Who are all these ‘economically inactive’ 50 year olds

[Orangetapemeasure]

The government is trying to encourage 300000 or so ‘economically inactive’ 50+ year olds back to work. Who are these people and what do they do?
I can imagine some people in their 60s deciding to retire early, but I don’t know a single 50 year old who has or could afford to give up work. In fact I know several previously SAHM who are only launching their careers in their mid 40s. I’m mid 40s with a good 15-20 years left to work.
MN please enlighten me.

Why should someone who wants to retire, and can afford to, have to retrain and not get their pension when they choose?

What the pp is saying is that they shouldn't be able to get a pension after only 30 years but should be supported into new work

What is also missing is an analysis of the job gaps

Social care, hospitality, agriculture

Physically demanding , poor pay, irregular hours - yip I can see that appealing to the average 50 year old

Perhaps if there was a rethink about the whole nature and point of work

• we need to get away from continual growth economics which is always going to be unsustainable, which is always going to lead us to climate destruction;
• we need to value people more - those social care jobs should be paid more than the jobs in algorithms trying to encourage an extra 1% to buy your product

The simple truth and basic difference is that wealthy or well off people are living life and that poor or poorer working people are just waiting for it to end, preferably before they get old.

We're not really designed to work well into our 60s. Your body gradually slows down a lot as you age. Physical labour isn't realistic and even with desk jobs your mind isn't as sharp as you get older.

The issue is people on average live a lot longer now. 100 years ago life expectancy was around 50, now it's in the 80s, therefore 20-30 years is a long time to be idle and rely on the state and health care system in old age.

It'll be a problem with the next generations because they won't be able to afford to retire until state pension age, in a majority of cases, and that'll be into the 70s for people in their 20s and 30s now (if not even 40s).

And the wealthy make life worse for everyone else by voting Tory.

@neitherofthem I don't fall into any of those categories.
I bought my house at 19 and overpaid the mortgage and have never moved.
I've never owns car .
I had my first child at 19 and second at 23 so both are now adults and have their own homes.
I've always been savvy with the money I earn and the plan was always to stop working while I was young enough to go off and do things.

I thought teaching was 40 years service now? And that we don't get pension until late 60s.
There's no way I'll be able to retire in my 50s. Nor dh. We've still got 15 years on the mortgage, for a start, then kids will be around uni age.

Anyone who worked for an emergency service could retire after 30 years...so if you joined the fire service age 20, you could retire on full pension at 50.

Well, it depends on when you started. All the teachers I know who retires in their 50s, we’re 20 years older than me back when the teacher pension was much better!

The only people I know who are retired in their 50s are nurses and policemen.

My Dad is one of these. A good number of well paid jobs in his 20s and 30s, ended up as a sales director of a big company. Jacked it all in in his 40s and went off to be a watersports instructor for sports holidays, ended up managing the center after a couple of years. Pretty much retired at 50, lives off his savings and income from a few rental properties. Now 62, he does about 4 week's work a year for a charity. The government would probably love to get him back into work, so they could earn a nice chunk of tax off him, which is a shame as he has absolutely no interest.

It might seem selfish but look at it this way. We passed the exams, we worked our way up, we invested and invested our money, therefore we decide what to do with it.
The people who are happy to share our money didn't help us do any of it so they don't get to spend it. Nothing unfair about it.

I prefer a more equal society as I think that's better for me & my dc. I would prefer nurses & carers etc to get paid better wages as I think that benefits society as a whole. I don't qualify for any help but don't have an issue with paying for a wider safer net as again there's a wider benefit. You can disagree of course.

I think this thread has really laid bare what a divided country we are, with a clear split between the haves and the have-nots.

The current system often requires the have nots to work & provide services to the haves. Are people going to want to be carers etc working for a pittance & no option to retire early for others who may be doing everything the can to reduce their tax liability for their dc?

I spent so many years scrimping and saving to over pay the mortgage to afford this life. I also couldn't afford kids so guess what, i never had any. I worked a full time job whilst going to university in the evenings, all paid for by my job, to get a qualification to get myself a better job. Which then gave me a final salary pension. Which I worked all the hours under the sun to be good at?

Why is it 'equal' for me to hand over a portion of my savings or pension to you because you couldn't do the same? Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to save money and should have to give it all away, and live in poverty as that's 'equal'?

Absolutely.

The over 55s who've left work are usually doing so because of some or all of sufficient non-work income to live on, illness or caring responsibilities. What this means is that the jobs that might make them willing and able to come back are going to have to be flexible ones. They're not going to return for 12 hour shifts in hospitality with the rota given a week in advance. It'll have to be roles that provide fully remote and hybrid options.

@AlisonDonut I don't think you read my posts probably, I was replying to posts talking about reducing all IHT liability. What makes you think I need your money? How does a younger person access a final salary pension scheme now?

Are you saying that people shouldn't be allowed to save money and should have to give it all away, and live in poverty as that's 'equal'?

where on earth did I say that?

To use your logic, why should a younger person pay lots of tax towards state pensions for older people when they are looking at an older state pension age?

Part of the reason we can is having lean years at the start of our marriage. We've not inherited, but we did benefit from a maintenance grant at uni.

Then we married, got a house and lived on baked beans for a few years, then had kids.

Because we are still together, we've paid off our mortgage. We've saved hard and only had a few fancy holidays. Mainly we stayed in the UK. We didn't eat out much or have take aways, and always had basic phones on minimal sim contracts.

We've never been as well off as we are now- the kids aren't costing us anything. Friends had more fun when they were younger, but aren't in a position to slow down now.

It's our turn.

I know several ex forces who have retired early (early to mid fifties). Not high ranking either. Just v generous pensions and low outgoings. They all had thoughts of doing a bit of work (retraining as plasterers etc) but havent done so.

The problem is what the government mean is getting people back into low paid, insecure jobs and often unwanted by anyone positions. Anyone who has had any type of decent job in the past will not now want to wait tables, provide personal care for old people or pick veg. The youngsters coming out of uni with their shiny degrees won't do it either.

As regards it showing the 'haves and have nots' I would argue that people on their 50's had the best opportunities, it was there for the taking. I left school with 2 very poor 'A' levels but still got a very good career. Many didn't get a degree but still managed to get a job and climb the ladder. There was not the benefit cushion there us now.

Someone mentioned a wealth tax earlier on in the thread. If they do this I think many will leave, we certainly will.

The government have made this situation. There is little job security, there is no loyalty either employer or employee. People are treated badly and are poorly paid. Tesco made £22 billion last year, all supermarkets increased their profits hugely during the pandemic yet they still pay crap money. The divide between working and benefits is now too small.

I think it probably depends on whether those who are economically inactive are that way because:

they have worked hard or otherwise squirrelled away the funds to support themselves in the lifestyle they want to live

They are a SAHP who has looked after DCs and/or older parents - potentially now being in a Position to go back into workforce

They have been made redundant and are no longer able to find decent work due to changing skill and qualification levels

They have depended on state benefits for years and do not intend to seek work to support themselves

and lots of other reasons in between those big generalisations.

I presume the Government is trying to reduce the burden on the benefits system. Especially with bigger demands expected in the future with the ageing population trends.

If people are no longer out earning a formal wage, but are in a position to support themselves. Without relying on the Government - whether from savings or inheritances, and if they live a lifestyle that needs less money - but they may also be doing things like running a small holding or have what might be considered "side hustles" earning small amounts of money from hobbies or their professional skills doing small amounts of consulting etc.... if they are able to support themselves and not depend on the Government, then what is the problem?

Or are they trying to get all those 50-60 year olds to take on jobs that no one else will do (or not enough people) like picking crops on farms, nursing home care staff, retail jobs, ...rather than trying to get them into meaningful work based on what they may have done in an earlier career or encourage younger people to go into those roles or make sure that those roles are properly paid and respected.

I know this is entirely filled with generalisations and there are lots of different things going on, but....

‘Younger’ people who don’t have the same final salary pensions are understandably also unhappy about not having the options to retire in the 50s like those (doing the same jobs) had/are having.

DH and I retired in our mid 50s, we'd built up investment income since our 30s, paid off the mortgage by 50 and wanted time while we were still young to enjoy our city lifestyle after the dc got more independent (but they were still teens and living at home). It was unusual amongst our friends but an aim we'd had for decades.

My parents retired when they were 62 and 59 and they weren't on a high income at all, but my mum had an accident that stopped her returning to work, and the payout was enough to cover them until pensions kicked in.

We do know quite a few people online who retired at similar times and none of them would consider taking any incentives to return to work - we all just have enough money now, we enjoy spending our time doing whatever we like and can't see any reason to return.

Like the OP I don't think the campaign will work.

I'd suggest that the pandemic made many re-think their priorities, and no doubt some will have had long Covid.

18 years ago. Got a loooong way to go. I think a lot of teachers used to be married to people on higher wages too. Just wish I'd realised that bit when I decided to do train!