Spare us the details, but on the other hand, perhaps not. It would probably be far more interesting than Sir K’s response.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Politics] The official Budget thread - kick off 12.30pm
- Thread starter Giraffe
- Start date
Well, it may stop a few senior medics from moaning and leaving the NHS early.
Weststander
Well-known member
In the example of your job, I remember your fair description of the shysters who own it, how can any government get them to pay you significantly more?
I can’t think of a workable private sector method.
vegster
Sanity Clause
- May 5, 2008
- 28,262
Maybe cuts in Employers NI contributions which must then be passed on to employee in increased wages ? Mandatory annual wage reviews ? A " Wage Arbitration Board/Service " ? There must be some way to come up with a way to treat employees .....Maybe a Union ?
Edit: just re read your post and saw " Get them to pay you significantly more "...I don't want " Significantly more" ..Happy to keep pace with normal inflation with the odd 1-2 % above inflation in good years. I don't want to hold them to ransom, just fair recompense for my experience and the training I do.
Last edited:
Weststander
Well-known member
Not trying to depress you, honest, but as you sometimes talk about them, the compound effect in real terms of all those years derisory pay ‘awards’ is probably significant.Maybe cuts in Employers NI contributions which must then be passed on to employee in increased wages ? Mandatory annual wage reviews ? A " Wage Arbitration Board/Service " ? There must be some way to come up with a way to treat employees .....Maybe a Union ?
Edit: just re read your post and saw " Get them to pay you significantly more "...I don't want " Significantly more" ..Happy to keep pace with normal inflation with the odd 1-2 % above inflation in good years. I don't want to hold them to ransom, just fair recompense for my experience and the training I do.
I can’t think of a solution and don’t agree with the harsh comment you once had here of “Leave then!”.
nicko31
Well-known member
The pensions give away is costing £800m+ partly to facilitate medics out of retirement. These people are sitting on fat final salary pens as it is
How about give the junior docs is a decent rise, they are our future. Their salaries in real terms has crashed by 15% more than any other group and you guessed it they're on strike.
Labour have come out this morning and announced they would reverse the decision. For me maybe increase the LTA in line with inflation but that really should be it
Yes, I know they are sitting on good pensions, but nevertheless, the present arrangements have been highlighted as a reason why a number of senior GPs and medics have left the workplace when they are sorely needed.
As far as the junior doctors are concerned, they are demanding a 35% pay rise, which is unrealistic. Personally, I have little sympathy with doctors who strike. I dare say some kind of settlement will be reached, but 35%, forget it.
Young newly qualified medics climb the pay scale pretty rapidly and the prospects for them a little bit further down the line are considerable, as you have made in your point re fat final salary pensions.
As you point out, the junior doctors are our future and they are also going to be sitting on ‘fat final salary pensions’ when they decide to retire.
The BMA are the most powerful union in the country and are a hard bunch to please. I read an article online from the Independent, I think it was, that the BMA throughout its history have never liked any Secretary of State for Health, Labour or Conservative. I reckon that situation is set to continue and when Labour get in, they will find that out. I think Wes Streeting knows that already.
Pavilionaire
Well-known member
- Jul 7, 2003
- 31,256
Let's look at the chancellor's pension giveaway with real numbers. I act for a 2 director business, they are designers - not doctors - and both currently max out their £40K p.a. pension limit. and have let properrty, so not rich but definitely very comfortable.
Currently, they pay 19% corporation on the sizeable profit that remains but will undoubrably increase their contributions to £60k p.a. This will save them a combined £7,600 p.a in corp tax today but worth £10,700 p.a. from next month. That's more than £100 per week per person in tax saved, AND that extra £20K is growing in a tax-free wrap too.
So while public sector workers are striking and seeing their income diminishing in real terms, comfortably off private sectors workers - who don't need it, haven't asked for it and didn't expect it - have just got a £5K a year payrise.
Currently, they pay 19% corporation on the sizeable profit that remains but will undoubrably increase their contributions to £60k p.a. This will save them a combined £7,600 p.a in corp tax today but worth £10,700 p.a. from next month. That's more than £100 per week per person in tax saved, AND that extra £20K is growing in a tax-free wrap too.
So while public sector workers are striking and seeing their income diminishing in real terms, comfortably off private sectors workers - who don't need it, haven't asked for it and didn't expect it - have just got a £5K a year payrise.
mejonaNO12 aka riskit
Well-known member
Ignore everything I wrote there...
I believe
Whatever one’s views on the rights or wrongs of the changes, I think a future Government , or even this one, will have to close the IHT loophole that has been created.
nicko31
Well-known member
We have state sponsorship of the British class system. Lots of IHT loopholes for the rich...
Agricultural Land
AIM shares
Pension pots (yes now unlimited)
Trusts
The system is rigged towards toward the top 5%, written to Rachel Reeves. Things need to change, enough is enough...
The very well off have many ways in which to mitigate the IHT rules and regulations. The trouble with IHT is that many more bods of more modest means are being caught up in it.
Anyway, starting a discussion about IHT on NSC is not something I want to get involved with.
The 'agricultural land' is an interesting one. The value/cost of farmland is far, far too high for it to be possible for a farmer to take out a mortgage to buy it and make a living out of producing food, which I would like to think is the use that we would all think appropriate and above all, necessary. The majority of agric land is now bought by people making fortunes in the City and elsewhere benefitting from roll over relief (which basically means the taxpayer pays 40% of the cost) and the new one - large companies (eg airlines) buying up vast tracts of countryside to plant conifers and claiming carbon off setting (otherwise known as green washing). We then have vast areas of the UK owned by institutions such as the C of E that screw their farming tenants for excessive rents and then evict them to sell the land for £millions for development but as a charity pay no tax.
So agree, things need to change!
Thunder Bolt
Silly old bat
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,994
not good, inflation popping up. all the extra spending on tomatoes, mostly food and restaurants behind the rise.
nicko31
Well-known member
Starting to feel as though inflation is becoming an embedded and homegrown problem, 18% food inflation not helped by lack of support for our growers and critical labour shortages are stoking the fire.
Will this still happen?
Do the BOE need to act again to lance the boil?
Will this still happen?
Citi sees inflation close to 2% by end of 2023
Citi is forecasting a sharp fall in inflation, higher interest rates and improved public finances in the wake of easing energy prices, yesterday’s...
www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk
Do the BOE need to act again to lance the boil?