To think increasing pension age isn’t going to add up?

https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/long-reads/whats-happening-life-expectancy-england

The fall in life expectancy in England resulting from the Covid-19 pandemic was unprecedented in recent decades, and life expectancy has not yet recovered to pre-pandemic levels.
Future improvements in life expectancy depend on many factors. However, the outlook for England is not promising given the deterioration in population health. The poor health of children, the huge and growing backlog of unmet health care needs (pre-dating the pandemic but exacerbated by it), the almost 3 million – and rising – working-age adults unable to work because of long-term sickness, the persistent constraints on NHS capacityand widening health inequalities illustrate the scale of the challenges that need to be addressed. Added to these are the unpredictable risks of, for example, periodic resurgences in Covid-19, flu or other viral infections, and extreme climate change events such as the heatwaves in 2022.
Life expectancy in the UK compared poorly with most comparator countries before the Covid-19 pandemic; higher excess mortality during the pandemic has resulted in the UK’s further downward slide in international life expectancy tables, with female life expectancy now the lowest among comparator countries (with the exception of the US). Meaningful long-term gains in reducing health inequalities and improving population health and the UK’s life expectancy relative to comparator countries have never been more urgent and yet also more challenging.

As a group, no Boomers are not net contributors. Some are, obviously, my husband being one of them (and me, as a Gen X). But as a group, no. Figures from LSE. Probably also buried in ONS too, if you care to look.

Probably true. Beveridge was in favour of universal benefit so that those who needed it less would buy in to the idea of paying for it for those needed it more.

“Means testing is offered 'only on terms which make men unwilling to have recourse to it', and they 'penalise what people have come to regard as the duty and pleasure of thrift, of putting pennies away for a rainy day'”.

I’ve always thought it would be good way to stop the moaning of the sainted taxpayer but I suppose the contributions in vs benefits out argument will always win out.

You will end up as a self-employed tutor and/or teaching older children/young adults in the badly funded further sector who need to get an English qualification.

At school we had one teacher in his mid-60s. He came back as supply only to teach specific classes e.g. the classes who wouldn't give him shit as they needed to pass in the subject he taught. He didn't do more than a year though.

I also had good teachers who were younger who unfortunately didn't managed to live long after retirement.

Sounds good, getting paid to exercise!!

They are also forced out as they are expensive.

A lot of menial work is very physical though.

I’m a boomer who was a single parent for most of my Gen X kid’s childhood. Like you, I worked full time, did all the housework and was responsible for everything. I was by no means alone.

Me too. Took care of aging parents too.

I’m an English teacher.

Imagine having 70 year old teachers!

@MrsMurphyIWish There's so few older teachiers now isn't there. It's another ticking time bomb. Many go part/time or rely on partners income.

I'm a bit younger than you but thinking I need to get out and find something that can sustain me as a second career also

Finally (because I'm spent too long on this thread and must stop taking it over, and also need to get on with offline life - my own fault for getting too invested!).

In reply to some people suggesting there's no money to address society's issues. There is enough money. It's simply being misspent.

As a previous poster said, within her and many people's lifetimes there's been a massive shift. From having well-funded and well-managed public services and state owned necessities (housing, energy, water, healthcare, social services etc).

Shifted to privatisation, cuts, and out-sourcing of all of these - at great cost to individuals, to society, and to the economy.

I posted earlier about the false economy approach - austerity and similar policies. I've also posted links on other threads about the massive costs of false economy - to individuals and the economy.

If anyone's interested (or even if you're not, because I can't help myself sometimes and I think it's worth people seeing, I'll post the links here later).

So basically, there is enough money. Simply the false economy approach and misspending needs to end.

What do you teach?

BTW the government still has time to accelerate the pension age as they said they will give 10 years notice minimum.

Gen X teacher here 👋 Taught since 2000, current retirement age 68 (Born late 78 so miss the April 78 cut off to retire at 67).

Teachers pensions aren’t great now - I’m at the age where they’re tied to state pension age. I am hoping to leave in 6 years and do a less stressful job but will I find another career at 52?

I think you might find we are if you look at contributions over a lifetime. Many of us were higher rate tax payers for 20+ years while taking nothing in healthcare or education.

@BIossomtoes No, there have been analyses done on how much each generation pays in vs. takes out. Baby boomers will take out roughly 25-30% more than they have paid in - more than any other generation.

I'm not saying that it's their fault, they should be taxed more, but I think it's completely understandable why later generations are angry.

@Reugny which may be true just odd that they are saying millions of others were similar 😆😆😆

Basically the poster didn't go to school in the UK and arrived here in their 20s, and didn't have children.

I was thinking of the growing number of people private renting in poverty in older age, when I spoke of care home costs taking inheritance. Which costs taxpayers (which is all of us - because everyone pays tax) many billions. In housing and other benefits, and health and social care costs, because private renting harns health.

The fastest growing group of private renters are over 45. It's a ticking time bomb re the future with benefits and retirement costs.

Re morally right. Is it morally right to take their inheritance, when there's not enough social housing? Older private renters are statistically the poorest group of renters and studies have found many have been in poverty for long periods.

The answer really though is

a) more social housing asap - including for older people and smaller households.

b) tax inheritance on the wealth of the recipient, plus defer care home fees when the would-be recipient of an inheritance has a need for housing or financial support (either due to low wages or disability or caring responsibilities).

Milkandacookie what region is that? It just wasn't like that where i live (south west).

Yup I'm in my 40s and when I was at school most mums either were sahm or had a very part time job in my area. One wage was enough (and that person needn't have been to uni either) to have a house nicer than mine is now!

It was a different world.

Re net contribution.

If looking at it from purely amount paid in, no age group is a net contributor. Only the richest (who exist in all age groups) are. But they can afford to - and can afford to without losing a still very high standard of living.

Although in a way everyone actually is a net contributor even if not directly through income tax etc. Those many low paid, and also average paid, workers? They're keeping the businesses going and in (often large) profit. And those unable to work? They're also keeping the economy going, through keeping the jobs of the many people in health and social care.

Also contribution to society is impossible to look at on purely financial terms.

And it's a slippery slope, starting to look at who's paid "their share" the most and so who deserves the most back.

I mean, if going down that road then childless and childfree people would justifiably say they pay the most and get the least back. Especially single childless/childfree.

Lower priority for housing and less welfare benefits, no need for schooling (yes, they went to school, but now they also pay for our children to go to school), less use of healthcare (only use for themselves, unlike us parents who use maternity care, and then healthcare for our children).

And no, the majority of children aren't going to become professional carers - so no they won't, when adults, be caring for the childless/childfree. Nor will they be funding pensions - given the increased pension age with the consequence that lots of people will probably die before getting a pension.

To clarify. I am not saying that's a road I want to go down, with that argument of who pays in the most and/or takes the least back. I'm simply giving an example of what happens if we start doing that.

With AI flying up, most generations will be a drain on financial resources. Many jobs will go. How this is managed remains to be seen. 🤷‍♀️

Correct. I'm a boomer and my DS is only 16. That makes him firmly Gen Z.

Never happen!
We will absolutely bankrupt the country first. Demographics are changing. Pensioners had always been the highest voting demographic, they are also growing as a percentage of the electorate. No politician dare piss them off.