my old neigbour in Toronto and I have become good friends over the past few years...he is a doctor (GP) and is also a specialist in internal medicine...he claims he is raking in $250k and is only working 3 days a week...he said he used to work 6 days a week and rake in $400k...but with the crazy taxation he doesn't bother anymore...

Then he isn't a GP (general practitioner), rather he is a specialist. The terms are mutually exclusive.

Never let the fact interfere eh.

There are plenty of dual GP / specialists! in fact GP in itself is a specialism, requiring the same level of specialist training as an internalist psychaiatrist or Ob/Gyn.

Our oldest daughter was delivered by a GP who was also a recognised OB/GYN working on call. Our second was delivered by an OBGYN who only closed her general practice a few years ago to semi retire to just her OBGYN specialty. This dual stream approach is perhaps more common in smaller places where its still just about possible to do both, but its cetainly not impossible as you claim.

Now you are twisting my statement, which was only made within the context of this thread's topic (incomes of doctors) and it should only be take in that context.

I have read several reports over the years that referred to the average income of family practitioners (GPs) vs. that for "specialists". In this sense, GPs and specialists comprise distinct (and separate) statistical groups. For example:

http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/...urnalcode=cmaj

For the purposes of income statistics, a GP is not considered to be a specialist. Within any given province, the average net income for GPs is always much lower than that for specialists.

I consider myself a specialist generalist!!!

It's a very useful tool to have, though some may call it "Jack of all trades, master of none!"

But the Minister of Health might pay you more if you convinced him that you are a specialist among specialists.

Who said anything about net income??? I never said that the figure of $300K was net. Nobody else was suggesting it either!

Whereas we had a neighbour who was a medical doctor but who was working on a research project at the UofT; he was paid no more than he would have been for a PhD. Eventually they couldn't make ends meet and had to move out.

The net income is what matters! Why care about gross income? It makes no logical sense to do so. So what if one's gross billings are $1 million/year if expenses on that income are, say, $900,000? The net income (before income tax) would only be $100,000. Clearly, all that really matters is the net income.

The media usually gets this issue of doctor's incomes wrong; they talk about gross incomes and don't bother to explain just what that means. So Joe public thinks that is the income the average doctor takes home when this is far from the truth. Case in point, one doctor in Alberta was billing the healthcare system something around $3.5 million/year (gross income), and the Minister of Health for Alberta was outraged. It was later revealed that this doctor ran a lab with a staff of 150 people and was paying all the staff wages and lab expenses out of that $3.5 million. His net income was what he got to keep (before income tax), and it was only a small fraction of the $3.5 million.

This is why it's so important to distinguish between gross (income before office and associated costs are paid for) and net income for doctors.

I didnt think we were discussing the business transactions of GPs, only their annual personal income? In laymans terms that would be "gross" (before tax) rather than "net" (after tax) as no one would have any idea of individual circumstances and deductions anyway.

If people discuss pay and conditions in a casual way, isnt it regarded as the norm to discuss gross income, not taxable income (ie gross minus deductables) or net income after taxes If someone tells me they get paid $60k, its assumed that that is the gross amount.

As the original poster seems to have buggered off to interfere in his sisters personal life now armed with whatever incomplete information was gathered here, its all a rather moot point now anyway.

Yes, that's what I thought, but it's important to explain the difference between "gross" income (healthcare billings) and "net" income (amount left after expenses are paid out). Once you have the "net" income, income taxes still have to be paid on that.

... you edited your post after my reply.

You are confused only because you don't run a business. The term "net income" can mean different things. You are using the term in the vernacular - what Joe Public thinks. I'm using the term in the same way an accountant uses the term "net income" on financial statements. They are not the same, hence the confusion! I have been trying to explain the difference.

In the more formal accounting sense "net income" is money left over in a business after associated business expenses are paid out - with the exception of income taxes. In other words, you still have to pay income tax on the "net income".