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.

People who "retire" before state pension age can only do so if they have funded themselves to do so through private pensions and/or other investments, which they use to support themselves until they get state pension. Fair enough. But those who can't afford to retire must already work for 50 years, if they start work at 18, before they can claim state pension (68-18=50). Working for 40 years may entitle you to a state pension, but we don't get it after 40 years; are we really suggesting that the plebs must work more than 50 years before they deserve a state pension, while the so-called "wealth creators" cream off the wealth for themselves? Capitalism sucks for the majority!

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

Then they really do need to talk to employers about their employment practices, from recruitment to home working to flexible working to part-time working to accommodating disability.

I was talking to someone yesterday whose employer is very supportive of flexible working in theory. In practice, it's down to manager discretion. I'm not in favour of one size fits all policies but in this case her boss says she has to be in the office 4 days a week. She manages people who are out in the field 7 days a week, so there's no reason for her to be in the office that much except that he likes being in the office so he wants her to be. This sort of thing drives people out of the workplace.

That’s probably in breach of the Equality Act 2010. “Reasonable adjustment’ is to suit the disabled person so that their disability is accommodated and they can do the job on equal terms. If she hasn’t already, she needs to arrange a meeting with herself and her boss with an HR presence and explain what her needs are.

The problem with the proposed changes to the benefit system is that with sick and disabled people governments always put the cart before the horse, so to speak. It’s all very well making benefits harder to claim long term and tightening eligibility, but without employers on board and a consistent and proper effort to educate them as to how they can employ disabled people and get the best from them as an employee, all that will happen is that disabled people will be pushed further into poverty and further marginalised.

What about those who worked from 16, and didn’t make it to state pension.

My mum worked her whole life and died just before she was 60, when she would’ve got it. After she died she got sent a free bus pass.

They take your NI, and the NI your employer paid, which is your contribution, and if you snuff it, it’s gone into the abyss. Non of your relatives get to see any of it.

It’s just tough tits that they have to pay out to pensioners. They’ve worked and paid NI, they are entitled to receive a pension. If we were still in Europe at some point they would’ve told us our pension payments were sub standard and to bring them in line with the rest of them.

It's not a savings scheme. It's a tax and state pension is a benefit.

If someone makes their own pension provisions and saves into a personal pension plan, then the value of the investment passes to the beneficiary if they die.

No, your NI money goes to people who are pensioners now. It is not put aside into your own personal pot to be claimed later on.

If you want to be able to inherit SP, you would need a great big hike in NI to fund it - up for it?

Yeah and those getting state pension paid out for those above.

Whi’s going to pay them back if they dump the state pension?

I claimed SP for the first time this year. My DH died seven years ago and I’m entitled to a proportion of his state pension. Don’t just assume it doesn’t happen because it depends on contribution record.

Pay them back what ? NI contributions go towards SP, benefits and NHS - there is no pay back if they dump any element in the future, of what NI pays for now.

I agree. The only element that maybe could be "paid back" is voluntary extra contributions that people have purposely paid to "buy" extra years of state pension. There's quite a valid argument for those to be repaid if universal state pension gets scrapped or means tested. But other than that, for people who've paid through wages deductions etc., then NIC is just another tax and repayments shouldn't be on the agenda.

There are already too many people quitting work in their fifties and living on their savings. Rachel Reeves has talked about the negative impact on the economy. Means testing the state pension will just accelerate this trend. Certainly i will just quit work.

nursing is even harder now with the lack of bursary.

You are absolutely not unreasonable!

This is not aimed at you. I’m 37, looking at my pension and I’m glad I chose to be in a job where I can retire at 55. I have no intention of getting another job. My mortgage will be paid off and kids will be proper adults. Who knows what the future holds, but mine does not involve working until I die.

Surely she means people that are claiming benefits and not those that are financially not needing to work. If you're well off enough to not work that must be lovely :)
I am 50 and think due to work til mid 60s..depressing thought.

Sorry but at 40 if you can manage to look after a young child you are capable of some type of work, however if you are financially self sufficient and not claiming any benefits then that is your choice.

Sorry but at 40 if you can manage to look after a young child you are capable of some type of work,

Nope. Sweeping generalisation and one of the reasons that those with disabilities - either physical or MH related - are so harshly judged by others who can have no understanding of their disability unless they have lived it. For some, looking after their child will leave them with no capacity to do anything else.

This government and previous ones thought that by ramping up the state retirement age , most people would be forced to work extra years and be paying extra PAYE and NI in the process.
What the governments didn't bargain for was people burning out or suffering ill health before they got there.
I appreciate that some higher earners are in the position to plan for earlier retirement but not everyone is , mainly due to poor health and life chances. It's likely to be the latter group that's having to rely on benefits and probably waiting a long time for NHS treatments.
The government needs to rethink later retirement because it's not really working out as intended.

If people 50+ are retiring early and can fund it themselves how can Rachel Reeves possibly force them back to work? She’s talking about people on benefits.

Tell me you don't have a clue, without telling me you don't have a clue

@PrettyPickle

@sahms has several health conditions along side ADHD and ASD. The fact she can look after her home and a child along with all that is amazing. She probably has no spoons after all that to even be thinking about paid employment.
And did you just jump on her post about not working, or did you bother to read her other comments? She is under going therapy and hoping to volunteer at some point.
Jeeze, next it will be because she can post on MN then she should get a WFH job (been told that myself on here!).

It’s really simple and I’m not sure why you are asking. If you aren’t relying on the state to support you, other than eventually old age pension, then it’s entirely your choice to work as much or little as you like.

Ah, fair enough, it's all about the 2016 change. This isn't possible under the New State Pension but yes, it was under the old in certain circumstances.

I think if RR wants people in their 50s and 60s who've "retired" early or choose not to work to actually return to the workplace, she's going to have to make it attractive for them to keep going. I.e. lower taxes on wages (scrapping NIC would be good), remove the pension penalties, etc.

When it comes to doctors, dentists and teachers, it's not all about money, she's going to have to find ways of making such jobs more attractive, less toxic, etc., so would have to work with employers, managers, unions, etc., to make such workplaces more pleasant, so that people like that, with "early retirement" pension schemes would feel more inclined to work a little longer. As I say, it's not all about money, so just bunging them a few tax breaks and pay rises probably won't work as many of those people don't need more money. What they need is an easier, more pleasant, less toxic final few years in work to wind down.

Nope.worked hard all my life. Now in a position where I am financially.very comfortable..I support others via my.charity. I support local business by shopping eating and drinking localy. I'm late 50s. Not working unless i want to. Dh also retired before 60.