You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Rather than sorting out an anomaly in the way NHS (and perhaps some other public sector) pensions are calculated,
I don't think theres an anomaly. Its genuinely possible for a defined benefit pension to add £40k of value in a year, without too much sweat, regardless of the calculation.
An index-linked annuity (which is what an nhs pension is the equivilent of) pays out about £4k per year for every £100k you put in. That is to say, if you put in £40k, your annuity would rise by ~£1600.
A defined benefits pension often pays in around 1/50th of your salary in a year. That is to say, if you earn £100k a year (for sake of easy maths), after 1 year your pension would be worth £2000 per year, after 2 years it'd be worth £4000, and so on. You'll note that each of these number is more than an annuity bought with the £40k limit.
the nhs pension is 1/54th - so if you earn over £86k, a 1/54th pension would put in more than £40k "worth" of pension to your pot. The maths above aren't how things are calculated (its a bit more convoluted), its just a demonstration to show how generous defined benefit pensions really are - the calculation of the value isn't far off.
the reason they removed the lifetime cap is also similar. If a doctor works for 40 years on an average salary of 80k, they've got a pension of pretty close to £60k when they retire. At normal annuity rates, that's worth £1.5mm. Both caps needed raising to avoid issues.
Drac – that rather assumes the retirement age on self invested pensions doesn’t change again. It’s about to go up to 58 as it is.
I intend to work to I’m 58 I’ll take the hit in going early.
its just a demonstration to show how generous defined benefit pensions really are
Indeed.
This seems to be the core of the issue.
I'll ask again - are we ok with a retirement income for a doctor that is higher than a nurse earns at the peak of a full time career?
I’ll ask again – are we ok with a retirement income for a doctor that is higher than a nurse earns at the peak of a full time career?
Yes because it’s a completely different job.
Every nurse has the opportunity to retrain to become a doctor, just like Mrs FD did.
Just a point on 5labs point about defined benefit schemes
Never heard of 50ths. Mine was 80ths and the new NHS at 54ths is career average and gives a lower pension than 80ths of the previous. I suspect the idea that a doctors pension will be £60 000 pa highly suspect. Career average and they will have spent many years earning way less than a consultants salary First couple of years on less than a shop worker and almost no one gets the full 40 year. Very unusual to be a consultant before being in their 40s
I have no problem with some of us getting decent pensions - the problem is not that - its the horrifically low pensions most get
I’ll ask again – are we ok with a retirement income for a doctor that is higher than a nurse earns at the peak of a full time career?
Very unusual that would happen - 5lab has misrepresented what folk get. Most doctors are not consultants with high merit awards
Very unusual to be a consultant before being in their 40s
Not the experience of the vast majority of consultants my wife works with
MId 30s then. IIRC its 12 years training to become a consultant minimum. So 30 is the youngest possible and most folk do not take the minimum time. similar to GPs - so the career average is not based on 40years at a high salary but somewhat less.including some years on a low salery
Never heard of 50ths. Mine was 80ths and the new NHS at 54ths is career average and gives a lower pension than 80ths of the previous
50ths is typical of a average salary defined benefit scheme, and was an example to give easy maths. a quick google suggests the nhs is on 54ths (which is used for later calculations), the civil service is on 43rds, teachers are 57ths, etc
almost no one gets the full 40 year.
which is why they're removing the pension caps. it takes 5 years to do a medical degree so you can start your career as a trainee doctor at age 23. there's no reason for someone not to have a 40 year career after that. Its hard to get average figures for doctors salary, but even if its "only" 65k over 40 years they're still getting a £50k pension plus a further £10k as a state pension. 60k total.
Doctors pay scales are available. they will not be earning high wages until well into their 30s
You misrepresent the potential lifetime average earnings grossly
civil service 43rds? Its changed then ';cos the civil servants I know were 60ths
Never heard of a DB scheme thats 50ths and certainly not typical
there’s no reason for someone not to have a 40 year career after that
Burnout. Very few will work 40 years full time.
As a reg you’ll earn 50-60k easy. And by your definition that must be a high salary as that would make you rich
teachers are 57ths, etc
when did that happen? My teachers pension is an 80ths scheme.
Pay scales for those that want to see the reality, 11th year of post grad training they reach £53 000 by which time they will be 34 minimum
That doesn’t take into account the banding
Burnout. Very few will work 40 years full time.
nice for them to have such a healthy pension they can afford to retire early, eh? Or I guess they're doing lots of overtime which will bump up their salarys some more..
when did that happen? My teachers pension is an 80ths scheme.
yours is probably final salary (earlier scheme), 57th is probably average salary (later scheme).
Pay scales for those that want to see the reality, 11th year of post grad training they reach £53 000 by which time they will be 34 minimum
after the end of that scale, what happens? if they become a consultant, on the pay scales here
https://www.bmj.com/careers/article/the-complete-guide-to-nhs-pay-for-doctors
they have a career average salary of £84117, which means £70k pension after the state pension
if they become a GP it seems the average salary after that is £100,700 ( https://www.gponline.com/average-gp-pay-rose-28-england-2019-20-faster-uk-nations/article/1725154 - probably a bit more now) - which would put their career average salary a touch lower at £81,058, either way taking home a >£60k pension (plus state pension, so £70k) if they stick it out for 40 years.
a 60k private pension has a lifetime allowance calculation value of ~£1,500,000. If you follow those career paths, your pension was (before today) taxed heavily after your 31st year, which is probably why so many docs quit at that point, when they've got lots and lots of experiance.
maybe the retired doctors you know don't have a lifestyle which represents what in your mind's eye is rich?
I'm not having a go at doctors having a large pension, good on them, but defined benefit pensions are, in certain jobs, easy to rake up and worth an absolute fortune.
nice for them to have such a healthy pension they can afford to retire early, eh? Or I guess they’re doing lots of overtime which will bump up their salarys some more..
Overtime doesn’t go towards your pension.
Very unusual to be a consultant before being in their 40s
Maybe at one time but certainly not in the last decade.
Jambo - I am pointing out that 5lab is grossly over representing the lifetime earnings and grossly over estimating how much folk willget out of a DB pension.
Of course a consultant or a GP is rich - they are in the top 1% of earners
Many commercial DB schemes were on 60ths and that progressively became 80ths as the actuarial maths added up to a massive liability and then they became career average (which gives an outcome closer to DC calculations). Thing is, if you remain in the NHS and (many public sector jobs) you tend to stay in the same scheme thereby racking up the years worked elements; change jobs in the private sector and it is has long been easy to lose cumulative years.service.
Of course a consultant or a GP is rich – they are in the top 1% of earners
Top 1% of earners you say. Is that a FACT?
change jobs in the private sector and it is has long been easy to lose cumulative years.service.
If I changed employer I’d lose mine too, so not unique to the private sector.
Top 1% of earners you say. Is that a FACT?
Yes - I put a link to percentiles of earnings in the UK earlier
Facts, alternative facts, opinions presented as facts.
Yeah, apart from the average GP wage doesn't put them in the 1% - and regardless, even if they were then many of them could well be HENRYs.
High Income Not Rich Yet.
But if you earn 60k you're "rich", apparently.
Frank / chevy- the link to the percentiles is there if you want to see it
£60 000 puts you around the top 10% of the country. 100 000 around the top 3%
apologies - I seem to have misread it 100 000 is top 3 - 4% not 1 %
For accuracy... only the 'basic pay' for junior doctors is pensionable. All banding/out of hours work etc which does generate a pay premium is non pensionable. As such for those graduating now with 80-90k debt the NHS pension looks very different as it is career average not final salary.
The issue for many at present is they will have some pension in 1995 (final salary scheme) and some in 2015 (career average). You can generate a theoretical >40k pension increase as a year one consultant due to the difference in pensionable pay from registrar to consultant. You pay in nowhere near 40k but the scheme thinks the pot has risen more than this in a year as the theoretical value of the pot (that doesn't exist) at retirement has grown more than 40k.
It is also incredibly difficult to work out if you will breach the limit each year without a complex algorithm that even a lot of accountants and IFAs don't understand.
Point that NHS pension very generous is entirely valid, but something had to be done as for some consultants it made more financial sense to retire than to work as they would be better off overall to retire than to keep working - that doesn't make sense on any level when waiting lists are at a record high.
It makes a lot of sense to make it worthwhile for more experienced clinicians to work longer in the NHs.
One reason for that is that if we want to train a lot more doctors to reduce workload pressure we first need to secure additional
training capacity in med schools and for supervision etc when practicing.
Most civil servants will have spent the majority of their careers on 80ths, certainly not 54ths, @5lab.
Currently pretty much everyone is on the alpha scheme on 60ths; no-one gets 54ths, I've never heard of that figure.
Can you give us an example of a civil service role where that might apply, please, I'd like to trace that figure?
It's also worth bearing in mind that now we're into career averaging and the inclusion of a cunningly incorporated lump of non-consolidated pay every year, means that civil servants receive a pension that is calculated on a figure significantly less than their true final salary.
The previous pensions tax free limit is being described by some as a dis-incentive to earn, as if a pension is the only way that you can utilise excess money that you are lucky enough to have..!
What seems to be getting less attention than these obscene pension tax breaks for the rich, is the tax burden and increases for the less well off. NICs are an income tax on the poor, starting lower and cutting off at the higher paid, effectively relief for the better paid.
Secondly, not lifting the earnings threshold for income tax, staying at @£12.5k. So this year, that brings in more of the poorest into a tax trap. nice.
Most civil servants will have spent the majority of their careers on 80ths, certainly not 54ths, @5lab.
Currently pretty much everyone is on the alpha scheme on 60ths; no-one gets 54ths, I’ve never heard of that figure.
I took the 43rds (I might be wrong), from here, which suggests
If you earned £22,000 for 20 years, you could have an annual pension of £10,208
if you divide the £10,208 (pension) by 20 (years accrewed) you get £510.40, which is 1/43rd of £22,000
80ths is probably final salary pension rates vs average salary rates of a higher number. 43rds does sound very generous though.
It would be interesting to see how many consultants get death in Service compared to other industries, I bet it is higher than many other occupations. Its anecdotal, but Mrs FD often says she has heard of x who has recently died in there 50's/early 60's. There is no linking evidence, but I have yet to see other industries where people work so many hours under such stress both mental and physical.
Mrs FD is mid 40's she has already said there is no way she will still be able to operate on people aged 68 just because of the physicality of the job. Personally I am not sure I would want her operating on me at aged 68.
Anyhow I see the lifting of the annual allowance as sensible. The no top cap, I am kind of on the fence with. In theory the annual cap will stop the 'super rich' just dumping money there and enable the 'rich' to keep working to 68 and keep growing a pension pot.
The previous pensions tax free limit is being described by some as a dis-incentive to earn, as if a pension is the only way that you can utilise excess money that you are lucky enough to have..!
It's not that. I enjoy my job but I value my free time more. I imagine everyone else is similar. So if the choice is between going into work for less than half-pay or just having a day at home, it's pretty obvious what someone is going to choose.
Starmer has said that the LTA will be re-introduced if Labour are elected in 2025, but with a special exemption for doctors. I'm not convinced that this will work legally, as I don't see what makes a doctor different from other high earners as far as paying tax is concerned.
In theory the annual cap will stop the ‘super rich’ just dumping money there and enable the ‘rich’ to keep working to 68 and keep growing a pension pot.
due to the tapering of the annual cap, the super rich can only put in £4k per year.
labours stance is a bit disappointing
She says Labour will force a vote on this, and would reverse the policy - though says that it should be kept in place for doctors.
"fixing" this for one profession because that profession has high visibility is a poor show. The worst policies any government can put in is one that excuses itself from the policy.
I’m not convinced that this will work legally, as I don’t see what makes a doctor different from other high earners as far as paying tax is concerned.
Legally yes there may be an issue - however I think it is because doctors salaries fall within this banding of £120-160k. I would imagine that if you look at other government services, salaries are either below this bracket or above it. (Certainly NHS Management is). And private sector has free rain to pay above to negate the losses.
I’ll stick my head above the parapet and state I’m one of the 1% who will benefit from both the change in annual allowance and the lifting of the cap. Recently we’ve been lucky enough to be able to put the maximum allowance in both mine and my wife’s pension with the aim of retiring with about LFA in both. I acknowledge that makes me rich, but we prioritise this over other things. I suspect I have one of the lowest car/mtb value to salary ratio on the forum.
In theory I could change the ratio of how we split the pension payments to get me out of paying the 60% tax between 100-125% as it doesn’t matter which pension we build up now as there is no limit. The risk is that labour will reimpose the limit and we end up in a worse position so I won’t do anything until we see what labour plan I suspect they will reintroduce a limit but higher than before. From a personal point of view I don’t agree with the changes as I don’t need a tax break.
I would say it’s not just consultants that are hard to retain or recruit. I work for one of the worlds biggest companies doing work that saves peoples lives and have just run two global recruitment campaigns from the level below me and the one below that both offering six figure salaries and I managed to get 3 people 1 in the UK 2 is the US with massive salaries uplifts over existing staff to get them. If the cap is reintroduced I will consider retiring earlier or going part time. The people that could replace me externally are likely to be in a similar position and either not want to work or need huge compensation to make up for the tax hit.
Personally both my OH and I benefit from this change, but we wouldn't vote for it.
Yet more shifting of the tax burden downwards.
And private sector has free rain to pay above to negate the losses.
Yes, as does the NHS.
the weird thing about the cap is its the tories who've continually reduced it (both directly and compared to inflation) since it was introduced. if the caps from 2011 had been tracked relative to inflation it'd be £2.8mm lta and ~£77k annual contributions today and wouldn't be an issue
Yes, as does the NHS.
How ? The NHS has very structured pay bands based on competency. It is impossible to pay an NHS employee out of that structure.
How ? The NHS has very structured pay bands based on competency. It is impossible to pay an NHS employee out of that structure.
Because they 'own' their organisation and pay rules - and if it's "impossible" then they've created this.
No difference to any other company or organisation.
https://www.ft.com/content/8da13a9d-f44f-4ac0-b06d-f21dca4694d4
Really really stupid move from Labour. This is exactly the sort of thing that will lose them the next election if they're not careful. Peeing off the people who will swing the vote.
Peeing off the people who will swing the vote.
The millionaires?
Really really stupid move from Labour. This is exactly the sort of thing that will lose them the next election if they’re not careful. Peeing off the people who will swing the vote.
The only way it'll swing the vote is if the vast majority of voters (i.e. the 99% who'll not benefit) let themselves be hoodwinked.
The same voters who'll also be paying for more tax, every year, for the considerable future - there's a limit to how many a gullible, and stay gullible.
Just think how helpful this has been to those struggling with the tax on their million pound pension pots! At least they will be able to get by now.
Really really stupid move from Labour.
How is this stupid?
This tax break only helps the already extremely well off.
Apparently it has also created a vehicle for dodging inheritance tax. IANAA.
Just think how helpful this has been to those struggling with the tax on their million pound pension pots! At least they will be able to get by now.
Or look at it a different way - the poorest in society who suffer health inequalities might stand a chance of now seeing a highly qualified, skilled professional who will be hopefully able to help them with their health issues..... makes you think ?
It isn't the policy itself but what it represents - a move back to the left. Labour had been managing to come across as quite normal (centrist) and sensible after their loony left folly with Corbyn. If they want to win the next election then thye have to keep all the dissaffected Tory voters onside (i.e. the ones who lean to the centre/right but have morals). This is exactly the sort of thing which will make them think twice. The Boris saga will be long forgotten in the minds of most by the time the vote comes round.
Or look at it a different way – the poorest in society who suffer health inequalities might stand a chance of now seeing a highly qualified, skilled professional who will be hopefully able to help them with their health issues….. makes you think ?
Or look at it a different way - the richest in society given a massive tax cut, which could of been spent on the NHS to help the poorest in our society, wrapped up in a policy that is posing to be about helping the NHS. Besides, it is possible to give certain professions different tax requirements, so why just target those in the NHS......makes you think?
Of course, if it is reversed by Labour and a bespoke solution is put in place for doctors, then I hope working for private healthcare providers is automatically disqualifying.
I pay quite a lot of tax and don’t begrudge it. I do object to someone looking at me and telling me that I’m not useful enough to society, so I should pay more.
I hope working for private healthcare providers is automatically disqualifying.
Well that's basically all of them then.
Peeing off the people who will swing the vote.
Don't think Rupert Murdoch is that worried about his pension tbh
if it is reversed by Labour and a bespoke solution is put in place for doctors,
Oh, so what makes them so special that the rest of us have to subsidise them?
@gobuchul It’s about 40% off the top of my head, with significant regional variation. In London, it’s more, elsewhere it’s less.
@intheborders The problem comes when, because of AA tax (or the fear of AA tax), people can’t access healthcare and waiting lists get ever longer. At some point it becomes a wider society problem. Judges have a special tax unregistered pension scheme and you might ask the same question of them?
I pay quite a lot of tax and don’t begrudge it. I do object to someone looking at me and telling me that I’m not useful enough to society, so I should pay more.
100%. This is why I'm not looking forward to Labour - they're full of idiot ideas. (Don't get me wrong, I want the Tories gone).
The lifetime limit used to be double what it is. They could easily have just reinstated that and have it grow in line with inflation. After that everybody should get told "tough sh1t" - not "well, you're not as a good as a doctor, so you can sod off".
Oh, so what makes them so special that the rest of us have to subsidise them?
i might be being really daft here, but why are we subsidising doctors?
Well that’s basically all of them then.
Really thats not my experience knowing a lot of consultant's. in fact many have stopped doing it as in recent years it hasn't been profitable unless you are prepared to work full days 7 days per week.
Judges have a special tax unregistered pension scheme and you might ask the same question of them?
Labour objected to this at the time.
Or look at it a different way – the poorest in society who suffer health inequalities might stand a chance of now seeing a highly qualified, skilled professional who will be hopefully able to help them with their health issues….. makes you think ?
Hmmm. That's a pretty tortured justification TBH.
I'd really love you to go and speak to the "poorest in society" and ask them if they agree that we grant people on 8 or 10 times their income an additional tax break to persuade them to come back to work for a few more days/ years pretty please.
I’d really love you to go and speak to the “poorest in society” and ask them if they agree that we grant people on 8 or 10 times their income an additional tax break to persuade them to come back to work for a few more days/ years pretty please.
people often don't understand market complexities, which is why we elect a government to help guide what may be the best path for people.
They might say no, I'll take the cash, but then when they're stuck on a hospital waiting list they will also moan.
Hmmm. That’s a pretty tortured justification TBH.
Yep. Its a form of trickle down economics. Let me have more cake and you might get a few more crumbs!
i might be being really daft here, but why are we subsidising doctors?
I was replying to a post where someone said that we ought to have a specific doctors scheme - try reading it again.
As it is both I and my OH will benefit from the budget changes - thanks for subsidising us.
Of course they're not really subsidising you @intheborders - they're just allowing you to save some money whilst still being a higher rate taxpayer who, if it applies to you, pays not only a much higher absolute amount in tax, but a higher proportion of your earnings.
Been a Doctor for 24 years. Consultant for 12. Have no private practice and never will. Paid to work for 52 hours a week (40 pensionable) and work an average of 60 (better than the 90-100 hours 20 years back (£4.90 an hour)). Have no control over what goes into my pension. Yes I'll have a good pension at the end (presuming I don't die young from being up all night every 8th day on call).
At 44 I got a chunky 4 figure pension tax bill as the pension input amount had exceeded the allowance. No control over it.
Predicted, until Jeremy made his changes, that this would happen every year or so until I was in my 50's then it would get rapidly silly moving into substantial 5 figure sum every year. I was planning my exit!
Would I have done what Jeremy has done. No.
Has it made my financial situation better. Yes.
What should he have done. Not sure. Perhaps more nuanced approach allowing people to control what goes in meaning the rest just goes through the normal tax system. However that would have been difficult and a cynical person might think the rather more broad based approach has allowed them to wrap up a bung to the rich as an NHS saving step!
Yes there are a good few NHS consultants who do private. In my specialty they are not common (outside the SE). I know very few who do. Many of us are driven by motivations other than money alone (There are easier ways to make it) but at the same time we want to live comfortably (who doesn't)
Hi rheaern - your “bung to the rich” comment….
As a senior consultant likely on £124k ish, your equivalent annual accrued pension benefit is worth around £67k a year - well over the £60k annual limit for people with self invested pensions or workers with a combined personal and employer contribution of £60k.
Workings:
NHS Care pension scheme is a defined benefit scheme in which you pay a bit (14.5%) and in return get 1/54 of salary as a future index linked retirement income - so 1.85% … so £124k gives £2,294 a year - index linked.
Index linked annuities are around 3% for the likes of me to buy - so £2294 / 3 X 100 gives the equivalent annual value in a defined contribution scheme.
You may not realise it but your defined benefit pension scheme gives you way more wealth at the end than someone investing £60k a year or their own money into a SIPP could ever achieve - not least because your accrued benefits completely smash the LTA threshold.
It rather seems to me that you’re actually receiving a bung on the quiet but don’t realise it.
Ps: your “money - there are easier ways to make it”. Any pointers?
Anyone who actually understood what a medical consultants job is would not make that statement hite rite. The hours and stresses are life shortening to the person working and the level of stress is both qualitatively and quantitatively different to anything outside healthcare
also again you over estimate saleries
Medical consultants are well paid. rightly so ( although they have done a lot better than other healthcare staff)
Pay scales for consultants
Didn't say it wasn't a good pension but the tax situation is clearly crazy where you have no control over what goes in and rack up massive tax bills without an option not to. As I said I wouldn't have made the choice hunt did. I'd have been happy to have been able to control my pension input and predict my taxes rather than waiting for the Brown envelope with the crazy sums in it. Re easier ways to make money I've been doing this since I was 22! I have limited experience of the world outside the NHS. However my brothers in law who are plumbers, builders and architects all make way more than me.
I've both Defined Benefit (DB) and Defined Contribution (DC) pensions as while I'm outside of the public sector I am old enough to have benefited from the 'old-fashioned' DB pensions.
So, I can look at the way both work and from my very simplistic view the DB pensions seem to pay out about twice the annual pension for the same notional value of an equivalent DC pension. My DB pensions also have spouse benefits (paying out between 1/2 * 2/3 depending on the scheme if I die first) - not sure how these factor in to either the LTA or 'value' of them. if at all.
I'm not an expert, just someone with a load of pensions as I've had many employers and never combined them - late 90's I took over a team that had worked within one of Robert Maxwell's companies, that my employer had bought... Kinda focusses you mind to what can happen, so I've taken a less risky route that possibly has reduced their overall value.
Happy for an SME to point out I'm talking crap, but that's what my numbers look like to me - caveat, I've not yet retired so I only have the 'forecasted' numbers.
My DB pensions also have spouse benefits (paying out between 1/2 * 2/3 depending on the scheme if I die first) – not sure how these factor in to either the LTA or ‘value’ of them. if at all.
this is an odd one. I obviously have recent experience of this. Mrs TJ had applied for one ( DB) of her 5 different bits of pensions. ( she died a month after retiring and not everything got sorted) I get a small sum from that about 1/3 of her lump sum. another DB pension she had not applied for - I got her lump sum and that is all. all the DB pensions die with her. No ongoing payments. Another DB scheme - I got a small sum around half what her lump sum would have been
However the private standard life DC pension - she had not applied for it. I get the entire pot. Quite a nice sum
So again the advantages are not all one way. the DB pensions she had I got much less from and much less than she paid in. the DC pension she had I got the entire pot - a much bigger sum
So the DB pensions all died with her. there is no actual pot of money and thus nothing to leave. Its not the same as pensions savings which still exist after you die
When I die my NHS pension dies with me. Nothing I can leave to anyone
this fact of the pensions dying with the pension holder must make them less valuable that a pension pot of real money that can be left.
When looking at how much of the LTA is being used up by any one pension, the calculation is to assume 20x the DB payment ie £10k pa is equivalent to £200k. That is not what that DB scheme might be worth if it was actually converted into a DC scheme - that depends on the scheme rules, age of the person getting the transfer and, crucially, long term interest rates. Mrs BH, early middle aged woman, got 47x her pension a few years back but she wouldn’t get that now in view of the much higher interest rates. So, in a way Dc scheme can look more valuable in pot size but a DB scheme is sort of more valuable within the context of LTA.
What Hunt should have done: scrap the Annual Allowance, as it just penalises people who have irregular income (or on DB schemes, a big rise). Keep the Lifetime Limit, but instead of the 55% rate if you go over it, just remove the 25% tax free element. Most people in that range will be paying 40% on pension payments, so getting 40% relief on contributions is not unreasonable.
But the DB scheme dies with the pension holder. A DC scheme does not? With a DB scheme there is no "pot " of real money so nothing to leave to others. the DC scheme there is and that can be left to others
I got twice as much from the private DC scheme Mrs TJ paid into for ten years than I did from the 4 state run DB schemes she paid into for 25 years
But the DB scheme dies with the pension holder. A DC scheme does not? With a DB scheme there is no “pot ” of real money so nothing to leave to others. the DC scheme there is and that can be left to others
Mine don't, and neither did my Dad's as my Mum gets a spouse pension of 2/3 and not my either FIL as my MIL got 1/2 his.
Maybe it's different for public sector schemes - but this says otherwise:
"If you want your spouse or registered civil partner to receive all of your adult dependant’s pension and lump sum benefits when you die, you don’t need to nominate them. They will receive these benefits unless you have previously nominated someone else to receive them."
Thats only if you actually have someone dependent on you ( ????) and in the case of Julies DB public sector schemes they all die with her. I get a small lump sum as a one off payment
The spouses benefit in these schemes is just that - a small lump. No ongoing payments
Edit - I think instead of the lump you can get a small ongoing payment? Its all a bit fuzzy in my head and my lawyer has all rte details. All I know is that I will receive no on going payments and that in the case of my pension it dies with me completely
Maybe it’s different for public sector schemes – but this says otherwise:
The link describes how they determine who gets any dependant's pension, not that there will always be one. It says you need to look at the particular scheme to see if it's eligible - some are, some aren't, some cover partners, others may just cover dependent children.
Anyone who actually understood what a medical consultants job is would not make that statement hite rite. The hours and stresses are life shortening to the person working and the level of stress is both qualitatively and quantitatively different to anything outside healthcare
That's besides the point. If the renumeration doesn't reflect the realities of the job, then you fix that by paying more, not by making a specific pension change unique to one profession. Any shift worker will die earlier, but you aren't campaigning for them to have role-specific law changes. So why is the person working in the supermarket overnight not worthy of a special pension benefit?
Flaperon
Sorry perhaps i wasnt clear. I meant nothing about pensions or wages. The comment was in response to hite rite who seemed to be downplaying the difficulties of the job and also someone else who was saying how lucky the consultants were to be able to retire early when burnt out. Its not lucky to have your psyche so damaged you cannot continue.
As an aside i think that we will see in the future few healthcare staff make it to a full retirement age of 68. I certainly could not have done 8 more years. Physically and mentally impossible. Most will retire early on grounds of health
When I die my NHS pension dies with me. Nothing I can leave to anyone
Even if you remarry, nothing for spouse? I'm surprised.
Traditionally a DC pension would be converted to annuity on retirement and there would be nothing to leave in that case either - though the annuity may also pay something to a surviving spouse. Increasingly these days the annuity is delayed and in that case there is certainly a tidy sum to leave - a very neat IHT loophole for those rich enough to make use of it.
If the renumeration doesn’t reflect the realities of the job, then you fix that by paying more,
Funnily enough i think some doctors have been asking for that just recently but the government who fix their salaries dont seem very willing to have the conversation?!
Its not lucky to have your psyche so damaged you cannot continue.
It's also not unusual across a wide range of professions. The NHS isn't special in this regard.
So Labour can eff off - we should be all in it together. It's an epic own-goal from their point of view - it's pandering to the outraged poor, but there's a shedload of people who need to vote to them going "hey! I've worked my ass off my whole life, I'm nowhere near half of the 1m lifetime allowance, but doctors are worth more than me? Eff you!"
Ultimately Tories know money talks in elections. Shamefully not the environment and stuff like that. People vote on their bottom line and fairness. And Labour have just announced that a group of people are more valued, or "better" than other people.
That's an epic own goal. And it's a streak that runs through labour. It's why I said I'm desparate to get rid of the Tories but dreading Labour getting in - because Labour is full of this sort of crap.
It’s also not unusual across a wide range of professions. The NHS isn’t special in this regard.
I wouldnt disagree, and there are probably soldiers etc who get paid substantially less who have to deal with equally traumatic situations.
However for context - Mrs FD holds clinics twice a week where she is either telling 3-4 people that unfortunately they are going to die within a short space of time, or she has made the decision to amputate a limb to extend their life. Difficult decisions when its a single Mum with no support structure at home and 2 kids, and she has to try and sort support at home. Its now complicated by the fact that she now sees people that she knows that if she had seen them quicker they would either not have lost their life, or wouldnt have needed that limb amputating. I had to pop in to her work to get the car keys one day. She was prepping to tell an 18yr old lad he was going to die, but she was trying to put everything in place to make his 'journey' as comfortable as possible. I passed him in the waiting room on the way out, thats when it hits home for me.
After having told 4 people they are going to die or have significant life changing surgery and basically counselling them, she will then have to go straight in to a management meeting where they ask why she isnt seeing more patients. Her theatre output is reducing too, because operations are taking longer as the patients are more complicated. She is then trying to pioneer new techniques and kit to improve outcomes, butt the risks of this pioneering work are high.
She comes home broken and in tears sometimes. It is her job but it effects the whole family in so many ways, and has done since she started training as a doctor.
Sorry perhaps i wasnt clear. I meant nothing about pensions or wages. The comment was in response to hite rite who seemed to be downplaying the difficulties of the job and also someone else who was saying how lucky the consultants were to be able to retire early when burnt out. Its not lucky to have your psyche so damaged you cannot continue.
Ah, I see what you mean and agree. 🙂
I totally understand that @Funkydunc - really appreciate what's going on there.
However, it doesn't trump the right for people to be treated equally. There's remuneration advantages being in different professions and we know it's massively unequal. Now to start changing the tax treatment of people to advantage certain groups over others is not a forward-looking and fair step, it's a retrograde outrage. And I'm choosing outrage very specifically. This is creating yet another inequality.