Jan 2020
4:35pm, 16 Jan 2020
1,617 posts
|
um
Johnny - the fault lies in 2 camps. First whichever government implemented such a stupid regressive pension tax regime (typically at some point, earn £5k more and pay £20k extra in tax). Not very motivating and not a surprise when people say 'stuff that, I'll stay £5k lower'. And secondly - whichever body decides to pay professionals as a gig economy rather than an overall 'professional rate for the job' - made worse with the realisation it's typically NHS consultants hitting the headlines as they refuse to do shifts/surgeries/whatever to keep below the current limit. I don't know the solution - but the current position is untenable. |
Jan 2020
4:49pm, 16 Jan 2020
213 posts
|
Stander
Maybe they are also paying qualified professionals the going rate that keeps them in the profession? Or do we object to paying high salaries to highly qualified professionals who have spent many years working and studying extremely hard to get to that level? |
Jan 2020
5:04pm, 16 Jan 2020
10,062 posts
|
larkim
I think the issue is more that tweaking high earners pension pots *for all high earners* but dressing it up as a method to put money into the NHS is a deliberate deception. I won't argue that paying NHS senior staff going rates for the job reflecting professional status and capability is correct; I'm not in that camp of lefties that thinks "high salary = bad" (maybe because I'm in a well paid senior role myself). But if the policy is to ensure NHS consultants are paid more to retain their services, do that in a way which only affects them, rather than all higher paid staff - unless you are really trying to pay higher paid staff well, and a side benefit is the NHS solution... |
Jan 2020
5:08pm, 16 Jan 2020
9,459 posts
|
rf_fozzy
Agree with Larks. This isn't a specific NHS policy. It's basically just a tax break for well-off people that also happens to affect higher paid NHS workers (by the way, this is probably going to help the higher paid executives in the NHS more than it helps doctors). |
Jan 2020
5:15pm, 16 Jan 2020
6,147 posts
|
jda
The problem is the tax was stupidly designed. You shouldn’t have people actually losing money overall when they earn more. At any level of the tax system. It’s just stupid.
|
|
Jan 2020
5:18pm, 16 Jan 2020
9,460 posts
|
rf_fozzy
That's the problem with thresholds. If it were a smooth increase with income level (or even better a wealth tax), then it would be impossible to lose money as you pay more. The problem is, of course, what tax rate you pay from the start of the year, although if all people were on PAYE, that would partially solve the issue. |
Jan 2020
5:51pm, 16 Jan 2020
23,013 posts
|
Johnny Blaze
I think characterising the change as being justified "to support the NHS" is just spin straight out of Downing St and I'm surprised people are buying it.
|
Jan 2020
6:03pm, 16 Jan 2020
3,479 posts
|
mr d
Is obligatory to be highly qualified to earn 110k plus?
|
|
Jan 2020
6:10pm, 16 Jan 2020
6,148 posts
|
jda
To be fair it had been clearly highlighted as a specific problem that seriously affected consultants taking on extra shifts. So much as I'm disinclined to take the govt on trust, they have a point this time.
|
Jan 2020
8:07pm, 16 Jan 2020
15,772 posts
|
Bazoaxe
SurelyNot, thats the line from Sturgeon, but not all of her party are of the same opinion. thetimes.co.uk |
Useful Links
FE accepts no responsibility for external links. Or anything, really.Related Threads
-
Fantasy General Election
Jul 2024
-
EU Referendum - In or Out? Vote here
Aug 2018
-
March to Parliament Against Brexit - Sat 2nd July
Jun 2016
-
EU Referendum
Feb 2016
-
Ads on Fetch - anyone else getting Leave and Remain?!
Feb 2017
-
The Environment Thread :-)
Oct 2024
-
Economics
Aug 2023
-
Dear Scottish Fetchies
Jan 2023
-
Any economists out there - question
Oct 2022
-
Power and exploitation - please check my sanity
Oct 2018
