Government wants to coax over 50s back into work

Lots of guesswork in this thread. The statistics that would resolve many of the guesses (ages, reasons, income sources to a degree, desire or level of interest in returning to work across various subsets , such as age, economic position etc) are readily available from ONS, and gov.uk-statistics.

I would link to, or quote from, them, but it would be largely a waste of effort as (some/too many) people would continue to play ‘I’ll see your data, and raise you three anecdotes’.

I think the big thing is likely to be whether you have paid off a mortgage or not. I retired at 57, on far less than half my salary (and with no inheritance), but my expenses are low, as I overpaid on the mortgage and paid it off before leaving work, as well as building a savings pot as a cushion against having such a limited income for such a long time before SPA. Anyone who is renting or still paying off a mortgage might struggle on a tiny pension, but it was a deliberate choice to have less disposable income in the working years so that I would have more choices about retirement.

I feel for the upcoming generations who will find it so much harder to do the same because of the cost of housing; but it is one of the reasons I struggle to get on board when those with no understanding of people's personal circumstances declare others 'able to afford' this or that.

It’s a mixed bunch, a lot of professionals retire on a good pension at 60 or earlier, plenty of couples who have paid off the mortgage, one will cease work, others have had an inheritance some have a parent or grandchild to care for.

The best of luck getting any of them to return to work

I think you are right about the government talking about people under 67 (Because it’s 67 now. At least for me) going back into the workforce M0nica. But there are some things we need to remember about the sources of income.

You don’t just have to have just one source of income after you stop working. If you have been in the fortunate position of being able to plan ahead, you might be surprised at the income you get. Even as a person with £100,000 income that’s not actually what you take home of course. You might take home £55k? So, your income wouldn’t drop by 75% if you have a £25k pension. It’s quite likely that your outgoings are nowhere near what they were while you were working; no work clothes, no canteen lunches, less spent on travel….

You might have had a redundancy pay-out. You might have paid off your mortgage years ago. You might have savings. Then any inheritances. What I inherited from my parents is nowhere near the Inheritance Tax threshold, but it’s money on top of everything else.

I don’t have a partner still working, he doesn’t need to either.

Nearly everyone I know has retired in their fifties and none of them get benefits. I know that we are lucky, but we’re not unique.

I ‘retired ‘ at 60 , but not willingly - I had to care for a very elderly mother with Dementia ( she has recently gone into carehome) and my husband who has Alzheimer’s. I also look after my DGS after school. So, If the Government is serious about this issue sort out Social Care and Childcare costs and watch me whizz back to teaching

I think people are rather over reacting to part of what the government sais. I do not think they are talking about those over retirement age goig back to work. They are talking about those between 50 and 65 who have dropped out of the workforce.

I must say I am puzzled by the number of people between 50 and 65 who can afford not to work and who clearly will not get any benefits. I know one reason suggested was big inheritances, but the average house price in the UK is just over £300,000 and assuming 2 children, that is £150,000 each, a substantial sum, but not enough to support you for 10 + years - and you go into retirement when you could most need that money as a cushion, with nothing at all.

The same with early retirement. even someone in a very high paid job, is going to see their occupational pension slashed if they retire in their 50s. If you earn £100,000 a year and expect a pension of £50,000 if you work to retirement age, it could be slashed to £25,000 or less if you retired in your 50s, and while £25,000 is a large pension to most, for someone on £100,000 that is a 75% drop in income.

I suspect a lot of those not working are people in their 60s and close to retirement age, others will be part timers, especially older women, who discovered in lockdown that, with a partner still working, the household could manage with only one income. There is also the child care issue. Quite a number of members of GN say they ave given up work or shortened their hours when they became grandparents to provide child care.

I couldn’t think of anything worse😮

I’ve always worked to live, and since retirement have just lived and love it.

I think there may be many a person who would like to return to part time work or voluntereing,but unable to because they are now looking after elderly parents/relatives.

MerylStreep

I have one friend who was a pathologist with the Met. She works on the tills at a supermarket and loves it.
Another had a very senior position in a branch of the NHS.
She retired years ago and now works in care in a non managerial role, or as she puts it: the coal face end.

Yes same here threw the towel in on nursing, now stress free part time supermarket work, love it.

biglouis

*people drawing their pension and going back to work get taxed and charged NI*

Retirees with a skill (eg electrics, carpentry, DIY etc) and well educated professional people are probably able to organise a cash-in-hand side hustle to fill the gap if they need more income. Sensible retirees will have done their sums and made a decision whether they want to return to work simply to pay the tax man.

My late mother, a retired Sister in the NHS, did that - went back to work. A big engineering company (remember those?) - Ruston and Hornsby in Lincoln - desperately needed a night-sister to take charge of their ambulance room at the factory which operated day and night. An interesting and challenging job, so she picked up the baton.
Her salary and pension were lumped together and she was taxed on the whole. With all the associated costs of taking on the job (she lived in the countryside) it just wasn't worth it, so she quit.
You're right - retirees will need to do the sums. She wasn't averse to paying tax, but life is short, and even shorter when you reach retirement and those retirees who've made the decision to take themselves out of the job market (and good luck to them too if they can afford it) will, I'm sure, calculate carefully. Especially if they are aware of the fact that they're the first to be pushed out of a job when it suits...

Mollygo

Is the government’s wish for inactive 50+ to return to work because they are claiming benefits in one form or another?
Or maybe because there is finally an acknowledgement of the ageism faced by those over 50s when they want to work?
Or even acknowledgement that experience has value?
I like my work, but I couldn’t have afforded to retire from it in my 50’s as some have done without having to find a different source of income.

Putting the inactive in a group "claiming benefits" would mean another group for the haters to hate. The government would love that as it distracts from their dire mistakes and the awful state they have got us into.

If you want people to stop claiming benefits for long-term illnesses, you need to have a working health service. If you want people to stop claiming benefits because they have become a carer, you have to have a working and affordable care system.

As a condition of being "inactive" is that you are not working and not looking for a job (some students add to this total, for instance), then what other "benefits" could they claim?

This is not as complicated as the government is trying to make it. They want to distract us from their part in the mess that is currently our country.

volver

^But the increase is for 50-64 year olds with no indication of the main increase on an age basis. There would anyway have been a substantial increase in retirement because of the increased birth rate 1950-60. And because of that it is also reasonable to suppose that much of that increase is over 60s retiring. It would be necessary to break the figures down more to prove there were more over 50s.^

Chapter 3, especially point 32.

I don't get the impressions this analysis was done on the back of an envelope.

Some people in this group will still have had occupational pensions which allowed them to retire at 60 or earlier.

My understanding is that most of the current job vacancies are in relatively low paid roles.

Anybody below state pension age who has already retired probably has another form of income (private pension, rental income or whatever). They're probably already using up their personal tax allowance, so they would lose income tax and NICs on anything they earn. If they pay is (for example) £10 an hour, they'll end up with £6.66 minus the costs of travel and clothes, etc. It would have to be a very enjoyable job to tempt me back for that.

I would imagine that anybody with a skill which enables freelance work is already doing whatever they want - when they want.

PS. You can earn £1000 a year from online earnings without paying tax, so clear out your cupboards (and sell on eBay or Vinted) and (for teachers) sell a few worksheets - it's a lot less hassle than having to get up in the morning to go to work.

But the increase is for 50-64 year olds with no indication of the main increase on an age basis. There would anyway have been a substantial increase in retirement because of the increased birth rate 1950-60. And because of that it is also reasonable to suppose that much of that increase is over 60s retiring. It would be necessary to break the figures down more to prove there were more over 50s.

Chapter 3, especially point 32.

I don't get the impressions this analysis was done on the back of an envelope.

Louisa1523, but you don’t have to be officially low paid or on UC for it to make no financial sense to work when you have young children.

My dd is not low paid, but even so, when she had 2 in nursery 4 days a week, the costs swallowed up virtually everything she earned. She chose however to work because in her particular sector it would have been hard or impossible to return a few years later at anything like the same level.

A secondary school teacher friend of hers, sought-after independent school, so better paid than state school, gave up teaching when childcare costs meant it just wasn’t worth it for the paltry sum left over.

people drawing their pension and going back to work get taxed and charged NI

Retirees with a skill (eg electrics, carpentry, DIY etc) and well educated professional people are probably able to organise a cash-in-hand side hustle to fill the gap if they need more income. Sensible retirees will have done their sums and made a decision whether they want to return to work simply to pay the tax man.

volver

Its not a lie. Why do people just not want to believe something just because they think it doesn't paint them in a good light? Out with 5 friends this week, four of us had stopped work in the last few years, while still in our fifties. All, happily, "living the life of Riley". Which means not getting up in the dark at 6:30am to go to work, and deciding what we want to do all day. And accepting that we might have a bit less disposable income because of that.

Link to the report, plus graph attached.

publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld5803/ldselect/ldeconaf/115/11502.htm

But the increase is for 50-64 year olds with no indication of the main increase on an age basis. There would anyway have been a substantial increase in retirement because of the increased birth rate 1950-60. And because of that it is also reasonable to suppose that much of that increase is over 60s retiring. It would be necessary to break the figures down more to prove there were more over 50s.

I am still working at 62 but badly need a hip op. I might have to retire early due to constant pain. If the NHS was working I wouldn’t have to wait 2-3 years. And no way do I want the gov doing a review of my income, savings etc. none of their business. Additionally people drawing their pension and going back to work get taxed and charged NI. It doesn’t seem worth it. Will they force us back?!

Grantanow

This is just another Tory scheme to avoid the truth: that immigrants are essential to our economy.

... yes, and it will probably backfire because there will not be sufficient numbers to fill the gap!

Merry Christmas!

agnurse

I live in Canada, but even here, we had people quit during the pandemic. The college where I teach offered all employees 55+ early retirement when the pandemic hit. A few of my colleagues accepted that offer.

Seems like some companies have shot themselves in the foot - they wanted to get rid of the over 50s during the pandemic because they were surplus to requirement, but now business has picked up and they can't attract the younger workers they thought might come flocking - they want the over 50s back again...

Tough. Some of those retired have now made other arrangements. Even in a 'flexible' labour market, you can't just fire and hire at will.

This is just another Tory scheme to avoid the truth: that immigrants are essential to our economy.

I live in Canada, but even here, we had people quit during the pandemic. The college where I teach offered all employees 55+ early retirement when the pandemic hit. A few of my colleagues accepted that offer.

Is the government’s wish for inactive 50+ to return to work because they are claiming benefits in one form or another?
Or maybe because there is finally an acknowledgement of the ageism faced by those over 50s when they want to work?
Or even acknowledgement that experience has value?
I like my work, but I couldn’t have afforded to retire from it in my 50’s as some have done without having to find a different source of income.

We are both retired, left in our 50s. I am sorry but I won't be going back to work.

Whitewavemark2

If I knew of 50+ year olds who were living the life of Riley after lockdown and no longer working, I would believe the government.

I know lots of 50+ year olds all busy working and wishing they could retire, but couldn’t possibly afford to do so for years to come.

So I think this is yet another lie, to hid the truth.

I have two extended family members who intend to retire this year and have planned for some time to do so. One is in their mid fifties and the other a couple of years older.

The idea this government is offering an "MOT" to discuss income in retirement (presumably to dissuade people from taking early retirement) will be of no use to them as they have planned this since they started work. Fifty year olds have had a very different view of pensions to those 20+ years older than them. This was mainly brought about by government propaganda so they really can't complain if people did what they were told.

This government could have taken the ageing population into account 12 years ago. They simply chose not to and will no doubt now blame others as they always do.

If you can't work because you are too ill to work (they are also part of the "inactive" statistic) I don't think you will get back any quicker under a government determined to destroy the NHS and deprive people for up to a year of the benefits that would help them live properly and, hopefully, get better.