|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Jul 10, 2019 9:58:22 GMT
Cock-eyed way of looking at it though. I assumed one paid into a pension fund which financed the pension. The NHS is a 'free' public service and it's the public which benefits by not having to pay for it. So strictly speaking it's those who never use the NHS who pay. The NHS contributions far outweigh the employee contribution |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Jul 10, 2019 10:06:54 GMT
The most recent 2016 scheme valuation identified the need to increase the employer contribution from 14.3 per cent to 20.6 per cent from 1 April 2019. The final valuation results will be published shortly
So your medic on £100k pa is receiving effectively £20k of pension contributions from the NHS.
Those contributions come from my tax.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 10, 2019 12:24:54 GMT
The most recent 2016 scheme valuation identified the need to increase the employer contribution from 14.3 per cent to 20.6 per cent from 1 April 2019. The final valuation results will be published shortly So your medic on £100k pa is receiving effectively £20k of pension contributions from the NHS. Those contributions come from my tax. *shrugs* so they were in a generous employer contribution plan. Just so happens the employer was the state. Incidentally my U.K. pension my employer paid double my contribution (up to 10% on top so not as much but still more than mine.) So because they get a generous pension contribution they aren’t allowed to decide they cannot afford the tax bill arising from The changes? |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 10, 2019 12:32:16 GMT
Never said only those with a fund of £1m will face a tax bill. Those with over £1m in benefits may be better off out of the scheme because the tax bill you generate may outweigh the benefits you receive. If you aren't over the limit then the benefits will outweigh the tax. I thought you were an accountant. I’m not a tax accountant. I am pretty sure I just said this. I am just pointing out how odd it is you insisting that these people are lying when they say they cannot afford to do the extra shifts yet have provided no evidence in support of that. |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Jul 10, 2019 12:43:32 GMT
The most recent 2016 scheme valuation identified the need to increase the employer contribution from 14.3 per cent to 20.6 per cent from 1 April 2019. The final valuation results will be published shortly So your medic on £100k pa is receiving effectively £20k of pension contributions from the NHS. Those contributions come from my tax. *shrugs* so they were in a generous employer contribution plan. Just so happens the employer was the state. Incidentally my U.K. pension my employer paid double my contribution (up to 10% on top so not as much but still more than mine.) So because they get a generous pension contribution they aren’t allowed to decide they cannot afford the tax bill arising from The changes? Fine, if you can't afford the tax bill, don't take the benefit. That's what I said. Opt out of the pension. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 10, 2019 12:51:56 GMT
*shrugs* so they were in a generous employer contribution plan. Just so happens the employer was the state. Incidentally my U.K. pension my employer paid double my contribution (up to 10% on top so not as much but still more than mine.) So because they get a generous pension contribution they aren’t allowed to decide they cannot afford the tax bill arising from The changes? Fine, if you can't afford the tax bill, don't take the benefit. That's what I said. Opt out of the pension. Or don’t work the extra shifts. And they’re doing the latter. Makes sense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2019 13:36:37 GMT
Cock-eyed way of looking at it though. I assumed one paid into a pension fund which financed the pension. The NHS is a 'free' public service and it's the public which benefits by not having to pay for it. So strictly speaking it's those who never use the NHS who pay. The NHS contributions far outweigh the employee contribution Which applies to pretty much everyone in the UK. Can't see what the fuss is about tbh. |
|
|
|
Post by jimboky on Jul 10, 2019 13:41:31 GMT
from the employers point of view,, this is part of the cost package of having an employee, only it is hidden, the most expensive things in life are free
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 10, 2019 15:58:14 GMT
Bloody hell the queues at customs if Bearman has his way... Tough tits. I'm sure they can do an electronic verification at point of purchase. |
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,231
|
Post by voice on Jul 10, 2019 16:12:03 GMT
The NHS should charge furriners for treatment, the NHS is only free at the point of use to those who have contributed or being citizens of the UK or EU (where reciprocating agreements exist).
|
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 10, 2019 16:17:35 GMT
Agreed. It's completely rational and fair to charge people for a service that other people contribute to. I don't see why that's even faintly contentious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Jul 10, 2019 17:29:17 GMT
The NHS contributions far outweigh the employee contribution Which applies to pretty much everyone in the UK. Can't see what the fuss is about tbh. Show me a company in the private sector making 20% contributions to employees pensions across the board. |
|
|
|
Post by perrykneeham on Jul 10, 2019 17:30:49 GMT
For people other than The Board.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 10, 2019 20:49:20 GMT
Bloody hell the queues at customs if Bearman has his way... Tough tits. I'm sure they can do an electronic verification at point of purchase. You have a rather naive faith in the ability of the UK to be able to seamlessly electronically integrate into the online platforms of all the insurance providers globally and assess a travellers insurance details and whether they have an adequate level of cover. “Naive” or “stupid” I cannot tell which but for obvious reasons it would never happen. Probably why no other country does it! |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 10, 2019 20:49:57 GMT
Which applies to pretty much everyone in the UK. Can't see what the fuss is about tbh. Show me a company in the private sector making 20% contributions to employees pensions across the board. “Waaaah, I don’t get it why should they!” Bloody hell why are so many private sector workers so pathetic? If you get f**k*d over that doesn’t mean other people are wrong for not being f**k*d over too. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 10, 2019 20:54:19 GMT
The NHS should charge furriners for treatment, the NHS is only free at the point of use to those who have contributed or being citizens of the UK or EU (where reciprocating agreements exist). I am pretty sure the NHS does charge foreigners for treatment. I had to pay when I went to a drop in centre (even as a U.K. citizen due to being non resident.) The problem becomes with getting doctors to police people’s right to treatment (not their job) and also with emergencies. And of course recovering the charge when people go back to their countries. I would be surprised if this was not the case in many other locations. I can only speak for Oz but having done consulting work with hospitals in Queensland they have long outstanding debts from patients who have not paid for care and that includes overseas visitors. |
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 10, 2019 20:55:38 GMT
Agreed. It's completely rational and fair to charge people for a service that other people contribute to. I don't see why that's even faintly contentious. Is it contentious? |
|
|
|
Post by Minge är en jävla besserwisser on Jul 10, 2019 20:59:29 GMT
Show me a company in the private sector making 20% contributions to employees pensions across the board. “Waaaah, I don’t get it why should they!” Bloody hell why are so many private sector workers so pathetic? If you get f**k*d over that doesn’t mean other people are wrong for not being f**k*d over too. What are you babbling about? OOTLG said pretty much everyone gets that. I'm just pointing out they don't. |
|
voice
New Member
Goals are a form of self inflicted slavery
Posts: 41,231
|
Post by voice on Jul 10, 2019 21:07:30 GMT
Oh I know a lot remains unpaid, but that does not mean, as some have reportedly suggested, that we should not at least try and charge foreign nationals for service they receive. Canada certainly charges. I've never bought into the Daily Mail's assertion health tourism is a massive thing, I know it happens, but its on a much smaller scale than the rivers of piss from the Mail and their ilk try to suggest.
Its always worth remembering, those who are trying to do down the NHS have a long standing agenda to sell it off so they and their rich friends can make as much profit from health care as possible. The Mail has led a campaign against the NHS since its conception, so I doubt them and their useful idiots such as baloo will be changing tack any time soon. After all they don't care moving to a US style system means poorer outcomes for patients, all they see is the US pays more than double per capita than the UK for similar levels of health care, and that's a sh*t load of profit going to waste as far as they can see.
|
|
|
|
Post by Repat Van on Jul 10, 2019 21:20:21 GMT
“Waaaah, I don’t get it why should they!” Bloody hell why are so many private sector workers so pathetic? If you get f**k*d over that doesn’t mean other people are wrong for not being f**k*d over too. What are you babbling about? OOTLG said pretty much everyone gets that. I'm just pointing out they don't. Slightly disingenuous on your part given your whole time throughout the thread seems to be a whine that doctors have a decent pensions arrangement which others don’t. Also OneOfThe said it’s true for everybody in the country that the employer contribution is more than the employee’s. I have no idea if it is accurate but that’s not the same as saying everybody gets a 20% employer contribution. |
|
