Junior Doctor's contracts petition
Discussion
IanA2 said:
Correct, one of the reasons the NHS is able to provide the services it does is because it is significantly more efficient than, for example, the US. This is internationally recognised. Just think how much better it could be if it was brought up to the OECD average.
This continued increased spending on healthcare, above the rate of GDP growth - what services are you proposing to cut to fund it??IanA2 said:
Correct, one of the reasons the NHS is able to provide the services it does is because it is significantly more efficient than, for example, the US. This is internationally recognised. Just think how much better it could be if it was brought up to the OECD average.
One of many problems with it, however, is that it pays zero attention to other forms of govt expenditure that could also be having an impact (the report highlights this). Nor on affordability.I'm of the view that we have a major affordability problem against all govt expenditure (obviously). And think things like the NHS actually try to cover far too much with that in mind. Though there are other areas of the welfare state that I would be inclined to turn the screw on ahead of the NHS (pensions being one).
sidicks said:
This continued increased spending on healthcare, above the rate of GDP growth - what services are you proposing to cut to fund it??
Tbh sickdick, I really have no interest in interacting with you. If the Pope told you he was a Catholic, you'd probably tell him he wasn't. So, you say what you want, but don't expect any response from me. Unfortunately it's not possible to mute folks on this board, but hey ho, that's life.
IanA2 said:
Tbh sickdick, I really have no interest in interacting with you. If the Pope told you he was a Catholic, you'd probably tell him he wasn't. So, you say what you want, but don't expect any response from me.
Unfortunately it's not possible to mute folks on this board, but hey ho, that's life.
As I suspected, you have no credible response. Unlike you I have evidence to support the claims I make!Unfortunately it's not possible to mute folks on this board, but hey ho, that's life.
I'm sorry (but not surprised) that actually providing evidence to support your claims is beyond your abilities, but of course that would actually help contribute to an active discussion which you clearly don't want!
Murph7355 said:
IanA2 said:
Correct, one of the reasons the NHS is able to provide the services it does is because it is significantly more efficient than, for example, the US. This is internationally recognised. Just think how much better it could be if it was brought up to the OECD average.
One of many problems with it, however, is that it pays zero attention to other forms of govt expenditure that could also be having an impact (the report highlights this). Nor on affordability.I'm of the view that we have a major affordability problem against all govt expenditure (obviously). And think things like the NHS actually try to cover far too much with that in mind. Though there are other areas of the welfare state that I would be inclined to turn the screw on ahead of the NHS (pensions being one).
http://www.theweek.co.uk/62461/which-costs-more-be...
anonymous said:
[redacted]
the total contribution employee + employer in the DB schemes such as the NHS is 25 - 30% ... also full pension requires 40 years Full time substantive service ( thereby excluding pre-registration for the past 20 or so years for Nurses and longer for AHPs, never been included for Docs and Dentists ) ...
sidicks said:
So where are you proposing it comes from?
Use the 'surplus' to start and grow pension funds. Thread is about junior doctor contracts. Pensions are irrelevant in context of this thread. Do you work 'in' pensions? I'm unsure what is your position as to jds contract. One one hand it seems that you want full-on 7 days service, on another you are questioning affordability of funding. mph1977 said:
the total contribution employee + employer in the DB schemes such as the NHS is 25 - 30% ...
And?This is still insufficient to meet the benefits promised and the taxpayer is still paying for the vast majority of the benefit - these schemes are unaffordable and increased funding for the NHS (and other public services) needs to go to services not employee pensions!
mph1977 said:
also full pension requires 40 years Full time substantive service ( thereby excluding pre-registration for the past 20 or so years for Nurses and longer for AHPs, never been included for Docs and Dentists ) ...
Irrelevant. You work for fewer years, your benefit is reduced - still massively subsidised using funds that should actually be spent on providing services.jjlynn27 said:
Use the 'surplus' to start and grow pension funds.
It's not a genuine surplus.The money is needed to pay existing benefits.
Most importantly, whether a scheme is funded or not doesn't really alter its long term cost - the issue is with the affordability of the benefits promised compared to the (employee) contributions paid.
jjlynn27 said:
Thread is about junior doctor contracts. Pensions are irrelevant in context of this thread. Do you work 'in' pensions? I'm unsure what is your position as to jds contract. One one hand it seems that you want full-on 7 days service, on another you are questioning affordability of funding.
The NHS can't continue as is - funding has increased massively over the last 10-15 years, yet some people are still spouting nonsense that it needs 'saving'.Fact is, there needs to be s a fundamental rethink about what the NHS does (and what it can no longer afford to do). In order to improve services we need to ensure that any increased funding goes towards providing services not subsidising hugely generous pensions.
Hence the link between the two issues...
sidicks said:
jjlynn27 said:
Thread is about junior doctor contracts. Pensions are irrelevant in context of this thread. Do you work 'in' pensions? I'm unsure what is your position as to jds contract. One one hand it seems that you want full-on 7 days service, on another you are questioning affordability of funding.
The NHS can't continue as is - funding has increased massively over the last 10-15 years, yet some people are still spouting nonsense that it needs 'saving'.Fact is, there needs to be s a fundamental rethink about what the NHS does (and what it can no longer afford to do). In order to improve services we need to ensure that any increased funding goes towards providing services not subsidising hugely generous pensions.
Hence the link between the two issues...
Comment on Sky News this morning broadly welcomed Osborne's decision to front-load the NHS funding increases (6bn) but commented that the impact would be less than people expected due to the need to fund debt i.e. pay off some of the existing debt and fund pensions. Funding, salaries, pensions, all totally relevant.
IanA2 said:
It might help if HRMC started to collect effectively:
http://www.theweek.co.uk/62461/which-costs-more-be...
In principle I agree with you. Like I said, there are other areas I'd be inclined to focus on more than the NHS, but it doesn't change the fact that the NHS in current form is unsustainable. It has to be spend within our means. http://www.theweek.co.uk/62461/which-costs-more-be...
As an aside the article linked to amuses me in that it highlights tax evasion and avoidance. Both of which (the latter of which is legal so shouldn't be counted at all) are small beer compared to the blanket "we just didn't collect it" amounts.
In that blanket amount I wonder how much is simply past due, and was ultimately paid (with interest). How much is subject to genuine and valid dispute. How much is cyclical and expected etc. The figures come across as designed to suit an agenda rather than give anything truly thought provoking.
The tax code needs simplifying of that there is no doubt. But cuts would still be needed even if we had the perfect collection system. Our deficit is greater than the amounts cited after all...
Well it was reported in 2012 the highest GP pension was just £160k per annum !
These sort of pensions in the public sector as a whole need to be looked at rather than a blanket cut of all NHS pensions.
The majority of people are in fact probably taking home a pension in the NHS which is not much more than the state pension.
These sort of pensions in the public sector as a whole need to be looked at rather than a blanket cut of all NHS pensions.
The majority of people are in fact probably taking home a pension in the NHS which is not much more than the state pension.
Downward said:
Well it was reported in 2012 the highest GP pension was just £160k per annum !
Which equates to a value of circa £5m...Downward said:
These sort of pensions in the public sector as a whole need to be looked at rather than a blanket cut of all NHS pensions.
The majority of people are in fact probably taking home a pension in the NHS which is not much more than the state pension.
Regardless, that will only be because they worked few years in the service and hence have paid minimal contributions. It's not the ultimate size of the pensions that is the issue, it's the size of the pensions relative to the value of contributions paid!The majority of people are in fact probably taking home a pension in the NHS which is not much more than the state pension.
sidicks said:
Regardless, that will only be because they worked few years in the service and hence have paid minimal contributions. It's not the ultimate size of the pensions that is the issue, it's the size of the pensions relative to the value of contributions paid!
This thread is about junior doctors contracts. Why on earth have you bought pensions into it?FWIW I agree with you regarding NHS pensions in their current form being unsustainable but what does that have to do with this thread?
Are you arguing that saving made from pension reforms would mean junior doctor contracts wouldn't have to be altered?
If so, please show me the statement from Hunt\anyone mentioning this. Everyone knows the second these contracts get renegotiated they won't ever get back to what they were.
With respect to saving I keep thinking we have agreement then someone else chimes in with another nonsense tinfoil-hatted statement along the lines of 'a red conspiracy' and it all starts again.
There are huge areas of NHS waste that can be tackled before frontline staff need to be looked at. These have been mentioned repeatedly in this thread.
Edited by BigMon on Tuesday 24th November 08:37
BigMon said:
This thread is about junior doctors contracts. Why on earth have you bought pensions into it?
FWIW I agree with you regarding NHS pensions in their current form being unsustainable but what does that have to do with this thread?
Are you arguing that saving made from pension reforms would mean junior doctor contracts wouldn't have to be altered?
If so, please show me the statement from Hunt\anyone mentioning this. Everyone knows the second these contracts get renegotiated they won't ever get back to what they were.
It''s been explained on a number of occasions, when the OP decided that the NHS needed to be 'saved', but then refused to explain what or who the NHS needed to be save from.FWIW I agree with you regarding NHS pensions in their current form being unsustainable but what does that have to do with this thread?
Are you arguing that saving made from pension reforms would mean junior doctor contracts wouldn't have to be altered?
If so, please show me the statement from Hunt\anyone mentioning this. Everyone knows the second these contracts get renegotiated they won't ever get back to what they were.
The NHS needs fundamental reform - spending needs to be carried out more wisely and focussed more on essential services. If less money was spent on pensions (and of course all of the other wastage reduced) more funds would be available to fund actual services, including recruiting additional doctors, to provide a more consistent service 7 days a week.
HTH
BigMon said:
sidicks said:
Regardless, that will only be because they worked few years in the service and hence have paid minimal contributions. It's not the ultimate size of the pensions that is the issue, it's the size of the pensions relative to the value of contributions paid!
This thread is about junior doctors contracts. Why on earth have you bought pensions into it?The oddity is considering no link exists.
For example:
"Reckonable pay is the average of the three best consecutive years of pensionable pay in the last 10 years prior to retirement. This average is the figure used to calculate your benefits on retirement from the 2008 section of the NHS Pension Scheme."
http://bma.org.uk/support-at-work/pensions/faq-rec...
As explained several times already including by sidicks.
sidicks said:
If YOU could do basic maths, you'd understand that the whole public sector approach to pensions is unsustainable and making essential changes now would potentially mean more money was available to fund services such as the NHS (and increase salaries for staff).
However, I suspect that you can only do 'basic maths' when it suits you!
Slight diversion from the thread. Forget basic maths, how about basic honesty. NHS pensions weren't advertised like a private sector pension. There was no, 'investments could go up as well as down' They aren't even funded in the same way as a private pension. There is no pot subject to the forces of the market. It was simply a promise by the government. It was a clever promise by them of a pension more stable than a normal investment, and they used it as an argument to lower salaries. Hey guys your salary isn't private sector competitive but we offer copper bottomed pensions underwritten by the taxpayer if you'll accept a lower salary than in the private medical sector.However, I suspect that you can only do 'basic maths' when it suits you!
I paid one third of my salary into my pension my entire working life on this promise. That money didn't go into a pension pot accruing value. It doesn't actually exist anywhere other than on paper. The government even gave me a bit of paper with an unchanging forecast for the last twenty years despite the ups and downs of the market.
Then after twenty years of contributions it said. Hey you know what, we are running out of money and would like to make cuts. We would like to change the promise to bring your pension in line with the private sector pensions which are all going down the toilet. We know your pension isn't linked to the market but we would just like to change the multiply figure we use which will at a stroke lower you pension payouts, and errum , yes we'd like to back tax you for all the years you'd accrued the pension by having a yearly lowering of the cap on your pension subject to 40% tax on what you already have.
It was a retrospective rewrite of the term of the contract in a way which would be totally illegal in the private sector, and was simply a raid on NHS pensions.
There was an immediate call via the BMA for strike action for GP's, and its to my undying shame that I voted no because I just couldn't face the idea of sticking two fingers up to patients because of money.
It had nothing to do with maths. The government could have simply said we can't offer these terms to incoming members of the pension scheme. But that wouldn't have be so lucrative as raiding the established ones. It would have been more honest though.
sidicks said:
If less money was spent on pensions (and of course all of the other wastage reduced) more funds would be available to fund actual services, including recruiting additional doctors, to provide a more consistent service 7 days a week.
HTH
So do you agree that there are many areas of NHS wastage and cost that should and could be looked at before junior doctors contracts need to be renegotiated?HTH
julian64 said:
Slight diversion from the thread. Forget basic maths, how about basic honesty. NHS pensions weren't advertised like a private sector pension. There was no, 'investments could go up as well as down' They aren't even funded in the same way as a private pension. There is no pot subject to the forces of the market. It was simply a promise by the government. It was a clever promise by them of a pension more stable than a normal investment, and they used it as an argument to lower salaries. Hey guys your salary isn't private sector competitive but we offer copper bottomed pensions underwritten by the taxpayer if you'll accept a lower salary than in the private medical sector.
How they are funded does not affect the ultimate tax to be incurred by the taxpayer.Given that the employee faces absolutely no risk in terms of investment returns, interest rates, inflation or longevity, they are rightly regarded as gold-plated. How about some basic honesty....?
julian64 said:
I paid one third of my salary into my pension my entire working life on this promise. That money didn't go into a pension pot accruing value. It doesn't actually exist anywhere other than on paper. The government even gave me a bit of paper with an unchanging forecast for the last twenty years despite the ups and downs of the market.
Which public sector scheme are you in that has employee contribution rates of 33%??julian64 said:
Then after twenty years of contributions it said. Hey you know what, we are running out of money and would like to make cuts. We would like to change the promise to bring your pension in line with the private sector pensions which are all going down the toilet. We know your pension isn't linked to the market but we would just like to change the multiply figure we use which will at a stroke lower you pension payouts, and errum , yes we'd like to back tax you for all the years you'd accrued the pension by having a yearly lowering of the cap on your pension subject to 40% tax on what you already have.
Which changes are you referring to (and are net you confusing accrued benefits and future accrual)?You fail to acknowledge / understand that the treatment of your final salary pension for the Lifetime Allowance is massively beneficial compared with how the private sector is treated!
julian64 said:
It was a retrospective rewrite of the term of the contract in a way which would be totally illegal in the private sector, and was simply a raid on NHS pensions.
Not true. Are you totally unaware of how private sector pensions have been revised over the last 30 years?julian64 said:
There was an immediate call via the BMA for strike action for GP's, and its to my undying shame that I voted no because I just couldn't face the idea of sticking two fingers up to patients because of money.
I am aware that the GP scheme is slightly different as part of the 'employer' contributions are paid by the individual (hence the taxpayer subsidy is much reduced). However, GPs salaries were significantly increased to cover that?julian64 said:
It had nothing to do with maths. The government could have simply said we can't offer these terms to incoming members of the pension scheme. But that wouldn't have be so lucrative as raiding the established ones. It would have been more honest though.
I've explained on numerous ocassions that changes should never be retrospective - accrued rights should be protected.But it is everything about maths - the sums simply do not stack up given current longevity and the low conibution rates paid by most public sector employees.
Edited by sidicks on Tuesday 24th November 09:17
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff