Yesterday, Vince Cable pointed out that soldiers are amongst the thousands who will be paying more tax this year than last.
Up to 66,000 armed forces personnel will be worse off from this week as a result of the abolition of the 10p income tax rate, according to research by the Liberal Democrats.
Members of the armed forces of private rank up to level 3, who have a starting salary of just £14,349, will be up to £90 a year worse off because of the change.
In total, up to a third of all armed forces personnel could find themselves paying more tax as a result of Gordon Brown’s tax changes.
Read the rest here. And read more about what the Lib Dems are saying about the armed forces in general here.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Lib Dems gain seats from both Reform and Labour
Another Reform UK misdemeanor
The plague pits and passageways of Green Park
nigel hunter
Judy Abel
David Allen
Mick Taylor
David Raw
14 Comments
Agree on all counts. Not only do we defend the interests of low-paid workers, we are also the real patriots who actually do support the armed forces instead of using them as a political football and entering wars of aggression then using it as a stick to beat other people with, like this government and its cheerleaders in the Scum and Daily Hell.
And yes, the above post does contain a lot of hackneyed phrases. 🙂
Bearing in mind our commitment to cut the basic rate from 20p to 16p, the real question is – what would we do to put things right for the low paid, military personnel or otherwise? And how?
Cut the basic rate to 16p and raise the threshold so that people start paying tax after £144 of weekly earnings instead of £105. Or so I am reliably informed by Mortimer.
A step in the right direction, certainly – but I’m pretty sure raising the threshold is just one of our “longer term aspirations” rather than an immediate policy solution to Labour’s assault on the poor. The fact that this isn’t being promoted by the Leadership would seem to confirm matters. Shame.
66,000 is surely a knowing gross over-statement of any £90 per annum tax losers in the military and also does not account for benefit changes which affect a goodly proportion of any losers. Hardly any serviceperson is on any starting pay point at any one time. I would agree with anyone – such as Jennie – who suggests simplifying so there is no need to claim benefits to get the ahem benefit of the system(s).
The military are workers in uniform. £14,300 compares favourably to many starting pays (even maximum pays) out there in the real world of C1C2Ds; and in truth most service people are on considerably more in cash terms and also have other benefits such as accommodation, food, sports and social that many in our estates can only dream of.
But gross fibbing with numbers is a trait that should be resisted by all of us and in which Lib Dems appear to specialise. Under the old shameless exaggeration mantra.
Can you now, urgently unpack the 66,000 figure and provide the correct figure? I’d be surprised if your figure is not at least a ten fold exaggeration, particularly accounting for benefits (both state and work-related), pay settlements, and change in allowances.
I hope there is a sensible settlement for those who have lost on the banishment of the 10p rate. But this ain’t helping.
Fourteen and a half grand a year is a salary I can only dream of, I have to say.
The thing about tax credits is, having suffered their indignities for several years, this year I have decided not to apply, because the meagre amount of funds they provide are by no means compensation for the amount of stress and hassle you have to go through to get them. I gather that I am among the majority of eligible people in not applying.
Dr Cable’s wages figure is not correct. The 66,000 is clearly wrong. Not just by a factor 10 either. It could be an 100x exaggeration.
OH MY GOD – if you’re telling me actual SOLDIERS are going to be amongst those losing out because of this tax change – then that makes it SO much worse.
PS I’m still agreeing with Jennie. I’d like to know why tax credits etc cannot be rolled into the tax system more thoroughly, same goes for pension payments; though both are of course far higher in real terms under NL than under SOT (same old Tories).
You’re somewhat off-message their Chris Paul – tax credits are probably The central plank of NL policy. If you don’t stand for that then what the hell do you stand for? If you want a progressive and fair tax system then the only place to be is the LDs…
Oh go away with you Steven. Tax credits are clearly a good thing compared to what went before. But improvements are always possible. And if issues with take up can be resolved by simplification I’m obviously all for it. What is non-socialist about that?
Meanwhile Dr Vince Cable is utterly wrong about wages being paid to army people and on the numbers allegedly affected by the loss of the 10p starter rate. Let’s stick to the main business here. Atrocious figures from Lib Dems.
“But improvements are always possible” – like, e.g. LD tax policy?
LD tax policy is irrelevant Steven. You can say anything. It doesn’t have to be costed. And it will never be implemented.
Please get me an answer on Vince Cable’s utterly incorrect figures. Both the wage quoted and the number allegedly affected are utterly wrong. Stop prevaricating.