BMA (British Medical Association) taking industrial action

ILW

Andy_L wrote: »

If you don't realise that phd's are poorly paid then you're to thick to become one

The ones that know the difference between "to" and "too" tend to do better though.

kabayiri

DaddyBear wrote: »

No, it means that other public sector pensions need to pay more, rather than relying on overpayment from doctors. As we've discussed above, at an 11% contribution rate paid over 40 years the contribution of doctors is in the region of £400k, which with matched employer contributions and investment should easily cover the £1.5m pot needed.
The government needs to be looking at police, civil servant and armed forces pensions if they're worried about sustainability. Because, in short, they aren't.

If the government aren't worried about sustainability then who is?

I'm sure when they target other PS groups, they will get the same robust response centred on strike action.

It seems everyone has a solution for their own interest group, apart from low/average income private sector workers without generous employers. They know they are stuffed come pension time, striking won't help them.

lostinrates

CLAPTON wrote: »

I think it's an interesting thought, that Stephen Hawkings, truely one of the greatest physists of all time earned (before he wrote the brief histroy of time) less than the AVERAGE GP.

But, you see..then he did write a brief history of time. This is a fairly 'standard' for of extra income for successful academics, not necessarily big hit bestselling science books, but books that become course books, and other income...conferences, articles, sometimes work for tv or radio stuff...all things the 'academic wage' doesn't include and not all earn, but are acheivable for a percentage.

horngkai

ILW wrote: »

They do also get a £150,000 lump sum on retirement.

Must be tough.

With the new deal, there would not be a lump sum payout on retirement

chewmylegoff

DaddyBear wrote: »

No, it means that other public sector pensions need to pay more, rather than relying on overpayment from doctors. As we've discussed above, at an 11% contribution rate paid over 40 years the contribution of doctors is in the region of £400k, which with matched employer contributions and investment should easily cover the £1.5m pot needed.
The government needs to be looking at police, civil servant and armed forces pensions if they're worried about sustainability. Because, in short, they aren't.

the trouble is that the 11% employees contribution, the matched employer contribution and the "investment" are all, in fact, funded by the taxpayer and therefore your sustainability argument falls to pieces.

horngkai

vivatifosi wrote: »

Is there anyone on here who knows what the actual changes are and can list them all? I've been digging around looking but all I can find are references to retirement ages increasing, however there appears to be more to it than that.

Doctors' pension are affected by the new deal in a few ways that I could decipher:

1. An increased pension contribution of more than £200k throughout their career.

2. The lose of the lump sum pay out of around £150k upon retirement

3. Annual pension is around £60k if you retire at 68, compared to around £45k on the current scheme (but retiring at 65). If on the new deal, the doctor choose to retire at 65 still, the pension will be smaller than £45k, without the lumpsum payout.

One of the main problem with the new pension is the retirement age of 68. Seriously, I wouldn't want any surgeon to come near me when they are 60 and above. Hand eye co-ordination deteriorate, visual acuity going, judgement is not as good as before etc..... If one think they can go onto do more of a supportive/teaching role after 65 in the nhs, one must be deluded.... NHS wouldn't pay the doctor the same amount of salary for that.

CLAPTON

lostinrates wrote: »

But, you see..then he did write a brief history of time. This is a fairly 'standard' for of extra income for successful academics, not necessarily big hit bestselling science books, but books that become course books, and other income...conferences, articles, sometimes work for tv or radio stuff...all things the 'academic wage' doesn't include and not all earn, but are acheivable for a percentage.

I would just love to know any facts and figures to support the idea that the AVERAGE academic (or even the average professor)makes a significant amount of extra money

lostinrates

CLAPTON wrote: »

I would just love to know any facts and figures to support the idea that the AVERAGE academic (or even the average professor)makes a significant amount of extra money

No, i don't think the average makes a lot extra. I think the successful do. I also don't think S H counts as average.

(fwiw, my fil royalty payments are bigger than his salary, i do not know when that happened though, at what point in his career. Post middle age, i would certainly guess.)

Andy_L

DaddyBear wrote: »

The government needs to be looking at police, civil servant and armed forces pensions if they're worried about sustainability. Because, in short, they aren't.

There is no noticible difference in sustainability (or not) between the various unfunded public sector schemes.

CLAPTON

horngkai wrote: »

Doctors' pension are affected by the new deal in a few ways that I could decipher:

1. An increased pension contribution of more than £200k throughout their career.

2. The lose of the lump sum pay out of around £150k upon retirement

3. Annual pension is around £60k if you retire at 68, compared to around £45k on the current scheme (but retiring at 65). If on the new deal, the doctor choose to retire at 65 still, the pension will be smaller than £45k, without the lumpsum payout.

One of the main problem with the new pension is the retirement age of 68. Seriously, I wouldn't want any surgeon to come near me when they are 60 and above. Hand eye co-ordination deteriorate, visual acuity going, judgement is not as good as before etc..... If one think they can go onto do more of a supportive/teaching role after 65 in the nhs, one must be deluded.... NHS wouldn't pay the doctor the same amount of salary for that.

given the high salaries that doctors earn and the claim that that pay both their 'own' contribution and the 'employers' contribution one would think it a no brainer for them to opt out and make their own pension provision