Them poor public sector pensions we are all paying for

[kaiser78]

GP on pension of £140,000 a year... while 20 others draw more than £100,000 each | Mail Online

A GP has retired on a pension of nearly £140,000 a year in a package worth more than £4million.
He is one of 20 family doctors with annual pensions of £100,000 or more, according to figures released under a freedom of information request.
This week the British Medical Association threatened to take industrial action in protest at plans to make doctors retire later and contribute more to their pensions.
But figures obtained by the Mail reveal that the pensions of GPs are among the most generous in the country.



You've only got to travel to find the only people sitting in the sun retired at 50 with a nice big villa and fat wallet are all retired public sector workers.

No wonder they all voted Labour all their lives.

Nick Ferrari on LBC yesterday morning tore the GP Association's chairman argument to shreads when he tried to argue that GPs pensions are justifiable. Left him speechless and you could hear him squirm.

I have the impression that GPs/medics due the nature of their work feel they are untouchable at times.

[d000hg]

What kind of public pension do they get? Some final salary thingie, or a more regular pension where the government simply makes a significant matched payment?

[DodgyAgent]

I found this book pretty interesting: Confessions of a GP eBook: Benjamin Daniels: Amazon.co.uk: Kindle Store

Don't see any reason a GP shouldn't earn as much as an IT contractor.

Same argument could be said of electricians, nurses, porters, cleaners

[Old Greg]

What kind of public pension do they get? Some final salary thingie, or a more regular pension where the government simply makes a significant matched payment?

Final salary. Hugely inflated by recent large increases in GP salaries (yes, I know they're self-employed - it is a very peculiar set up).

[pjclarke]

Very last sentence of the Daily Fail article

'‘Over the next five years, the NHS pension scheme will actually provide a positive cashflow to the Treasury of over £10billion.’

So the inevitable headline-grabbing outliers nothwithstanding, on aggregate, 'we' are not paying anything for NHS pensions.

[d000hg]

Same argument could be said of electricians, nurses, porters, cleaners

When their profession takes nearly a decade of studying, and when the government needs to make it financially attractive to get people in those jobs, I'll agree with you. I wasn't playing the "they do an important job" card, though you can be forgiven for making such an assumption and issuing a pre-canned response without bothering to check first.

I suppose this makes me a socialist in some way? Most viewpoints you don't agree with seem to

[DodgyAgent]

When their profession takes nearly a decade of studying, and when the government needs to make it financially attractive to get people in those jobs, I'll agree with you. I wasn't playing the "they do an important job" card, though you can be forgiven for making such an assumption and issuing a pre-canned response without bothering to check first.

I suppose this makes me a socialist in some way? Most viewpoints you don't agree with seem to

I am afraid that once you depart from the market forces valuation of someone's worth then you are getting into very sticky territory. Whilst I accept that paying someone purely according to market forces is extreme and inappropriate in certain cases, I do think that as a basis of paying someone the markets are the soundest way to decide. Trying to justify the morality of IT contractor pay, for example, would be particularly difficult - so dont bother attempting it.

[Spacecadet]

Trying to justify the morality of IT contractor pay, for example, would be particularly difficult - so dont bother attempting it.

How is it immoral?
We don't go round ripping off little old ladies
We do charge large organisations to complete work for them at a price which they are willing to pay and at a price which (for commercial organisations at least) still allows them to make a profit.

I'd argue that if we charged less then all that would mean is slightly higher dividends bonuses for the already wealthy and so be more immoral.

[vetran]

Same argument could be said of electricians, nurses, porters, cleaners

Actually the argument is, should an employee make as much as a business?

Some Electricians do make as much as that but not on the cards. I'm sure the manager of a free lance nursing business makes that kind of money.

If a person starts a cleaning business then I see no reason why they shouldn't earn as much as a GP or contractor.

Contractors and GP's fall into the same slot in most people's minds, they are seen as disguised employees. The difference many may not see is that the big costs of training GPs are met by the government and repayment is not part of the pact so are they more of a business or less? It doesn't however change the basic fact they have different legal statuses to most nurses or cleaners.

The thing people forget is employees pay normally reflects a balance between the value they provide to the employer, the risks they mitigate & take, the costs of managing them and the cost of replacing them.


Cleaning has a low barrier to entry, risks while high in medical situations are easily manageable and the cost of replacing them is therefore low.

IT requires specialism, the monetary value of risks and complexity are high (but measurable if not manageable) so the pool is smaller and the remuneration is normally higher.

As a business you have overheads which employees contribute to.

So suggesting employed cleaners should earn the same as a contractor businesses however disguised seems against basic capitalist tennents, you are worth what you can command. If you can set your value as a business you are likely to get more than those taking the 'security' and missing the overheads of employment.

Edited - DA changed tack, I hadn't realised he was playing Agent Provacateur.

PJC - how can that be? It seems to fly in face of all the evidence.

[d000hg]

I am afraid that once you depart from the market forces valuation of someone's worth then you are getting into very sticky territory. Whilst I accept that paying someone purely according to market forces is extreme and inappropriate in certain cases, I do think that as a basis of paying someone the markets are the soundest way to decide.

Isn't this WHY doctors get paid a lot though? i.e. the long education needed isn't why we pay them a lot, but directly leads to their market price being high because otherwise not enough people would bother training?

Trying to justify the morality of IT contractor pay, for example, would be particularly difficult - so dont bother attempting it.

There's nothing moral about how much contractors get paid.