Originally Posted by
KerrAvon
The Spectator are deliberately obfusticating the issue to suit their editorial instinct. The point is that the tax treatment of people who exceed the lifetime allowance rules means that it could mean people actually have a lower income as a consequence of working longer. In other words, taking less home for working longer, which seems a bit odd and has the inevitable outcome.
The lifetime allowance rules are there to prevent people from dodging tax by having a very large proportion of their income paid into pension funds (which used to be a wheeze that very highly paid people would use - particularly towards the end of their working lives). It shouldn't be beyond the wit of man to draft rules that draw a distinction between that behaviour and the issues that doctors are facing.
The better question might be whether senior doctors are actually worth the money they get paid. We deliberately train fewer doctors than we need, which works to drive salaries up.