Economically inactive people……

Those retired on private pensions are designated economically inactive.

Which is sort of what this thread is about.

Absolutely this. Well said! 👏🏻

And he's taking a massive risk. She could dump him tomorrow and pay child maintenance at a maximum of 20% of her salary and keep the rest herself. Spousal maintenance isn't really a thing in the UK any more.

Her salary recognises that the spouse is unlikely to be able to work and that often the kids will be in private schools.

It doesn’t. She’d be paid exactly the same if she was childless and single. Or if she had a spouse with an equally lucrative career.

It's not any better for kids to be in care outside the home then home with a parent either.

It's just wishful thinking to imagine that adults in families can live and work as completely independent units.

Most of the cases I know where parents are doctors or lawyers they have a nanny, because institutional childcare doesn't have the kind of flexibility they need, but the principle is the same, you see similar scenarios where a parent is in the military, a trucker or pilot, has a job that involves working in a foreign country. My cousin works in finance generally overseas, her spouse absolutely facilitates that as it means he can't work at all for the most part. Her salary recognises that the spouse is unlikely to be able to work and that often the kids will be in private schools.

Frankly it's bizarre to say that it is productive for her to spend her money on a nanny or a boarding school, but not to use it to allow her husband to be with her, take care of the kids, and volunteer at the international school.

I guess I am one of the economically inactive. I had to stop work at 44 due to health problems, not entitled to any benefits and DH earns too much so he pays for everything. I am bored out of my mind, cannot even get a voluntary job as they want references and I do not have anyone, I am very lonely and isolated now. Since Covid started the only people that I have spoken to are DH and some health professionals. I never leave the house , there is nowhere to go and I cannot afford bus fare, taxis, I live rurally.

I don’t pay much. I work 26 hours a week at near enough NMW, and pay a lot into my pension.

So I suppose I’m not economically active now, though I’m doing what I can to support my future.

I'm about to become economically inactive.

I agree with OP. Not enough is being done to identify who can get into work, what will help them. We are not being told who they are referring to when they bang on about it.

There's no real plan in place.

I'm having to quit work, my health is terrible. I work from home already but thr nature of the job is not sustainable for me with my health conditions (lots of client contact, no routine, no real time for breaks, vague directions).

Plan was originally to go to Uni (distance learning) , get a better education to hopefully open a wider range of WFH roles for myself, then re-enter the workforce.

I was told, in no uncertain terms, by a large proportion of mumsnet that I couldn't be able to handle uni due to my health, wouldn't be able to get any other jobs working from home even with my chosen degree. (many people were encouraging, but the ones who weren't are sadly perhaps sharing their views with the people I'd hope would be hiring me - having disabilities and needing to WFH means you're a useless loser) .

So I'm too sick to work and not wanted. I'm trying so hard to participate, but I am not wanted. So I'm still having to quit my job now, cus I can't bloody do it, but with no forward path. I will be economically inactive, willing to change that, but not given any realistic or sustainable way of doing so... Unless I miraculously stop being autistic and my other health conditions miraculously reverse.

It really seems like the government - and those in mumsnet - think I can just stop having health conditons. Like, I can just choose to stop it.

When you stop working, you'll pay less tax as your earnings will be lower. That's a downside for Govt

It's not better for kids to be home all day with a nanny rather than mum or dad

How is it any different to childcare outside the home? This nonsense about facilitating someone else’s career makes me see red. It’s complete bollocks.

I think you could make an argument that at least in some cases, the SAHP is effectivly a contributor to the other parent's job.

For example, people I know that are in high end law jobs, or some doctors, have such time demanding jobs that they are not able to contribute to a lot of the day to day work of having kids. In my experience if the spouse also works they have a nanny, but often the other parent stays home with the kids instead. They aren't getting paid in the normal way, but they are providing the flexibility needed for the working parent to manage that kind of job.

It's a bit silly in a way that the nanny counts as economically active, while the spouse doesn't, fulfilling the same role.

Increasing productivity is important, but I do think that we have to be careful about failing to recognise that some people are filling important and necessary roles that allow others to be productive. It's not better for kids to be home all day with a nanny rather than mum or dad, and it's not a good thing if the economy pushes for that in the name of productivity.

He also said ignorance had to end. Maybe you can focus on that one.

The Chinese term is Tang ping · 躺平. 🙂

I wonder how accurate the numbers are. So, they know who is claiming benefits, but some of those will be working, does HMRC and the DSS have joined up systems??

DD and thousands of others have just finished their studies, if you don't claim, how do they know they are NEETS? DD and many of her friends are all travelling at the moment.

DH and I are retired early and living off savings. How do they know what we are doing??

My BiL retired at 53.5 - he was offered early retirement and grabbed it with both hands. Obv. his pension was reduced, but he and Dsis seem to have done fine anyway.

Try reading again. Or perhaps not, it won’t make any difference.

I can read perfectly well thanks. Perhaps you should write better?

And you can’t read either. Okay then.

I was not the one saying that economically inactive people - like the disabled, sick and elderly - have no right to expect to use public services or get "free money". I presume you are happy for those people to starve?

Do you always rant like this? Or is this an exception. Anyway, you have no idea about me or any other poster here. So rant away.

I plan on being economically inactive from age 60 when I will retire and live off my savings, and I can't wait.
My son is economically inactive due to severe mental health conditions, although he does spend his benefits, I mean he needs to eat, so I guess that helps.
Two very different scenarios, so yes they should really define exactly what they mean.

And there are even more with genuine mental health conditions who cannot work