I don't think that many would argue that we don't need more doctors, but that isn't a relevant solution to the current pension situation and the issues that manifest from it.
NHS Doctor Pensions - For the few, not the many
- Thread starter danielanthony
- Start date
I don't think that many would argue that we don't need more doctors, but that isn't a relevant solution to the current pension situation and the issues that manifest from it.
This "problem" doesn't make sense though. Why don't these people just stop paying into their pensions? I already asked this question earlier in the thread and nobody answered: are these people being forced to pay into pensions or something?
I don't think the A-level grades present much of a barrier, there are plenty more people meeting the A level requirements requirements than there are places in medical schools.
(though granted I'm sure there are plenty more who'd also make good doctors despite not quite getting the grades as various BMS grads etc... who then pursue 4 year graduate medical degrees demonstrate)
I'm no expert, but if we create more places in medical schools and lower the entry requirements wouldn't the end result be that there would be more doctors?
If the solution is simply not enough places in medical schools then perhaps we should create more places?
People in this thread are saying there is a shortage of doctors. Doctors are leaving the profession/retiring due to the pension situation.
What I was suggesting is create more doctors.
because the new nhs 2015 pensions it is calculated as 1/54th of your contributions per year.
NHS pension is not like (i think) other pensions where it's based on your salary and all-or-nothing.
so even if one hits one's annual allowance/maximum tax free allowance, if one doesn't contribute that year, it massively reduces one's pension at retirement.
How exactly does that solve the pension problem for the new doctors?
Firstly, it isn't a "problem". It is a problem. There are plenty of examples of why already stated in this thread, and it is a big enough problem that a simple online search will tell you more.
This is impacting normal employees who have less than normal jobs, with variable income. These very simple things were not considered when the government introduced the new pension allowances a few years ago. Read up and understand the problem, and then ask the question again.
If you're in a 'but it is only doctors' funk, then search for Lloyds equalisation of GMP benefits, and what HMRC is dong to address inadvertent breaches of lifetime protection. Different issue, same problem.
No, you are incorrect. Anyone earning a lot of money to the point where they will lose their AA will be affected by this. The difference is the non-doctors won't end up with an amazing defined benefit pension income at the end of it.
The only real issue here from what I can see is that the doctors don't have control over it ie. they can't reduce or stop their pension contribution to avoid the tax.
New doctors won't be earning enough to be affected by the reduced AA.
Presumably you didn't read what I posted then. Few 'non-doctors' will be affected by this, but as I said, doctors are more likely to be affected due to their own specific position.
You do not understand the situation that presents. If you did then you wouldn't think that it is a great idea to invest 7+ years in training a doctor only to see them limit their hours a couple of years later due to stupid pension tax rules.
I would estimate that paying the tax and remaining a member of the defined benefit scheme would be financially better than not being in the scheme at all though (they end up with an inflation linked income based upon their salary at a good rate with tax-free cash available). This just sounds to me like the highest paid doctors wanting to have their cake and eat it so to speak.
Other high earners aren't given an increased AA or LTA under any circumstance, so why should doctors?
That's funny because I see medical staff outside my local hospital all the time (I think they were doing it one day per week at one point) protesting about working too many hours...
I don't think that their hours are being limited by anyone other than themselves and their own drive to not pay the tax they owe. This thread mentions doctors retiring early or leaving the profession because they don't want to pay the tax that they rightfully owe.
As I have already mentioned, the only valid complaint appears to be about how they can (or can't) control the pension contributions and prevent themselves from paying the tax for going over the AA.
I know someone who trained for 7+ years as a nuclear physicist, should he be exempt from the tax laws also?
Actually no.
Because at some point, with the new rules, we are paying to work.
How ludicrous is that? I'm sure you'll agree that you wouldn't do that too...
So the answer is easy...just don't work.
No one in their right mind would want to work just to make themselves poorer.
I thought the loss of the personal allowance at 100k was bad enough. That hits plenty of highly skilled people right i the sweet spot where you’d perhaps want to incentivise them via bonuses or want them to do overtime etc... I mean it can be pretty close to what an experienced full time GP earns working regular hours and might well mean that they are less inclined to work say additional hours running an early morning commuters clinic or perhaps a fortnightly Saturday morning one.
These pension rules seem to have an even worse impact on pay and I’m not sure it is just doctors affected either - presumably some radiographers, dentists, pharmacists, managers, scientists (for example physicists) etc... are affected too.
These pension rules seem to have an even worse impact on pay and I’m not sure it is just doctors affected either - presumably some radiographers, dentists, pharmacists, managers, scientists (for example physicists) etc... are affected too.
No you are incorrect. You are not "paying to work" at all. You are being taxed because you are funding a pension scheme above the tax-free levels that the annual allowance permits for someone with high earnings. You are completely ignoring the level of pension benefits you are getting at the end of it all. You are funding an extremely good value pension scheme compared to what most people have access to. Most defined benefit schemes are now closed because they are not sustainable, but without seeing the ins and outs of it, it is likely that your NHS scheme is being propped up by the taxpayer.
You are correct in that if you are worried about paying more tax then yes indeed don't do more work. That is the world we live in though, if you earn money (over and above the tax-free allowances), then you pay tax on it.
edit: The doctors are able to opt out of funding the pension scheme (although this is sub-optimal, it will stop them being hit with the tax charge for over funding their pension). High earners in the private sector are reducing pension contributions and funding other tax efficient investments, so it is not much different.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 33,029
- Location
- Rutland
Everybody wants an expansion of medical training. It's doesn't get much priority as it's the more immediate schemes that require less long term investment that are chosen instead.
There are plenty of people applying to increase places.
We also need to sort out the issues post training. Doctors leaving post training or not enrolling in speciality training are increasing rapidly. This compounded by consultants dropping workload to avoid tax or retiring means we are creating an interesting mess.