NHS pensions are bleeding the taxpayer dry

uk1

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Jeff

Never said otherwise

May I ask the motivation of the thread?:)

bigadaj has really explained well pretty much what my observations would be, but sadly you do rather prove (as do others in the thread) his point that you cannot discuss this without everything you say being rubbished.

Why should you question my motives? I have no motives other than the article in the Times fleshed out an issue that I feel is an issue to be aired and discussed.

As bigadaj would also probably ask, what is your motivation for questioning mine?

Jeff

PeacefulWaters

Employ people, fund pensions.

It's a simple concept.

There are doubtless areas of NHS pensions that could be identified for cost reduction. But some of that's already been done and I'm not convinced making trolley porters worse off in retirement is a social goal I could support.

System

Well to muddy the waters even further, I will mix in a few metaphors and obscure references...

Difficult to compare Liabilities in an unfunded scheme with any other scheme.

Imagine a piece of furniture, Chippendale value difficult to assess as they are usually auctioned, but values run into the low thousands(http://www.mmfurniture.com/mahogany-chippendale-dining-table-mm-ct24r.html). Now we all know that they are not new and should really be worthless.

Why, because the new buzzword is "no veneer in here", and English craftsmen created beautiful veneers, but now crapwood is held up as the standard to aspire to.

So to list liabilities as though they are a loan from Wonga and are a sin against the taxpayer is a little bit off beam.

Agreed the liabilities are probably going to get greater in a self fulfilling prophecy kind of a way, as the NHS is keeping us alive for longer, and will probably keep on doing so, meaning it's pensioners draw even more money for even longer.

uk1

johndough wrote: »

Well to muddy the waters even further, I will mix in a few metaphors and obscure references...

Difficult to compare Liabilities in an unfunded scheme with any other scheme.

Imagine a piece of furniture, Chippendale value difficult to assess as they are usually auctioned, but values run into the low thousands(http://www.mmfurniture.com/mahogany-chippendale-dining-table-mm-ct24r.html). Now we all know that they are not new and should really be worthless.

Why, because the new buzzword is "no veneer in here", and English craftsmen created beautiful veneers, but now crapwood is held up as the standard to aspire to.

So to list liabilities as though they are a loan from Wonga and are a sin against the taxpayer is a little bit off beam.

Agreed the liabilities are probably going to get greater in a self fulfilling prophecy kind of a way, as the NHS is keeping us alive for longer, and will probably keep on doing so, meaning it's pensioners draw even more money for even longer.

Thanks. But this isn't Chippendale furniture.

What I still have not seen explained satisfactorily is why you cannot simply say "this is what an NHS employee's pension will be as a percentage of (whatever) salary (is used) and this is what it would cost to replicate exactly the same pension if it were offered in the private sector"?

Jeff

System

I don't think you read my post...

Muddy the waters?

ANyyway they are mirrored in the private sector, or were a few years ago.

NO I don't know exactly, but when staff are/were TUPE'd over they had a right to a comparable pension scheme provided by the private sector company; (http://www.professionalpensions.com/global-pensions/news/1453067/prudential-taps-tupe-protect-db-schemes); (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/311614/transfer-la-staff-response.pdf).

I did have a copy of the terms and conditions for care home staff who were being privatised, obviously you know full well that it cannot be quantified, as the unfunded becomes funded and will have 3 sources of income, EE, ER and that which is growth a la stock market.

As opposed to the single source, taxpayer, who pays directly or otherwise for the whole lot.

Now how heavy is Mount Everest when the snow begins to melt? Tricky one this, bit like working out fund liabilities when you don't know the date of death or how many tribes of yeti to factor in.

bigadaj

uk1 wrote: »

Thanks. But this isn't Chippendale furniture.

What I still have not seen explained satisfactorily is why you cannot simply say "this is what an NHS employee's pension will be as a percentage of (whatever) salary (is used) and this is what it would cost to replicate exactly the same pension if it were offered in the private sector"?

Jeff

I'm not so sure I'd thank that post.

The problem in defining the benefit or indeed cost of defined benefit schemes has been done to death on these boards with a range of opinions. Ten actual benefit will depend on the exact scheme details, and with an institution like the nhs then there will no doubt be different schemes with varying details.

The benefit is also dependent on individuals and their age in particular, also sex as though you aren't supposed to discriminate there is likely to be additional cost in for example a female pension given the greater life expectancy, normal scheme retirement age, spousal benefits etc

We've seen estimates of db schemes being worth somewhere between 20% & 35% of base pay as a general indicator, and of course the cetv transfer value may be available, or trying to determine a pot size and annuity cost at retirement.

Interestingly I went for an interview yesterday at an arms length government body, who have come under civil service conventions but are now moving away. The db scheme has been closed and their Dc scheme consists of a 5% employee contribution with a 22% employer contribution, which may throw some light, or not as the case may be.

System

Jeff -

but sadly you do rather prove (as do others in the thread) his point that you cannot discuss this without everything you say being rubbished.

I'm not rubbishing anything, just discussing and trying to reach an understanding, if people simply rubbish what I say (despite it not disagreeing with everything) without giving greater reason then that is basically trolling, which you get a lot of on here.

Why should you question my motives? I have no motives other than the article in the Times fleshed out an issue that I feel is an issue to be aired and discussed.

Curiosity, you select quite a politically motivated article, which you show no objection to, so its a fair assumption that those are your views... So if you have political motivation then those thoughts came from somewhere, and it may be a more profound discussion if we talk about why you feel that way. The ideology may be 100% legit, it may be partly true but taken to an extreme, rarely is either left or right wing completely right or wrong.

As bigadaj would also probably ask, what is your motivation for questioning mine?

As above, if you really agree with your ideology I will listen and you can be confident in convincing us, if we don't agree with it in part or full I will explain why. It seems necessary to reach consensus. None of this is in any way threatening, you don't have to protect ideas from change or rely on ideas

Of course, there's no obligation. My motivation is fairness and general discussion. I believe you can't merely judge it from the pension end as that's not the only factor

uk1

MatthewAinsworth wrote: »

Jeff -

I'm not rubbishing anything, just discussing and trying to reach an understanding, if people simply rubbish what I say (despite it not disagreeing with everything) without giving greater reason then that is basically trolling, which you get a lot of on here.

Curiosity, you select quite a politically motivated article, which you show no objection to, so its a fair assumption that those are your views... So if you have political motivation then those thoughts came from somewhere, and it may be a more profound discussion if we talk about why you feel that way. The ideology may be 100% legit, it may be partly true but taken to an extreme, rarely is either left or right wing completely right or wrong.

As above, if you really agree with your ideology I will listen and you can be confident in convincing us, if we don't agree with it in part or full I will explain why. It seems necessary to reach consensus. None of this is in any way threatening, you don't have to protect ideas from change or rely on ideas

Of course, there's no obligation. My motivation is fairness and general discussion. I believe you can't merely judge it from the pension end as that's not the only factor

Thanks.

I think you have thought too much about my motivation because I simply found it to be an interesting article that followed neatly on from a previous thread that sort of derailed.

My feeling about the topic is pretty straightforward and not in the least complicated. I think the debate about what people are paid in the NHS is a complete topic in itself but one discussion does not fit all. I happen to know that my GP and his wife - a fellow GP - earn around £500k between them and they have a stonking pension. I also see that they are harvesting patients like a crop. Make someone come in for a blood pressure check and "kerching" even if they self-monitor. If I go over the sugar limit and they can register me as a diabetic and then it is "kerching".

It is clear to me that there has been almost a sort of harvesting of patients that are basically well and making them feel that they are ill. It is my view that the NHS is (too be a bit too simplistic ...;) ) are overpaying GPs and incentivating GPs to make well people ill.

A very complicated topic but a seperate one from hospital porters or perhaps junior doctors, over paid hospital managers and nurses.

But the emotions and views we might hold about any of those topics gets mashed into the pensions "Aunt Sally" topics by NHS "apologists". It is perfectly easy to understand why you might feel a nurse should have a better pension than a GP or hospital manager. You end up concluding how you want based on sentiment.

There is another sub text. That is that in the private sector it was recognised some time ago the scope and scariness of the promises made with DB schemes were frightening. The public sector has been slower in addressing that issue. It seems to many that the reason why is that there is an implied political threat if it is addressed. You need to be a very confident and foolhardy government to say to the NHS "yes we understand that you can go on strike and risk people's health ... but we are doing it anyway". It is an implied threat that basically subverts what should happen. In essence nothing more or less than what is happening in the private sector. And if that means that people in the NHS will demand higher earnings because they could genuinely get more in the private sector then that is a fight they should fight for and we will see how that goes. I hope nurses and hospital porters get more and GP's and hospital managers get less. I pesonally would prefer to see people get salaries that reflect their genuine market value today if it means drawing a line under open ended pensions we currently have for them.

The article simply made some points I thought were interesting.

Jeff

System

Jeff -

I didnt know, it does look like a consequence of power, the GPs have the unchallenged power to create their own customers like you describe, and create jobs for themselves, and the NHS erring on the side of caution to such a degree that it cannot afford. I wonder if these Gp's own their surgery? Is that an NHS pension based on an NHS wage or a private one from being a private practice that serves the NHS?

Essentially are you saying its better for public finances to rebalance remuneration away from pension towards basic rate? Could be, what's good for the employer is bad for the worker, what's good for the workers is bad for the employer.

Pensions are almost like a kind of debt you could say, debt can be a tool if you can generate a better return but if you can't, its a problem.

If you made that pension "debt" pay less interest (I.e. by changing schemes to direct contribution) then, like a bank, you won't expect as many people queing up and you'll have to pay another way to recruit, I.e wages, so its just a matter of what sort of credit product the NHS does/doesn't need, and whether paying wages now is better, I don't know.

uk1

Our GPs practice does operate as a business with him being allocated budgets and then operating the surgery as he wishes. They can increase their budgets when patients have declared deseases that ostensibly they monitor.

My experience of the NHS is relatively limited but every experience I have had leaves me with the feeling that it is largely ran in a way to be of convenience to NHS staff irrespective of how inconvenient and illogical and wasteful it might be. I'm sure we all have our own stories.

I use to work for a large US corporation and my boss was lent to the NHS and he had a very senior role. Some may even hazard a guess as to who he is, although it was some years ago. He took his private enterprise knowledge to try and benefit the NHS on what was initially a secondment but in short time was made permanent.

He attempted to introduce processes that seemed sensible like appraisals for example, but he found it extremely tough. As an aside, I had lunch with him a few months after he started and I asked him what had been the greatest suprise in his new role. He thought for a moment and said "Jeff, if I schedule a meeting with you there is I guess a 95% chance it would take place. In my new role around 50% of the time the meeting doesn't take place. The worst reason of all is that recently a few people didn't make it across Elephant and Castle to my office, and when I asked where they were I was told it was because they were mugged on the way". I digress. But he said that the resistance in the NHS for new and sensible processes was extremely high and people were extremely resistant.

In the end transparency seems to be a good way of ensuring fairness and a calculation of value. In other words a movement towards market rate pay, with appropriate market normal processes.

From my own personal experience, rather than the continual well intentioned but resultantly subversive targets, governments tend to subvert rather than help, I'd like to see an attempt to introduce some simpler initiatives. I would for example like to see more people paid in the NHS based on simple patient satisfaction feedback. Not appropriate in all situations but certainly for many. I have sometimes felt that the NHS sees patients as a nuisance. If more of their reward was aligned with the patient focussed effort measured by "satisfaction" that they make then it would mean that the better ones would earn more (as they should) than the colleagues they carry.

i have digressed a lot and I apologise.

Jeff