If you can work you should... But why?

[Tryingtokeepgoing]

So, Rachel Reeves is of the opinion that if you can work you should. However, there are millions of us in the 50+ bracket who can work, but don't need or want to work. We are financially self sufficent, happily (ish) paying tax and spending money supporting the services economy on which so much of the country depends. Why should we work? Altruistically, I see my choice not to work as creating opportunities for progression for others...

Why should we work?
What is achieved by encouraging us to work?
If there are benefits to us working, how can she incentivise us to do so?

caveat - I am not a fan of the Telegraph, but it is a direct quote

“If you can work, you should work,” she said after official figures showed worklessness in Britain rose to its highest level in more than a decade.

Presumably so you can pay lots of tax and NI to keep illegal immigrants in hotels.

Oh good, I'm used to people looking a bit offended when I merrily inform them the country would be better off if they died - I have learnt to emphasis 'from an economic perspective...'!

Non-working people can very definitely benefit society in many ways, and actually even if you were just taking lots of holidays and having lunch you're benefitting society by demonstrating what sort of life can be achieved by working hard 😁

Yes we have tried to offer jobs and the interviewee has gone awol!!!

It gets my goat actually.

I do feel like there are a large number of people towing the line, and a large number who are just riding along in the slipstream without lifting a finger

But you can bet your bippy it will be the sick and disabled who will be the scapegoats, because they cost the most to support.

Fine, then make our labour worth something. Reward people who work, and tax unearned income. Most houses earn more than the people who live in them.

I don't think RR is talking about those not currently working and receiving benefits. She knows they have no intention of working and a Labour government won't start looking at benefits esp people who are 'sick' because that's not how they work.

She thinks people like me, in my 50s, who could work but don't or only work up to the tax bracket should work/work more.I'll do what i want actually, it's my choice, I've paid in, supported family and others through voluntary work.

It's laughable, does she think I'm going to take NMW job when employers treat people like shit and a huge number of young people don't work or work part-time?

Like everyone else I protect myself and my family. We've paid a lot it tax, we aren't 'all in this together' for the 'greater good' in fact I would say successive governments have bled the MC dry and wasted money - just look at the NHS. I need to help my children navigate this shit show, they are my priority, oh and helping my parents who, also having worked hard and paid in, are entitled to zero help,

Too many doing nothing asking for everyone else to do more.

If you can retire and could take £100,000 from your pension you’d pay £15,000 in tax (assuming you haven’t already taken your 25% tax free)
If you are earning £100,000 you’ll pay £31,500 in tax/NI AND the govt will get another £13,800 from your employer .
so in total you’d cost the tax man £30,300 in lost tax revenue.

@1apenny2apenny I completely agree. I was a top 1% tax payer for a large number of years. I have private health insurance, no kids and have been a huge net contributor over the years. My private pension means I will be self sufficient in the future and able to pay for any care I need. I've never claimed any benefits. I appreciate my luck but at the same time feel no obligation to work more to pay more into the system. I'm actively trying to get my net income under 50k via salary sacrifice for cars etc so I don't end up subsidising other people's pensions through tax as well as through my NI. I believe in a shared safety net but that isn't what we have here. I've lived in other countries with shared public/ private health provision and a mix of private and public pensions and they all work better than what we have here. I'd love to see discussion based in what works rather than an obsessive focus on keeping what we have even when it's demonstrably ineffective and punitive for middle and high earners

These are the people who the govt want to keep in work.

But if you’re choosing not to work at 50, the the government is getting the £31,500 and the £13,800 anyway, as a result of the fact the job you were doing still has to be done by someone.

Then they are also getting the tax on the income needed for the person not working. For the period between 50 and 55 that’ll probably mean dividends and interest on investments as there is no access to your pension until at least 55. So for £100k of dividend income that’s around £20k…at the moment.

Or if it’s half dividend and half capital withdrawal, with the intention that at 55 the capital left generates income to top up that from the pension to £100k then for the first 5 years they only get £4k of tax, assuming no capital gains. Actually there will probably be capital gains so the £4k could be nearer £10k.

Even if you spend 5 years living entirely on income / capital from ISAs (which would seem foolish if you have other options - keeping the tax shelter for as long as possible would make more sense) then the government is no worse off, and you have more money being spent so more VAT being paid, more services consumed and more jobs created.

And in whichever case, it’s always on top of the tax they are collecting for the job that you were doing. So which ever way you look at it it’s never a loss to HMRC

I work in the employment support sector. I sat in on a DWP webinar last week. and they admitted the government are desperate for the skilled, experienced, trained over 50's to get back into the workplace as they are struggling to replace them! I wonder why? I really don't need answers on a postcard, the employment support sector has been telling governments (of all ilks) for many decades that failure to invest from cradle to grave will come back and bite them and it really has! Why work if you don't have to, especially given the toxic nature of many employers and employment sectors, let alone the failure of wages to have kept up with inflation for most, but shockingly increased by ridiculous multiples for those at the top!

OP, I dont disagree but in a growing economy you want more people working and not less.
We intend to retire a few years a 58.

Agree. Just who is going to employ the over 50s? Employers are incredibly ageist from what I've seen.

This equality law was used to raise NIC, unfairly imo as working and having children unfairly disadvantages women when it comes to earnings and pensions and I don't see any recompense for that.

The government need to stop defined benefit pensions for public sector employees before they contemplate any more hikes for beleaguered private sector middle earners who get shafted from all sides (including their employers)

What about all the economically inactive women who chose not to work, raise children and then end up not finding work again when their marriages go tits up? Many women don't help themselves in this respect by prioritising their own financial well-being and keeping their own careers healthy.

Yes. Our wages are awful in this country and I'm always surprised people aren't angrier about it. I think benefits and who receives how much and why has been a convenient fig leaf for just how flat wages are and how little our population earns for their work.

What employers are complaining most about are applicants without "basic" skills which would normally be taught in schools, such as literacy, numeracy, arriving on time, reliability, human interactions, etc

:They are all taught in schools! Literacy and numeracy skills are way better than they used to be (although using social media and text speak doesn't help). Kids have to arrive on time, they have to go to lessons, etc.

Anyway a lot of employers do teach soft skills because they can see the benefits.

Very true. I don't think it's all financially wise to rely on a man!

Exactly. They don't want youngster and they don't want over 50s.

And if you are a woman they don't want you if you are in your possible childbearing years or menopausal years.

So I think men can be employed between 30 and 50 and women between 45 and 49...ludicrous on both counts but particularly for women of course.

The problem with taxing unearned income is you can only do it when the profit is realised. I do think IHT avoidance schemes should be looked at.

As people have already commented it has a lot to do with current work practices and employers.

• There is a huge issue with ageism in the workplace
• Too many toxic work environments
• Employers still fail to embrace flexible working, home working or job shares.

So I completely understand why people who don't need to work stay away from the job market.

I am 53 and I work part-time and do some freelancing from home. I would never go back to a full time job, for an employer, especially as I have a long term health condition.

I find that employers don't welcome older workers, especially those who declare a disability/long term health condition!

That doesn't make it right. Apart from the fact we aren't training domestically, the skills drain from poorer countries means they struggle to thrive, whilst also spending their money on educating staff who just move overseas. I understand Nigeria is looking at some kind of tie-in period post-qualification, and I absolutely think that we should be doing similarly. Let's also not forget that the more foreign workers we have, the less money circulates in the UK economy because foreign workers tend to send money home. If a UK worker nets £20k, most of that money remains in the UK; if a foreign worker nets £20k, a portion of that is likely to be sent overseas, which is a double-drain on our economy. No government of any colour will ever have the kahoonies to sort it though.

She knows they have no intention of working and a Labour government won't start looking at benefits esp people who are 'sick' because that's not how they work

That’s exactly what they’re intending to do. The last Labour government under Blair, completely changed sickness benefits and introduced the present system of assessment for sickness and disability benefits.

Before the election,The Tories launched a consultation on disability benefits and had plans in place to make sickness benefits much harder to claim for any length of time. RR and others in government have indicated many times that they will be looking closely at these plans and the result of the consultation. They’ve also indicated that choosing to live on benefits won’t be an option unless you are substantially disabled - and even then you will need to satisfy the governments’ definition of what that is. RR also indicated very clearly that they will be looking closely at welfare to make cuts in the October budget.

There's certainly worse things you can do with your time from a public benefit point of view. But there's also better. The benefits are mostly private.

I mean, come on, how often have you heard people say "Oh, he's so altruistic/kind/public spirited, only ever thinks of others and not himself - just look how much time he spends in the gym!"