Pharmacist Salary Thread

[SHC1984]

I have one of those shirts. Steve & Barry's. How I miss, thee...they clothed me through being a poor college bum. Now I shop at ****ing TJ Maxx. And drive a Taurus. And live in a single-wide trailer.

I'm still cheap as hell. WTF is wrong with me.

I'm going to go buy a Prada shirt or some ****.

Nah, screw the shirt I think a Prada watch will be better for a guy.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[SHC1984]

Ever?

Warren Harding? Teapot Dome scandal...dude used to keep children in his office closet...made Bush look like a master linguist.

Oh. Right. American history started sometime in the 1980s...

-------


And y'all need to chill the hell out. There have been worse surpluses in the profession than we will face in the near future. Using history as a guide, salaries will just stagnate at worst.

I am sorry if my posts have been harsh lately. I really hate Obama and everytime I see anything that has anything to do with him I can't help but to speak harshly. Obama makes Bush look great too.

 

[Farmercyst]

Nice, and in doing so, you completely contradict economic theories which are accepted as near-law by the economics community, with such proponents as Carl Menger.

And you're calling me condescending? Who the hell do you think you are if you can stand up to an economics genius like Menger and call him wrong?

OK bud. Did you get a C in Macro?

It's so cute when you right wing *****s get a bug up your ass.

It may be a good idea to accept the fact that some people didn't have econ instructor like yours and/or didn't care to pay attention. I have no idea who Menger is, and my macro teacher didn't focus on such intricacies as the effect of government involvement specifically related to healthcare. (Not to say we didn't discuss the affect of government on supply/demand or currency valuations) That's also not to say I believe atp's argument, quite the contrary, I've also looked into government salaries, both contract and uniformed, and they're not shabby. While uniformed makes less on a conventional salary basis, they tend to make up in other fringe benefits. Nonetheless, it seemed more an uninformed opinion than someone intentionally making a mockery of modern economic theories as you so state. In the end, name calling, regardless of the reason does you no more service than the person at which it is aimed. In that sense, it's best to follow a less is more policy.

Thanks

 

[Farmercyst]

I am sorry if my posts have been harsh lately. I really hate Obama and everytime I see anything that has anything to do with him I can't help but to speak harshly. Obama makes Bush look great too.

 

[SHC1984]

Oh yeah, WHY do people think it's impossible for salaries to decrease?? I never understood that concept. My parents own restaurants and since the economy is bad, they have been hiring people with low wages b/c there are more people willing to work for lower wages. Since there is a surplus of pharmacist why is it impossible for salaries to decrease?? I mean if Walgreen has 100 positions and 10,000 people apply for the job wouldn't the lowest salary bidders get the position? And I have only taken econ 101 for nonmajors, but it was more than 5 years ago so I don't remember anything. LOL... It just makes sense to me that if there is a surplus of workers the owners will hire whoever settles for the lowest salary. Why is that wrong?

 

[SHC1984]

Well, the point is he sucks.

 

[misstofu]

I know that different locations will provide different salaries, therefore I also asked to leave the state (location) where the salary is from as well as the store

 

[tncekm]

If anything, a public option would let everyone have insurance which would ensure a steady income for pharmacists.

Under a public option your income may eventually be dependent on a government mandate. Sure, it hasn't happened now. But, what do you think happens a few years down the road when they're looking to cut additional costs? While it's possible they won't need to do such a thing, I personally believe it's far more likely that they will eventually have to and they'll go the way of all the other socialist systems and start severely controlling compensation.

In the UK pharmacists are averaging about 65,000 USD per year according to payscale.com (range: 30,000USD to 80,000USD). Socialism (aka "true democracy" is the tyranny of the majority, and you my friend, are in the highly educated, yet foolish minority who would get ripped to shreds by a socialist system)
http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Pharmacist/Salary/by_City

 

[tncekm]

OK, a problem with your theory is that there are currently pharmacists being employed right now as we speak by the gubment and they don't make a pittance. Right now there's a listing on USAJobs (A job service listing thing for veterans that I frequent to check our various sectors) offering a full-time position to a staff pharmacist and the compensation is over six-figures.

Government employee does not immediately equate to a poor salary. A government employee with no education does, though, or with less-than-useful education (Like me, with a Bachelor level education, would be screwed by Uncle Sam). But look at federal agents. Sure, they don't make 130 grand a year all the time, but their salaries are very nice especially for the lack of education required in the KSA for the job.

I find your stance extremely simplistic and to be flavored with a heavy dose of right wing bull$h!t seasoning.

You're way off. Government tends to 'equalize' salaries. Low end brought up, high end brought down. Result: pharmacists lose cash to pay the pissed off fat chick at the DMV. You spent 8yrs getting your PharmD, and she's just "alive". But, what does that matter? There are more people like her than there are of you, so they get treated "more fair" than you do.

In addition, pharmacists are currently largely paid by the government in the form of reimbursement. Under a government run health care system they'll have the power to dictate salaries to the dime.

 

[atpsynthase]

Under a public option your income may eventually be dependent on a government mandate. Sure, it hasn't happened now. But, what do you think happens a few years down the road when they're looking to cut additional costs? While it's possible they won't need to do such a thing, I personally believe it's far more likely that they will eventually have to and they'll go the way of all the other socialist systems and start severely controlling compensation.

In the UK pharmacists are averaging about 65,000 USD per year according to payscale.com (range: 30,000USD to 80,000USD). Socialism (aka "true democracy" is the tyranny of the majority, and you my friend, are in the highly educated, yet foolish minority who would get ripped to shreds by a socialist system)
http://www.payscale.com/research/UK/Job=Pharmacist/Salary/by_City

Exactly what I was getting at before I got called home-schooled, thin-skinned, and an idiot.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

In addition, pharmacists are currently largely paid by the government in the form of reimbursement. Under a government run health care system they'll have the power to dictate salaries to the dime.

Nah. Very few pharmacists are self-employed. We all work for someone. Hospitals and chain pharmacies are mostly reimbursed by the gov't/private insurers. A universal system would actually help us as the increased demand would create a higher demand for our services. Assuming we are talking about a single-party insurer. A more restrictive system means less patients, which means less work, which means less demand. If RPhs actually billed the insurance for reimbursement for their own dime, that would be one thing...but that ain't how it works.

I, for one, don't differentiate between out socialist overlords and our capitalist overlords. Either way, those being reimbursed get squeezed via economic leverage. When a capitalist does it, it's "business". The gov't does it, it's "communist" and Soviet tanks are hypothetically set to roll down Pennsylvania Ave. any second.

 

[Farmercyst]

It's not impossible. It's improbable, but there certainly are precedents outside of healthcare, not sure about within healthcare. The CA grocer's strike saw current employees wages stay while new hires were given lower wages/benefits. UAW has had to agree to lower wage/benefit packages to ensure they still have jobs. One difference is that union jobs tend to be considered non-professional where anyone can start at entry-level with zero pre-employment (or minimal vocational) training and make decent wages. I'm not sure how that would translate to pharmacy. Currently it seems that supply is meeting demand so wages are still competitive. Based on what I've been reading, if you're willing to move, then you probably can find a job in some market. What I see more likely is wage stagnation. Inflation will erode the value of a stagnant salary, but it won't by definition decrease, despite it's devaluation. Only time will tell what will happen with Obamacare and it's effect on pharmacy. Generally government inputs into the system assist with the economy, but the US, as mentioned, has so much debt already that it'll be interesting to see how much more the international community will be willing to support.

 

[Old Timer]

Hello Everyone,

I read a few posts regarding pharmacist starting salary, but i didn't see the answer that i was looking for. i'm hoping you all can help me out.

Please list the starting salary for a newly graduated pharmacist who has a valid license at different retail store and WHERE.... such as State

1. walgreens $12.50
2. CVS $12.51
3. Rite Aid $14.00
4. Target $13.59
5. Walmart $15.25
6. etc and etc.....

please provide me a number with your best knowledge...(if you don't know any retail starting salary, then please skip )

thanks a bunch
tofu

Are you kidding me. What are you doing, making a spread sheet? This information changes from year to year and market to market. It is completely useless information unless you factor in signing bonus, annual performance bonus, stock options, 401K benefit, etc....

 

[tncekm]

Nah. Very few pharmacists are self-employed. We all work for someone. Hospitals and chain pharmacies are mostly reimbursed by the gov't/private insurers. A universal system would actually help us as the increased demand would create a higher demand for our services.

But, that's assuming everything stays the same other than the fact that everybody would then be insured. I find that to be unlikely over the long term in a socialist health care system.

Just look at the socialist systems average salaries!
- Japan: $45,000/yr
- UK: $60,000/yr (payscale.com)
- Canada: $75,000/yr (payscale.com)

Then
- US: $100k/yr (payscale.com)

I, for one, don't differentiate between out socialist overlords and our capitalist overlords. Either way, those being reimbursed get squeezed via economic leverage. When a capitalist does it, it's "business". The gov't does it, it's "communist" and Soviet tanks are hypothetically set to roll down Pennsylvania Ave. any second.

And that's precisely why we need the government to "regulate" the private sector, not allow one or the other to have complete control. If either one of them has complete control, then we're screwed. So, we want them both in place. (Although, I'd still rather be in the capitalist system so there is some incentive to succeed.) We want the capitalists to innovate and compete to lower costs, and we want the government to ensure fair business practices.

 

[koercive]

The barrier to be a pharmacist in the U.S. is a lot more difficult (4 year Pharm.D.) vs. a 2 yr degree in other countries, so that is one of the reasons for the lower salaries elsewhere.

A recent study we learned about in one of my classes stated that since the workforce is dominated by women who work a lot less on average than men (something like 38hrs/week vs 45hrs/week), the influx of new pharmacists should balance out the demand for pharmacists. (salaries won't decrease by that much or at all when you account for this)

 

[PonderingChoice]

Also, M.D.s in other socialist European countries have all of their schooling paid for by the state. Perhaps that applies to pharmacists (or other professions in general) as well.

 

[Passion4Sci]

A big difference between here 'n there is that they started at a lower wage than we did.

They weren't making 120 grand 10 years ago and then got siphoned down to $65,000 a year or something. No, they started off at a commensurate rate. A LOT of people make WAY less money in Europe. Gee, I wonder why. But it's ALWAYS been that way. Did you flunk HISTORY TOO? Yeesh.

The sky is still green!

 

[apteryx]

I can just imagine an economics professor coming across this thread and laughing his ass off at all the different squabbles on this issue. It would be like a pharmacist wandering into a bunch of economists arguing about drug interactions. Sure, you might get the economist who knows he shouldn't chase his codeine with a six-pack, but on the whole they would be educated guesses. Just something I keep in mind whenever I hear anyone arguing about this issue, or any 'omg mi munny' issue. But by all means, talk it out, I wouldn't ever tell anyone what or what not to say.

 

[WVUPharm2007]

But, that's assuming everything stays the same other than the fact that everybody would then be insured. I find that to be unlikely over the long term in a socialist health care system.

Just look at the socialist systems average salaries!
- Japan: $45,000/yr
- UK: $60,000/yr (payscale.com)
- Canada: $75,000/yr (payscale.com)

Then
- US: $100k/yr (payscale.com)

The problem with that is that the median salary for damn near every job sector is more in the US than other countries. You can't prove causation, only correlation. And when the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare happens to be the richest...it's impossible to draw a real conclusion from that data...

I really don't think it would make much of a difference who the primary payer is. Either way, reimbursements go down annually. Doesn't matter who holds the purse...a CEO or a gov't bureaucrat...

 

[yappy]

I agree with the above poster. Insurance companies and government screw a lot of medical professionals with their low compensation.
I talk with a lot of monetarists who love the free market. For example they defend wall street because wall street is wall street. Yet what if medical professionals behaved in a similar way? What if they didn't accepted any form of 3rd party payment unless it was sufficient... say 90 percent of the cost. This would not be tolerated.
Seems like a double standard.

 

[bigpharmD]

The problem with that is that the median salary for damn near every job sector is more in the US than other countries. You can't prove causation, only correlation. And when the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare happens to be the richest...it's impossible to draw a real conclusion from that data...

I really don't think it would make much of a difference who the primary payer is. Either way, reimbursements go down annually. Doesn't matter who holds the purse...a CEO or a gov't bureaucrat...

Exactly. You cant compare these salaries, they are from different economic systems. Look at what a pharmacist makes at the VA here in the US. I know some making well over 100 grand a year with sweet benefits and way more time off than me.

 

[Tinkerbell22]

A cunning linguist, Mikey...

Cunning. Linguist.

lmfao

 

[Jetninjin]

Thoughts:

1) We are not the richest country in the world. That would be Qatar, Luxembourg and/or Liechenstein for GDP depending on your source, or China if you are looking at foreign reserves. We are in debt up to our eyeballs, and saying we are rich is like a minimum wage worker maxing out his credit cards and bragging about how much he can "afford."

2) Not every class of private workers on the government payroll gets a smaller salary. Case in point engineers. The dot com bubble drove up engineer salaries 10 years ago, and in the private sector they quickly fell as firms hired H1B slaves ... err workers ... and offshored jobs. Government engineering contractors though still pay boom-time salaries.

 

[tncekm]

The problem with that is that the median salary for damn near every job sector is more in the US than other countries.

And the reason the salaries are high here is because of less government innervention, health care not being an exception.

You can't prove causation, only correlation.

That's true with almost everything.

And when the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare happens to be the richest...it's impossible to draw a real conclusion from that data...

Again, this comes back to the amount of government regulation / innervention.

 

[ffpickle]

The problem with that is that the median salary for damn near every job sector is more in the US than other countries. You can't prove causation, only correlation. And when the only industrialized nation without universal healthcare happens to be the richest...it's impossible to draw a real conclusion from that data...

I really don't think it would make much of a difference who the primary payer is. Either way, reimbursements go down annually. Doesn't matter who holds the purse...a CEO or a gov't bureaucrat...

+1. Americans get paid more for almost all occupations. Also, America has a comparatively low income tax rate

 

[ffpickle]

And the reason the salaries are high here is because of less government innervention, health care not being an exception.

That's true with almost everything.

Again, this comes back to the amount of government regulation / innervention.

There is a great deal of truth to this. But remember that less government intervention usually screws over people at the bottom, i.e. the social safety net for the least among us, such as the uninsured.

 

[phathead]

Can I ask why this even matters? You could pay me $10/hr to be a pharmacist and I would do it. Wage doesn't mean anything to me.

 

[10001110101]

No, salaries will NOT decrease. Fewer jobs may be available, though.

Econ 101:

Downward wage rigidity: Wages rarely fall in any profession... Layoffs will always be pursued before wage cuts... Wage cuts rarely happen, the only time you ever really hear about them is for Airlines, who must incorporate massive layoffs in conjunction with wage cuts in order to stay afloat.

Maybe auto and banking will see some of this...

 

[SHC1984]

Can I ask why this even matters? You could pay me $10/hr to be a pharmacist and I would do it. Wage doesn't mean anything to me.

I am guessing that you didn't have to take out any student loans to pay for pharmacy school. In your case, you CAN AFFORD to work for $10/hr. If a person takes out say...150K for pharmacy school they will be SOL (bankrupted) if they don't make at least 120K a year. Mathematically it would be impossible for them to pay off that kind of debt and have food on the table without a six figure salary. Thats why it matters. I will be 80K in debt when I graduate from pharmacy school...so if I don't make at least 100K a year, then I am pretty much PAYING to work as a pharmacist, instead of getting paid! Pharmacy school is suppose to be an investment not a huge expense/burden.

 

[phathead]

I am guessing that you didn't have to take out any student loans to pay for pharmacy school. In your case, you CAN AFFORD to work for $10/hr. If a person takes out say...150K for pharmacy school they will be SOL (bankrupted) if they don't make at least 120K a year. Mathematically it would be impossible for them to pay off that kind of debt and have food on the table without a six figure salary. Thats why it matters. I will be 80K in debt when I graduate from pharmacy school...so if I don't make at least 100K a year, then I am pretty much PAYING to work as a pharmacist, instead of getting paid! Pharmacy school is suppose to be an investment not a huge expense/burden.

I am paying my way through school, so I will have to pay loans back. I was using an extreme example.

As a business major, I can tell you that wages will not drop. Very very very rarely does a sizable drop in wage actually occur. What could happen is that wages may remain stagnant for several years. In either case, you'll still be making good money.

 

[damphoose]

Someone said at the beginning of the thread "will the abundance of pharmacist cause salaries to drop"
something like that
everything I read says there is a shortage and there will be a shortage for the next 10 years.
What is the truth?

 

[Tinkerbell22]

Someone said at the beginning of the thread "will the abundance of pharmacist cause salaries to drop"
something like that
everything I read says there is a shortage and there will be a shortage for the next 10 years.
What is the truth?

I'm just making a guess here, but I'm assuming that this shortage is still being advertised because the profession hasn't reached a surplus YET... but forward-looking pharmacy students and applicants are taking into account the massive openings of new pharmacy schools that will make new graduates face a lot more competition in the future. ALSO, just because we can still say there is a shortage, doesn't mean that you will be able to find the exact job you desire in the exact city you want to live in. This has been repeated a lot, but the truth is, some of us will probably have to relocate if we want a job. I really believe that the high demand for pharmacists is real, but work conditions will probably just suffer because retail pharmacies will probably just have existing pharmacists work more rather than hire new ones to meet demand in order to save $.

 

[SHC1984]

I am paying my way through school, so I will have to pay loans back. I was using an extreme example.

As a business major, I can tell you that wages will not drop. Very very very rarely does a sizable drop in wage actually occur. What could happen is that wages may remain stagnant for several years. In either case, you'll still be making good money.

I wish I was a business major instead of chemistry. Can you explain why wages won't drop? Everyone says the same thing, but no one gives a reason. I believe you, but whats the reason? (And I don't remember anything from Econ 101 that I took 6 years ago. My apologizes...)

 

[jasonbourne]

I know many people are concerned about pharmacists salaries in the future. I agree with u all that we deserve good salaries so that we can pay off our debt. I understand that pharmacy is a hard profession that many people in society take for granted. You will get yelled at and disrespected. However, If u are more concerned about getting tons of money rather than serving the community as u promised in your personal statement, I think you need to step back and rethink your position.

I am sure there will be a public option by the end of this year or the beginning of next year. I dont believe that pharmacists salaries will drop. Instead, I can make the case that pharmacists salaries will stay level or even increase. Only the big cities where there is a huge saturation of pharmacists might there be a very slight drop in salaries. I don't think they will drop more than 2-7k. There will be an overload in the healthcare system. Universal healthcare will bring in more patients and increase the amount of prescriptions. Baby Boomers are old by now and they make up at least a quarter of the population. These factors put together will lead to an increase in the demand for pharmacists. Have u guys ever bordered about the fact that 46 million Americans are uninsured. Totally unacceptable in the richest nation on earth. When these 46 million people are put into the system, there will be a huge increase in prescriptions and the demand for pharmacists

-Have we also thought of the fact that insurance companies have seen their profits go up 425% since the year 2000?

-If anyone thinks the private health insurance sector is working for the good of the country, then we must be dreaming. Their profits are going up, they deny coverage due to preexisting conditions, and they simply dont care about u and me. Look at the 44000 people who die each year because of lack of coverage. Look at the number of people who get dropped each day by their insurance companies.

(The health insurance companies are the biggest death panels in America)
I can prove this.
-They choose whom to cover.
-They deny to cover certain medications even if your physician recommends them
-They can drop u if u are too much of a burden. How do u pay your health bills if u dont have insurance? Isnt that the highway to death?
-Their premiums are going up while the average family has to dig in more to put food at the table.

I believe there must be both a public and private option. This is the only way insurance companies will agree to play ball on a level playing field. However, the public option must be a self sustained system. The bill must include a provision that prevents the government from pumping cash into it. The money used to fund the public option should only be obtained from those who opt into the plan. This way, the government can be able to compete without driving private insurers out of business. There must be a mandate for everyone to have coverage. This means that u have the right to have either public insurance or private insurance. One of the reasons premiums are high is because those who have insurance are paying the tab for those who end up in the Emergency room. We need to mandate it so that everyone pays for their own only. Also, this is not a government take over of healthcare, it is simply a government plan. The government is not forcing u into it. You can either have a public or private plan. Also, people should have the right to buy insurance across state lines.

The government bill will not be perfect and we all know it. However, I believe that time will help bring new and important changes to the plan that will be beneficial.

 

[Tinkerbell22]

Can I ask why this even matters? You could pay me $10/hr to be a pharmacist and I would do it. Wage doesn't mean anything to me.

That is refreshing to know. I'm not being sarcastic. It seems like a lot of people are overly concerned with affording a 5 bedroom house and a German car by the time they are in their mid 20's, but the truth is you are doing better than most people in this country if you are working as a pharmacist AT ALL. lol

Maybe I'm just more laid back because I'm from a really laid back place. A lot of people live here on a millionaires salary and they live in 2-3 bedroom apartments and drive toyotas because they don't care about the money. I just want to be comfortable and enjoy my job. I'm going to have about 150k in loans when I graduate also, so I'm going to need a decent salary to pay that back... but I'd be happy driving my same car and living in the same place I do now until I can save up more money. Obviously education is an investment and we need to make something to live off of, but I don't think it should ever be about getting rich in the health care field.

 

[phathead]

I wish I was a business major instead of chemistry. Can you explain why wages won't drop? Everyone says the same thing, but no one gives a reason. I believe you, but whats the reason? (And I don't remember anything from Econ 101 that I took 6 years ago. My apologizes...)

The entire wage of a profession simply cannot drop over night. The are too many people with too many variables who will fight to keep the wage they earn. People become fixated on x number of dollars per hour or per year. They will do whatever it takes to maintain that.

How businesses get around that is either by firing people, not hiring more or cutting hours.

Think about it, the economy is in a funk now correct? But businesses aren't cutting wages of their employees are they? Of course there are some that have been shifted to a lower paying job, but the job they had didn't lose its previous pay. They were just shifted to a different job. Instead they save money by cutting peoples, hours, etc etc. If you start cutting wage amounts across the nation you'll have nothing short of a riot on your hands.

Instead wages may not experience much growth once the shortage is gone. You might make say 120k a year for five years. After five years, maybe that 120k is really worth 105k if you consider the effect of inflation. The thing is, that is still a good chunk of change and nothing to sneeze at.

Seeing as this is a professional program (compared to, for instance, graphic designers or school teachers who usually who are not professionals) you will not see the wages dip below a certain amount. We can reasonably assume that we are all intelligent individuals in the industry and can tell when we're being screwed. Because of this facet, they simply will not stand for a stagnant wage for too long.

That being said, those of you who say the wage will decrease are ignoring a very vital part of the profession. We are in the midst of a revolution in the roll of pharmacists. No longer are pharmacists the quiet guys who sit behind the counter and count by five. Today pharmacists are a very integral part of the treatment of a patient.

Pharmacists haven't even reached the maximum amount of patient benefit they can give. MTMs, for instance, are effectively in their infancy yet will have the ability revolutionize the medication therapy of patients. In ten years time I would bet it becomes a staple of many pharmacies.

Then there is the fact that it is not too far fetched to start seeing pharmacists working hand in hand with docs in a hospital on a regular basis. Docs would diagnosis while the pharmacist would help with drug therapy. As drugs progress to more protein based in nature (which is still about 15-20 years off or so) MDs will be even less aware of their arsenal of medications.

In essence, the knowledge and functions of a pharmacist are going to increase in the coming years. That alone will keep wages from dropping. Everyone just looks at the hard numbers of people entering the profession without looking at the big picture. Sure you won't be seeing 50k sign on bonuses anymore, but those were ridiculous to begin with.

What I think you will start seeing, within the next decade or so, are pharmacists becoming specialized in much the same way MDs do. Granted, that exists to a certain extent today, but I believe the training will mirror MDs training more than what is done today.

I realize this a very long ramble, but hopefully it provides some insight into the situation.

 

[phathead]

That is refreshing to know. I'm not being sarcastic. It seems like a lot of people are overly concerned with affording a 5 bedroom house and a German car by the time they are in their mid 20's, but the truth is you are doing better than most people in this country if you are working as a pharmacist AT ALL. lol

Maybe I'm just more laid back because I'm from a really laid back place. A lot of people live here on a millionaires salary and they live in 2-3 bedroom apartments and drive toyotas because they don't care about the money. I just want to be comfortable and enjoy my job. I'm going to have about 150k in loans when I graduate also, so I'm going to need a decent salary to pay that back... but I'd be happy driving my same car and living in the same place I do now until I can save up more money. Obviously education is an investment and we need to make something to live off of, but I don't think it should ever be about getting rich in the health care field.

Honestly, you know what my plan is? My wife and I figure we'll only need 40k to live off of once we're both done with school (in 4 years). We won't change our living habits for the first three years out of school and use the extra 100k we save to pay off bills.

 

[Passion4Sci]

@ $10/hr, how long do you suspect it'd take to pay off the loans that you used to get the Pharm.D., assuming that applied?

 

[phathead]

@ $10/hr, how long do you suspect it'd take to pay off the loans that you used to get the Pharm.D., assuming that applied?

ah here's the kicker... I'll die before I pay it off so they're screwed outta money! muhahahahaha

 

[Passion4Sci]

ah here's the kicker... I'll die before I pay it off so they're screwed outta money! muhahahahaha

An interesting way of looking at it.

 

[Tinkerbell22]

lol My doctor told me once that her and her husband just tell themselves that they are paying off their vacation home that they never go visit.

I guess that lessens the burn a little for them. lol

 

[SHC1984]

ah here's the kicker... I'll die before I pay it off so they're screwed outta money! muhahahahaha

Too bad your wife and kids will be left with the burden.

 

[phathead]

Too bad your wife and kids will be left with the burden.

Man some of you guys here can't take a joke. And chose to ignore my explanation of why wages will be fine.

 

[SHC1984]

Man some of you guys here can't take a joke. And chose to ignore my explanation of why wages will be fine.

LOL...I agree with you that wages will not decrease, but if it doesn't INCREASE we will still be in trouble b/c
1) TAXES take 30% of what you make. So you are already down to 70K a year.
2) Inflation-70K a year is already a modest salary...after 5 to 10 years of inflation, I don't know what its going to be worth.

 

[nextuszerodmd]

from the health care bill circa july 2009. enjoy

• Page 16: States that if you have insurance at the time of the bill becoming law and change, you will be required to take a similar plan. If that is not available, you will be required to take the gov option!
• Page 22: Mandates audits of all employers that self-insure!
• Page 29: Admission: your health care will be rationed!
• Page 30: A government committee will decide what treatments and benefits you get (and, unlike an insurer, there will be no appeals process)
• Page 42: The "Health Choices Commissioner" will decide health benefits for you. You will have no choice. None.
• Page 50: All non-US citizens, illegal or not, will be provided with free healthcare services.
• Page 58: Every person will be issued a National ID Healthcard.
• Page 59: The federal government will have direct, real-time access to all individual bank accounts for electronic funds transfer.
• Page 65: Taxpayers will subsidize all union retiree and community organizer health plans (example: SEIU, UAW and ACORN)
• Page 72: All private healthcare plans must conform to government rules to participate in a Healthcare Exchange.
• Page 84: All private healthcare plans must participate in the Healthcare Exchange (i.e., total government control of private plans)
• Page 91: Government mandates linguistic infrastructure for services; translation: illegal aliens
• Page 95: The Government will pay ACORN and Americorps to sign up individuals for Government-run Health Care plan.
• Page 102: Those eligible for Medicaid will be automatically enrolled: you have no choice in the matter.
• Page 124: No company can sue the government for price-fixing. No "judicial review" is permitted against the government monopoly. Put simply, private insurers will be crushed.
• Page 127: The AMA sold doctors out: the government will set wages.
• Page 145: An employer MUST auto-enroll employees into the government-run public plan. No alternatives.
• Page 126: Employers MUST pay healthcare bills for part-time employees AND their families.
• Page 149: Any employer with a payroll of $400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays an 8% tax on payroll <>BR • Page 150: Any employer with a payroll of $250K-400K or more, who does not offer the public option, pays a 2 to 6% tax on payroll
• Page 167: Any individual who doesnt' have acceptable healthcare (according to the government) will be taxed 2.5% of income.
• Page 170: Any NON-RESIDENT alien is exempt from individual taxes (Americans will pay for them).
• Page 195: Officers and employees of Government Healthcare Bureaucracy will have access to ALL American financial and personal records.
• Page 203: "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax." Yes, it really says that.
• Page 239: Bill will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors and the poor most affected."
• Page 241: Doctors: no matter what speciality you have, you'll all be paid the same (thanks, AMA!)
• Page 253: Government sets value of doctors' time, their professional judgment, etc.
• Page 265: Government mandates and controls productivity for private healthcare industries.
• Page 268: Government regulates rental and purchase of power-driven wheelchairs.
• Page 272: Cancer patients: welcome to the wonderful world of rationing!
• Page 280: Hospitals will be penalized for what the government deems preventable re-admissions.
• Page 298: Doctors: if you treat a patient during an initial admission that results in a readmission, you will be penalized by the government.
• Page 317: Doctors: you are now prohibited for owning and investing in healthcare companies!
• Page 318: Prohibition on hospital expansion. Hospitals cannot expand without government approval.
• Page 321: Hospital expansion hinges on "community" input: in other words, yet another payoff for ACORN.
• Page 335: Government mandates establishment of outcome-based measures: i.e., rationing.
• Page 341: Government has authority to disqualify Medicare Advantage Plans, HMOs, etc.
• Page 354: Government will restrict enrollment of SPECIAL NEEDS individuals.
• Page 379: More bureaucracy: Telehealth Advisory Committee (healthcare by phone).
• Page 425: More bureaucracy: Advance Care Planning Consult: Senior Citizens, assisted suicide, euthanasia?
• Page 425: Government will instruct and consult regarding living wills, durable powers of attorney, etc. Mandatory. Appears to lock in estate taxes ahead of time.
• Page 425: Goverment provides approved list of end-of-life resources, guiding you in death.
• Page 427: Government mandates program that orders end-of-life treatment; government dictates how your life ends.
• Page 429: Advance Care Planning Consult will be used to dictate treatment as patient's health deteriorates. This can include an ORDER for end-of-life plans. An ORDER from the GOVERNMENT.
• Page 430: Government will decide what level of treatments you may have at end-of-life.
• Page 469: Community-based Home Medical Services: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 472: Payments to Community-based organizations: more payoffs for ACORN.
• Page 489: Government will cover marriage and family therapy. Government intervenes in your marriage.
• Page 494: Government will cover mental health services: defining, creating and rationing those services.

 

[phathead]

LOL...I agree with you that wages will not decrease, but if it doesn't INCREASE we will still be in trouble b/c
1) TAXES take 30% of what you make. So you are already down to 70K a year.
2) Inflation-70K a year is already a modest salary...after 5 to 10 years of inflation, I don't know what its going to be worth.

You're over simplifying. It's not just 30% of everything.

They take 10% of the first $8,025 = $802.50
Then 15% from $8,026 &#8211; $32,550 = $3,678.60
Then 20% from $32,551 &#8211; $78,850 = $9,259.80
Finally 28% from $78,851 &#8211; $164,550 ($100,000 in our example) = $5,921.72

That totals $19,662.62 in income tax leaving you with $80,337.38. That's a bit more than the 70k you figured. Finally you have to consider write-offs of which you can get through students loans and other means which would further decrease the amount of tax paid. This was done with 2008 tax numbers.

Of course this was figured for just a single person, if you were married and bringing in even more income that would make things even better.

Now let's look at inflation. We'll use the rounded average inflation figure of 2% per year. After one year your 100k wage would be worth 98k in current dollars. In five years, using the same principal, it would be worth about 90.5k per year.

While that looks bad, the thing to remember is that cost of living does not always increase on a yearly basis. It does decrease depending on the year.

Finally it is completely unreasonable to think a person would go five years without a raise. Most professionals are guaranteed a cost of living increase each year. Few professionals lose income on a yearly basis due to inflation.

Any of that make sense?

 

[SHC1984]

You're over simplifying. It's not just 30% of everything.

They take 10% of the first $8,025 = $802.50
Then 15% from $8,026 &#8211; $32,550 = $3,678.60
Then 20% from $32,551 &#8211; $78,850 = $9,259.80
Finally 28% from $78,851 &#8211; $164,550 ($100,000 in our example) = $5,921.72

That totals $19,662.62 in income tax leaving you with $80,337.38. That's a bit more than the 70k you figured. Finally you have to consider write-offs of which you can get through students loans and other means which would further decrease the amount of tax paid. This was done with 2008 tax numbers.

Of course this was figured for just a single person, if you were married and bringing in even more income that would make things even better.

Now let's look at inflation. We'll use the rounded average inflation figure of 2% per year. After one year your 100k wage would be worth 98k in current dollars. In five years, using the same principal, it would be worth about 90.5k per year.

While that looks bad, the thing to remember is that cost of living does not always increase on a yearly basis. It does decrease depending on the year.

Finally it is completely unreasonable to think a person would go five years without a job. Most professionals are guaranteed a cost of living increase each year. Few professionals lose income on a yearly basis due to inflation.

Any of that make sense?

I am not talking about being jobless for 5 years. I am talking about working for 5 years without a RAISE. That alone will make you broke.

You have to look at your salary AFTER taxes. 2% inflation a year for a 80K salary is a lot, but that assuming we are not getting a raise for 5 years. Which I hope doesn't happen. Pharmacists should get at least a 5% increase in salary each year to make your lifes more comfortable.

 

[phathead]

I am not talking about being jobless for 5 years. I am talking about working for 5 years without a RAISE. That alone will make you broke.

You have to look at your salary AFTER taxes. 2% inflation a year for a 80K salary is a lot, but that assuming we are not getting a raise for 5 years. Which I hope doesn't matter. Pharmacists should get at least a 5% increase in salary each year to make your lifes more comfortable.

I misworded that, I meant five years without a raise. That's what happens when you shoot stuff out like that quickly lol

Still, even at 80k you're only looking at $1,600. Really, that is still a large income to live off of, even with loans. And no one will be going five years without a raise, it's crazy to think that'll happen. The wage just won't rocket up like it has the last decade.

And I hope I educated everyone on how income tax really works. Bugs me that few people understand that lol

 

[SHC1984]

I misworded that, I meant five years without a raise. That's what happens when you shoot stuff out like that quickly lol

Still, even at 80k you're only looking at $1,600. Really, that is still a large income to live off of, even with loans. And no one will be going five years without a raise, it's crazy to think that'll happen. The wage just won't rocket up like it has the last decade.

And I hope I educated everyone on how income tax really works. Bugs me that few people understand that lol

I never understood how income tax really works. Thanks for that chart! Although I support flat taxes...I think its more fair. Everyone pay 20% or whatever. I like that better.

 

[diastole]

Too bad your wife and kids will be left with the burden.

I don't think that is right. I seem to remember from my student loan counseling session that the loans go away if you die. They don't transfer to your spouse or children.