agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,550
Likes: 4,166
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 8, 2021 19:37:36 GMT
My contribution is 33%. In all honesty I’d like the option to opt out and keep the pre tax salary to invest as I see fit, but they’ve not allowed that in Scotland yet. You need to include the employer contribution in the calculation because it is part of your remuneration package. Mine was even higher (34.5% - 14.5% me, 20% employer) and I had no control over how much it was (it was all or nothing), and because it was so high it triggered an additional tax payment for breaching the annual allowance, even though the assumed accrued pension was not even guaranteed as a third of the salary on which the contributions were based could be withdrawn, thereby also reducing the pension (on which tax had been paid over several years) by a third. And then things got even worse as they introduced a taper to the annual allowance, as well as cutting the lifetime allowance, and and the upshot was that it worked out I earned more if I worked fewer hours. Literally. Not just per hour - in absolute terms. My income including pension accrual was higher if I worked about a third fewer hours. So I did. And then I realised my life was better working fewer hours, and then COVID hit. And that is how the NHS lost many of its most senior staff. There is no way that senior NHS staff are going to work extra hours now to make up the backlog. Once bitten, twice shy. Anyone who is affected by minor tinkering with the lifetime allowance is in a very enviable position.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 2,984
|
Post by IFISAcava on Sept 8, 2021 19:42:15 GMT
Mine was even higher (34.5% - 14.5% me, 20% employer) and I had no control over how much it was (it was all or nothing), and because it was so high it triggered an additional tax payment for breaching the annual allowance, even though the assumed accrued pension was not even guaranteed as a third of the salary on which the contributions were based could be withdrawn, thereby also reducing the pension (on which tax had been paid over several years) by a third. And then things got even worse as they introduced a taper to the annual allowance, as well as cutting the lifetime allowance, and and the upshot was that it worked out I earned more if I worked fewer hours. Literally. Not just per hour - in absolute terms. My income including pension accrual was higher if I worked about a third fewer hours. So I did. And then I realised my life was better working fewer hours, and then COVID hit. And that is how the NHS lost many of its most senior staff. There is no way that senior NHS staff are going to work extra hours now to make up the backlog. Once bitten, twice shy. Anyone who is affected by minor tinkering with the lifetime allowance is in a very enviable position. It's been effectively halved and continues to fall. That's not minor tinkering, and the pension was always part of the deal in the job. Indeed I hesitate to even comment on this issue as that's the usual response, with some justification. it is enviable in some ways, but if it stops your senior NHS staff from working it's counterproductive.
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,550
Likes: 4,166
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 8, 2021 20:25:07 GMT
Anyone who is affected by minor tinkering with the lifetime allowance is in a very enviable position. It's been effectively halved and continues to fall. That's not minor tinkering, and the pension was always part of the deal in the job. Indeed I hesitate to even comment on this issue as that's the usual response, with some justification. it is enviable in some ways, but if it stops your senior NHS staff from working it's counterproductive. The lifetime allowance currently only affects people who are likely to have over £1m in their pensions (and I'm not suggesting that those people don't deserve to have that money).
If that's your biggest problem in life then you probably aren't doing too badly, and probably not going to get a lot of sympathy from the average man in the street, regardless of how just your complaint might be.
|
|
keitha
Member of DD Central
2024, hopefully the year I get out of P2P
Posts: 3,809
Likes: 2,283
|
Post by keitha on Sept 8, 2021 21:02:05 GMT
Not forgetting that for many in Local Government etc they had a contract taken at say 20 years of age that after 40 years they could retire on a full pension. This was changed with no consultation to 49 years.
soon the old scheme people received 1/80 pay per year of service with a 3/80 lump sum and paid 6% of salary. The new scheme accrues 1/49 per year into a personal pot which is adjust for cost of living.
The LGPS and Teachers etc have a pension fund with Billions of £s in it.
some Police Forces have no fund so for example Humberside spends £48 million a year on pensions, this is about 20% of the force budget and will grow over time
Although Local Government pensions looks good staff in some specialities Eg Accountancy, Audit or IT are poorly paid by comparison to the private sector and the decent pension at the end helps make up for this
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Sept 8, 2021 21:33:16 GMT
Mine was even higher (34.5% - 14.5% me, 20% employer) and I had no control over how much it was (it was all or nothing), and because it was so high it triggered an additional tax payment for breaching the annual allowance, even though the assumed accrued pension was not even guaranteed as a third of the salary on which the contributions were based could be withdrawn, thereby also reducing the pension (on which tax had been paid over several years) by a third. And then things got even worse as they introduced a taper to the annual allowance, as well as cutting the lifetime allowance, and and the upshot was that it worked out I earned more if I worked fewer hours. Literally. Not just per hour - in absolute terms. My income including pension accrual was higher if I worked about a third fewer hours. So I did. And then I realised my life was better working fewer hours, and then COVID hit. And that is how the NHS lost many of its most senior staff. There is no way that senior NHS staff are going to work extra hours now to make up the backlog. Once bitten, twice shy. Anyone who is affected by minor tinkering with the lifetime allowance is in a very enviable position. Interesting choice of words. That’s why it’s called the politics of envy. I would say anybody who is in that position has probably worked very hard and it seems stupid to entice them into an early retirement.
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Sept 8, 2021 21:34:36 GMT
It's been effectively halved and continues to fall. That's not minor tinkering, and the pension was always part of the deal in the job. Indeed I hesitate to even comment on this issue as that's the usual response, with some justification. it is enviable in some ways, but if it stops your senior NHS staff from working it's counterproductive. The lifetime allowance currently only affects people who are likely to have over £1m in their pensions (and I'm not suggesting that those people don't deserve to have that money).
If that's your biggest problem in life then you probably aren't doing too badly, and probably not going to get a lot of sympathy from the average man in the street, regardless of how just your complaint might be. I don’t want sympathy, I just want a system that will retain doctors.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Sept 8, 2021 21:57:04 GMT
The lifetime allowance currently only affects people who are likely to have over £1m in their pensions (and I'm not suggesting that those people don't deserve to have that money).
If that's your biggest problem in life then you probably aren't doing too badly, and probably not going to get a lot of sympathy from the average man in the street, regardless of how just your complaint might be. I don’t want sympathy, I just want a system that will retain doctors. this is self evidently in the interests of the country. And there would be ways of doing that which don't smack of making a special case relative to others. For example changing the nature of the pension structure itself, so that level of additional entitlement drops away when certain salary clip level is reached i.e. reducing the accrual effect of increased earnings so as to reduce the LTA impact and thereby eliminate/reduce the perverse disincentive to continuing in employment or increasing salary.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 2,984
|
Post by IFISAcava on Sept 8, 2021 23:26:07 GMT
It's been effectively halved and continues to fall. That's not minor tinkering, and the pension was always part of the deal in the job. Indeed I hesitate to even comment on this issue as that's the usual response, with some justification. it is enviable in some ways, but if it stops your senior NHS staff from working it's counterproductive. The lifetime allowance currently only affects people who are likely to have over £1m in their pensions (and I'm not suggesting that those people don't deserve to have that money).
If that's your biggest problem in life then you probably aren't doing too badly, and probably not going to get a lot of sympathy from the average man in the street, regardless of how just your complaint might be. The problem is that once you get there (and a £1.07 million LTA (now frozen so will be eroded in real terms) is around a £40-something K per year pre-tax pension, so comfortable but not even close to "fat cat" or "gold plated" levels) if you stop contributing you lose the 20% of your salary your employers were paying into your pension - it's not like a direct contribution scheme where you can opt to get the money back as salary once your pension is filled up. So you get a 20% pay cut and a smaller pension. And the LTA is in addition to the Annual Allowance and Annual Allowance taper issues. You may well say that's an enviable position, and Drs should suck it up (on top of 10 years of public sector pay freeze, so another 25-30% cut in real terms) but it seems to me less enviable for society when Drs decide it's better to leave the NHS and work somewhere else (or just work less or retire). It is not unnoticed that judges got special treatment for similar pension issues, and that lawyers are heavily represented in Parliament.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2021 8:27:17 GMT
I think that any doctor who has fought their way into the education system and the constrained limited of doctor training 40 years ago, put up with the terrible hours of work under the intense pressures of possible errors and the emotional stresses that come with that would appreciate the opportunity to retire early.
Alternatively, perhaps the Doctor's union should be sanctioned for having done such a great job of making sure Doctors are paid so well.
My dentist took part in one of the negotiations for a pay increase for that group and said negotiations with the NHS were like taking candy from a baby, they actually tried to stop the employers offering so much at one point it was so embarassing.
So, my final thought. Why is there an upper limit on SIPP value at all? Who benefits?
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Sept 9, 2021 8:31:12 GMT
I don’t want sympathy, I just want a system that will retain doctors. this is self evidently in the interests of the country. And there would be ways of doing that which don't smack of making a special case relative to others. For example changing the nature of the pension structure itself, so that level of additional entitlement drops away when certain salary clip level is reached i.e. reducing the accrual effect of increased earnings so as to reduce the LTA impact and thereby eliminate/reduce the perverse disincentive to continuing in employment or increasing salary. I don’t really see how that incentives people. If you have a group of people who have skills in very high demand, and you can’t rapidly train more people like that, then special cases relative to others need to be made. A precedent has already been set as judges get unique pension tax arrangements to retain them.
|
|
IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,661
Likes: 2,984
|
Post by IFISAcava on Sept 9, 2021 10:45:32 GMT
It also needs to be realised that pension contributions are set actuarily - so I have paid between 20 and 35% of my earnings for 30-odd years to get a decent pension. it isn't a "gift". But the system is inflexible, and once you get quite senior there are serious financial disincentives to continuing NHS work. I find that odd when we hear about the shortage of NHS doctors and the need to train many more of them (at great expense and time lag).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2021 11:10:37 GMT
The upside of having a Doctor shortage is the opportunity to automate and standarise so many stages of the process. The lack of Doctors is only a problem if we keep doing what we did before.
Interesting times (with all its connotations)!
|
|
shimself
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,560
Likes: 1,169
|
Post by shimself on Sept 9, 2021 11:52:24 GMT
They are saying it's about the wages statistical blip, and I can see their point; even Steve Webb the LibDem inventor of the triple Lock agrees. BUT they've also cut the link to inflation (probably would have been ~3%)
And that tells us (again and again and again) the BJ and crew never tell the truth
Whilst I don't particularly disagree on your final point, hasn't the lock been set at 2.5% or CPI which ever is HIGHER? I gathered that this year it will be 2.5%, end of. Whatever the inflation number is
|
|
hazellend
Member of DD Central
Posts: 2,361
Likes: 2,179
|
Post by hazellend on Sept 9, 2021 11:54:16 GMT
The upside of having a Doctor shortage is the opportunity to automate and standarise so many stages of the process. The lack of Doctors is only a problem if we keep doing what we did before.
Interesting times (with all its connotations)!
Covid has driven a lot of rapid innovation, particularly in my field of Gastro, but despite that demand appears to be rising exponentially! In the foreseeable future the shortage of doctors is going to remain a huge challenge
|
|
agent69
Member of DD Central
Posts: 5,550
Likes: 4,166
|
Post by agent69 on Sept 9, 2021 13:16:58 GMT
I think that any doctor who has fought their way into the education system and the constrained limited of doctor training 40 years ago, put up with the terrible hours of work under the intense pressures of possible errors and the emotional stresses that come with that would appreciate the opportunity to retire early.
Alternatively, perhaps the Doctor's union should be sanctioned for having done such a great job of making sure Doctors are paid so well.
My dentist took part in one of the negotiations for a pay increase for that group and said negotiations with the NHS were like taking candy from a baby, they actually tried to stop the employers offering so much at one point it was so embarassing.
So, my final thought. Why is there an upper limit on SIPP value at all? Who benefits?
I didn't think there was. I thought it was just the amount of tax relief that was limited.
|
|