BMA (British Medical Association) taking industrial action

DaddyBear

ILW wrote: »

I have heard quoted that for a private pension to pay the same level of benefit would require a pot of around £1.7 million.
Cannot see many doctors would have contributed that much.
Seems to equate to over £40,000 pa over 40 years.

Contributions would be around £500k, so with employer contributions it's not too far off, either way it's still double what a civil servant will contribute.

lostinrates

DaddyBear wrote: »

it's ignorance such as this, compounded by media bile, that means doctors never receive sympathy. On what planet is a GP a graduate? You have to be a doctor for AT LEAST five years, soon to rise to at least 7 years before becoming a GP. GP wages are not good for someone at least 5 years out of Uni.

Daddy bear, a good friend of mine who is a gp recently emmigrated. We discussed wages a few times briefly, he is two years younger than dh and i, was a young gp (left not long after becoming a gp) and his wage as a young was better than some of our city lawyer friends. Hours about the same before becoming a gp, though obviously, stress and 'value' of work has disparity. One of dh's close friends is a london gp. Same age as dh. Dh has what we think of as a stonking wage, (six figures) his gp friend is ona commenserate salary. His hours are shorter as a gp than dh's. They discussed all this quite recently when the guys all went out and the doctor was compllaining. He was shocked to discover his friends who he thought were all doing so much better than him are not. The teacher also thought he was the worse off, he was not, at this stage in their thirties the museum curator is, then a criminal solicitor.

lostinrates

The_J wrote: »

I largely agree with you DaddyBear except on the age point.

We are all going to have to work for longer. Being a good Doctor is almost always down to experience and yes, expecting them to work the same hours as they did when they were 30 is absurd but I absolutely expect them to stay on in a training or supervisory capacity and 68 isn't and won't be that old.

However the changes are being pushed through too quickly and you are suffering from bending over too easy the first time around.

Age is relevant, many of us in any job are going to struggle in our late sixties. I will no longer be able to do the somewhat pathetic amount of manual work i now do. Ofcourse working using medicine doesn't necessarily rely on practical skills for all, but for some it will be ok. Personal provision and decisions are easier for anyone with a larger than avergae income.

Graham_Devon

Why does it keep going back to the wage!?

It's not about the wage!

chewmylegoff

ILW wrote: »

I have heard quoted that for a private pension to pay the same level of benefit would require a pot of around £1.7 million.
Cannot see many doctors would have contributed that much.
Seems to equate to over £40,000 pa over 40 years.

If you put £40,000 into a pension for 40 years you would end up with a lot more than £1.7 million at the end of it, unless of course you stuck it all into a cash instrument which paid no interest.

lostinrates

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Why does it keep going back to the wage!?

It's not about the wage!

The wage and the contract is, imo relevant. It impacts, for example, how people manage their affairs and how they pay tax, what their other expenses are or are not (e.g. Paying for some one to do a tax return or pension or simply leaving it to an employer's system) and whether it is an appropriate and fair way to provide their pensions.

chewmylegoff

lostinrates wrote: »

Age is relevant, many of us in any job are going to struggle in our late sixties. I will no longer be able to do the somewhat pathetic amount of manual work i now do. Ofcourse working using medicine doesn't necessarily rely on practical skills for all, but for some it will be ok. Personal provision and decisions are easier for anyone with a larger than avergae income.

i am not sure where people go once they get over the age of 55, but i can confirm that they aren't working at any of the workplaces i have been in. i don't think i've ever seen anyone retire at work - i wonder where they all go to die.

chewmylegoff

DaddyBear wrote: »

Contributions would be around £500k, so with employer contributions it's not too far off, either way it's still double what a civil servant will contribute.

If you made contributions of £500k to a pension scheme over the course of your working life, with at least matching employers' contributions and growth I think you'd be rather disappointed if your pension pot turned out to only be £1.7 million.

RosieBee_2

Hi,

i think that while doctors do get above average pay and pensions, the strike i think is based on the principle that they dont agree with the changes just like every other public sector worker. the changes and the impact the higher contributions will have are relative to each person, but i definitely thinks its based on the principle of the Government not agreeing on a fair deal.

CLAPTON

Graham_Devon wrote: »

This issue isn't about pay.

The media and individuals are comparing pay and pensions. The BMA are not. The issue is being made into it being over pay by the media.

I'm not going to get involved in this argument, as to be honest, there is little sympathy towards the doctors, and what sympathy there is will ebb out over the coming weeks. I do feel they have a point about their pensions specifically being targetted. You suggested looking at firemen and teachers....well why not look at nurses and admin staff working in the very same places? They haven't had their pensions changed in such a way, and they all work under the same roof....thats what justifies, in my mind, doctors concern about being treated equally.

I just feel it's unfortunate that the media will simply bat the argument down into how much they are paid. Their colleagues, some high up admin staff and managers will get paid more, but won't have their pension age and contributions changed alongside doctors. That's an issue, I'm sure everyone will agree, and that, as far as I can gather, is part of the reasoning for the "unfair" treatment.

I know there will be very little sympathy trying to talk about the details though, which is why I'm not leaving the dicussion. It's too easy to focus on their pay and say "ahh well, diddums".

I feel if the changes are to be made, fair enough. but apply them to their colleagues too. Instead, the government are targetting the well off and getting the response they want....the public backing them up as the media make it out to be about rich people moaning.

everyone in the public sector (except MPs) is having their contribution rate raised and their retirement age increased.

where do you get the bit about 'only' the doctors?

the precise detail of the doctors deal is different to others but that's partly because they are the only group I know about that are 'self employed' when it suits but able to join a public sector gold plated pension scheme when it suits.

My doctor mate was complaining thet he will soon hit the 'life time' pension limit (he's early 50s); it was so unsetting I had to let him buy me a beer.