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.

Yes, I think this is more what it's aimed at

My mum retired at 58 bad at 63. Both worked all their lives in none professional roles. I feel they've done their bit.

@FiddlyDiddlyDee

”Do you? You made the statement that very few retirees fund their own care. Not up to me to do your research for you.”

The statement I made was in response to a post that said the majority of early retirees funded their own care. I have know idea why you interjected yourself into that & replied to me about how many live abroad.

So tell me how many early retirees live abroad and don’t use the NHS. 😆😆

Exactly. Tax credits were one of many fundamental cock ups made by Brown. It was insane and has caused a lot of today's problems. It is the root cause of the low wages we have today and the money pumped into the economy in tax credits has fuelled inflation, thus widening the gap between wage rises and price increases, particularly with housing costs.

We need proper reform of the tax/benefit systems to encourage people to work. I personally believe the maximum marginal tax rate or loss of benefits rate should be 50%. I.e. whatever your income, whether an extra shift/casual work for £100 or a doctor earning £150k p.a. your total "deductions" whether wages deductions or benefits loss (or combination of both) should never be more than 50%, so you get to keep at least half of whatever you earn (whatever the income, whether wages or pensions or interest or property rental or whatever), as I say, whether you're on a wage of £150k per year or you're on benefits and have the option to take a bit of casual work for £100. That makes work pay! Get rid of all the cliff edges in the tax and benefits system, get rid of the 70%+ marginal tax rates etc. Get rid of different tax rates for different types of income/gains. Make it simple, keep it simple.

I would work more / on a permanent basis (currently not working after a 15 month contract ended) if

• My job (teaching) was even slightly less stressful
• The family members I am caring for (chronic illness / old age / dementia) were properly supported by public services such as the NHS

As it is, I am a part time unpaid carer, with my hours and commitments in the role likely to increase substantially over time.

Yes I'm pretty sure sheen's people on benefits not people who have their own money independently

This post really is amazing.

How are you managing to apply rational equations for who has or hasn't earned something to a system in which people can accumulate hundreds of billions of personal wealth?

You actually think think these abstract numbers you are speaking of relate to anyone's working contribution and what they've actually funded?

What have you actually contributed for moving numbers round a spreadsheet your whole life compared to people who have put their lives at risk to protect others as a day job?

The actual problem is people like you and your bloody numbers.

If a teaching role was possible within ‘normal’ working hours - say 7.30-5.30 five days per week, still doing the job well - then I would work.

But maybe then, the system should be that there is a sliding scale to state pension based on how much you have worked. The current system doesn't distinguish between a person working 2 hours per week over, say, 20 years or 40 hours.

Other countries have a sliding scale based on how much you have worked (not only based on 'years having worked')

Yes, I assume she means people who are not financially independent.

Yep.

Also female teachers are leaving in droves which is one of the retention issues, They can’t afford childcare.

Why would anyone stay in a horribly stressful job to just pay childcare.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow why have you mentioned criminality?!

Threads like this show why successive government have got away with no planning, so many cannot have reasoned debate around the issues.

Are you financially secure,though? Surely you haven't claimed benefits for 22 years?

You don’t pay NI if you’re not employed.

I'm 64 and working full time because I like work. I have no financial need to continue.

The reason I am able to keep going is because my life is easy. Grown up children, parking space at work, desk job, cleaner, gardener, etc., mother still OK at 88 to live independently.

However, I have to pace more and am getting more tired. I cannot see me doing this beyond 65 despite being fit and well.

@2dogsandabudgie it does but it still won’t solve things

I think she's referring to people who are on benefits and who are capable of work. I don't think it's difficult to understand. Why should those who work subsidise those who simply don't want to.

I think she means people on long term benefits. However there is some research on keeping your mind active and challenged by either working or volunteering lessens the chance of dementia.

Yes indeed. We used to have such systems, firstly SERPS and then S2P, both were scrapped and we're now stuck back with a system where state pension has no relationship with earnings nor NICs paid. Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath water!

This is a prime example of why I have no faith in our politicians and I believe both main parties really are "two cheeks of the same arse".

Millions/billions of pounds and massive amounts of time were wasted in first creating SERPS, then scrapping it and creating S2P, then scrapping that and reverting back to what we had a few decades ago, being a basic fixed state pension unrelated to earnings. Complete madness.

Because of the way you spoke about public workers taking their earnt pensions.

Interesting discussion. I'm 55 this year and have definitely started winding down.
I don't plan on having a set retirement date as such (unless circumstances force me) but will continue reducing my hours as my outgoings are reducing over time. Currently do around 25-30 hrs per week (my work's very flexible).

I'm not in the best of health and I think working FT would actually cause me to burnout and then I would be claiming sickness benefits! So while I may not be contributing as much as I could, I can probably carry on doing so for longer.

My current set up gives me a really good work/life balance. Had the retirement age not changed, I probably would be working FT now as retirement wouldn't be far away. But now it is. So I've had to adjust accordingly.

I am reasonably certain though that I won't be working FT between 60 and 67. Current plan is 60-65 reduce down to 15-20 hours p/w. Potentially stop at 65, but I could continue a day or two a week if I want. I'll see how I feel then, if I'm still around!

I recognise that, up to a point, and while I accept I don't pay any NI now I am still paying quite a lot of income tax. I certainly pay a lot more tax than someone on the UK average income would pay in NI and income tax. And of course they government is still getting the NI and tax from whoever is doing the job(s) that I would othwerwise be doing. For many roles there is a finite number of jobs - me chosing not to do one of them doesn't mean that the job goes unfilled. It creastes an opportunity for someone else

Exactly you made a statement, you didn't ask a question about the validity of someone's else statement like I have yours.

I don't think you seem to understand how this work, I haven't made a statement about anything, therefore why are you asking me a question?

Tell me how many early retirees live abroad and don’t use the NHS.

you get to keep at least half of whatever you earn (whatever the income, whether wages or pensions or interest or property rental or whatever)

There is a lot of disparity in tax based on where the income comes from.

You realise that a personal tax allowance for a pensioner is exactly the same as a personal allowance for someone working? So a retired person with a pension of say £50,000 annually , lucky them, will be paying the same amount of income tax as a person earning a salary of £50.000. Admittedly they won’t be paying NI, but then the person who is now doing their old job will be paying NI and so on down the line until you get to the bottom of the employment ladder to the newly appointed person who has got a job because everyone else has shifted one rung up.

And wealthy retired pensioners are putting money directly into the economy precisely because they have more disposable income, so they are supporting income and profitability for small and large companies, they are supporting employment ( and tax and NI contributions!) for working people employed by those companies and organisations, and they are paying VAT for goods and services. The grey pound makes a very large contribution to the country’s wealth, even if some of the contributors aren’t actually grey yet.