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?

But surely some of those high earners were dc once & went to school or even had dc who also went to school. And surely not every high earner gave birth at home?!

I agree.
I don't begrudge them though, they were just lucky timing. I just wish some of them would acknowledge this though. Sick of hearing 'I worked hard all my life' so what! Everyone does and young people work harder now. Or the other classic, young people could buy a house if they didn't spend all their money on takeaway coffee.

I mean they could at least bring back MIRAS or universal child benefit so I have more to spend on avocados.

Some of us do. It’s as illogical to push the “I worked hard all my life” line as it is to castigate people for being born during a particular era.

I'm 57 and stuck in a job beause i have no hope of being offered another job so i have to sit it out and wait another 10 years... i hope they don't move the retirement age too much

"Most “boomer” parents did one role per parent - fathers went out to work, and maybe did a bit of DIY or financial life admin, and mothers stayed at home and kept the home. Obviously not everyone did but this was very common, and an average set up. Or the Mum worker part time."
I 'm of the boomer generation and although I didn't have children I don't know of anyone amongst my friends and relatives who had that set up. I wouldn't think it was average or common at all. Only for the very well off.

I don't recognise this at all. My mother and her peers are boomers and all work - particularly as things like teachers or nurses, or related roles in education & health

Never happen!
We will absolutely bankrupt the country first. Demographics are changing. Pensioners had always been the highest voting demographic, they are also growing as a percentage of the electorate. No politician dare piss them off.

Correct. I'm a boomer and my DS is only 16. That makes him firmly Gen Z.

With AI flying up, most generations will be a drain on financial resources. Many jobs will go. How this is managed remains to be seen. 🤷‍♀️

Re net contribution.

If looking at it from purely amount paid in, no age group is a net contributor. Only the richest (who exist in all age groups) are. But they can afford to - and can afford to without losing a still very high standard of living.

Although in a way everyone actually is a net contributor even if not directly through income tax etc. Those many low paid, and also average paid, workers? They're keeping the businesses going and in (often large) profit. And those unable to work? They're also keeping the economy going, through keeping the jobs of the many people in health and social care.

Also contribution to society is impossible to look at on purely financial terms.

And it's a slippery slope, starting to look at who's paid "their share" the most and so who deserves the most back.

I mean, if going down that road then childless and childfree people would justifiably say they pay the most and get the least back. Especially single childless/childfree.

Lower priority for housing and less welfare benefits, no need for schooling (yes, they went to school, but now they also pay for our children to go to school), less use of healthcare (only use for themselves, unlike us parents who use maternity care, and then healthcare for our children).

And no, the majority of children aren't going to become professional carers - so no they won't, when adults, be caring for the childless/childfree. Nor will they be funding pensions - given the increased pension age with the consequence that lots of people will probably die before getting a pension.

To clarify. I am not saying that's a road I want to go down, with that argument of who pays in the most and/or takes the least back. I'm simply giving an example of what happens if we start doing that.

Yup I'm in my 40s and when I was at school most mums either were sahm or had a very part time job in my area. One wage was enough (and that person needn't have been to uni either) to have a house nicer than mine is now!

It was a different world.

Milkandacookie what region is that? It just wasn't like that where i live (south west).

Not necessarily. From what I’ve read Gen X is actually a far smaller generation than the Boomers - about a third of the size if I remember correctly. Millennials and Zoomers are bigger than them too - though Boomers exceed both as well individually (just not by as much as Gen X).

That’d suggest - immigration apart - we’re actually facing a bottleneck, where the “older” generation actually decrease proportionally compared to where we are now (considering life expectancy isn’t increasing and will, at least, remain static) before expanding again when the Millennials reach traditional retirement age.

This might even have exacerbated the fact the Boomer generation have been so focussed on, aside from older people being more likely to vote. Even when they were younger they were such a significant portion of the electorate through sheer numbers alone their interests were taken more seriously.

This is a double edged sword for Gen X though. Whilst it might mean there’s fewer of us to burden society as we age, it also means our needs could be overlooked in favour of the greater numbers (and potential votes) of the generations below us.

I was thinking of the growing number of people private renting in poverty in older age, when I spoke of care home costs taking inheritance. Which costs taxpayers (which is all of us - because everyone pays tax) many billions. In housing and other benefits, and health and social care costs, because private renting harns health.

The fastest growing group of private renters are over 45. It's a ticking time bomb re the future with benefits and retirement costs.

Re morally right. Is it morally right to take their inheritance, when there's not enough social housing? Older private renters are statistically the poorest group of renters and studies have found many have been in poverty for long periods.

The answer really though is

a) more social housing asap - including for older people and smaller households.

b) tax inheritance on the wealth of the recipient, plus defer care home fees when the would-be recipient of an inheritance has a need for housing or financial support (either due to low wages or disability or caring responsibilities).

Basically the poster didn't go to school in the UK and arrived here in their 20s, and didn't have children.

@Reugny which may be true just odd that they are saying millions of others were similar 😆😆😆

Presumably any service they’ve benefited from was also provided by self-funded privately educated people too?

I think you might find we are if you look at contributions over a lifetime. Many of us were higher rate tax payers for 20+ years while taking nothing in healthcare or education.

@BIossomtoes No, there have been analyses done on how much each generation pays in vs. takes out. Baby boomers will take out roughly 25-30% more than they have paid in - more than any other generation.

I'm not saying that it's their fault, they should be taxed more, but I think it's completely understandable why later generations are angry.

Gen X teacher here 👋 Taught since 2000, current retirement age 68 (Born late 78 so miss the April 78 cut off to retire at 67).

Teachers pensions aren’t great now - I’m at the age where they’re tied to state pension age. I am hoping to leave in 6 years and do a less stressful job but will I find another career at 52?

What do you teach?

BTW the government still has time to accelerate the pension age as they said they will give 10 years notice minimum.

Finally (because I'm spent too long on this thread and must stop taking it over, and also need to get on with offline life - my own fault for getting too invested!).

In reply to some people suggesting there's no money to address society's issues. There is enough money. It's simply being misspent.

As a previous poster said, within her and many people's lifetimes there's been a massive shift. From having well-funded and well-managed public services and state owned necessities (housing, energy, water, healthcare, social services etc).

Shifted to privatisation, cuts, and out-sourcing of all of these - at great cost to individuals, to society, and to the economy.

I posted earlier about the false economy approach - austerity and similar policies. I've also posted links on other threads about the massive costs of false economy - to individuals and the economy.

If anyone's interested (or even if you're not, because I can't help myself sometimes and I think it's worth people seeing, I'll post the links here later).

So basically, there is enough money. Simply the false economy approach and misspending needs to end.

@MrsMurphyIWish There's so few older teachiers now isn't there. It's another ticking time bomb. Many go part/time or rely on partners income.

I'm a bit younger than you but thinking I need to get out and find something that can sustain me as a second career also

I’m an English teacher.

Imagine having 70 year old teachers!

I’m a boomer who was a single parent for most of my Gen X kid’s childhood. Like you, I worked full time, did all the housework and was responsible for everything. I was by no means alone.

Me too. Took care of aging parents too.

A lot of menial work is very physical though.