State retirement age is too old for working class people

[Spiceup]

An observation from some things I've seen lately. I'll explain.

I work in a public sector organisation that employees highly qualified and very well paid professionals alongside support staff on not much more than minimum wage and those in between.

Part of my role is managing sickness absence. What I am seeing lately is that the professional types, despite doing what are generally accepted to be stressful jobs, on the whole, stay well until well into their sixties, although many do retire earlier simply because they have the kind of pensions that make that possible.

People in the more lowly jobs are often genuinely finished by their mid-late 50s. Just worn out and suffering from multiple health problems. Perhaps because of their lifestyles or maybe from just having harder lives (not necessarily harder work lives, but getting by is just generally harder for them). To have to go on to 67 is just absurd and very few do, with ill health retirement common (so the state is paying anyway).

I can't begin to imagine how similar people manage in genuinely physical jobs, in construction for example.

Is it more common for working class people in their 50s to be worn out, or perhaps more comfortably off professionals retire before they get to that point so I don't see it?

Oh maybe.

@julieca

I didnt know you could claim UC carers allowance? You mean if you are on UC? I care for a relative and work, but have cared enough hours at times in the past to be entitled to carers allowance. I don't see why most carers would be on UC? If you don't have kids under 18 years of age and no rent, the amount of income you can earn is very low to claim UC. My part-time work on a low income meant I wasn't entitled.

Many many carers are on UC ! If you have a low income ( which many carers will as they work part time around their caring duties), rent to pay, kids etc then they are highly likely to claim UC to survive. Someone who earns too much ( over £128 a week ) to claim carers allowance can still claim the UC carers element. This gives them an extra £163 a month on their UC claim as well as any other elements they are eligible for. Claiming carers element also has other benefit like exempting you from the benefits cap I believe. UC is getting far more generous so yes people should check whether they are now eligible.

Ffs it’s a race to the bottom isn’t it. No one can survive and pay their bills and rent on £128 per week, even if they get £163 per month UC.

Lots of people don’t claim benefits but care for elderly or sick relatives.

Yes I care for a relative, but they don't get PIP or DLA. They are either too well not to get it, or too ill to engage in the process - szichophrenia.

@julieca

Yes I care for a relative, but they don't get PIP or DLA. They are either too well not to get it, or too ill to engage in the process - szichophrenia.

So regardless of what you earned you couldn’t get carers allowance anyway...you’re not eligible

@Kitkat151 no I wouldnt. But I thought the earning component applied to all carers, seems I was wrong.

I do think the criteria for receiving a carer’s allowance has changed. So even if you earn the correct amount, if the person you are caring for doesn’t receive the correct benefit or is just a pensioner not on benefits, you cannot claim.

To claims carers the person always had receive an care element of pip or DLA for you to qualify or attendance allowance. It’s not enough say ye I do 35h care a week to get it.

I’m not saying it should be as easy as that but there is an army of people, women especially, who care for vulnerable and sick relatives and if a couple of quid would help them out then they should get some help.

@Malibuismysecrethome

I do think the criteria for receiving a carer’s allowance has changed. So even if you earn the correct amount, if the person you are caring for doesn’t receive the correct benefit or is just a pensioner not on benefits, you cannot claim.

Many older persons do not require any care.....beyond a bit of shopping, taking to appoint,ents ( certainly not 35 hours) and if they do, they or their relative can claim attendance allowance

Kitcat151 as I don’t work in the social services or benefit office I wouldn’t know. I suspect it is equally as difficult to qualify. As an aside have you ever taken an elderly relative to outpatient hospital appointments or emergency A&E I would say that is more caring than just attending.

@Malibuismysecrethome

Kitcat151 as I don’t work in the social services or benefit office I wouldn’t know. I suspect it is equally as difficult to qualify. As an aside have you ever taken an elderly relative to outpatient hospital appointments or emergency A&E I would say that is more caring than just attending.

Yes lots of times...my Mum is 85.....that’s just what the benefit is called ( attendance allowance) ....after 65 you cannot claim PIP or DLA ....I don’t work for the benefits office either....I’m a nurse....My point is ...carers allowance is designed for people ‘caring’ for a minimum of 35 hours..... although many people care in excess of this and also work full time...therefore they are entitled to diddly squat. I am 56 and will be taking retirement well before I am 60.... I am lucky that I will get a decent NHS pension ....I know I am very fortunate ...l then I won’t have to worry about my Mum as I will be around more for her and also around for my DD to support with childcare when needed.

Well you are fortunate that it will be an NHS pension and that you will be able to retire before 60. Unlike thousands of others .....

@Malibuismysecrethome

Well you are fortunate that it will be an NHS pension and that you will be able to retire before 60. Unlike thousands of others .....

I know...like I said...very fortunate....and I realise it’s not the same for many others

@Almostwelsh

I think it's shocking the way a lot of roles in the NHS rely on 12 hour shifts. These don't allow adequate recovery time between shifts.

I know they are offered partly because they are popular with some workers because of the longer time off between blocks of shifts, but long term they aren't good for health and older workers in particular are likely to start to struggle with them. So the effect is to lose older workers once they can't manage any more.

I've argued and argued this, but my 22-40 childless year old work colleagues love 12-13 hour shifts.

Til they marry/ have DC/ have a partner who's pissed off that they're at work every weekend/exhausted after day/ night three.

I tell them 'try that at 58, let alone 67, my friends', because that's what lies ahead.

@2020isnotbehaving

Plus once you have savings over £6000 the amount you get is reduced. By some stupid high level I think it’s £16 per month per £1000 to account for interest which is laughable given rates. so if you have £4K savings over £6k limit that’s £52 month they deduct from your benefits.

It’s trap even if on low wage you do save money for retirement at any point when you can’t work it all gets reduced anyway.

That is ridiculous about being penalised for savings, I agree that shouldn't be the case at all, but I think pensions are excluding from the savings calculation? Because you have no access to that money until much later. I could be wrong.

But if you are on a low income you may not have enough left over to say even put £50 month into a pension every month. If you have £50 left every other month you may try save it and slowly build up to say £6000 by your 50s. It is pointless over say 20y having that in a pension scheme it’s going give you something like £20 (or less) per month by time you retire. I’m guessing but given we regular have people saying my pension pot is £500k can I live on it it’s not going be enough to do much.

If you go down pension route you may then lose any pension credit so be no better off plus you may had no spare cash at all for 20-30y it took you to save it.

@2020isnotbehaving

But if you are on a low income you may not have enough left over to say even put £50 month into a pension every month. If you have £50 left every other month you may try save it and slowly build up to say £6000 by your 50s. It is pointless over say 20y having that in a pension scheme it’s going give you something like £20 (or less) per month by time you retire. I’m guessing but given we regular have people saying my pension pot is £500k can I live on it it’s not going be enough to do much.

If you go down pension route you may then lose any pension credit so be no better off plus you may had no spare cash at all for 20-30y it took you to save it.

The reason saving into a pension scheme is worth it is because even in minimum wage jobs contributions are normally matched and they are also tax free, so paying in £50 oneself would only result in a £40 deduction from net and wit the employer matching it would mean £100 pqid into the pension.

Also very few people now cash in for an annuity, at the point of retirement the money being in a pension will mean it is considerably more than it would have been in a savings account.

I agree with everything that @MatildaIThink says above about money being better in a pension pot.

There are not many decent savings accounts out there that are worth putting your money in.

I have been in the 'unskilled sector' since an office redundancy in the mid-1990s. Fifteen years later, in 2010, we had a seismic shift in our work opportunities at ours, and we both took the decision that my partner work full-time and I stay at home full-time for a couple of years, with our then toddler twins.

A couple of years turned to 8, and by now in my mid-50s I was unable to find a job that wasn't menial. Inspired by my DD's musings on my health worries, I became a Postie in 2018. Now approaching 62, and with the State Pensionable age just over 4 years away, I breathe a sigh of relief that my physical wellbeing is being aided by my work choices.

However, I also see for myself just how many long-term/career Posties in their late-50s to mid-60s cannot afford to retire before the State Pension age snd often work beyond it. In the 4 years since I joined my current Delivery Office we have lost almost 50% of our older staff due to the ever increasing physical demands of the work, would-be retirees who are either on long-term sick leave or who have simply died on the job.

There is a long-held prevailing wisdom in the UK that the lower-paid/unskilled sector somehow gets what it deserves. Without sufficient financial resources to maintain a healthy work-life balance, and without the means to invest in improved health and fitness as it ages, decreased life expectancy remains in direct proportion to levels of deprivation.

Little wonder that our nation's more well-heeled see little need for change in conditions for the poorer-paid. The authors of Brittania Unchained argue that "the British are among the worst idlers in the world. We work among the lowest hours, we retire early and our productivity is poor." Tell that to the working-class...

I agree there should be different ages dependant on type of role, but then Gov would just say well find a different job.
I know people that have move from care 12 hour physical shifts to Aldi check out type work. Still demanding but not as physical.
I'm late 40's and full time in an office role and it's mentally tiring but I don't want to retire early, would probably find something part time.