Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Savings and Investments thread
Comments
-
cantersaddick said:
I mean you brought it up.golfaddick said:
I don't want to get into a political debate on a thread that is supposed to be about money. All I will say is that in my 25 years of speaking to all grades of Doctors the Pension scheme (or changes to it) has not been to toper-most in their reasons why they would seek work elsewhere. Its usually to do with pay, conditions & hours of work.cantersaddick said:
Yes but resident doctors by definition of being in the first stage of being a doctor will be on the scheme I described whether it came in from 2010 or 2015 (my mistake) as they will have joined after that date. So resident doctors who you were talking about will have no element of final salary pension whatsoever as its not possible to be a resident doctor but to have joined the pension pre 2015.golfaddick said:
I don't think you want to be discussing with me about the finer points of the NHS Pension. I've been dealing with it for 25 years in all of its guises.cantersaddick said:
There is some bigger picture context on this outside if the public finances point. We have an ageing population but lots of the world including some near neighbours (France, Germany and others) have that problem coming down the road sooner and harder. The demand for health professionals is at a massive high in Europe and places like Australia. And its only gonna get much higher. We invest a massive amount in their education and training placements etc. Yet we lose a massive number to other countries every year. Removing what is the one aspect of their compensation we offer better than other countries is not gonna help our staffing issues.golfaddick said:Don't want to slide this thread too much into politics but with the Junior (oops....Resident) Doctors starting their 5 day strike today I would give them this option.......
The pay rise they are looking for in return for the NHS Pension scheme switching to a DC Scheme. With 10% contributions from both sides (roughly what is currently being contributed) but obviously there would be no linking to final salary or indexation in retirement.
If we want healthcare in this country of any kind we need to have an offer on the table that keeps medical professionals here. We can't be short-termist about this or there will be no one to look after us in old age.
Lots more in the 10 year health plan:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/10-year-health-plan-for-england-fit-for-the-future
And a 10 year health workforce plan to be published soon.
Also there hasn't been any final salary NHS pensions since 2010. A very small number of people managed to keep previous final salary pensions going but for most they were ported into a new scheme in 2010. Resident doctors by nature of where they are in their careers will certainly have no element of final salary. It'll be career average with 42 years service required to get full career average salary in retirement
And it didnt change in 2010. There was a new one in 2008 that hardly anyone took up, and then in 2015 a new one "replaced" the 1995 scheme. But in reality most Doctors (and I can really only speak for them) didn't join the 2015 scheme until 2022.
And the 1995 scheme is still linked to final salary, even if NHS staff are now in the 2015 scheme or even left.
No point conflating doctors in the first step of their career with ones nearing retirement.
Also note you didn't address the issue of global demand for doctors as a reason we should avoid cutting pensions for new doctors.
I will agree that the link to the NHS Pension being based on final salary was broken to new entrants in 2015, but it is still linked to their salary & is index linked throughout their career & into retirement. This was my main point. It is simply unaffordable & this money should (imo) be spent on the NHS, and not on pensioners with incomes above £50k pa.
So like I said not final salary but career average and requires 42 years of service (pretty difficult after 7+ years of training) to actually reach career average. So actually nowhere near as generous as those schemes you were talking about.
The point is that currently resident doctors are in a completely different position to those you are speaking to who are much nearer retirement. The pension is a much bigger part of the overall compensation for this cohort than any previous because of how much every other part of their compensation has fallen. Its a major part of the negotiations currently ongoing and central to the 10 year workforce plan.
It was common place up until the early to mid 90's for anyone working for a largish company to have and be part of a final salary scheme. I joined the Woolwich in 1994 and their scheme was a 60th scheme (that could be drawn in full at aged 60). They ceased that for new entrants around 1998 and altogether sometime after I left. I know lots of people I worked with who are very happy drawing their FS pension!!
The difficulty comes when you have much of the public sector having final salary or average salary yet the private sector almost solely DC pensions now. It was always cited the reason for the 'gold plated' pensions was due to the lower salaries compared to private, I'm not so sure that applies anymore.
I think it's time to stop DB schemes completely.1 -
How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.cantersaddick said:
3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.blackpool72 said:
Huge generalisation there.Diebythesword said:
1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden.blackpool72 said:I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable.
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer, but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits.
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny.
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling.
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point, but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed.
Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?
They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.
Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.
If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.
And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.
3 -
I don't want to get political, but the economy would be in a far worse condition if the bloke who praised Trussonomics was in charge of it.1
-
Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:
I mean you brought it up.golfaddick said:
I don't want to get into a political debate on a thread that is supposed to be about money. All I will say is that in my 25 years of speaking to all grades of Doctors the Pension scheme (or changes to it) has not been to toper-most in their reasons why they would seek work elsewhere. Its usually to do with pay, conditions & hours of work.cantersaddick said:
Yes but resident doctors by definition of being in the first stage of being a doctor will be on the scheme I described whether it came in from 2010 or 2015 (my mistake) as they will have joined after that date. So resident doctors who you were talking about will have no element of final salary pension whatsoever as its not possible to be a resident doctor but to have joined the pension pre 2015.golfaddick said:
I don't think you want to be discussing with me about the finer points of the NHS Pension. I've been dealing with it for 25 years in all of its guises.cantersaddick said:
There is some bigger picture context on this outside if the public finances point. We have an ageing population but lots of the world including some near neighbours (France, Germany and others) have that problem coming down the road sooner and harder. The demand for health professionals is at a massive high in Europe and places like Australia. And its only gonna get much higher. We invest a massive amount in their education and training placements etc. Yet we lose a massive number to other countries every year. Removing what is the one aspect of their compensation we offer better than other countries is not gonna help our staffing issues.golfaddick said:Don't want to slide this thread too much into politics but with the Junior (oops....Resident) Doctors starting their 5 day strike today I would give them this option.......
The pay rise they are looking for in return for the NHS Pension scheme switching to a DC Scheme. With 10% contributions from both sides (roughly what is currently being contributed) but obviously there would be no linking to final salary or indexation in retirement.
If we want healthcare in this country of any kind we need to have an offer on the table that keeps medical professionals here. We can't be short-termist about this or there will be no one to look after us in old age.
Lots more in the 10 year health plan:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/10-year-health-plan-for-england-fit-for-the-future
And a 10 year health workforce plan to be published soon.
Also there hasn't been any final salary NHS pensions since 2010. A very small number of people managed to keep previous final salary pensions going but for most they were ported into a new scheme in 2010. Resident doctors by nature of where they are in their careers will certainly have no element of final salary. It'll be career average with 42 years service required to get full career average salary in retirement
And it didnt change in 2010. There was a new one in 2008 that hardly anyone took up, and then in 2015 a new one "replaced" the 1995 scheme. But in reality most Doctors (and I can really only speak for them) didn't join the 2015 scheme until 2022.
And the 1995 scheme is still linked to final salary, even if NHS staff are now in the 2015 scheme or even left.
No point conflating doctors in the first step of their career with ones nearing retirement.
Also note you didn't address the issue of global demand for doctors as a reason we should avoid cutting pensions for new doctors.
I will agree that the link to the NHS Pension being based on final salary was broken to new entrants in 2015, but it is still linked to their salary & is index linked throughout their career & into retirement. This was my main point. It is simply unaffordable & this money should (imo) be spent on the NHS, and not on pensioners with incomes above £50k pa.
So like I said not final salary but career average and requires 42 years of service (pretty difficult after 7+ years of training) to actually reach career average. So actually nowhere near as generous as those schemes you were talking about.
The point is that currently resident doctors are in a completely different position to those you are speaking to who are much nearer retirement. The pension is a much bigger part of the overall compensation for this cohort than any previous because of how much every other part of their compensation has fallen. Its a major part of the negotiations currently ongoing and central to the 10 year workforce plan.
It was common place up until the early to mid 90's for anyone working for a largish company to have and be part of a final salary scheme. I joined the Woolwich in 1994 and their scheme was a 60th scheme (that could be drawn in full at aged 60). They ceased that for new entrants around 1998 and altogether sometime after I left. I know lots of people I worked with who are very happy drawing their FS pension!!
The difficulty comes when you have much of the public sector having final salary or average salary yet the private sector almost solely DC pensions now. It was always cited the reason for the 'gold plated' pensions was due to the lower salaries compared to private, I'm not so sure that applies anymore.
I think it's time to stop DB schemes completely.I get where you're coming from and the public sector was slower to move away from final salary than the rest but they were gone by or soon after 2010. And not just for new entrants most people were ported over very quickly. A few managed to hold on but basically were held to ridiculously strict limits. 2 extra hours a week were added to public sector contracts as part of the same move. Yes they still have DB as career average but it isn't final salary.I maintain its needed to attract good people with specialist skills. Now there are non-specialist roles in the public sector (and part of the problem is they are on the same pay scales as specialists). But if you was doctors as we were discussing above, or Lawyers, researchers or analysts you have to do something to attract them. If you don't pay the going rate you rely on a mixture of goodwill and and other factors like flexible working and pensions. You pay peanuts you get monkeys. You want skilled professionals doing these key roles in order for government to actually deliver effectively. It's why the government loses every legal challenge it faces, because its Lawers have to start on the same pay scales as everyone else which is about a fifth of what they'd get in the private sector.To give an example my wife is in the NHS, she is an analyst with a background in biology and epidemiology and has specialised in health data for more than 10 years. She is excellent and works there largely because she wants to make a difference and improve health outcomes for people (and can be spotted in the foreground on BBC news tonight about response to the strikes - shes been working 16 hour days during the strikes and will work all weekend too for no overtime btw). She has had offers from 2 consultancies that are big in the Health space for similar level jobs that would more than double her salary overnight. One of them keeps coming back with improved offers even though she's told them she doesn't want to work for them as they are one of the least moral companies in the world.There remains a significant pay disparity to the private sector, the pension makes up for this in part.0 -
It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history.Rob7Lee said:
How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.cantersaddick said:
3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.blackpool72 said:
Huge generalisation there.Diebythesword said:
1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden.blackpool72 said:I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable.
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer, but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits.
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny.
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling.
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point, but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed.
Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?
They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.
Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.
If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.
And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.
When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there?0 -
The facts seem to say otherwise, if as I think you are saying Public is paid less than Private?cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:
I mean you brought it up.golfaddick said:
I don't want to get into a political debate on a thread that is supposed to be about money. All I will say is that in my 25 years of speaking to all grades of Doctors the Pension scheme (or changes to it) has not been to toper-most in their reasons why they would seek work elsewhere. Its usually to do with pay, conditions & hours of work.cantersaddick said:
Yes but resident doctors by definition of being in the first stage of being a doctor will be on the scheme I described whether it came in from 2010 or 2015 (my mistake) as they will have joined after that date. So resident doctors who you were talking about will have no element of final salary pension whatsoever as its not possible to be a resident doctor but to have joined the pension pre 2015.golfaddick said:
I don't think you want to be discussing with me about the finer points of the NHS Pension. I've been dealing with it for 25 years in all of its guises.cantersaddick said:
There is some bigger picture context on this outside if the public finances point. We have an ageing population but lots of the world including some near neighbours (France, Germany and others) have that problem coming down the road sooner and harder. The demand for health professionals is at a massive high in Europe and places like Australia. And its only gonna get much higher. We invest a massive amount in their education and training placements etc. Yet we lose a massive number to other countries every year. Removing what is the one aspect of their compensation we offer better than other countries is not gonna help our staffing issues.golfaddick said:Don't want to slide this thread too much into politics but with the Junior (oops....Resident) Doctors starting their 5 day strike today I would give them this option.......
The pay rise they are looking for in return for the NHS Pension scheme switching to a DC Scheme. With 10% contributions from both sides (roughly what is currently being contributed) but obviously there would be no linking to final salary or indexation in retirement.
If we want healthcare in this country of any kind we need to have an offer on the table that keeps medical professionals here. We can't be short-termist about this or there will be no one to look after us in old age.
Lots more in the 10 year health plan:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/10-year-health-plan-for-england-fit-for-the-future
And a 10 year health workforce plan to be published soon.
Also there hasn't been any final salary NHS pensions since 2010. A very small number of people managed to keep previous final salary pensions going but for most they were ported into a new scheme in 2010. Resident doctors by nature of where they are in their careers will certainly have no element of final salary. It'll be career average with 42 years service required to get full career average salary in retirement
And it didnt change in 2010. There was a new one in 2008 that hardly anyone took up, and then in 2015 a new one "replaced" the 1995 scheme. But in reality most Doctors (and I can really only speak for them) didn't join the 2015 scheme until 2022.
And the 1995 scheme is still linked to final salary, even if NHS staff are now in the 2015 scheme or even left.
No point conflating doctors in the first step of their career with ones nearing retirement.
Also note you didn't address the issue of global demand for doctors as a reason we should avoid cutting pensions for new doctors.
I will agree that the link to the NHS Pension being based on final salary was broken to new entrants in 2015, but it is still linked to their salary & is index linked throughout their career & into retirement. This was my main point. It is simply unaffordable & this money should (imo) be spent on the NHS, and not on pensioners with incomes above £50k pa.
So like I said not final salary but career average and requires 42 years of service (pretty difficult after 7+ years of training) to actually reach career average. So actually nowhere near as generous as those schemes you were talking about.
The point is that currently resident doctors are in a completely different position to those you are speaking to who are much nearer retirement. The pension is a much bigger part of the overall compensation for this cohort than any previous because of how much every other part of their compensation has fallen. Its a major part of the negotiations currently ongoing and central to the 10 year workforce plan.
It was common place up until the early to mid 90's for anyone working for a largish company to have and be part of a final salary scheme. I joined the Woolwich in 1994 and their scheme was a 60th scheme (that could be drawn in full at aged 60). They ceased that for new entrants around 1998 and altogether sometime after I left. I know lots of people I worked with who are very happy drawing their FS pension!!
The difficulty comes when you have much of the public sector having final salary or average salary yet the private sector almost solely DC pensions now. It was always cited the reason for the 'gold plated' pensions was due to the lower salaries compared to private, I'm not so sure that applies anymore.
I think it's time to stop DB schemes completely.I get where you're coming from and the public sector was slower to move away from final salary than the rest but they were gone by or soon after 2010. And not just for new entrants most people were ported over very quickly. A few managed to hold on but basically were held to ridiculously strict limits. 2 extra hours a week were added to public sector contracts as part of the same move. Yes they still have DB as career average but it isn't final salary.I maintain its needed to attract good people with specialist skills. Now there are non-specialist roles in the public sector (and part of the problem is they are on the same pay scales as specialists). But if you was doctors as we were discussing above, or Lawyers, researchers or analysts you have to do something to attract them. If you don't pay the going rate you rely on a mixture of goodwill and and other factors like flexible working and pensions. You pay peanuts you get monkeys. You want skilled professionals doing these key roles in order for government to actually deliver effectively. It's why the government loses every legal challenge it faces, because its Lawers have to start on the same pay scales as everyone else which is about a fifth of what they'd get in the private sector.To give an example my wife is in the NHS, she is an analyst with a background in biology and epidemiology and has specialised in health data for more than 10 years. She is excellent and works there largely because she wants to make a difference and improve health outcomes for people. She has had offers from 2 consultancies that are big in the Health space for similar level jobs that would more than double her salary overnight. One of them keeps coming back with improved offers even though she's told them she doesn't want to work for them as they are one of the least moral companies in the world.There remains a significant pay disparity to the private sector, the pension makes up for this in part.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8037/CBP-8037.pdf
In April 2024, median weekly earnings for full-time employees in the public sector were 7% higher than those in the private sector
The public sector still (in the main) has a DB scheme, career average. This is still hugely superior to the vast majority of Private sector DC pension schemes which are the norm.
Add in pensions like the Police (my best mate recently retired at 51 and is drawing his full pension which after taking a pretty decent lump sum is 50% of salary, some Final salary some career average).
0 -
If you look across all jobs in the country then sure. But that's massively skewed. Every "low skilled" role in the public sector is contracted out to the likes of Atos or Serco purely to avoid paying them public sector pension. Which massively distorts the average.Rob7Lee said:
The facts seem to say otherwise, if as I think you are saying Public is paid less than Private?cantersaddick said:Rob7Lee said:cantersaddick said:
I mean you brought it up.golfaddick said:
I don't want to get into a political debate on a thread that is supposed to be about money. All I will say is that in my 25 years of speaking to all grades of Doctors the Pension scheme (or changes to it) has not been to toper-most in their reasons why they would seek work elsewhere. Its usually to do with pay, conditions & hours of work.cantersaddick said:
Yes but resident doctors by definition of being in the first stage of being a doctor will be on the scheme I described whether it came in from 2010 or 2015 (my mistake) as they will have joined after that date. So resident doctors who you were talking about will have no element of final salary pension whatsoever as its not possible to be a resident doctor but to have joined the pension pre 2015.golfaddick said:
I don't think you want to be discussing with me about the finer points of the NHS Pension. I've been dealing with it for 25 years in all of its guises.cantersaddick said:
There is some bigger picture context on this outside if the public finances point. We have an ageing population but lots of the world including some near neighbours (France, Germany and others) have that problem coming down the road sooner and harder. The demand for health professionals is at a massive high in Europe and places like Australia. And its only gonna get much higher. We invest a massive amount in their education and training placements etc. Yet we lose a massive number to other countries every year. Removing what is the one aspect of their compensation we offer better than other countries is not gonna help our staffing issues.golfaddick said:Don't want to slide this thread too much into politics but with the Junior (oops....Resident) Doctors starting their 5 day strike today I would give them this option.......
The pay rise they are looking for in return for the NHS Pension scheme switching to a DC Scheme. With 10% contributions from both sides (roughly what is currently being contributed) but obviously there would be no linking to final salary or indexation in retirement.
If we want healthcare in this country of any kind we need to have an offer on the table that keeps medical professionals here. We can't be short-termist about this or there will be no one to look after us in old age.
Lots more in the 10 year health plan:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/10-year-health-plan-for-england-fit-for-the-future
And a 10 year health workforce plan to be published soon.
Also there hasn't been any final salary NHS pensions since 2010. A very small number of people managed to keep previous final salary pensions going but for most they were ported into a new scheme in 2010. Resident doctors by nature of where they are in their careers will certainly have no element of final salary. It'll be career average with 42 years service required to get full career average salary in retirement
And it didnt change in 2010. There was a new one in 2008 that hardly anyone took up, and then in 2015 a new one "replaced" the 1995 scheme. But in reality most Doctors (and I can really only speak for them) didn't join the 2015 scheme until 2022.
And the 1995 scheme is still linked to final salary, even if NHS staff are now in the 2015 scheme or even left.
No point conflating doctors in the first step of their career with ones nearing retirement.
Also note you didn't address the issue of global demand for doctors as a reason we should avoid cutting pensions for new doctors.
I will agree that the link to the NHS Pension being based on final salary was broken to new entrants in 2015, but it is still linked to their salary & is index linked throughout their career & into retirement. This was my main point. It is simply unaffordable & this money should (imo) be spent on the NHS, and not on pensioners with incomes above £50k pa.
So like I said not final salary but career average and requires 42 years of service (pretty difficult after 7+ years of training) to actually reach career average. So actually nowhere near as generous as those schemes you were talking about.
The point is that currently resident doctors are in a completely different position to those you are speaking to who are much nearer retirement. The pension is a much bigger part of the overall compensation for this cohort than any previous because of how much every other part of their compensation has fallen. Its a major part of the negotiations currently ongoing and central to the 10 year workforce plan.
It was common place up until the early to mid 90's for anyone working for a largish company to have and be part of a final salary scheme. I joined the Woolwich in 1994 and their scheme was a 60th scheme (that could be drawn in full at aged 60). They ceased that for new entrants around 1998 and altogether sometime after I left. I know lots of people I worked with who are very happy drawing their FS pension!!
The difficulty comes when you have much of the public sector having final salary or average salary yet the private sector almost solely DC pensions now. It was always cited the reason for the 'gold plated' pensions was due to the lower salaries compared to private, I'm not so sure that applies anymore.
I think it's time to stop DB schemes completely.I get where you're coming from and the public sector was slower to move away from final salary than the rest but they were gone by or soon after 2010. And not just for new entrants most people were ported over very quickly. A few managed to hold on but basically were held to ridiculously strict limits. 2 extra hours a week were added to public sector contracts as part of the same move. Yes they still have DB as career average but it isn't final salary.I maintain its needed to attract good people with specialist skills. Now there are non-specialist roles in the public sector (and part of the problem is they are on the same pay scales as specialists). But if you was doctors as we were discussing above, or Lawyers, researchers or analysts you have to do something to attract them. If you don't pay the going rate you rely on a mixture of goodwill and and other factors like flexible working and pensions. You pay peanuts you get monkeys. You want skilled professionals doing these key roles in order for government to actually deliver effectively. It's why the government loses every legal challenge it faces, because its Lawers have to start on the same pay scales as everyone else which is about a fifth of what they'd get in the private sector.To give an example my wife is in the NHS, she is an analyst with a background in biology and epidemiology and has specialised in health data for more than 10 years. She is excellent and works there largely because she wants to make a difference and improve health outcomes for people. She has had offers from 2 consultancies that are big in the Health space for similar level jobs that would more than double her salary overnight. One of them keeps coming back with improved offers even though she's told them she doesn't want to work for them as they are one of the least moral companies in the world.There remains a significant pay disparity to the private sector, the pension makes up for this in part.
https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8037/CBP-8037.pdf
In April 2024, median weekly earnings for full-time employees in the public sector were 7% higher than those in the private sector
The public sector still (in the main) has a DB scheme, career average. This is still hugely superior to the vast majority of Private sector DC pension schemes which are the norm.
Add in pensions like the Police (my best mate recently retired at 51 and is drawing his full pension which after taking a pretty decent lump sum is 50% of salary, some Final salary some career average).
It also massively misses the point as its not comparing like with like at all. You have to compare the same role and skill requirements in the public vs private sector. Ignore "generalist" roles which I agree are overpaid and are being phased out, take the skill requirements for a specific role compared with the private sector and pay will be worse. Analyst, lawyer, economist, researcher all of these are massively underpaid compared to the same roles in the private sector, hell even qualified actuaries have to be on the same pay scales.0 -
Your not comparing apples with apples, The silent generation were in broad terms quite poor, because the country was poor. By the time we go to the 80's through to early 00's wealth (in a large part due to property) and inflation earlier meant that those 40 year olds had seen their wealth grow. Also Generations are now living longer, so in part it is taking longer for wealth to pass down (I'm ignoring death taxes for this purpose)cantersaddick said:
It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history.Rob7Lee said:
How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.cantersaddick said:
3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.blackpool72 said:
Huge generalisation there.Diebythesword said:
1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden.blackpool72 said:I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable.
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer, but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits.
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny.
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling.
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point, but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed.
Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?
They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.
Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.
If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.
And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.
When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there?
I find it hard to believe that in say 2050 Gen Z will have less than 1% of the wealth. Baby boomers will sadly be a lot less in number (as they'll be approaching 90 or over 100) - where has their wealth gone, or is it with them in Heaven (and hell), even Gen X will be 75+. Where's all the money gone!?!0 -
It will go to corporations the likes of Blackrock and Lloyd's who are targeting between them 18bn of UK housing purchases in the next 2 years. Offshore ownerships and private equity are planning to hoover up the assets as they become available as boomers die.Rob7Lee said:
Your not comparing apples with apples, The silent generation were in broad terms quite poor, because the country was poor. By the time we go to the 80's through to early 00's wealth (in a large part due to property) and inflation earlier meant that those 40 year olds had seen their wealth grow. Also Generations are now living longer, so in part it is taking longer for wealth to pass down (I'm ignoring death taxes for this purpose)cantersaddick said:
It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history.Rob7Lee said:
How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.cantersaddick said:
3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.blackpool72 said:
Huge generalisation there.Diebythesword said:
1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden.blackpool72 said:I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable.
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer, but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits.
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny.
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling.
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point, but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed.
Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?
They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.
Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.
If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.
And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.
When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there?
I find it hard to believe that in say 2050 Gen Z will have less than 1% of the wealth. Baby boomers will sadly be a lot less in number (as they'll be approaching 90 or over 100) - where has their wealth gone, or is it with them in Heaven (and hell), even Gen X will be 75+. Where's all the money gone!?!0 -
I'm assuming Black Rock et all will be paying money for these properties? Where does that money go? And who owns Lloyds & Blackrock?cantersaddick said:
It will go to corporations the likes of Blackrock and Lloyd's who are targeting between them 18bn of UK housing purchases in the next 2 years. Offshore ownerships and private equity are planning to hoover up the assets as they become available as boomers die.Rob7Lee said:
Your not comparing apples with apples, The silent generation were in broad terms quite poor, because the country was poor. By the time we go to the 80's through to early 00's wealth (in a large part due to property) and inflation earlier meant that those 40 year olds had seen their wealth grow. Also Generations are now living longer, so in part it is taking longer for wealth to pass down (I'm ignoring death taxes for this purpose)cantersaddick said:
It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history.Rob7Lee said:
How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.cantersaddick said:
3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.blackpool72 said:
Huge generalisation there.Diebythesword said:
1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden.blackpool72 said:I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable.
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer, but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits.
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny.
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling.
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point, but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed.
Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?
They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.
Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.
If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.
And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.
When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there?
I find it hard to believe that in say 2050 Gen Z will have less than 1% of the wealth. Baby boomers will sadly be a lot less in number (as they'll be approaching 90 or over 100) - where has their wealth gone, or is it with them in Heaven (and hell), even Gen X will be 75+. Where's all the money gone!?!0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I'm, relatively speaking, quite well off as a "senior citizen'. But for 50 years I paid all my tax and full national insurance. I (voluntarily) contributed to company pension schemes and extra into a personsal SIPP. I feel i've done all I can to have a decent retirement.
I don't think its right that the goverment wants to tax me even more as I don't have any future income and I've paid in "my bit". The fact there is now less people working is, in my opinion, down, largely, to government policies like increasing employer NI and local tax increases like business rates.
Many pensioners are not so fortunate and many will be pushed (if not already) into the higher tax rate. Feels like people who have contibuted all their lives are now being penalised.1 -
Well sure but with what that injection of cash will do to already massively inflated house prices will ensure that people will find it harder and harder to buy houses. For the majority of people it's the largest or only asset they will own in their life. Take that away and what do they have?Rob7Lee said:
I'm assuming Black Rock et all will be paying money for these properties? Where does that money go? And who owns Lloyds & Blackrock?cantersaddick said:
It will go to corporations the likes of Blackrock and Lloyd's who are targeting between them 18bn of UK housing purchases in the next 2 years. Offshore ownerships and private equity are planning to hoover up the assets as they become available as boomers die.Rob7Lee said:
Your not comparing apples with apples, The silent generation were in broad terms quite poor, because the country was poor. By the time we go to the 80's through to early 00's wealth (in a large part due to property) and inflation earlier meant that those 40 year olds had seen their wealth grow. Also Generations are now living longer, so in part it is taking longer for wealth to pass down (I'm ignoring death taxes for this purpose)cantersaddick said:
It's not that older people have more wealth its that a particular cohort have a higher share of all wealth than any cohort in history.Rob7Lee said:
How many of the 50-64 age group not working have chosen to do so, have paid into the system for the last 35-45 years and are living off their previous earnings and how many are claiming any form of benefit? I suspect there's far fewer of the latter. I'll certainly be joining that group soon and I won't be getting anything from the state, in fact I'll still be paying in, if I'm still here.cantersaddick said:
3.5m aged 50-64 out of work (Labour market stats for 2025 linked below) much more of a problem as these will likely never work again. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025/economic-labour-market-status-of-individuals-aged-50-and-over-trends-over-time-september-2025#:~:text=In 2025 there were 3.5,for not looking for work.blackpool72 said:
Huge generalisation there.Diebythesword said:
1 million young people out of work isn’t enough to warp the figures that much, it’s very much the aging population and the refusal of pensioners to realise that in order for this country to get out the doldrums they need to take a hit to their state pensions and other state benefits like the fuel allowance. Pensioners are currently the richest generation, they can shoulder more of the burden.blackpool72 said:I read somewhere that in the 60s and 70s we had roughly 5 working people for every pensioner we had.
That meant that pensions were affordable.
We now have about 3 working people per pensioner.
This is partly due to people living longer, but another cause for this is about 1 million younger people between the age of 17 and 20 are neither in education or work.
They are simply living at home on benefits.
Unless they are genuinely in a bad way with a real reason why they cannot work they shouldn't be paid a penny.
The system in this country is broken and far too many people are being paid for doing naff all.
This needs to change
Not all pensioner's are rich, plenty are struggling.
I agree the triple lock has to go at some point, but the millions of working age people out of work and claiming benefits has to also be addressed.
Current pensioner are the richest generation in history with 27% as millionaires. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/totalwealthwealthingreatbritain?
They hold half of all wealth in the country and more than 65% of housing wealth. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2025/10/08/pensioners-now-hold-half-of-britains-wealth/#:~:text=Pensioners now hold nearly half,generational inequality across the UK.
Pensioners were protected from 15 years of Tory Austerity. In fact they were the only cohort of people who got better off due to the triple lock. Every other age group came out worse off. Personally I've tried to move away from having the generational conversation as I think it's counterproductive and a wedge issue designed to place blame and cause division and detract away from the real issue of wealth inequality. But there is a strong corelation between generation and wealth so it does still form part of the equation. I believe most of the things the government are doing at the moment are tinkering without actually tackling the real issue. But if you're gonna tinker you might as well tinker with the wealthiest people not crap all over those who have been crapped on for 15 years.
If you don't think a million aged 17-20 not in education or work isn't a major issue......... if that trend continues in 10-15 years time we'll have half the working aged population not working. We should be looking to have 95%+ in education or work at that age.
And wow - NSS - older people have more wealth than younger people, who'd have thought that would be the case, can't understand why I'm wealthier at 52 than I was at 22/32/42. Is it a bad thing that pensioners now are richer than the generation before (and those before and so on). If only we could pass more of that wealth down upon death...... instead the state will tax it and waste it.
When the first baby boomers turned 40 their generation held 45% of all the wealth. When the first millennials turned 40 it was 4%. For gen Z it's forecasted to be less than 1%. Can you see a problem there?
I find it hard to believe that in say 2050 Gen Z will have less than 1% of the wealth. Baby boomers will sadly be a lot less in number (as they'll be approaching 90 or over 100) - where has their wealth gone, or is it with them in Heaven (and hell), even Gen X will be 75+. Where's all the money gone!?!
And as for who owns them - a smaller and smaller class of asset owners.
Can you genuinely not see a problem here?0
