To think increasing pension age isn’t going to add up?

[Tiredandconfused23]

I was reading a few recent studies about the employment situation for over 50s, basically confirming how this age group struggles to return to work, is more likely to be laid off and/or forced into early retirement and how a far higher proportion are in poverty and/or insecure employment than other age groups. And how, despite years of pushback against age bias, it’s only increased in recent years.

If we accept this, I can’t help feeling the idea that increasing the pension age so we work longer, thus save money on benefits, isn’t going to add up. Many people in their fifties would happily carry on working - the issue is many employers may not want us. You can’t keep working if there’s no job to work at.

AIBU to think we may soon be facing a load of older people on benefits, often through no fault of trying, rather than claiming a pension? Would this be seen as still more favourable by the Government?

It'll probably end up being means tested rather than increasing the age. But they'll have to increase mandatory pension contributions, because otherwise there will be no incentive for anyone to save up and fund themselves in retirement.

I'm 61 and currently job hunting. I have two second interviews on Monday and have had several others.

I was made redundant during covid and found an appropriate exec job aged 57, which ended recently.

I think you just need to stick at it. There are skills shortages in a lot of industries so if you keep your skills current, you shouldn't have too much trouble. Also maintain your general fitness.

Although I might feel differently if I don't get either of the Monday jobs. 😀 Something will turn up eventually.

UC/ job seekers is less money then the state pension.

Good luck @Meadowfinch .i think they'd be lucky to have you!

As someone in their 60s it's a real problem.

We tend to see the state pension age as the "natural" retirement age but it isn't - the jobs we set out to do in our 20s have transformed and not always to our liking, our tolerance of workplace crap has worn very thin, we don't have the stamina or physical fitness we need and we may not be a good team fit with our younger colleagues (for this read "we may find immature colleagues give us the rage").

The reality is we need to plan for slowing down or stopping work earlier (I'd say around 60), probably funded by savings/paid off mortgage/empty nest/private pension etc, knowing the state pension will top up our income in 10 years or so.

I just think it’s really rubbish that only one generation ever got to “enjoy their retirement” (as they constantly remind us they are entitled to) from an age when they were fit and healthy.

Generations before were often very poor in retirement, or simply didn’t get to, and future generations seemingly won’t get to retire until we’re really quite old. And likely won’t get a state pension at all in many cases!

I can see a future with a lot of people in their 60s on universal credit with little chance of employment. And as someone pointed out above, it's less than the state pension. I know there are initiatives helping older people into work but their success is very dependent on the work history, skills and health of claimants. Not everyone has a significant private pension to draw down either.

I don't think it adds up either, and as someone said I think a high proportion of older adults "of working age" will end up on means tested out-of-work benefits instead of a pension. It is unlikely to achieve much financially, but will undermine mental health.

Agree that the mandatory contributions to the stakeholder schemes need to go up. For both parties though, employers as well as employees. The way it's set up now won't give anyone very much on retirement.

Means testing something that was sold as universal and that people have spent their lifetime contributing to is going to cause a huge backlash (ie open revolt).

Yeah getting rid of state pension for all and means testing it when you've been told all your life to ensure you pay in enough to get it and then having it taken away won't go down well.
It's bad enough that even if you don't, you just get pension credit. I was always taught by my parents I needed to work to get enough years to get my pension. But it seems that even if you don't, you just get pension credit instead which gives you the same as pension.
Unless people are very well paid, most people won't have enough for retirement if they take away state pension as they've been budgeting for it.

It will also harm physical health - because poverty damages health.

So although this is true - UC/ job seekers is less money then the state pension. any savings will probably be lost on increased health and social care needs.

Yes, I'm sure many will be killed by poverty die young (and so not need extra care), but many others, although likely to have a shortened life expectancy, will live but be unwell and in need of support).

There's three issues re increased state pension age.

a. Those in decent health but facing employer age discrimination. It's especially a problem for over 50s but can start as young as 40. This can be addressed though - if the government wanted to. They could intriduce stricter legislation - and enforcement (including access to legal aid to fund age discrimination cases), and even perhaps to the extent of using positive discrimination.

b. Although lots of over 50s are perfectly well and able to work, the likelihood of having health issues increases once over 50. So a significant number of older people of "working age" will either be too unwell to work - or perceived by employers to be too unwell to work (due to employer reluctance, or in some cases especially smaller businesses - genuine inability, to make adjustments).

c. Just suppose the first two problems above didn't exist. Then how do young people get jobs? Older people will be, I guess, "job-blocking". And I understand that youth unemployment is relatively high?

Actually I forgot about two other issues.

d. Although not everyone is able or willing to help, many grandparents provide childcare - enabling younger people to work (and saving the economy a lot, by reducing state funded childcare costs)

e. Lots of people in their 50s and 60s are caring for elderly relatives - (and like above, saving the state a lot of money in social care costs).

Separately, I think women will be hit harder than men - by the higher state pension age. This is because women are still typically (as shown by statistics) on lower incomes.

Plus women are statistically more likely to have had time out of the workplace due to caring responsibilities (not only parenting, but also caring for elderly relatives).

Maybe I'm wrong re women being hit harder but it's already a fact that women pensioners, especially single women pensioners, are poorer.

I spend a lot of time talking to people as part of my job and the number of older retired in my 50s folk in the community is mind boggling. Now they are older and in Scotland so LA care packages. I can’t imagine my generation are retiring mid 50s. Lots of people have long mortgages and plan on working to 67 minimum. I do think looking around my own work place. LA, civil service, NHS often seem to keep workers for longer. I know several people in their 70s working in each. I don’t know anyone who’s working in their 70s in the public sector.

If we end up with a load of 60-75 year old millennials waiting on UC before getting the state pension, then the govt is going to spend a fortune in housing costs, because millennials/gen z etc. are generation rent.

Even if a millennial is in a position to buy, finally, at say 50, who’s going to take on a 30 year mortgage at that age?

I don’t believe the SP will be around by the time I get to retirement age - people say there’ll be revolt by my generation has been shit on for decades and nobody I know is expecting a SP by the time we’ve paid for all the baby boomers’ SPs. I also think a lot of my generation will die before they get to whatever the govt thinks retirement age should be by then.

Bleak stuff though.

I’ve often said that if parents are willing to accept care from their children then if they can afford it they should be compensating them for opportunity cost for working income / pension contributions etc. I know lots don’t feel able to accept/ insist on money from family but there are threads on here about people who struggle to provide free care whilst parents sit on hundreds of thousands.

Although I'm inclined to agree, arguably the same could be said for disability (and in fact, unemployment) benefit. National Insurance was said to be payments - made for insurance against ill health or redundancy. Yet these are now mostly means tested.

One problem I think is the way it's setup re those two benefits. Contribution based benefits go on the previous 2 years contributions.

So there's a situation where someone could have worked for decades, then thinks they're "doing the morally right thing" by not claiming - either due to hoping they'll be well again/find a new job quickly and/or living off savings or a partner. But then ending up not getting well again or finding another job (perhaps due to age discrimination) and then being disqualified from contributions based benefits. Yet someone else could've worked for only exactly 2 years and claims straight away so gets them).

One could argue that everyone should just claim immediately - but why should people be punished for not claiming if they don't feel they financially need to - at that point of time. I think contributions based should be linked to number of years of payments rather than simply the immediate previous two years.

Anyway I disgress. Re means testing pensions (and *working age" benefits"). I think one major issue is the threshold is too low. That's one of the problems with the scrapping of the universal WFA. The low threshold for pension credit. I think it would be less controversial if it was higher.

I would love to see a cultural shift to more part time working. I know it won't be affordable for all cases, but I certainly see in my parents generation people who would be able and happy to work, say, 15-20 hours per week, but find 35-40 just too much.

We have two job shares at my workplace, one am/pm split and one Mon-Wed/Wed-Fri and they both work fantastically, you get more than the equivalent of 1 FTE as you get two sets of experience.

I would love to see this encouraged by the government, but I don't know enough about employment law and procedures to know how employers could be incentivised to consider it

Looking around my family and acquaintances it wasn't even a whole generation.

There are a few early retirees. Only one of whom has an enviable lifestyle. The rest are living on tiny pensions because they retired too soon. A life of worrying about money isn't doing them any favours.

I know quite a few adults in their 50s/60s who are in ill health (several with cancer). They haven't been able to return to work but are claiming new style ESA with UC topup, PIP and council tax support. With a mortgage paid off or low (social housing) rent it's not too different to what they'd get as a pension. Most of them accept they probably won't return to work and are waiting for their pensions. They are all genuinely unwell, and I think the govt underestimates how bad health can get in middle age, especially for people who have had physical jobs.

I'm in the 50/60 age bracket and am increasingly seeing people in my age group leaving traditional FT work and opting to do do more adhoc/casual/supply/bank NMW jobs because they are a bit more interesting than their old FT job. Obviously this only applies to those that can afford to do so. I recently worked an event where everyone was on NMW but alongside the students were some excellent people who had previously held quite senior positions. For those that can afford to do so, it's much more interesting than their previous 9 to 5.

Something has to give somewhere as we are an aging population.

Long, state-funded retirements were sustainable when they were only bein paid to a small minority of the population. When millennials retire it's projected that about one in four people will be pensioners. How will the country be able to function when that many people are living off the taxpayer?

When millennials retire it's projected that about one in four people will be pensioners.

I think it will be more than that, there are already more over 65s than under 15 yr olds.

Why are you blaming them?

“In the UK (ranked 16 on the ILC Index) state pension age would need to be 70 or 71 compared with 66 now to maintain the status quo of the constant number of workers per state pensioner.”

“However, if instead we define the UK’s working adult populations as 20 to 64 years, to account for time spent in full time education, the state pension age might need to hit age 70+ as early as 2040 to maintain the current dependency ratio. ”