NHS Doctor Pensions - For the few, not the many

Soldato
Joined
2 Aug 2012
Posts
7,809
Same thing with judges as well. Struggle to get new judges now as the pension was one thing that attracted them but the tax is now a problem since these measures were introduced.


The other problem is that top QC's who become Judges often do so at the cost of a substantial cut in income.

Having said that, If GP's are routinely bumping up against the lifetime/annual pension contribution limits, they can hardly claim to be being underpaid!
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
The other problem is that top QC's who become Judges often do so at the cost of a substantial cut in income.

Having said that, If GP's are routinely bumping up against the lifetime/annual pension contribution limits, they can hardly claim to be being underpaid!

No one is claiming to be underpaid. The main issue is simply the current system stops people working when they're at their most experienced and most useful.

I would work more if I could but I'm not working as the tax makes it impossible.
 
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,384
Location
Plymouth
No one is claiming to be underpaid. The main issue is simply the current system stops people working when they're at their most experienced and most useful.

I would work more if I could but I'm not working as the tax makes it impossible.

The problem with this thread is special pleading from the medical profession. The injustice is unfair taxation policies, not that those unfair tax policies apply to doctors.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
The problem with this thread is special pleading from the medical profession. The injustice is unfair taxation policies, not that those unfair tax policies apply to doctors.

The only special pleading that is I can see is that the medical profession is already struggling with shortages across the board and the tax system is exacerbating that.

These threads usually degenerate into 100k is enough for anyone or my mate works hard for less nonsense.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Feb 2012
Posts
383
Location
Manchester
What do you mean by this bit? If you've maxed your pot out upon retirement, then surely you'll have a retirement package based on some sort of annuity or drawdown. Surely the NHS must be putting the pension contributions into some pot somewhere and aren't relying on the NHS budget to fund that years pension payouts? What would happen if the government cut the budget, do peoples pension payouts then drop?

No they don't. For the majority of (private sector) pensions, what you get out at the end is a combination of all of the employee + employer contributions plus the investment returns.

Instead the vast majority of public sector pension schemes are unfunded including the NHS (the only real exception is the local government scheme pension scheme). The money isn't invested and there are no investment returns. Teachers, NHS, civil service etc are all paid direct from government coffers and it is a stupid waste of resources. The problem is that the government can't suddenly change all the schemes to funded because the contributions that active members are making today, are needed to pay todays pensioners.

The switch a few years ago from final salary to CARE is a band aid at best and will not fixed the problems.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,384
Location
Plymouth
The only special pleading that is I can see is that the medical profession is already struggling with shortages across the board and the tax system is exacerbating that.

These threads usually degenerate into 100k is enough for anyone or my mate works hard for less nonsense.

I fully agree that the regime is punishing and counter productive, not just for medicine, but for the economy as a whole.

As a society, we need to move away from the ridiculous idea of arbitrary punishment of success via the taxation system.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
No they don't. For the majority of (private sector) pensions, what you get out at the end is a combination of all of the employee + employer contributions plus the investment returns.

Instead the vast majority of public sector pension schemes are unfunded including the NHS (the only real exception is the local government scheme pension scheme). The money isn't invested and there are no investment returns. Teachers, NHS, civil service etc are all paid direct from government coffers and it is a stupid waste of resources. The problem is that the government can't suddenly change all the schemes to funded because the contributions that active members are making today, are needed to pay todays pensioners.

The switch a few years ago from final salary to CARE is a band aid at best and will not fixed the problems.

It's essentially a giant ponzi scheme as best I understand it. It'll end up with a massive state bail out.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
Disincentivising the higher earners from contributing to the overall pension pot is a terrible idea!

Exactly! The current setup is mental.

Some trusts are currently just giving employer contributions directly to staff that bail out of the pension scheme currently whilst others refuse. Even more money not going into the already underfunded scheme.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Feb 2012
Posts
383
Location
Manchester
It's essentially a giant ponzi scheme as best I understand it. It'll end up with a massive state bail out.

In essence, yes it is.

It is the same with the state pension. But as with all things government related (from all political parties) short-termism takes precedence over sustainable long term planning.

Edit:
It only works if you having more people paying in, than there are pensioners taking money out. But with reduced staffing levels, from either automisation or privatisation, will result in more and more money having to come from central government coffers.
 
Soldato
Joined
31 May 2009
Posts
21,257
What do you mean by this bit? If you've maxed your pot out upon retirement, then surely you'll have a retirement package based on some sort of annuity or drawdown. Surely the NHS must be putting the pension contributions into some pot somewhere and aren't relying on the NHS budget to fund that years pension payouts? What would happen if the government cut the budget, do peoples pension payouts then drop?

14.5% contributions is still very generous compared to other industries - most seem to cap out around 5-8%.

If your pot is large and likely to hit the allowance, why not opt out of pension contributions and do as minstadave mentioned with the regular opt-in/opt-out. The money saved from opting out can be put towards private savings.

This is exactly what the government does, this is how the entire pension system is funded, this is why we have a problem, this is why i am now pay 13.5% and 14.5%, whereas the generation before me paid 6%.
We're funding their pension, in the same way the state pension is funded out of current taxes, there never has been a pot, you can't 'draw down' in a government pension, you can't buy an annuity, as they simply do not exist.

The contributions I made do not accurately reflect what i will get, we get career average, averaged per year of contributions to create a make believe pot.
You've misunderstood the contributions bit, I am paying 250% more in contributions than a doctor/dentists did 20 years ago, and they have a master pension, and we will have career average.
 
Associate
OP
Joined
22 Sep 2007
Posts
2,179
Location
Abingdon
Why do so many doctors support Labour (judging by my Twitter feed)? They criticise the Conservatives for underfunding the NHS, but want a Labour government who will hit them with income tax increases when doctors are already working less because of the tax situation.
 
Caporegime
Joined
8 Jan 2004
Posts
31,994
Location
Rutland
Why do so many doctors support Labour (judging by my Twitter feed)? They criticise the Conservatives for underfunding the NHS, but want a Labour government who will hit them with income tax increases when doctors are already working less because of the tax situation.

2 main things for my colleagues, firstly, austerity has hurt the NHS and the care we give, secondly none of us believe in Brexit.

Apart from my office mate who is a Tory MP.
 
Soldato
Joined
31 May 2009
Posts
21,257
I feel it is very short sighted to penalise people for preparing to cost the country less when they are older.
Pensions are taxed, the government gets it dues eventually.
The government also has to pay less now.
 
Associate
Joined
7 Nov 2011
Posts
1,410
Not sure how that's relevant. You're talking about reducing the overall compensation package (salary/pension/leave/etc) for everyone in the NHS. When you look at total compensation packages, the public and private sectors are generally pretty closely matched. Take my job as a data scientist for example. I could quite easily earn an extra 15-20% if I upped sticks and went to work for a bank, but I'd probably break about even when you factor in that my pension would be less and I'd not get as much annual leave.

You're coming across as someone who has read an article about the NHS having too many 'managers' and 'gold plated' pensions without actually looking into it.

Nail on the head with this post. Similar for me in audit.
 
Last edited:
Man of Honour
Joined
17 Oct 2002
Posts
50,384
Location
Plymouth
2 main things for my colleagues, firstly, austerity has hurt the NHS and the care we give, secondly none of us believe in Brexit.

Apart from my office mate who is a Tory MP.

If not believing in brexit leads you to supporting Labour, the problem is defective thinking, as Labour are a brexit party, led by a hard Brexiteer whose manifesto requires us to be far away from the eu.
 
Associate
Joined
25 Sep 2016
Posts
885
Like I said pay is a completely different debate

If someone is working the maximum number of hours deemed reasonable and safe, 48hrs, then why would someone work a weekend say for essentially free?

(and now lets not get side tracked into whats deemed reasonable and safe hours - pilots have them, lorry drivers have them)
 
Man of Honour
Joined
5 Dec 2003
Posts
20,997
Location
Just to the left of my PC
[..]
example
55yr old consultant surgeon does several extra days operating on top of their full time work to help cut down waiting lists, all NHS work is pensionable so they get paid extra and make extra contributions.
A the end on the year their 14.5% pension contributions + the 14.5% employer contributions + their pension pot growth of 30+yrs of contributions are >£40,000.
End of the tax year they are hit with a £10,000+ tax penalty and probably another tax penalty when they retire.

Let me get this straight:

Scenario 1: Employee pension contributions plus employer pension contributions + existing pot growth = £39,999. No tax.

Scenario 2: Employee pension contributions plus employer pension contributions + existing pot growth = £40,001. £10,000+ tax that year and probably more extra tax when they retire. All for that extra £2.

If that's how it actually works, that's the problem. People shouldn't be taxed £10,000+ on an income of £2. That's not how tax relief should work and it's not how it usually works.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Feb 2012
Posts
383
Location
Manchester
Let me get this straight:

Scenario 1: Employee pension contributions plus employer pension contributions + existing pot growth = £39,999. No tax.

Scenario 2: Employee pension contributions plus employer pension contributions + existing pot growth = £40,001. £10,000+ tax that year and probably more extra tax when they retire. All for that extra £2.

If that's how it actually works, that's the problem. People shouldn't be taxed £10,000+ on an income of £2. That's not how tax relief should work and it's not how it usually works.

It's not how it works.

You only get taxed on the amount over the annual allowance. And even if you are over, all of the unused annual allowance from the previous 3 years can be used to increase your annual allowance for that year.
 
Back
Top Bottom