying in most areas. This critiical mass means if more stopped paying the system would fall apart.

It is sad to see the state of councils now. I worked part time for a council 10 years ago - the wages allowed me to pay my way through university. That type of job went 4 years ago after a restructure - those at upper pay scales moved themselves up 1 or 2 payscales. No part timers were hired when part time staff replaced, full time low pay scale staff lost, and part timers replaced by volunteers, but mainly the councils version of workfare. £40 a week for 16 hour 'apprenticeships'.

Edited by sf-02

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're very unlucky if council tax went up 5%. it requires a referendum above 2%.

With the council tax benefit changes of April 2013 over 40% of people previously exempt are not paying in most areas. This critiical mass means if more stopped paying the system would fall apart.

It is sad to see the state of councils now. I worked part time for a council 10 years ago - the wages allowed me to pay my way through university. That type of job went 4 years ago after a restructure - those at upper pay scales moved themselves up 1 or 2 payscales. No part timers were hired when part time staff replaced, full time low pay scale staff lost, and part timers replaced by volunteers, but mainly the councils version of workfare. £40 a week for 16 hour 'apprenticeships'.

Bingo, the effect of workfare/apprenticeships was predicted and has come to pass. A real apprenticeship should be to learn a skilled job, the point of the apprenticeship is for a more experienced/qualified person to teach the apprenticeship. In no way should administrative jobs at a council be an apprenticeship, just as much as neither should shelf stacking at Tesco be work experience.

I do however have a lovely two page letter from my local MP, justifying her 10% payrise and extra expenses because they are being expected to pay extra for their pensions. Well Allison Seabeck and all your cronies, I wish you all the best when you join the dole queue.

There is however one ultimate sanction any public sector worker can take over their pensions, opt out. The money is not being saved or invested, it is being spent with you being given a vague promise that you might get something in the future. What you are being charged for will not for the average worker make you any better off than someone who has spent all their money, the benefits for a pensioner are still more.

Edited by Ulfar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like it's an inflation-beating 3% rise for 50% of the NHS though.

Progression pay is why all the talk of public-sactor pay freezes is often hot air.

Should a nurse after finishing a degree be paid 22,000 for life?

The agenda for change is an antiquated system but it was brought in in 2008 to reduce the pay bill.

It does not mean that all public sector workers end up being paid big bucks, I would however agree, and it is being implemented, that those approaching a pay point should not go through automatically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   206 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.