I cannot work from home I work for the NHS

Barny1979

mags21 said:

Lel101 said:

I cannot work from home so what tax relief will I get, shouldn’t I get the same as those working from home? I travel 50 miles a day and pay for parking I work 37.5 hours a week and continue to do so , what relief is there for me?

Deutsche Bank: Tax home workers 'to help pay those who cannot' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-54876526

That would be taxing the employers though, not the employees

Thrugelmir

Aranyani said:

Andy_L said:

Aranyani said:

JamoLew said:

Aranyani said:

JamoLew said:

Aranyani said:

JamoLew said:

Andy_L said:

I suspect the other  AHP-type professions were excluded because they didn't exist when the scheme rules were written.

I suspect so, hence why the provision was removed not because other roles are any less demanding etc etc

I'd argue that dietetics, podiatry or speech and language therapy are less physically demanding than nursing or physio.  OT and ODP are not. 

Quite possibly so - although I don't have much knowledge of those particular fields 

Much better to just get rid than have the haves and have nots

I'd question how realistic it is to expect people to stay in front line nursing till they are 68.  That's why the police and fire service allow earlier retirement too, the physical demands and decades of shift work take a physical toll. 

yes - but its not just Nursing that experiences decades of physical and mental demands.
Arguably, the physical nature of most hospital roles has been mostly eradicated with Lifting & Handling regulations etc

Its still a very physically demanding job, long days on their feet, regular night shifts with rapid turnarounds. 

I work till they drop! 

For which they get shift/unsocial hours premia and only have to do 3 shifts a week.

That doesn’t mitigate the health impact. 

Distribution centres work 24/7. Not 3 shifts a week either. 

Andy_L

JamoLew said:

Andy_L said:

Aranyani said:

JamoLew said:

Aranyani said:

JamoLew said:

Andy_L said:

I suspect the other  AHP-type professions were excluded because they didn't exist when the scheme rules were written.

I suspect so, hence why the provision was removed not because other roles are any less demanding etc etc

I'd argue that dietetics, podiatry or speech and language therapy are less physically demanding than nursing or physio.  OT and ODP are not. 

Quite possibly so - although I don't have much knowledge of those particular fields 

Much better to just get rid than have the haves and have nots

I'd question how realistic it is to expect people to stay in front line nursing till they are 68.  That's why the police and fire service allow earlier retirement too, the physical demands and decades of shift work take a physical toll. 

How realistic it is it to expect people to stay in labouring/hod-carrying/shelf-stacking etc etc until 68?

Absolutely - the real quandary being that people are living longer, we are getting more effective at keeping people alive longer and its getting more expensive and controversially is probably not good value for money

Pension models were probably created with the expectation of people surviving maybe 10 years post retirement.
Nowadays 20-30 isn't uncommon
So in you example lets say the hod carrier becomes physically unable to do that after 55 -- what then

Changes to a less physically demanding (and probably lower paid) job and/or falls back onto benefits.

MattMattMattUK

Andy_L said:

Changes to a less physically demanding (and probably lower paid) job and/or falls back onto benefits.

Is it right that people should be able to live at the expense of others for 30-40 years, with the odds being that they never even made a net contribution even when they were working?

Andy_L

MattMattMattUK said:

Andy_L said:

Changes to a less physically demanding (and probably lower paid) job and/or falls back onto benefits.

Is it right that people should be able to live at the expense of others for 30-40 years, with the odds being that they never even made a net contribution even when they were working?

So what's the option for those who are physically incapable of working? (As opposed to those who are just swinging the lead). Euthanasia, starving to death in the gutter? 

JamoLew

Andy_L said:

MattMattMattUK said:

Andy_L said:

Changes to a less physically demanding (and probably lower paid) job and/or falls back onto benefits.

Is it right that people should be able to live at the expense of others for 30-40 years, with the odds being that they never even made a net contribution even when they were working?

So what's the option for those who are physically incapable of working? (As opposed to those who are just swinging the lead). Euthanasia, starving to death in the gutter? 

Pay more into the system/pension pot I guess so they can afford to live and not work

It is a real problem currently, although it may be slightly exaggerated by the post war baby boom

It's definitely something that needs looking at - sadly most of the governments (all?) in the last 40 years haven't really bothered about the long term prospects for the country and its population from a sustainability viewpoint. Probably not much point as the next lot would just change/reverse everything

Wouldn't if be nice if Health,Defence and other such things were excluded from the meddling of politicians

Aranyani

Thrugelmir said:

Aranyani said:

Andy_L said:

Aranyani said:

JamoLew said:

Aranyani said:

JamoLew said:

Aranyani said:

JamoLew said:

Andy_L said:

I suspect the other  AHP-type professions were excluded because they didn't exist when the scheme rules were written.

I suspect so, hence why the provision was removed not because other roles are any less demanding etc etc

I'd argue that dietetics, podiatry or speech and language therapy are less physically demanding than nursing or physio.  OT and ODP are not. 

Quite possibly so - although I don't have much knowledge of those particular fields 

Much better to just get rid than have the haves and have nots

I'd question how realistic it is to expect people to stay in front line nursing till they are 68.  That's why the police and fire service allow earlier retirement too, the physical demands and decades of shift work take a physical toll. 

yes - but its not just Nursing that experiences decades of physical and mental demands.
Arguably, the physical nature of most hospital roles has been mostly eradicated with Lifting & Handling regulations etc

Its still a very physically demanding job, long days on their feet, regular night shifts with rapid turnarounds. 

I work till they drop! 

For which they get shift/unsocial hours premia and only have to do 3 shifts a week.

That doesn’t mitigate the health impact. 

Distribution centres work 24/7. Not 3 shifts a week either. 

I certainly hope the staff aren't working 24/7.  

I 'm not sure what your point is, I've never said that only public sector workers have physically demanding jobs that take a toll on their health and make it harder for them to work to 67/68.  

Mrs_Ryan

I can only go on what I have seen on his pension statements. He is 49 so still has at least another 16-17 years. My National Insurance record is very patchy as I worked part time for many years and quite often didn’t earn enough to pay NI. I’ll never work full time again due to disability- I really struggle to do 25 hours now- so my CS pension is likely to be fairly small. I’m 40 now and have no idea how long I’m going to be in the CS for, whether I’m going to leave and do my PhD or look for promotion. I only pay a small amount, compared to when I was working for the NHS full time and paying hefty lumps into my pension as I was doing a lot of unsocial hours. 

The job I’m in now is only my second job since I was medically retired from the NHS in 2014, my last job I didn’t even earn enough to pay NI let alone tax. So once again I should reiterate I won’t have an enormous pension when I retire,  as I simply will never earn enough to contribute enormous amounts. 

Pollycat

Mrs_Ryan said:

I can only go on what I have seen on his pension statements. He is 49 so still has at least another 16-17 years.

He will have around 21 years in RM's final salary scheme plus around 10 years in his career salary defined benefit pension plus 2 years (and counting) cash balance.

Mrs_Ryan said:

Hubby’s Royal Mail pension is hardly worth the paper it’s written on- even after 33 years service I was shocked at how small it was. Working in the public sector isn’t all that great.

Are you sure you understand his pension statements? Are you comparing it with a FTSE 100 CEO pension?

Dazed_and_C0nfused

You don't need to actually pay NI to gain a qualifying year for State Pension purposes.

I really do think you must have misunderstood his Royal Mail pension statements.