coop
Member of DD Central
Posts: 714
Likes: 571
|
Post by coop on Jan 3, 2019 16:02:22 GMT
Better still let me invest my own pension cos I don't trust any financial services company whatsoever!! Unfortunately I can't pay into a SIPP unless I forgo my employer's contributions which wouldn't be a smart thing to do.. I believe you can transfer the balance of your company pension to a SIPP if you wanted to. I can and I can't... I intend to do this for schemes I still have where I've left the job, but I can't transfer out of my currently active pension unless I close it. If I close it and pay into a SIPP instead then no more employer's contributions which are about 14% or something. So I'd be cutting off my nose to spite my face somewhat!
|
|
coop
Member of DD Central
Posts: 714
Likes: 571
|
Post by coop on Jan 3, 2019 16:03:40 GMT
Not sure I follow you on this one... My point is the govt should be doing all they can to fill the void - this includes higher pay, and better/cheaper/free access to training and education. If the govt were actually doing this then the issues around taxation for higher earners would be less of a big deal to the NHS - if we had adequate Doctors we wouldnt be having to ask them to do so much overtime and extra shifts! There are two issues here and I think the more pressing one is the lack of new recruits and this is as a direct consequence of govt policy, eg. making nurses pay for their own training despite us having a massive shortage!
If you've got a leaky bucket, you need to fix the leaks, regardless of whether you also need to pour more water in to it. And the more society is investing in pouring in the water, the more it should want to and needs to prevent the leaks so as to get the most from that investment.
Coming back to the question who should decide how much to work, obviously it should be the individual. But clearly that will always be in the context of the incentives and disincentives that exist. At least in a democratic and free society.
Fair point, luckily sorting the two out isn't mutually exclusive!
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 3, 2019 16:05:19 GMT
......- unlike a defined contribution scheme where it is easier to simply contribute a pre-defined amount or £x. .....
Oh if only it was that simple. In fact, its considerably MORE complex in a DCS scheme. It is NOT based on your contribution, its based on the calculated VALUE of the DCS pot at the point at which you crystallise it (or part crsystallises it: a Benefit Crystallisation Event) e.g. when you use all or part of it to purchase an annuity or drawdown. This makes it considerably more difficult to calculate than DB pension valuations.
Oh, and while we are on that subject. People who are not on DB schemes suffer a major inequality: namely the way the "value" of DB pensions is calculated for LTA purposes. This massively underestimates their actual value compared to the size of investment you would need in a DC pot to be able to buy the same level of benefit through an annuity.
For LTA calculations, yes perhaps, but not for AA calculations, which is the main problem here leading to the massive disincentives.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 3, 2019 16:14:37 GMT
I agree, but society seems to think otherwise and those expectations seep into all of us. Yes, if the majority of people work 5 days/week, often with 2 incomes in the household, prices will be set according to that level of income. If a lone individual/couple decide to work - say - 3 days/week, they're going to feel really poor. Will only change if most people decide to work less than 5 days and/or give up on 2 incomes/household. Don't see that happening anytime soon.
|
|
angrysaveruk
Member of DD Central
Say No To T.D.S
Posts: 1,332
Likes: 789
|
Post by angrysaveruk on Jan 3, 2019 16:25:35 GMT
Given the level of responsibility, stress and skill required for some jobs in the medical field a salary of 150k+ is probably very reasonable. The government should do something ASAP if the tax system is discouraging people from working. There aren't that many on £150K plus salaries, that's rare - basic NHS consultant salary only reaches £100K after 20 years as a consultant (and that's after 6 years medical school and at least 8 years speciality training, usually more). To get over £100K you need to do extra hours or get clinical excellence awards for doing extra duties above and beyond the normal. And it's the pensions distorted taxation that gives these 70% plus marginal rates (and sometimes over 100%) that mean it is not worth working extra and often is better to work less. Government knows but either doesn't care or has that little B word slightly more on its mind at the moment. I was under the impression that some consultants do private work as well as NHS that boosts salaries of some medical professionals to higher levels. 100k for 34 years experience for a medical specialist is underpaid in my opinion, especially given the level of stress and responsibility involved - you make the wrong decision it could cost someone their life or land you in the middle of a law suit that will destroy your career. I know plumbers and tattoo artists who earn more than that (although they run their own businesses).
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 3, 2019 16:46:11 GMT
I was under the impression that some consultants do private work as well as NHS that boosts salaries of some medical professionals to higher levels. 100k for 34 years experience for a medical specialist is underpaid in my opinion, especially given the level of stress and responsibility involved - you make the wrong decision it could cost someone their life or land you in the middle of a law suit that will destroy your career. I know plumbers and tattoo artists who earn more than that (although they run their own businesses). I suspect if the focus of this particular debate is impact of pension rules on incentives to work/not work, then I the primary consideration here is the DB "pensionable salary" element: which while having zero knowledge of the actual schemes in question, are going to exclude the private sector work, and probably exclude payment for additional hours and possibly some benefits as well.
|
|
travolta
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,506
Likes: 1,214
|
Post by travolta on Jan 3, 2019 20:49:38 GMT
Buy land.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Jan 3, 2019 20:59:22 GMT
I was under the impression that some consultants do private work as well as NHS that boosts salaries of some medical professionals to higher levels. 100k for 34 years experience for a medical specialist is underpaid in my opinion, especially given the level of stress and responsibility involved - you make the wrong decision it could cost someone their life or land you in the middle of a law suit that will destroy your career. I know plumbers and tattoo artists who earn more than that (although they run their own businesses). I suspect if the focus of this particular debate is impact of pension rules on incentives to work/not work, then I the primary consideration here is the DB "pensionable salary" element: which while having zero knowledge of the actual schemes in question, are going to exclude the private sector work, and probably exclude payment for additional hours and possibly some benefits as well. It is very complicated. You need to be aware of the following terms to even begin to understand how to calculate your tax bill if you are a higher earner with a DB pension. Threshold income, adjusted income, pension input amount. I have yet to meet an accountant who can do the calculations without being spoon fed the numbers and walked through it.
|
|
|
Post by davee39 on Jan 3, 2019 22:27:36 GMT
The tax system is a mess because governments use sleight of hand to pretend taxes are not being increased.
My understanding is that there is a top tax rate of 45%.
Pension contributions earn tax relief at 40% on up to £40k/year, with a complex lifetime limit.
Personal tax allowances are withdrawn at incomes around £100k, creating a nasty step effect where the tax rate on marginal increases is higher than the tax rate on someone earning £200k
National insurance ( a tax on earned income - not savings or pensions - but still a tax) is levied at different salary ranges to income tax, and the bulk is levied on incomes below £45k.
I suspect that few very high earners happily pay their taxes and instead use service companies, company dividends, offshore or other methods to reduce tax.
At the benefits end of the scale Working tax credits were introduced by Gordon Brown as a reverse income tax to maintain living standards for the lower paid. These and other benefits rose to fairly high levels acting as a subsidy to employers and possibly a disincentive to work. These benefits have been savagely cut under Universal Credit and the taper which reduces benefits as income rises means the lowest paid can have an effective tax rate of 60%.
Accepting that unemployment nationally is at 4%, in my area (Teesside) it runs at 10%. Housing is plentiful and cheap (New 3 bed semis at £150k) but jobs are few. Young people can leave the area to find work, but then are hit by the astonishingly high cost of housing in prosperous areas.
A lot to sort out, and probably not achievable until we get some honest politicians.
For what it's worth I would do the following
Remove all income tax allowances. Set the personal tax allowance at £15k for everyone. Merge National Insurance with income tax, compensating pensioners with a higher state pension and savers with simpler and better ISA's. Tax rates at 20, 40 and 60%.
Tax the tech companies heavily.
Build significantly more houses. Probably using factory built components.
Meanwhile, the Brexit Circus resumes next week.
|
|
justme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 203
Likes: 89
|
Post by justme on Jan 3, 2019 23:59:23 GMT
Easily sorted - drop the salaries of those people so that they would not get to 100k while working full time and additional days. Easily sorted - they'll leave the NHS and use their skills that are in high demand elsewhere for the much higher market rate salary. Trust me, it's happening already, along with early retirement, part time working, and a looming massive NHS recruitment and retention crisis. Oh, and salaries have already dropped 25%plus in real terms over the last 10 years of 0% or occasionally 1% pay increases. No they can not all find their skills elsewhere for a much higher salary. Otherwise they would have done it already. I do not need to trust you , I used to work for NHS so I am very familiar with all that you say after "along with" words. The same as I know that there is not a magic land where the skills of doctor's are in demand which would pay far higher salaries and into which they could move tomorrow. With a mad competition for medical spaces and for training spaces what would have happened if the salaries dropped to power level? My answer is nothing , new people would just work for less money.Shortage of consultants does not happen because there are too few people wanting to be them because of low pay - it happens due to low capacity of training programmes. Money is not the answer to NHS staff shortage, teaching staff shortage etc. Throwing money at the problem is the same as pouring water in the bucket with a hole as someone mentioned earlier in the thread; with the hole being low moral, inability to carry out ethical work , feeling not appreciated, dangers etc.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,363
Likes: 2,180
|
Post by hazellend on Jan 4, 2019 0:21:42 GMT
Easily sorted - they'll leave the NHS and use their skills that are in high demand elsewhere for the much higher market rate salary. Trust me, it's happening already, along with early retirement, part time working, and a looming massive NHS recruitment and retention crisis. Oh, and salaries have already dropped 25%plus in real terms over the last 10 years of 0% or occasionally 1% pay increases. No they can not all find their skills elsewhere for a much higher salary. Otherwise they would have done it already. I do not need to trust you , I used to work for NHS so I am very familiar with all that you say after "along with" words. The same as I know that there is not a magic land where the skills of doctor's are in demand which would pay far higher salaries and into which they could move tomorrow. With a mad competition for medical spaces and for training spaces what would have happened if the salaries dropped to power level? My answer is nothing , new people would just work for less money.Shortage of consultants does not happen because there are too few people wanting to be them because of low pay - it happens due to low capacity of training programmes. Money is not the answer to NHS staff shortage, teaching staff shortage etc. Throwing money at the problem is the same as pouring water in the bucket with a hole as someone mentioned earlier in the thread; with the hole being low moral, inability to carry out ethical work , feeling not appreciated, dangers etc. The NHS is basically run on the cheap. Money is required, a lot of it. Personally, I think we need to move to a government subsisidised partial insurance system. The NHS cannot continue to provide free care, to everybody, for everything, in a high quality / expedient manner. Basically, it’s ed. I do love my job though
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,692
Likes: 3,018
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 4, 2019 1:17:44 GMT
Easily sorted - they'll leave the NHS and use their skills that are in high demand elsewhere for the much higher market rate salary. Trust me, it's happening already, along with early retirement, part time working, and a looming massive NHS recruitment and retention crisis. Oh, and salaries have already dropped 25%plus in real terms over the last 10 years of 0% or occasionally 1% pay increases. No they can not all find their skills elsewhere for a much higher salary. Otherwise they would have done it already. I do not need to trust you , I used to work for NHS so I am very familiar with all that you say after "along with" words. The same as I know that there is not a magic land where the skills of doctor's are in demand which would pay far higher salaries and into which they could move tomorrow. With a mad competition for medical spaces and for training spaces what would have happened if the salaries dropped to power level? My answer is nothing , new people would just work for less money.Shortage of consultants does not happen because there are too few people wanting to be them because of low pay - it happens due to low capacity of training programmes. Money is not the answer to NHS staff shortage, teaching staff shortage etc. Throwing money at the problem is the same as pouring water in the bucket with a hole as someone mentioned earlier in the thread; with the hole being low moral, inability to carry out ethical work , feeling not appreciated, dangers etc. Not necessarily they wouldn't, because there were other reasons for staying in the NHS other than money. But when the government takes the p*ss on pay and pensions, and when those other reasons are also attacked (and you allude to some of these at the end of your post) , then people do leave and are leaving. I have colleagues now in all sorts of areas: private medicine, heath care start ups, tech companies, business, finance, law, pharma, biotech, working abroad - where their skills are greatly in demand and they are better paid. You don't have to move "tomorrow", but those opportunities are there and are being taken, as are other options like working less and enjoying more leisure or retiring early.
|
|
Godanubis
Member of DD Central
Anubis is known as the god of death and is the oldest and most popular of ancient Egyptian deities.
Posts: 2,011
Likes: 1,013
|
Post by Godanubis on Jan 4, 2019 1:45:20 GMT
No they can not all find their skills elsewhere for a much higher salary. Otherwise they would have done it already. I do not need to trust you , I used to work for NHS so I am very familiar with all that you say after "along with" words. The same as I know that there is not a magic land where the skills of doctor's are in demand which would pay far higher salaries and into which they could move tomorrow. With a mad competition for medical spaces and for training spaces what would have happened if the salaries dropped to power level? My answer is nothing , new people would just work for less money.Shortage of consultants does not happen because there are too few people wanting to be them because of low pay - it happens due to low capacity of training programmes. Money is not the answer to NHS staff shortage, teaching staff shortage etc. Throwing money at the problem is the same as pouring water in the bucket with a hole as someone mentioned earlier in the thread; with the hole being low moral, inability to carry out ethical work , feeling not appreciated, dangers etc. Not necessarily they wouldn't, because there were other reasons for staying in the NHS other than money. But when the government takes the p*ss on pay and pensions, and when those other reasons are also attacked (and you allude to some of these at the end of your post) , then people do leave and are leaving. I have colleagues now in all sorts of areas: private medicine, heath care start ups, tech companies, business, finance, law, pharma, biotech, working abroad - where their skills are greatly in demand and they are better paid. You don't have to move "tomorrow", but those opportunities are there and are being taken, as are other options like working less and enjoying more leisure or retiring early. With regards to NHS Final salary I was lucky enough to transfer mine out to a SIPP before that option was removed (thanks Mr. Osborne). This allows me to decide my income and even how much taxable income I take from my crystallised fund. I restrict income to 21% Tax and invest what I don’t use and make back tax paid within 18 months For past 4 years it meant a income substantially greater than my pension would be and If required I still have a few hundred £K I can access which would not be available were I to stay in NHS pension . Also my beneficiaries get my full fund balance Tax free . As my SIPP down a lot over last 6 months I will only be taking my tax allowable £11800 this tax year until things improve. As my state pension not payable for a few more years I hope by then to move all funds into Tax free investments and the flexibility of managing my own funds makes this possible. I still add my SIPP allowance to an uncrystalysed SIPP for even more flexibility.
|
|
Nomad
Member of DD Central
Posts: 755
Likes: 513
|
Post by Nomad on Jan 4, 2019 7:05:57 GMT
The tax system is a mess because governments use sleight of hand to pretend taxes are not being increased. My understanding is that there is a top tax rate of 45%. Pension contributions earn tax relief at 40% on up to £40k/year, with a complex lifetime limit. Personal tax allowances are withdrawn at incomes around £100k, creating a nasty step effect where the tax rate on marginal increases is higher than the tax rate on someone earning £200k National insurance ( a tax on earned income - not savings or pensions - but still a tax) is levied at different salary ranges to income tax, and the bulk is levied on incomes below £45k. I suspect that few very high earners happily pay their taxes and instead use service companies, company dividends, offshore or other methods to reduce tax. At the benefits end of the scale Working tax credits were introduced by Gordon Brown as a reverse income tax to maintain living standards for the lower paid. These and other benefits rose to fairly high levels acting as a subsidy to employers and possibly a disincentive to work. These benefits have been savagely cut under Universal Credit and the taper which reduces benefits as income rises means the lowest paid can have an effective tax rate of 60%. Accepting that unemployment nationally is at 4%, in my area (Teesside) it runs at 10%. Housing is plentiful and cheap (New 3 bed semis at £150k) but jobs are few. Young people can leave the area to find work, but then are hit by the astonishingly high cost of housing in prosperous areas. A lot to sort out, and probably not achievable until we get some honest politicians. For what it's worth I would do the following Remove all income tax allowances. Set the personal tax allowance at £15k for everyone. Merge National Insurance with income tax, compensating pensioners with a higher state pension and savers with simpler and better ISA's. Tax rates at 20, 40 and 60%. Tax the tech companies heavily. Build significantly more houses. Probably using factory built components. Meanwhile, the Brexit Circus resumes next week. Top rate at 60% = even more will "use service companies, company dividends, offshore or other methods to reduce tax." "Tax the tech companies heavily." = many will relocate outside UK.
|
|
justme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 203
Likes: 89
|
Post by justme on Jan 4, 2019 7:55:54 GMT
[/quote] The NHS cannot continue to provide free care, to everybody, for everything, in a high quality / expedient manner. Basically, it’s . I do love my job though [/quote] Moreover , it has not been able to provide it for a while. It's just that all the warnings are phrased in a future tense , nobody dares to say it does not work already. So nobody listens to those warnings, everyone is fed up with them because it has been " on a brink of collapse" for 10 years+
|
|