Professional Gougers ?

Fulton Crown

Most people had to make some necessary sacrifices as a result of the position we find ourselves in.

Public Service /Welfare/Unemployed all had to endure some hardship.

What of our "professionals" I'm thinking in particular of Doctors / Dentists / Consultants / Gynaecologists / Barristers etc.

Have their fees gone down..I certainly haven't noticed...this crowd seemed to have slipped under the Radar as I have not heard this particular issue debated anywhere in the media.

Surely in a situation where even the very lowest paid are being forced to contribute ...this is unfair ?

murphaph

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Most people had to make some necessary sacrifices as a result of the position we find ourselves in.

Public Service /Welfare/Unemployed all had to endure some hardship.

What of our "professionals" I'm thinking in particular of Doctors / Dentists / Consultants / Gynaecologists / Barristers etc.

Have their fees gone down..I certainly haven't noticed...this crowd seemed to have slipped under the Radar as I have not heard this particular issue debated anywhere in the media.

Surely in a situation where even the very lowest paid are being forced to contribute ...this is unfair ?

Dead right it's unfair. We should have a proper health service (and after the billions pumped into it, mostly on wages by the looks of things, we really ought to by now!) then doctors etc. would be paid by the state and not directly out of your pocket. I'm sure doctors taking 50 quid+ cash for each visit are declaring it all to Revenue too :rolleyes:

Anyway, the likes of barristers etc. should be allowed to join firms. Ireland maintains the outdated practice of prohibiting barristers from doing so and thus (at least in theory) reducing their cost base. Having said that, Ireland (IMO) should really ditch English common law and move to a codified system like most of Europe. No need for high cost barristers to "interpret" the law when the law is actually clearly written by PARLIAMENT and not by other legal eagles.

Having said all that, do people shop around with doctors? No. People just go to the lad they know, regardless of what he charges. Go to the lad who charges 10 quid less and see does the other lad reduce his prices. People need to shop around and they still aren't in many cases.

woodseb

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Most people had to make some necessary sacrifices as a result of the position we find ourselves in.

Public Service /Welfare/Unemployed all had to endure some hardship.

What of our "professionals" I'm thinking in particular of Doctors / Dentists / Consultants / Gynaecologists / Barristers etc.

Have their fees gone down..I certainly haven't noticed...this crowd seemed to have slipped under the Radar as I have not heard this particular issue debated anywhere in the media.

Surely in a situation where even the very lowest paid are being forced to contribute ...this is unfair ?

well i luckily i don't have the need of a barrister (or a gynaecologist for that matter;))......but i do know many specialist dentists that have had to reduce their fees, cut wages and lay off staff due to the removal of govt tax breaks and the general recession

some aren't immune from market forces....

also, the income levies are fairly substantial (4% over 75k, 6% over 175k) - so its not like they've got off scot free

ei.sdraob

murphaph wrote: »

Dead right it's unfair.

who said that life is fair?


anyways @OP these are the same people who pay majority of the tax...

mikemac

murphaph wrote: »

I'm sure doctors taking 50 quid+ cash for each visit are declaring it all to Revenue too :rolleyes:

Maybe, but people paying that fee can ask for a reciept and submit Med1 to the revenue at the end of the year.
If people are not bothering to do this they realy should, it's just claiming your entitlements and tax back.
All professions are involved in tax fraud, I wouldn't single out any particular one (well landlords maybe!)

murphaph wrote: »

Having said all that, do people shop around with doctors? No. People just go to the lad they know, regardless of what he charges. Go to the lad who charges 10 quid less and see does the other lad reduce his prices. People need to shop around and they still aren't in many cases.

I don't think that's entirely fair. Your doctor has all your records so if you are going for your next visit is it worth €10 to request all your records and bring them to the new GP?
Maybe but many/ most people won't. And certainly many people have used the same GP to see their children for years and years and they're unlikely to move.
Besides, most local practices are very similar in prices and don't seem to compete.

murphaph wrote: »

Anyway, the likes of barristers etc. should be allowed to join firms. Ireland maintains the outdated practice of prohibiting barristers from doing so and thus (at least in theory) reducing their cost base. Having said that, Ireland (IMO) should really ditch English common law and move to a codified system like most of Europe. No need for high cost barristers to "interpret" the law when the law is actually clearly written by PARLIAMENT and not by other legal eagles.

Not going to happen in our lifetime, we slavishly copy most things from the UK and can use their case law as precedents here. Though having a precedent of an Irish case is always preferred in court of course

nesf

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Most people had to make some necessary sacrifices as a result of the position we find ourselves in.

Public Service /Welfare/Unemployed all had to endure some hardship.

What of our "professionals" I'm thinking in particular of Doctors / Dentists / Consultants / Gynaecologists / Barristers etc.

Have their fees gone down..I certainly haven't noticed...this crowd seemed to have slipped under the Radar as I have not heard this particular issue debated anywhere in the media.

Surely in a situation where even the very lowest paid are being forced to contribute ...this is unfair ?

Eh, the Gynaecologists and Consultants have been hit with both the general tax increases, the pension levy and the latest public sector wage cut. I don't think you can argue that they haven't been asked to contribute, ditto for all doctors in the public system to be honest they've been hit with higher wage reductions that pretty much everyone else in the public sector.

murphaph

ei.sdraob wrote: »

anyways @OP these are the same people who pay majority of the tax...

Hmmm, we'll have to agree to disagree on doctors in general practice and barristers paying a lot of tax. They have the same accountants as the taxi drivers

Dr Galen

would you have anything to base that assertion on?

murphaph

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

would you have anything to base that assertion on?

No, do you reckon taxi drivers declared 100% of their income to revenue?

MI5

murphaph wrote: »

No, do you reckon taxi drivers declared 100% of their income to revenue?

Do you?

Dr Galen

well i was referring moreso to your post regarding your doubts on barristers and GP's not paying a lot of tax. You brought in taxi drivers.

jake59

As far as I am aware the restrictions on GP's advertising is to be lifted to encourage them to be more competitive.

ghost_ie

nesf wrote: »

Eh, the Gynaecologists and Consultants have been hit with both the general tax increases, the pension levy and the latest public sector wage cut. I don't think you can argue that they haven't been asked to contribute, ditto for all doctors in the public system to be honest they've been hit with higher wage reductions that pretty much everyone else in the public sector.

Why shouldn't they take higher wage reductions? They earn a lot more than most workers in the public sector

nesf

ghost_ie wrote: »

Why shouldn't they take higher wage reductions? They earn a lot more than most workers in the public sector

Eh, where did I say that they shouldn't be taking higher reductions? I merely stated that they were taking higher reductions and as such couldn't be accused as not feeling any pain at the moment.

starbelgrade

ghost_ie wrote: »

They earn a lot more than most workers in the public sector

Professions are not termed & deemed as such for no good reason.

starbelgrade

murphaph wrote: »

Hmmm, we'll have to agree to disagree on doctors in general practice and barristers paying a lot of tax. They have the same accountants as the taxi drivers

This unsubstantiated claim may, or may not be true - but let's face it, should you need medical help, or judicial representation, I doubt that you'll be calling your local taxi company.

97i9y3941

if i was having expensive dental work done,i probably go up the north i bet you save a fortune!

Guy:Incognito

Why are reductions in stuff the government pays for being compared to what private businesses are charging? If a GP wants to put his fees up to €500 thats his decision. If he has no patients thats his own issue.

starbelgrade

Fred83 wrote: »

if i was having expensive dental work done,i probably go up the north i bet you save a fortune!

If I were having substantial dental work done, I would shop around. If I found that the quotes I got up North were cheaper, I would prompt my local dentists to match the price (inclusive of travel costs & exchange rates).

If I didn't get what I wanted, then I would travel North, rather than base it on the thought that I would "bet" that I'd save a "fortune".

starbelgrade

Stekelly wrote: »

Why are reductions in stuff the government pays for being compared to what private businesses are charging? If a GP wants to put his fees up to €500 thats his decision. If he has no patients thats his own issue.

And the only way that you can shop around for better value from your public sector is to move country.

Hotblack Desiato

jake59 wrote: »

As far as I am aware the restrictions on GP's advertising is to be lifted to encourage them to be more competitive.

3 for 2 offer on sick kids? :eek:

murphaph

Mystik Monkey wrote: »

well i was referring moreso to your post regarding your doubts on barristers and GP's not paying a lot of tax. You brought in taxi drivers.

I doubt they (all 3 groups) all pay all the tax due to revenue.

Do you think all three groups paid all the tax due to revenue over say the last decade?

woodseb

murphaph wrote: »

I doubt they (all 3 groups) all pay all the tax due to revenue.

Do you think all three groups paid all the tax due to revenue over say the last decade?

i doubt all of any profession pay all their taxes - do you want points for stating the obvious

Daithinski

Speaking of professional gougers, will the government be reducing speeding fines etc in line with deflation?

ei.sdraob

woodseb wrote: »

i doubt all of any profession pay all their taxes - do you want points for stating the obvious

of course there are people in all segments of society that dont pay taxes


but as per CSO and OECD stats, the people in the "professional" sectors that do pay tax account for most of the tax income

theres no ifs and buts about it, the data is there


to paint whole segments of society because of few outliers is wrong, this is often said whenever we have a heated debate on public sector as well btw

ardmacha

Speaking of professional gougers, will the government be reducing speeding fines etc in line with deflation?

.
No. They will not even be reducing road tolls in line with inflation. Private companies who have been given sections of public road to run don't get a cut in line with inflation, only the public servants and people on social welfare get such a cut.

the_syco

murphaph wrote: »

Having said all that, do people shop around with doctors? No. People just go to the lad they know, regardless of what he charges. Go to the lad who charges 10 quid less and see does the other lad reduce his prices. People need to shop around and they still aren't in many cases.

I know a doctor who charges less than the one I goto atm. Wouldn't goto him again. The doc I goto now is good, and I'm prepared to pay for that. Getting a good doctor is not that easy

CityCentreMan

The nature of the service provided by doctors, dentists, solicitors etc is very personal and many people are in awe of these skilled professionals. We appreciate the time that they are giving us as we know that they are both busy and highly sought after.

In these circumstances, a personal relationship is established whereby it would appear rude, for many people, even to raise the question of money.

Usually, the consultant, dentist, doctor, etc etc, never discusses the bill which in fact is discreetly raised by the secretary / receptionist / assistant just after the "professional" has bid you farewell and has just ushered the next client in.

This type of relationship is not conducive to price competitiveness as the consultant, doctor , dentist , etc knows that we will pay whatever is asked on the basis that:

a) You can't cut corners with your (or your childs) health, teeth;
b) We expect them to charge the earth because they always have;
c) If you want the best you have to pay for it;
d) The devil you know is better...

Aside from all of the above, the best "gotcha" of all is the fact that often you dont know what the cost will be until (a) the service is provided or (b) its too late to back out of the deal.

This is compounded by the fact that we also don't know the cost of moving to an alternative professional, most of whom are similarly lacking in transparency viz Fees & Expenses.

This muddled situation obviously works in the interests of the professionals who have always been able to charge, what are in my opinion, outlandish fees. In the case of many professional bodies, there are limits / restrictions placed on the ability of members to advertise with the primary purpose of these restrictions being to maximise revenues by limiting competition.

I would like to see professionals forced to be more transparent in their fees by publishing the costs associated with their standard services. I accept and understand that this would no always be possible for all services but I do think that it would be both possible and desirable for most.

FlutterinBantam

That's a very good post CCM

johnnyskeleton

Fulton Crown wrote: »

Surely in a situation where even the very lowest paid are being forced to contribute ...this is unfair ?

I thought that people on minimum wage (i.e. the lowest paid) are asked to pay a small amount more (1%), which is significantly less than the tax increases for the better paid.

As for people on social welfare, they are not being asked to contribute as such, they are simply being asked to take less from the state in benefits.