You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Judges have a special tax unregistered pension scheme and you might ask the same question of them?
It was probably a silly mistake to make an exclusion for one particular type of employee. I'd say its wrong to make special rules for doctors too. Its rather divisive to say, "we really want these type of people to do a valuable role". The reality is the government want to encourage us all to work as long as possible, pay as much into our pensions as possible, and have a simple scheme to administer. So actually I'm not as horrified by the change as many (and I'm not even close to worrying about a £1M limit).
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!
Is there something special that makes doctors more likely to hit this problem than other NHS staff? e.g. a consultant pharmacist would be earning significant chunks but I've never heard them complaining of this. Are their pensions just "shitter"? The judges situation I think was because the sort of barrister who makes it to Judge usually has a career option to become a partner in the law firm and so potentially had whole different routes for making lifetime earnings but we don't want Judges to have conflicts of interest so face an issue with getting the best talent (as I understand it).
TJ - I'm not for one second suggesting you've got the situation with Julie's DB schemes wrong, but my wife has a DB scheme from a few years at a private employer early in her career. It DOES pay 1/2 to me if she goes first [that was an employer where it was very much male employees and the scheme was established in an era when women would not have been expected to work]. I very briefly had a stint in public sector and if I remember correctly that pension would not have automatically paid to my wife, but there was a personal contribution you could make that enabled it to do so (I was young, naive, and left 1 week to early to qualify for pension because pensions were not even on my radar). Now my DC pot, if I convert to an annuity I have to make a decision then if I want bigger monthly just for me, or smaller payment that partially transfers to wife on my death. If I do the former and die the following week she gets nothing. If we both die then our (by then adult) children get nothing. I don't think the difference between DB and DC is that radical in that sense.
Is there something special that makes doctors more likely to hit this problem than other NHS staff? e.g. a consultant pharmacist would be earning significant chunks but I’ve never heard them complaining of this
Is it not just the specific issue that the NHS needs more hours worked by consultant level clinicians and the previous arrangements meant that those staff were effectively financially penalised for working overtime / continuing to work to a greater age, even if they were happy to work more hours
BTW - you shouldn't be able to punt your pension pot onto your kids. They need to bloody work for their own living.
You should be able to move your house on, split between them, and nothing else. Rest should go to the democratically elected government of the day to spend on social goods that we all vote on. That goes for billionaires too, and that would be transformative.
People baulk at that. It's seemingly "natural" to want to give your kids a free ride in life. So there should be a cap - the super rich should be able to pass on the cost of an average house in the country they reside in, plus £100k. If your kids can't make a go of their life with that massive advantage in their pockets then they're useless layabouts - and clearing the ground in this way levels the playing field for people who are capable of making something of their own lives.
That's what a capitalist economy should look like - a not-completely-equal playing field, but real opportunity for all and comparatively miniscule levels of inherited wealth for the mega-rich.
Perhaps more nuanced approach allowing people to control what goes in meaning the rest just goes through the normal tax system
This system is available in the private sector to limit such tax liabilities. You take any sum over the liability as salary and pay tax accordingly. Or it is deducted from the pension pot. Or you can pay the bill yourself. But in the public sector, and I'll say it again, There. Is. No. Money. It's a Ponzi scheme paid out of public taxation. Hence taking, say 27k of your £67k annual pension "contribution" and paying it to you in salary to keep you under the Annual Allowance would add to the NHS salary bill (real money from taxation) of an additional £27k. My BIL faces the same annual tax bill for his pension "contributions" in the MOD.
chevychase
Full Member
BTW – you shouldn’t be able to punt your pension pot onto your kids.
Why ever not? It's just a savings account, like any other asset. Admittedly with some nice tax benefits for saving (that are maintained only if one dies early), but it's a real asset like a house. Can you pass on a car? A watch? A bike? What is the difference? If you only pass on houses, guess what people will buy with their pension pots? Think what that will do to the housing market!
@tired - read what I actually wrote.
Average house price for the country you live in. Whether you're a billionaire or a pauper. That would seriously level it for all - whilst fixing the NHS, social services, mental health, our distorted democracy, inequalities of opportunity and education etc. etc.
Mwaaaah! I want to pass it all onto my kids!!!! Tough titties. They need to work for a living like everyone else. They'll be good -they have a house and 100k. But that's it. They need to get a job. If you're earning loads - spend it, or it goes to the government. That's the best thing for the economy anyway.
Poly - the difference between a private sector DB scheme and a public sector. the survivors benefit is a small lump sum - around half the retirement lump sum. thats it. the pension dies with the person who has it
Why ever not? It’s just a savings account, like any other asset.
Unless its a public sector DB scheme where there is no pot to pass on
TJAgain: "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"
I'm not sure if you're reading a different version of the internet to me but I made literally no comment on the hours and stresses of a medical consultant. Whatever you thought your read is likely just your own projection.
For what it's worth though it's pretty obvious that many / most medical consultants encounter stress that most of us couldn't deal with. Taking the most demanding consultant roles - e.g. A&E on a weekend shift or the surgical roles that can require surgery sessions of 14 hours or more - no-one in their right mind could dispute that's likely to be very stressful.
But the same is probably true for roles in other professions that are the pointy end of things.
Being the England manager at Twickers last Sunday? Being the Prime Minister making the call on pandemic advice? A soldier being shot at? A policeman trying to avoid getting stabbed? Being a barrister in a high profile multi £B legal action? Being the external auditor whose profession is on the line with the global audit of Apple's books?
Stress takes many forms but clearly isn't unique to healthcare roles - and if it were consistently as stressful as you infer, it's hard to see why consultants would sign up to do a load more of it in their time off. I also can't find any data to support your assertion that working in healthcare roles is "life shortening" - my hunch is that the opposite is likely true.
"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
https://www.bma.org.uk/pay-and-contracts/pay/consultants-pay-scales/pay-scales-for-consultants-in-englan d"
I suggested that Rihearn with 24 years in healthcare and 12 as a Consultant was on around 124K salary. The payscale you posted to counter my point seems to suggests the same.
In fact I can add another two data points to save you the bother of arguing - the NHS publishes workforce earning estimates. The most recent data (for 2022) for Consultants is a monthly earnings estimate of £12,218.84 (or £146K a year). This is comfortably in line with my estimate of £124 because additional pay (shifts etc) typically add another £20K.
The Sun put Consultant pay at £122K but that was back in 2020.
RIHEARN - I noticed that you actually dodged my point. You started off moaning about "tax bungs to the rich" when the reality is that you receive more benefits than them but unlike them only pay a fraction yourself towards the overall cost.
If you can point to an architect, plumber or builder that's getting a £50K a year pension contribution from their employer I'd be incredibly surprised - and not just because until April the limit is still £40K a year. The plumbers and builders are like me, self-employed so probably on the hook for the entirety of their own pensions. And if they are stashing £40K into their pensions - good luck to them - it's something I aspire to 🙂
My original point though was simply to highlight that a lot of the "bung to the rich" type commentators are typically accruing much bigger pension benefits than £40K a year / £1m in a SIPP provides for - they are just oblivious to the fact.
And that's fine - good luck to you and all that - you should feel no shame about receiving unbelievably generous pension benefits that the country can't actually afford - just don't slag off people who by virtue of being self employed don't have an employer to hold their hand until retirement and shovel £67K a year accrued benefits into the rainy day fund.
One last point - the "bung to the to the rich" will cost £4B and is apparently an outage. The NHS Pension Scheme will need bailing out to the tune of £70B from 2030 because its members aren't putting enough in. Is this more or less outrageous than the £4B "bung" to people who are actually contributing to their own pensions?
As your post makes clear you have no idea at the levels of stress and burnout these folk face and the salaries you claim are NOT born out by the scales I posted
Only a soldier on active deployment =might have a similar level of stress and thats not every day they are at work but only on deployment to war zones
Stress takes many forms but clearly isn’t unique to healthcare roles – and if it were consistently as stressful as you infer, it’s hard to see why consultants would sign up to do a load more of it in their time off.
Public service ethos / desire to care / cure./ help folk
the levels of stress in healthcare especially at the top end are quantitatively and qualitatively different and you clearly don't understand this as your comments make clear. constant making life or death decisions and having to tell people they are dying
I'll give one example from my career as a nurse - which is a much lower level as I always have someone to defer to /consult with. I was just a cog in the machine not the driving force
over 3 nights working in neuro ITU I saw 3 children die. I could not go in the next day. I was broken mentally by it
Or the time I was looking after a ventilated patient with no back up ( crap organisation) and watching them blow their aorta graft and bleed out internally
Shift work is proven to be damaging to health and stress is also. Its hard to think of another job with the shift work / stress combo - its certainly life shortening
the stress involved is a whole different thing from the stress of hitting deadlines and targets. Make a mistake and people die.
Poly – the difference between a private sector DB scheme and a public sector. the survivors benefit is a small lump sum – around half the retirement lump sum. thats it. the pension dies with the person who has it
This simply is not the case for my public sector pension (JSS - which includes all universities and also national science labs). Surviving spouse gets an ongoing pension, not a lump sum. If not married or civil partnership etc, you have to specify the person, but it's just a form to fill in.
The NHS Pension Scheme will need bailing out to the tune of £70B from 2030 because its members aren’t putting enough in. Is this more or less outrageous than the £4B “bung” to people who are actually contributing to their own pensions?
this is complete nonsense as is much of the other stuff you have posted
I'm done with debating with you.
Sorry the captain - the post you refer to should have had a question mark and read as a question not a statement
So the fix? Should we outlaw DB schemes? No final salary, no career average schemes. Level the playing field. Everyone can have a pension but employers max contribution set at 10% based on matching employees input. Employees can pay in what they like up to annual limit set by government.
Is this the fairest answer?
The fix is to make private sector employers pay for proper pensions like you got years ago. One of the big UK companies has recently announced its taking a pensions contributions policy instead of giving its pensioners a rise. too many private sector companies to contributions holidays when the stock market was rising fast and then when the boom turned to bust complained they did not have enough money to continue with decent pensions and closed schemes.
Or - we increase the state pension hugely to something like other european countries
TJAgain - your replies come across as incredibly aggressive given the original comment / view you attributed to me wasn't something I actually said in the first place.
It's very noticeable that on pretty much every thread in which you participate you completely shut down any other points of view - seemingly using your own strongly held conviction to be equal to fact.
You also seem to be incredibly judgemental bordering on discriminatory - such is the level of your political conviction that your posts come pretty close to objectifying huge groups of people just because they have different ideas to you on the cause of problems or the solutions that might impact on them. I say "pretty close" because I can't be bothered to find an example but I'm pretty sure there will be numerous results in any of the Scotland threads where you are incredibly rude about other political parties and their supporters for not seeing the world as you see it.
I've no idea if any of the above reflects your actual personality or if it's just a writing style thing - or even a neurodiversity trait. Apologies if it's the latter - that's your business so no need to confirm either way.
As an example -
Stating that healthcare professionals die early is fine (the early death bit isn't just to be very clear) - but at least prove it - don't just strop off because you don't like being challenged.
Likewise stating that all consultant roles (without exceptions) are uniquely stressful and then dismissing out of hand that any other role can come close seems unlikely.
I've got no idea about other consultant roles but know a fair few personally (MaxFax, Respiratory, Anaesthesia, Psych and Pathology) and it's true that some are stressed, others less so - but I pointedly didn't ever say that wasn't the case.
I'd also make the observation that the consultants working in what most people would see as being the most stressful settings (complex surgery) often appear incredibly calm which I guess reflects they are working as part of a team that's experienced and trusted by them and have spent a lot of time mitigating risks factors in advance.
Your own description of stress is vivid - most of us would struggle to put ourselves in that situation. But again is it more stressful than the fireperson cutting people out of a car crash or pulling people out of a burning building? How about the vicar who gives last rights to people in a hospice several times a week or someone having to stand up and tell thousands of people they've worked with for years that they've lost their jobs?
It's obviously not a competition and I don't mean to infer that you've said so - but your response is very binary - it's a fact (you believe it to be true) and we must accept it as such.
According to actual data
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpub/article/PIIS2468-2667(17)30193-7/fulltext
Healthcare professionals unsurprisingly have the best life expectancy of any male occupation, probably as they have excellent access to healthcare. Which probably costs us even more in pensions 😉
*pops head back into thread*
Ah TJ is still trolling people.
Stress is relative to the interaction between the individual and their work
Some healthcare roles (not all) have high stress situations, a subset will have it regularly
That does not mean other roles do not have high stress situations nor that individuals will not encounter regular high stress at work
The stress is not somehow more important because its in the NHS. It is still stress. The impact of stress depends on the individuals outlook, their situations and personal resilience.
People are different. There are people who *want* to work in high stress situations and actually thrive on it for many diverse reasons. Some have 'choice' in whether they want to have roles with high stress. Some people will find themselves in high stress situations without much choice.
Got to say I was a bit gobsmacked at the complete removal of limits. Seems like its a bung to those who already have a significant amount whilst most are seeing an increased tax burden due to frozen income tax allowances (so stinging middle earners the most proportionately according to the beeb). It was convenient to say pension limit scrapping is because we want to support doctors, something they probably wanted to do anyway.
If the working conditions are as bad as everyone says in the NHS and getting worse, all this will enable is earlier retirement as savings goals are hit faster. So conversely scrapping the limit could make the situation with the supply of senior doctors worse. The working conditions and increasing supply is what needs sorting
As above DT78 - the stress is both quantitatively and qualitatively different. What other professions do you have to tell folk they are going to die? to make decisions that mean life and death and to do this every day? Deadlines and targets create stress of course - but its just not the same. Where else would you see 3 children die in three days and it not be particularly unusual?
I'm not trolling - I have a different viewpoint because of my life experiences. If I am urged to accept others point of view then others should accept that those of us who have seen this in healthcare have an understanding those from outside cannot.
I hope you saw my apology to you earlier on the thread
From Funky dunc posted above. where else do you get stress like this?
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.
BTW – you come over as arrogant and patronising 🙂
He doesn’t you know. I think you might want to reflect why you seem to frequently end up having conflict with other people on numerous threads you post on.
On this very thread I asked you about your FACT on richest 1% was true. The reason I post was less than a minutes googling would show you to be incorrect. Did you pick up on the hint? No, you simply reasserted you where correct and I was wrong. I could have posted back on the true numbers but seemed a waste of my time.
I’ve no idea on how the world works for you but please have a reread of high-rite’s post and think about what he’s said rather than just attack him.
Those things sound horrendous and I would struggle to cope. I have also had other stresses, which very nearly led to some silly and quite permanent decisions.
From your statements it comes across that Non NHS people have it easier and belittling others stress as less impactful or devastating. Its not what you are saying, its what can be inferred from it when you read it from a different viewpoint than your own. This has been done on other threads before too. Its the similar with your viewpoint on 'rich'.
Its not a one off
Stress / Rich - Its all relative.
Given the amount of people you are arguing with, maybe try and ask why that is?
And yes I saw the apology. Thankyou and I imagine you do mean it, however behaviours have continued in the same vein and the arguing continues. Bit like my eldest son, kicking the little one. Saying sorry. Then kicking him again 5 minutes later. Kind of doesn't really count does it?!
I'll not say any more, have a nice evening
Back to the thread.
Did you pick up on the hint? No, you simply reasserted you where correct and I was wrong. I could have posted back on the true numbers but seemed a waste of my time.
I did actually check it, correct it and apologise
his simply is not the case for my public sector pension (JSS – which includes all universities and also national science labs).
@thecaptain did you mean the USS scheme? The reason you hear a lot about the USS scheme in the news is that it is the largest funded pension scheme in the UK. there is real money in there to be paid out. My private pension is also funded and pays a spouse should I die.
The value of DB pensions was largely ignored for years. It wasn't until they closed ours (to all members, not new members) that their value was realised by qualifying staff. Effectively DB pensions were costing the company 3x as much as DC pensions - hence we took a remuneration drop of about 20% in real terms. This remuneration value was overlooked by the public in general, and it is only the recent LTA and APA hit by the most highly paid public sector employees that has brought it to the fore. Remuneration in all forms is still remuneration. The fact that it comes later is neither here nor there. @hite-rite was drawing attention to this point. Lots of jobs are stressful and require high skill levels, but levels of remuneration are not just headline monthly salary in the bank for most people.
<div class="bbp-reply-content">
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 %
</div>
Edit - a few posts after that one from you
Actually @TiRed I was just confused. I did mean JSS but it's not the same as USS, I had a brief time in the latter but then think I transferred it to the JSS when I moved jobs to a research lab (it was last century, my memory is a bit vague). However, the pertinent point I was making, that a JSS pension includes a surviving spouse/partner pension as part of its benefits, remains correct:
http://jsspensions.nerc.ac.uk/members/benefits/family.asp
Note, any money your employer (or taxman) put into a pension is just deferred salary - and that could be money paid upfront like when you've a DC scheme, or money paid upfront AND when drawing a pension, like a DB scheme.
My Dad's DB scheme paid out to him for over 23 years, and it's continued to pay out to my Mum for the past 5 years (and until she dies). At that point the pension scheme can work out the actual 'value' AKA what they've paid out. When I was sorting out my Dad's paperwork I looked at his pension, and in the last few years of his life his pension was paying out more per year than he'd actually contributed over the 23 years he'd paid in.
I reckon give it 10 years or so and we'll see a vast numbers of folk retiring with little/no in the way of private pensions, totally relying on the State Pension and benefits.
I am shocked, shocked to learn that this billion pound tax giveaway and IHT dodge is all based on a literal handful of doctors retiring early:
How many people were conned into believing it ever had anything to do with the NHS?
ow many people were conned into believing it ever had anything to do with the NHS?
On this thread or in general?
52:48 is the 'accepted' ration I believe 🙂
I reckon give it 10 years or so and we’ll see a vast numbers of folk retiring with little/no in the way of private pensions, totally relying on the State Pension and benefits.
Yup - around 1/3 of my friends have no or very small pensions apart from the state pension
It’s already the case. 20% of pensioners are in poverty - the state pension (as your only support) is pitiful and right at the bottom of international comparisons.
But conversely 27% of pensioners are millionaires (by households, not quite as individuals).
The massive pension tax bung to the rich is designed to increase this inequality. Both directly to the saver and also to their children as the beneficiaries of the IHT loophole. (These children will mostly be on the cusp of retiring as rich pensioners before they even inherit their parents’ unused tax-exempt pension to add to their own.)
But hey, think of the poor imaginary doctors.
just got this off our work pension scheme
The overall cap on tax-free cash at 25% of the Lifetime Allowance will be replaced with a monetary cap on tax-free cash of £268,275 (25% of the previous Lifetime Allowance). Your maximum tax-free cash will be calculated as 25% of your benefit/account value or £268,275, whichever is the lower.
this is sensible (it stops people with newly grown tax free allowances getting a larger tax-free lump sum) and additionally means that the change is often no impact of going over the old limit- you're likely to be saving 40% tax on the money going in, and paying 40% income tax on the money coming out. There's a slight benefit for those on the 45% tax rate, but its small.
How many people were conned into believing it ever had anything to do with the NHS?
As I have always said, its the annual allowance that is hurting people. Why work when more hours when it costs you money ?
If it bothers you that much send an FOI request to ask
1. how many doctors in the last 5 yrs have reduce their job plan.
2. turned down extra sessions
Many trusts are begging consultants to do extra sessions.
Every doctor I know is reducing their work load because the job is shit, finances don't come into it.
As I have always said, its the annual allowance that is hurting people. Why work when more hours when it costs you money ?
It's only really a peculiarity of the NHS scheme, where you can't find out how much to are deemed to have paid in till after the fact.
With a SIPP, you can just pay in the limit eg £40k and not a penny more, no matter how much you earn.
Every doctor I know is reducing their work load because the job is shit, finances don’t come into it.
I spoke to a haematology consultant friend last night. He's reducing hours as he has paid off mortgage, maxed ISA's for nearly 15 years, maxed pension and realises after his wife's cancer last year that life is too short to spend it all working when you're suitably wedged. Agreed he is unusual, but it's shows that more money isn't going to entice people to stay.
He reckons that the job is tougher due to silly managers, but he's got 20 years now of telling people they're going to die pretty soon, and it's still as tough as the day he started, no less no more. So sorting out working conditions is, in his view, doable and more of a priority than finding a way to give consultants more money in pensions.
Can I also ask - if this is about retaining NHS staff and reducing waiting time, has the government done something to alter how consultants and Gap's can leave NHS one day and return as locum the next, on silly high money?
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65021747
You might want to ask about current agency work rules as well, I’m not sure what they are now but as a private sector worker I was never able to work for my own company (or any other company that used my skill set) on agency rates,
You might want to ask about current agency work rules as well, I’m not sure what they are now but as a private sector worker I was never able to work for my own company (or any other company that used my skill set) on agency rates,
Company 'rules' change when needs must - and where else does the NHS find someone highly experienced from other than within its own ranks?
The point was that we generally get preached to about salary, I think it would be fairer to discuss ‘packages’ (ie every aspect of employment, so things like job security, amount of holidays, flexible hours, pensions, perks, overtime - availability + rates, whether you can earn money in a self employed status and gain the tax advantages that brings, etc etc etc), to get a full picture to enable a fairer comparison.
the super rich should be able to pass on the cost of an average house in the country they reside in, plus £100k
rules like that will not not effect the super rich, it will not even effect people who are moderately wealthy. It will however effect lots of people that are "comfortable" saved hard had a good job or small (really small) business. I am afraid what you are suggesting just fails, on so many issues. There are also significant unintended consequences to your proposal. The elite stay elite, the second class / middle class gets a shake up but another one forms with slightly different people.
The point was that we generally get preached to about salary, I think it would be fairer to discuss ‘packages’ (ie every aspect of employment, so things like job security, amount of holidays, flexible hours, pensions, perks, overtime – availability + rates, whether you can earn money in a self employed status and gain the tax advantages that brings, etc etc etc), to get a full picture to enable a fairer comparison.
Even that can be miss leading the point is judging how much someone makes by "earnings" is very misleading and has allowed this rhetoric to persist that someone earning say £80k or £100k is rich. Its a good wage (far more than I earn before someone jumps on me with personal attacks) don't get me wrong and they may be wealthy but equally may well just have a good wage but its still within small cog in the wheel, just because there are smaller gears grinding. Its still very much a wage and one that already attracts a high tax rate for the earing over £50k, its actually very high when between 50-60k range if you have children. In addition there seems to be the impression from many in this thread that you wage only goes up or at least plateau. Many people who do get to earn a good wage only get that peak for a short time as it frequently require unsustainable working, physically, or mentally time, travel etc.
When you talk about affecting people who are just "comfortable" it sounds like you don't realise that the vast majority of people inherit bugger all relatively speaking (under 30k over their lifetimes) and the vast majority of wealth is passed on to rich retirees or those on the cusp of retiring, already home-owners in their 50s or later.
If you're a fan of inequality and look forward to it increasing hugely, fair enough.
You could give 20,000 UKP to every 18 year old in the country on their birthday (say) with a fraction of the money inherited by a small minority of privileged 50 year olds.
Re doctors, unless the underlying working conditions are improved my view is this will conversely increase the number of early retirements. They will hit their savings goals quicker, why stick around in a job that is so stressful / awful.
the vast majority of wealth is passed on to rich retirees or those on the cusp of retiring, already home-owners in their 50s or later.
We've 'benefited' from 3 of our parents passing in the last 5-7 years and aptly describes us.
If you’re a fan of inequality and look forward to it increasing hugely, fair enough.
You could give 20,000 UKP to every 18 year old in the country on their birthday (say) with a fraction of the money inherited by a small minority of privileged 50 year olds.
Are you saying you prefer some form of communist state? Even then there are rich and poor people, but on the whole lots of very poor people and even fewer very 'rich' people.
I do not see what is wrong with people creating their own wealth and then wanting to keep hold of it, or spend it. They have earned it so why not. I have a problem with that if they have got that money from illegal means or exploitation. I watched a video last night on YouTube where Matt Watson was ordering his dream car, approx £220k. I thought good for him, he has clearly worked really hard to get to a point where he can realise his dream. I bet he has received a lot of hate/envy messages though
I was recently abroad, and speaking to the Indian waiter he said his parents were very poor. He was doing better and got an education. He aims to give his kids enough money to get an education and go to university. They are aspiring to do better than the last generation. Hopefully one day a generation of his family will have a very comfortable life. They were not expecting any hand out, or saying it wasnt fair.
It was uncomfortable hearing his story, but its the way of the world. There are rich and poor regardless of whether it communism or capitalism, take it back to cave person and there were strong and weak. Unfortunately utopia will never exist.
Mrs FD was the first person in her family to go to university. Some people in the family thought she was odd for that. ie not going straight to working in a coal mine, army, dole etc. Why not have aspiration, why not enjoy the wealth that comes to you.
There is a lot of envy and distain on STW for people with money. Turn that in to something positive rather than negative would be my advice.
and where else does the NHS find someone highly experienced from other than within its own ranks?
I think we all know the unpalatable (to the ERG) answer to that one 😀
I do not see what is wrong with people creating their own wealth and then wanting to keep hold of it, or spend it. They have earned it so why not.
Nor do I, but not all wealth is earned. We tax income not wealth in this country, hence the capital gains on a principal property are tax exempt. By nature of having the fortune to purchase a discounted council house, some people now have million pound assets. I believe in equality of opportunity - I too was the first in my family to go to University.
Once they are dead, they can neither hold nor spend wealth. Demanding that they extend their power beyond the grave to control what is done with what they no longer own is basically creepy. Their children did absolutely nothing to earn the massive untaxed windfalls that so many rich middle aged people seem to believe is their entitlement.
If you want to do something for your children, by all means make sure they have a decent upbringing and support while they establish themselves.
If you do that, I cannot understand why you think they will need an untaxed and unearned million pound (or even several hundred thousand pound) windfall in their 50s or 60s. If they need that at such a stage in their lives, you already failed as a parent, frankly.
And if you think it's "communist" to suggest supporting the younger generation fairly, rather than promoting a system of inherited privilege and inequality for the few, well that's on you really.
If you do that, I cannot understand why you think they will need an untaxed and unearned million pound (or even several hundred thousand pound) windfall in their 50s or 60s.
An untaxed windfall in their 60s sounds suspiciously like a pension. Is there a fundamental moral difference?
the trouble with inheritance laws is they're all flawed. Lets say I drop dead tomorrow (age 40, own a house, wife and 2 kids under 7 dependent on me) - should they be able to inherit everything I've got then? It would make sense, as they're highly dependent on me. But that's not the case if those kids are 50. Do we draw a line about "under 18"? Lots of kids are dependent on their parents through university, so maybe 21, or 22, but only if you're still in education. seems unfair.
If you highly tax inheritance (remember the top rate was something like 85% back in the 70s) is that rich people game it, by buying things like farmland, or giving gifts early. If you tax all transfer of assets, it makes things like family businesses difficult to manage. The history of inheritance tax and why each attempt has failed is interesting reading.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_inheritance_taxes_in_the_United_Kingdom
If you want to do something for your children, by all means make sure they have a decent upbringing and support while they establish themselves.
If you do that, I cannot understand why you think they will need an untaxed and unearned million pound (or even several hundred thousand pound) windfall in their 50s or 60s. If they need that at such a stage in their lives, you already failed as a parent, frankly.
I kind of get what you are saying, but we are spending our income on a house which will hopefully be an asset, Mrs FD also has insurance policies that will pay out if she is ill or dies etc, we both have death in service etc, so our son could in theory get an estates in excess of £500k. In many ways we have chosen thats what we want to do with the money we have earned. Are you suggesting that is wrong to do that ?
Funkydunc - I see that issue as a conflict between what you want as best for your child and what is best for the population as a whole.
Inheritance across the population increases inequality. I say that as a person who has inherited and will inherit more. without the inheritance i would be in financial trouble and claiming benefits
But - it puts me in a very privileged position that many will never get to for no reason other than accident of birth
so our son could in theory get an estates in excess of £500k. In many ways we have chosen thats what we want to do with the money we have earned. Are you suggesting that is wrong to do that ?
Wrong for who?
It's not wrong for you, your wife or your son. ( and I'm planning on doing exactly the same thing)
But it's defo wrong for society.
and the vast majority of wealth is passed on to rich retirees or those on the cusp of retiring, already home-owners in their 50s or later.
Apparently the third largest 'lender' for houses is now the 'bank' of mum and dad. About half of all first time buyers now have help. That help averages £50k per first time buyer across 2021-24, making up 49% of first time buyers. I wonder how many manage to also hide that as gift and avoid inheritance or CGT?
Though this is a sad reflection on silly high property prices - and a cycle of both wealth being handed down the generations and house prices being propped up by those with more resources.
Arguably, the other 51% of the house buyers who save without bank of mum and dad are also better off than many as they will slowly own a property.
That then leaves those who cannot afford to buy a house -the 1 in 3 millennials who will rent for the rest of their lives.
Interesting to see who else it benefits, not just retaining doctors in the NHS it seems.
Inheritance across the population increases inequality.
I hope to leave a healthy inheritance to my 3 children. I don’t expect to receive anything from parents. So the money I have will be split into 3. Surely that is spreading my wealth out across the (very limited) population that I take direct responsibility for bringing into this world?
If I couldn’t do that due to some cap on estates does it not take away some of the reason why I choose to work rather than retire?
Getting rid of inheritance is the wrong approach, we need to tackle the other end of the issue, the affordability of wages vs cost of housing. We tackle that by restricting what people can borrow which will drive down house prices allowing people to get onto the housing ladder and build up some wealth. The current situation is just helping concentrate more wealth with fewer people, landlords, who make an income and gain assets whilst the people paying for that end up with nothing to show for it after 40 years of paying out.
PS not a dig at landlords, it's the government's responsibility to level the playing field so more people have the opportunity of building some wealth.
The most interesting point in that article was the following:
However, more than half of non-retired people with a pension pot worth more than £1m are in the private sector, according to figures from the Office for National Statistics.
Whilst it may be bankers, and other executives in industry, remember the taper means that the bankers on large bonuses won't be the ones benefiting as they have a reduced allowance. Don't feel too sorry for them, there are other places to put their money. But it does speak to the value of Defined Benefit pensions in the public sector.
Less LL means higher rents. Which is precisely what is happening and which is punishing the poorest.
Once again, this thread highlights how much more complex fiscal policies are than just gggrrrrr "the rich".
Unintended consequences can easily make a decision backfire badly for those which it is supposed to help...
I would say we need both a serious reduction in property prices and a serious limit on inherited wealth if we want a fair and socaily mobile society.
the absurdity of property price is there for all to see. My flat when I bought it almost 30 years ago was 2.5 times my salary at the time. Its now worth 10 times the salary for that job
I now if I was starting again would not be able to buy property other than an ex council on a rough estate perhaps. Maybe not even that. thats no property within a good distance of my workplace. I would be a perpetual renter
Less LL means higher rents.
Unless we have rent controls and / or a major council or housing association building programme
Money isn't real. It's completely made up. Since abandoning the gold standard it has no relationship to any physical thing. And yet even the people who make it up, and who are supposed to regulate those who manipulate it, seen not really to understand how it works. So we get lots of unintended consequences every time we try to influence the way that money behaves. Reading this account of the financial crises of the last few decades it is really striking how little understanding banks, regulators and governments seem to have https://stephaniekelton.substack.com/p/magical-thinking-monetary-thinking
Mrs FD attend a conference last week for her speciality.
The work that this group of consultants do is very specialised and done in a handful of units through out the UK by small teams.
Quite a bit of the talk was about not being able to attract middle grade doctors to their rota's, and the only applicants for MG jobs being from oversees. Some units viability in the next 6-12 months was in question. One unit was suggesting that of 5 consultants, 2 were retiring early, and one was reducing hours. This would leave 2 doing the work of 5.
I asked Mrs FD why this is the case, the pinnacle of work in their specialty, and not being able to recruit. She just said people are burnt out, not respected, are not remunerated equitably for what they have to do. New doctors now starting off just see being a doctor as a job, not a vocation, I am guessing that the reduction in overall pay and conditions has removed that 'goodwill' that made people willing to class it as a vocation.