Younger people and their thoughts about working

ronib

*JaneJudge*Nic can be protected even if not paid child benefits. I believe it requires a tick on a form to not claim child benefits but to remain eligible for the state covering nics. Any other option would be an outrage.

I just looked it up ronib, and JaneJudge is correct, so it’s an outrage. The government is apparently planning legislation to close the loophole.
stca.co.uk/news/national-insurance-credit-scheme-will-be-introduced-to-tackle-child-benefit-gaps/

I definitely know my peers (and younger) are very pessimistic about reaching retirement and also are struggling very badly to save up for retirement at all, let alone save up enough (which is a great deal more saving than the vast majority of people realise).
muffinthemoo

I don't remember having any savings when we were your age and had young children. I worked evenings and didn't get a stamp paid but did get HRP. In addition, we had two endowment mortgages, both of which failed to pay off but at least by that time two of the DC had left home and we were both working full-time.
You can check to see if your NI contribution is being paid and how many years you have (The Government Gateway website).

Perhaps you will be able to return to work before too long and pay a full stamp and join a works pension scheme too.

biglouis Nowadays we have many highly skilled people like consultants gold part time or using salary sacrifice and various other mechanisms because they begrudge working for the tax man.

I agree about people taking salary sacrifice, but I am not sure about the reason you give. DD sacrificed salary for extra holiday entitlement. Tax did not figure in her calculation, but the opportunity to have extra leave to follow her own interests did. It seems many people she worked with did the same - and for the same reasons.

These days people are making work/life balance decisions and, of course, are earning enough money to be able to afford to do so.

Something to remember, when on GN so many people assume that everyone is on below average salaries and living below the breadline.

I do not deny the poverty in this country, there are many people living on unacceptably low incomes, but there are actually far more people on comfortable salaries and in good jobs, so much so that they can afford to sacrifice income for more time off.

JaneJudgeNic can be protected even if not paid child benefits. I believe it requires a tick on a form to not claim child benefits but to remain eligible for the state covering nics. Any other option would be an outrage.

ronib

muffinthemoo time spent at home looking after children counts towards a State pension. Honestly so it should.

The changes to how child benefit can be claimed if one earner (usually the Father) earns above a certain amount means lots of Mothers who have had to stay at home to look after children (some who will be ill or disabled/sen) means their contributions haven’t been automatically paid and iirc the government have also removed the option to top up NI contributions too (correct mr if I’m wrong but I am sure this was covered on the Martin Lewis money show)

muffinthemoo time spent at home looking after children counts towards a State pension. Honestly so it should.

Without trying to be funny, I think my state retirement age is... 70? 71?

Due to a long career break for children, and a lot of time on "temporary" (but neverending) contracts that didn't allow me into pension schemes, I think I have... six or seven years' worth of pension contributions. And I've passed forty. It's an awful long climb from here.

I also have a couple manageable but long term health conditions. In all honesty, I don't know that I will live long enough to draw any pension I save up.

I understand life expectancy for my generation and the one below us is falling quite significantly compared to our parents' generation. I definitely know my peers (and younger) are very pessimistic about reaching retirement and also are struggling very badly to save up for retirement at all, let alone save up enough (which is a great deal more saving than the vast majority of people realise).

I think they will, biglouis. The days when people will be able to opt out of contributing to society as a whole will have to end, if we want to have things like education, roads, police and so on to continue. There will always be some with more than others, and personally, I think that's ok, or there will be corruption and stagnation, but of we (as a society) want to support the sick, old, young and disabled, we can't continue to have large groups of people who opt out of contributing.

How that will happen will depend on what kind of governments people vote for, but I can't see an alternative. If people only contribute to the support of their own families we will go back to workhouses and widespread hunger and lawlessness.

Maybe governments will have to come up with more creative way to generate income than taxing prople to the point where it takes away any incentive to work. Nowadays we have many highly skilled people like consultants gold part time or using salary sacrifice and various other mechanisms because they begrudge working for the tax man.

I hope for the sake of all our children that you’re right Monica, but I don’t think that’s how it will be. There will be medical advances, hopefully there will be cures for illnesses like cancer, but our bodies are programmed to wear out, and that isn’t going to change.
I also can’t envisage jobs for people who are no longer able to do physical work, because many routine jobs will be automated, done by robots. I even saw a very efficient robot waitress in a cafe the other day. Realistically the retirement age is unlikely to rise above 70.

Casdon, We cannot tell what medical advances may come out in future years that enable people to live longer and healthier, even though they work to an older age.

I envisage a system where people in work with jobs, like physical labour, that become impossible with age or ill health will have a flexible retirement age, plus retraining for jobs within their capabilities.

I would predict that if the pension age increases, average life expectancy won’t - there has to be a relationship between the two.

Doodledog Money placed under the mattress does not grow To grow, the money must be invested in various forms in assets that will grow and that means interest bearing bonds, like government bonds with interest paid out of government funds that all come from taxing assets people have - insurance, VAT, Income tax, or investment in companies making and selling things - and the people making and selling to sustain these investments, will, when you retire, mean younger people, of whom there will be far fewer.

It could be that if we have a smaller population that the economy is also smaller and the burden of providing a full income for older people will be too much. As well as having to wait longer for pensions, it could also be necessary to reduce them.

We do not want pogroms where bands of young people go round killing old people because providing their pensions is such a millstone round their necks.

nanna8

One thing I like about not relying on any government pensions or assistance whatsoever is that I don’t have to hang around those dingy offices with supercilious creeps deciding my future. Worth the unfairness.

Be thankful that you don’t have to. Millions do 😥

May I just mention Equitable Life there? In return for contracting out, the government made payments to investors’ pension pots.

Apologies for all the typos in the above post. Even worse than usual.

Even though people would be paying in through their lives? I'm not going to argue, as I am no economist, and I know that you are , but there would surely be growth in savings that people accrued during a lifetime of work, particularly if governments added to it?

I am sorry Doodlebug I can see no alternative. Even if you build up an enrmous invested fund, the income anf investments of that fund will be dependent on the smaller pool of younger people genrating the growth in funds and necessary income to pay out.

Only if the system of paying for the generation before stays in place. There are other ways of doing things, which should have been investigated long before now, as population trends are well known. It's almost as though the government wanted people to continue working into their dotage.🤔

Doodledog Pensions in the future are going to be worse not better. 75% of the countries in the world now have birthrates at replacement level or below and the number of countries with below replacement rate birth rates increases every year. At the same time longevity is increasing. By the end of the century workd population will be on a downward slope.

Our children, grandchildren and beyond will have to pay more and more taxes to support the burgeoning number of pensioners from a smaller amd smaller base of workig age people.

If we want bette pensions we must first provide cheaper homes and provide free childcare, so that those of child bearing age will be encouraged to have more children.

One thing I like about not relying on any government pensions or assistance whatsoever is that I don’t have to hang around those dingy offices with supercilious creeps deciding my future. Worth the unfairness.

This is why pensions should be enough to live on. People shouldn't have to claim means-tested benefits after a lifetime of work. A decent pension should be a right, not a handout.

Happilyretired123

My brother worked for over 40 years in a low wage factory job and although had enough years to qualify for State Pension has had to claim Pension Credit for the last 2 or 3 years to afford rent, heating and food. Most employees now have to join company pension schemes through auto enrolment unless they opt out. Back in the day not all employers even provided a pension scheme.

I don’t think this is unusual at all. The middle classes seem to think the working classes drank their wages. It’s very old fashioned 😭

Germanshepherdsmum

So you would propose that everyone, rich or poor, maybe regardless of their working record (how could you define ‘hard working’?), should receive a state pension sufficient to cover all the benefits which are currently means-tested? And who are the ‘others’ who have to pay additional taxes in order to ‘give people their dignity’? How much extra tax would you be willing to pay?

The figures would be for those with far more knowledge of economics than I have.

But yes, I think that everyone should get certain benefits, in the same way that we all get free education until we are 18, and free healthcare. Nobody should earn so little that they can't provide for themselves in the world's 6th biggest economy. If prices go up as a result, then we will all have to cut our cloth accordingly - either that, or big business will have to accept smaller profits if we can't afford to pay high prices. I'd rather have slightly less spending power than live in a country where 1 in 10 children is in poverty, wouldn't you? I'm not talking about a bonanza - just a fair day's pay for a day's work, so that people have dignity and can provide for themselves.

As for non-means-tested benefits, why not? Call them Allowances, as they used to be. It used to be the case that all parents got child benefit (Family Allowance), for instance. Non-working women may not have got pensions in their own right, but they inherited their husbands' pensions, with, I think, widows' pensions on top, which weren't means-tested. I assume that single women without pensions of their own would have been provided for, although most of them probably worked.

Everyone would have to pay more - I'm not suggesting a raid on the wealthy, don't worry . It would mean that even though people had slightly less coming in, they would have to pay out less, so in most cases it would work out in the end. It would also mean that people can see the benefit of working, although with AI on the horizon it might be time to think again about whether work as we know it is still going to underpin society.

Do you think it acceptable that the low paid see people as well-off as they are for doing nothing? Should it just be the very well-paid who have better lifestyles than those on benefits?

I agree that housing is a huge factor in all this though. With prices the way they are, and the huge geographical disparity in profits it is increasingly difficult for young people to move around the country for work (and therefore to have equal employment chances), and that's before disparities between prices in the North and South (or London and most of the rest of the country) are taken into account when it comes to what is left after social care costs have eaten into inheritances.

If I had my life again I'd work less and live more. Neither of my daughters work full time, they are both very well educated, have paid off their student debts and can earn enough to live well without being wage slaves. One of them saves up holidays and spends time working as a medic for charities, travelling overseas and having "enriching" experiences (her words), the other volunteers for a charity working with children. I know they are fortunate but they are not entitled and I know a lot of younger people who are more interested in a life that satisfies them emotionally than rewards them financially. Isn't that a good thing?