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.

from the torygraph
But in terms of an overall economic pattern, the picture is clear. Fewer British-born people are working. And foreign-born labour is filling the gap.

The actual problem is people like you and your bloody numbers

What a stupid comment

Only to stupid people who want to enslave others.

I worked until I was 60, and got exhausted due to disabilities.

I had to go on benefits until I got my state pension at 67.

I enjoyed working, but it definitely got too much for me in the end.

The years between 60 - 67 were lean for me. If I could physically have worked, I would have.

@ArseInTheCoOpWindow Im a public sector worker but I still understand the funding issues around public sector pensions….

The vast majority of people in their fifties who do not work are well off early retirees. They will not be entitled to any benefits. Another group is those on long term sick. Some of those will be very ill with strokes and similar. Some will be temporarily ill. And some will be stuck on long NHS waiting lists waiting for treatment. All but the poorest will be getting no or very little benefits. Unless you get PIP, if you are a home owner, you will get £97 a week for 6 months. After that if you have savings you will get nothing.

obviously people on sickness benefits are on those because they are sick
what do they suggest?
they get better miraculously ?

I do wonder what people think schools are doing. Twiddling their thumbs and thinking 'Oh dear. If only these children would teach themselves numeracy and literacy!'? As for life skills - there are endless MN threads suggestion a gazillion essential skills that schools should start teaching. Where do we fit these into the already packed curriculum? The government decides how schools work.

A few things…

1. this isn’t necessarily about ‘pensioners’ in many cases it’s people stepping out of the workforce before pension age eg 50-57
2. there aren’t the same number of people stepping in to pay the taxes/NIC, a PP has shared the stats on growth of elderly vs working population
3. even if we are talking those drawing private pension pre state pension age many fund that using ISA withdrawals or the 25% tax free lump sum they are also very unlikely be drawing a pension at the same level as their previous salary
4. by your ladder analogy far more people are stepping off than stepping on and are doing so much faster than those in the ladder are progressing up it

@FiddlyDiddlyDee

You asked me the below question

“Do you think all retirees stay in the UK or something?”

For the third time I don’t understand why you replied to my post with the above & I gave my thoughts on the answer. You obviously don’t know the answer to your own question, fair enough 😆😆

I don't understand how I am "taking out but no longer contributing"?

I still pay tax on most of my investment income. I can't access my pension yet, and the income only element of ISAs won't provide the income I need. So I am pretty sure I am still well within the net contributor bracket. I don't take much out...of course I benefit from government spending in terms of infrastructure, defence, a bit of healthcare (though I have private healthcover). Sure, I use local services, but they are in part funded by council tax that I pay.

And you surely must have something better to do then bicker on a MNs thread, maybe some actual useful thoughts on the OP?

I was being severely abused by my DM. The reason I worked for that year was because she forced me to and to hand over all my wages. Something then happened which resulted in a severe episode of physical abuse and a subsequent breakdown and hospitalisation then PTSD. It was awful but did then alert authorities to what was happening.

I hope at some point to find a flexible volunteer role as I think I could possibly manage that and want to achieve doing some good in my local community.

DH and I engineered our current ‘working’ life. Anyone that saves, tries their best to make the best of life for themselves is going to be punished for being savvy. We are not allowed to have anything anymore!

the people who have tried to be careful and do the best for their families are just being shat on. We are not massive earners, I’ve saved all my life for my older age. My cousin who’s been on benefits ( and working cash in hand) is laughing.

When I stop work I’ll contribute to the economy by using coffee shops, massage therapist and other things I don’t have time for at the moment. I’ll also be able to help my health in ways I don’t have time for now.

If they hadn’t burnt us out with overly pressured and under resourced jobs we wouldn’t all be jumping ship early.

Teaching and NHS in particular, but also some private sector roles.

I am one of those the govt. believes are fueling immigration.

Like the reveal at the end of a Scooby Doo cartoon, when they unmasked the culprit, it's never who you thought, turns out it was me!

Make it worth my while, find me a job where management and users don't treat you like shit, and I might consider it.

Decent money too might help.

It's the market. I thought both main parties believed in " the market"?

What they meant is the market when it suits them, not us.

I don't think for a second they think anyone is going to change their views, this is just a preemptive strike to alienate us against each other for when they do try and force me into work.

They can go fuck themselves.

One issue is that there are still massive skills shortages in the UK that are stopping the economy from growing. People - mainly women - drop out of the workforce in their late 40s onwards, and governments are increasingly viewing them as a talent stream that could help fill those shortages. The problem with THAT is that a lot of the jobs they need filling are not particularly appealing or well-paid (ie jobs in the facilities sector, hospitality, care sector etc). More needs to be done to encourage women to stay in the workplace (including a lot of work around ageism and misogyny, which is still rife) and we need to make proper career paths for those jobs that people don't want to take - and pay them properly.

That's the economic reasoning, but there's no moral obligation for anyone to work if they don't have to, in my opinion.

Yes deary, quite a lot of the world are working long hours for a pittance right now just so that "Nanana1" can spend their days making posts on mumsnet throwing abstract numbers about trying to reason how more people need to work and contribute to this system.

Self awareness really not your bag is it.

I am considering stopping working before I get my pension and living on savings. Too many UK employers treat people like shit and I have had enough.

If you retire early. You cease to be economically productive. You may have the resource to sustain yourself, but you are no longer assisting economic growth, your taxes are greatly reduced, and the you become a net cost to the tax payer to provide your benefits (everything you receive including health and social care). For this reason, politicians would like everyone to work as long as possible to 68 at least, because at a macro level, that increases tax receipts and decreases net spending.

Rachel Reeves is a macroeconomist by training. She will most likely be a pretty competent Chancellor. She understands the dynamics of work, income and tax on a macro level. I wouldn’t, however, trust a macroeconomist to make useful comment on whether work is best for me in terms of its relative economic benefits and emotions/ physical wellbeing.

Rachel Reeves’ job is to look out for the economy, not to look out for me.

My mortgage is almost paid off so, I'm going to work part time. I don't want to work full time, because retirement is so late.

I think there are several issues with people being economically inactive -

I think the government is specifically targeting those who are not financially self-supporting but are relying on benefits for their living income, because they feel working just doesn't pay. That's not necessarily a failure of wages, it's a failure of a support system which enables that to happen.

You're no longer paying the level of taxes you would be when working, and the economy is based on certain expectations - things like state pension are funded by workers continuing until NRD - if higher paid people retire early, the state pension pot for those who need it is reduced.

We have job openings which need to be filled, often by bringing in foreign workers which presents a higher cost to the state - many workers are in the lower-paid bracket, and will be supported by state subsidies. You're "supporting the services economy" might actually be you costing the state more, because we need more lower paid workers to serve the wealthy retirees...

We're losing vital experienced staff, and having to bring in more highly skilled foreign workers to backfill, which not only lessens the likelihood of training our own skilled workforce, but also drains often poorer countries of their own skilled workers. Nigeria, Africa’s most populous nation, is one of the countries deemed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to have a critical shortage of health workers, yet we still took nearly 14k Nigerian nurses in a year. Immigrant medical staff are also far more likely to be charged with medical incompetence than domestic staff.

Ok
Please evidence the statement you made very that "few retirees fund their own care"

Hint: smileys are not evidence

As PP said I don't think she's talking about you OP. But also, I doubt that in the future there will be millions of people who are so rich, that they can afford to do zero work for potentially 40 years. Many were funded by the property price boom which is unlikely to continue.

Winding down is fair enough, I'm planning to do that myself although it's decades away for me. But that's different to complete retirment.

I often think that a default PT working model is the most progressive and will solve much of our social care labour problems.