|
What's all that supposed to mean? Do you understand it, Jantra?
Jantard
as always, your posts are colourful and descriptive but as usual a little way off the mark. Public sector pensions are paid for by current year taxation other than the LGPS schemes which are supposedly funded but still provide a final salary annuity. That means that pensions are paid by those who weren't recipients of the services provided by the pensioners. Why should I pay tax today to pay the pension of a public sector worker who worked yesterday? I want my taxes spent on services today not shoring up yesterday's pension deficit.
why should a doctor retire at 60 on 60k per annum which costs the taxpayer £1.5-£2m over the retirement? why should everyone else have to work to 65 and beyond and not afford their own pensions because they are so highly taxed to fund the bullet proof public sector pensions? The public sector is over staffed as it is with 5.5m people currently working in it - it should really be around 3m if we were to match the Germans in efficiency and productivity. That means we can't all work for the state as the state doesn't have the jobs and the state is certainly not the best at delivering what the people need.
Not so sure, Jantra. Seems the most likely explanation, as I can't understand a word of it.
To clarify.
Why should private sector taxpayers struggling to fund their pension and facing poverty in retirement be forced to hand over £2.5m ( TWO AND A HALF MILLION POUNDS) to fund a doctor's (lavish)retirement?
Why the apartheid?
Why not a level playing field?
Still nothing,Jantra!
Still nothing....
Just to remind everyone, the questions are:
Why should private sector taxpayers struggling to fund their pension and facing poverty in retirement be forced to hand over £2.5m ( TWO AND A HALF MILLION POUNDS) to fund a doctor's (lavish)retirement?
Why the apartheid?
Why not a level playing field?
The lack of response from many on this forum or, where there's been any response, its quality tells its own story.
Again:
1. Why should private sector taxpayers struggling to fund their pension and facing poverty in retirement be forced to hand over £2.5m ( TWO AND A HALF MILLION POUNDS) to fund a doctor's (lavish)retirement?
2. Why the apartheid?
3. Why not a level playing field?
If responders could answer each of those questions (i.e. 1, 2 and 3) .......
Could we get this thread back on track please? Just a reminder, it's LDP Transport Options!
Many threads go off track. It's the nature of free debate. Do you really want me to start a new dedicated thread. What's the point of that ?
The interesting point here is that , insults aside, there remains total silence on this issue. That's because the injustice is undeniable.
It's significant, but not surprising, that the public sector apologists on this forum don't have the guts or gumption to say that.
1. Doctors broadly speaking earn less money in the medical profession than if they were to apply there talents elsewhere. This is demonstrated by the fact that medicine out of Barristers, Accountants, Dentists etc. has the highest drop out rate following qualification, as once people get there they realise that they've been conned and they could earn more money, do less work, and receive more gratitude elsewhere. The pension is about the only good thing going for a medical degree, otherwise you might as well pack it in and join one of the other professions.
2. the apartheid? - it entirely depends on who you work for. Pensions are better in the public sector than the private, as they are one of the last bastions of the DB scheme. Public sector workers do take more sick days on average than those in the private sector, I for one don't blame them as I think I'd have a duvet day once a month if I had to put up with the drudgery of most of the Public sector roles. However if you work for the right private sector companies, you get paid more, have more holiday, more benefits, better work dos, and actually have a more interesting life.
3. Level playing field - in life you come across many un-level playing fields, its about picking the one tipped in your favour.
"You also fail to ignore that to train a registrar costs around £250k which is a tax free loan given to medical students free of charge and never has to be paid back. Barristers, Accountants and so on all tend to have to fund their training and career themselves. So added to the £2m pension fund and the £250k career development loan, doctors earn between £70-100k per annum when fully qualified. This compares with most lawyers and accountants however most lawyers and accountants don't have tax free never to be repaid career development loans nor do they have £2m pension pots paid for by their employers."
This is incorrect, Doctors have to pay for their training courses and exam fees throughout their training. This is not funded by the NHS Lawyers and accountants are sponsored by their firms during this process and don't pay a penny in most cases.
The average doctor earns more than the average accountant and lawyer. This is because the professions of "law" and "accountancy" are heavily diluted by less qualified and therefore less well paid individuals. For a better comparison you need to compare your Big four equity partners, and Magic Circle / Top 50 LLP Partners with your leading consultants. If you do this you find that the Consultants earn around 10-20% of what is earn't in the private sector by accountants and lawyers. There "gold plated" pension makes a very small dent in this not to mention the thousands of pounds they have had to invest in their own training.
"Defined Benefit schemes just aren't affordable any longer. When people were working for 45 years and spending 10 years in retirement then that may have been true but now the average worker enters work at 20 and not 15 and wants to retire at 60 spending only 40 years working with 20 years in retirement. It just isn't feasible any longer. If you live longer then you need to work longer if you want the same standard as living as your parents had in retirement."
You missed the point on this one DB schemes are unaffordable yes, but they compensate for lower pay in some not all instances.
"aren't the left always going on about equality and fairness. It appears this fairness disappears when it is explained that whilst the public sector don't have gold plated pensions, they certainly are bullet proof in their current form"
I'm most definitely not politically aligned to the left
Guest
The cost of training a doctor is estimated to be around £250k. There is no way doctors pay anywhere near this amount when they go through university and then become a junior registrar / house doctor.
DB schemes are grossly unaffordable and the burden falls on everyone else at a much later date. There is no evidence to suggest the public sector worker is paid less, in fact the ONS states that average earnings in the public sector are higher than the private sector. By all means have good pensions, but make the individual pay for them at full cost rather than be heavily subsidised by the taxpayer in later years.
NB I never said you were left aligned, but it is a favoured tactic of those who are.
CARDIFFWALESMAP
- FORUM |