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?

The previous government should not have cut NI and this one should not have ruled out reversing it. Political games instead of sound financial decisions just cause endless problems for the state.

This is very true.

Life expectancy fell after Covid by about a yr and is recovering. It’s not falling in such a way that we don’t have an aging population 😆

Also immigration hasn’t been the most popular way of dealing with declining birth rates but even if we fully embrace that we will be in competition with much of the west for those immigrants plus their own countries will likely be gong under economic booms and be more attractive.

The previous government should not have cut NI and this one should not have ruled out reversing it.

agree

What we are seeing now is the result of years of wage stagnation - salaries here are really pretty crap & economic policy that only encouraged investment in housing. It’s a shit show.

And the cost of living.

Looking back at the 70s and 80s - I was one of three kids all born by the time my parents were in their early 30s, my dad had a reasonable graduate job (final salary non contributary pension scheme but a comfortable salary rather than a high one), mum worked part time, owned their own four bedroomed house from their late 20s, able to run two cars, holidays every year (OK might not be grand, but a fortnight in a tent in France). That isn't life for most families any more. No wonder the birthrate is falling. Everything costs so bloody much.

Taxing the working population ever harder is no solution. We need a wealth tax.

If there's a skills shortage, I'm yet to see concrete evidence, despite all those job vacancies I apply for.

I'm in my mid 50s, I have years of past experience of one of these skills shortages, I've taken copious training to stay up to date. I'm also disabled and that's supposed to guarantee an interview with the companies that claim to have diversity policies.

I've had a tiny handful of interviews, some 2nd interviews, and none has led anywhere.
Yet industry is apparently desperate for my skills.

Good luck, Meadowfinch.

Years ago as a woman, you'd have received a pension at 60.

I can see why some people get cross with those who lived in an era when University education was free {no tuition fees}, the NHS was functioning, and also house prices were low in comparison to wages.

Plus pension at 60 and if in London, a very valuable ''freedom pass'' at 60.

The younger ones are much worse off in comparison.

What will the pension be when today's children are older? 85?, 90?

Taxing the working population ever harder is no solution. We need a wealth tax.

Absolutely but look at the outcry over means testing the winter fuel payment…

In slight mitigation of the delayed state pension age, people retiring in 10 years or so have at least benefitted from the compulsory employers pension contributions for the majority, or more of their career.

Their own matching contributions were subject to the tax benefits of saving into a pension, and those private pensions will have had a good length of time in which to increase in value -including the add on tax contributions.

Older pensioners , especially women in lower paid jobs, have not had these private pension benefits.

The law was obviously introduced to make sure people have a private pension in case state pension is reduced in value /because it is delayed- but private pensions can be drawn 10 years before state pension age - and many people use this to retire earlier than state pension age if they are able.

I wish employers contributions had been compulsory for the majority of my working life. Got state pension at 66- realise I am luckier than younger women - but have only a tiny private pension which I am trying not to draw down as I have to plan for future house maintenance / new boiler / more heating when I am older and frailer etc.

You are in a unique position though of senior management/exec, which may still be viable for older women. For those of us in 'normal' jobs, or who don't want that stress, getting work is very, very hard.

Governments trained us to think of state pension age as the appropriate age to retire.
Despite the 'nudge' unit in the Cabinet Office, politicians and senior civil servants have royally screwed up. As they drag the state pension age away from the age they persuaded us was retirement age, people are thinking for themselves and those who can are cutting their cloth differently to slow down in their fifties and stop entirely close to their sixtieth birthday.
That's those who can afford it, those who coincidently tend to pay the most income tax, so the country ends up even worse off.
I already have more than a full National Insurance stamp, successive governments told us that we weren't saving towards our own pensions but paying those of current pensioners.
Osborne changed that, tens of billions of NI now goes to NHS England and pays for other things entirely - probably PFI and bonuses.

My cousin is low skilled and 55. He has been applying for hundreds of jobs for two years. No one will hire him.

you’re entirely right.

Be patient - if it was a pledge, it will be changed in no time at all.

Because the threshold was set so low. Those living only on basic state pension are nor wealthy - it could have been means tested to preclude those on higher incomes.

When you look at the average age of first time buyers and the increased age of being firsr time parents and the costs that brings plus the cost of paying back student loans I think this idea o my works for a single generation. It’s out in the sky for later generations. There’s no way most will be able to afford this.

I think the hope from successive governments is that we will reach some sort of tipping point where there are so many over 50s looking for work that the employment situation for them will have to improve in order for the jobs that need doing to still get done. the pension age is way too low in my opinion. when it first came in the average life span for a man was 66 (so one year above the pension age) and 71 for women. it was never intended for people to stay on the pension for years and years as they do now.

Isnt most of the money tied up in their homes though?

It's hard to find work at any age. My Dad is 70 and his employer is pressuring him NOT to retire. He's partially retired and is supposed to work 3 days a week but still gets hassled 5 days a week, sometimes late into the evening, because there's a shortage of people with his skillset and they have no long-term plan for how to manage without him. I wouldn't recommend anyone become as much of a workaholic as my Dad and I do worry he is working himself into an early grave, but if you are highly qualified, employers are no averse to hiring older people.

The picture is a lot more mixed than these threads of doom and gloom paint.

A lot of people still do retire at a fairly young age or choose semi-retirement with freelance etc work (hence they are employed less ‘securely’). So it’s choice. Older people can and do get jobs. I certainly am not planning to work into my 70s.

For the future contribution defined pensions can be passed on in inheritance, so some younger people will inherit pension pots off parents, this wasn’t possible with final salary in the same way. There are advantages to this type of pension you just need to pay enough in (which obviously can be challenging)

Personally it baffles me how people upsize their lives to fit with their salaries, and mumsnet reflects this - I remember a thread recently with people measuring how rich people they knew were by the cars they drive….. Other people stay in their smaller house, drive cheaper cars and save. Yes not everyone can afford to but some people have more money than it appears.

Anyone with savings won’t be eligible for UC either, obviously.

It is going to be tough - I feel for some of the more physically and mentally hard careers. Not just things like digging up road, but things like teaching where you are on your feet and at it for hours without break. Now imagine a grandparent doing that in their mid-60's....

Because the threshold was set so low. Those living only on basic state pension are nor wealthy - it could have been means tested to preclude those on higher incomes.

I dint believe that’s the only reason for the outcry. Thresholds are too low for many other benefits…

If it's anything like it is in Australia, you're right, OP. The start age gets higher in brackets here according to when you were born. I won't get it till I'm 67. That's six years of living on Jobseeker, the pretentious name for the dole (used to be Newstart, even worse). I've been out of the workforce for eight years caring for my mother. Between that and being physically unable to do a lot of the entry-level jobs around, I very much doubt I'll work again.

I've been banging this drum for a while; it's pointless putting up the pension age if there aren't plenty of well-paid jobs for people approaching retirement/in their 60s, and currently there aren't. Incomes start to decline once people reach their mid-40s - partly due to ageism in the workplace, and partly through choice. Ageism is an ongoing issue in the workplace - whether it's because they're perceived as having more stamina, being more 'on trend', or just because they can pay them less, employers generally prefer younger employees. They just do. Unless the government steps in and incentivises employers to take on older f/t employees, then forcing people onto benefits rather than pensions will just prove to be an unfair penalty for older people.