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 was extremely rare. It tended to be the Silent generation with that set up when men saw it as a point of pride that they could support their wife.

But we are talking about the average person. I don't think you understand how averages work. Most people are not net contributers. You personally may be.

Please don’t be rude, there’s no need for it. Of course I understand how averages work.

The irony! 😆

Did I miss where you acknowledged you misquoted me?!

I don't think you understand how averages work

An awful lot of responses on here would indicate many people don’t understand averages tbf. Hence why you get all the anecdotal comments.

No, you didn’t miss it and, if I did, I apologise unreservedly. However to quote a pp, I don’t think you understand what irony means, I haven’t been rude to anyone.

I'm in one of those groups and have been robustly defending so-called "boomers".

I say so-called, because I detest the unhelpful generalisations of large and very varied groups of people with little in common except age (and not even the same age, but something like a 20 year grouping).

It's ridiculous to do for any age group.

Generalisations always ignore the people who don't fit neatly into the stereotypes - often especially the most unfortunate.

As an example, I can't find the link right now but research has found that inequality within the oldest age groups is more extreme than any other age group.

That inequality within the same age grouping will imo get even worse for Gen X and likely Millennials too.

@blossomtoes sorry but you are one of the few posters who stick in my head because of your posting style.

I don’t think you understand what irony means, I haven’t been rude to anyone.

I mean that’s the second time you’ve been rude to me on the thread but it’s fine. I get that you don’t see it 😆

That inequality within the same age grouping will imo get even worse for Gen X and likely Millennials too.

Definitely

I'm not being rude. I've provided sources and spoken about facts. You keep repeating the same thing but haven't provided any evidence to back it up. I'm happy to learn and be corrected. I'd also be happy to apologise if I got a little confused and misquoted someone as @inslopia has pointed out.

It's not their fault, no, but there is a sense of entitlement amongst this generation I feel. Just look at the outcry over winter fuel payments.

Even if the money that they have paid in had been saved, it wouldn't be enough to cover the cost of their retirement, plus all these extras that they have come to expect. They just don't want to accept that the money isn't there, and that the disparity between generations is very unfair. They want us to pay more and more, but we will never get the benefits that they've had.

It was extremely rare.

It was extremely rare for boomer women to not work or work p/t with young children? Really?

Thank you @Superworm24

But, although I hate to generalise by age group, I think if we must do that, the very worst off will be/are (the less fortunate members of) Gen X.

A group that is very split in circumstances - with some doing very well, others doing ok, but a significant number in awful circumstances and with bleak futures.

The reason why I think, not all, but the less fortunate members of Gen Xers will be worst off are:

First generation to miss out on wider availability of social housing - at a time when simultaneously house prices to buy and private rental costs shot up.

So, private renting into older age, when unlikely to ever be able to buy due to age and low income. And if more social housing is finally built, by the time it's built will be too late for them (at least to recover financially especially re planning for ill health and/or retirement).

Plus, less chance than younger generations to have parental help to buy. If their parents had the money to help they would've already given it - and, unlike parents of younger generations, too late to make arrangements to protect inheritance from IHT and more importantly from care home costs.

Also too old mostly to get government first time buyer help (due to age and low income).

So for many a lifetime of poverty - and no way out ever.

But, like I said, generalising by age for any age group ignores the significant numbers who don't fit the stereotypes including stereotypical financial circumstances.

Many of us were higher rate tax payers for 20+ years while taking nothing in healthcare or education.

What does this even mean?

I'm not sure that people living longer is actually a good thing. People are now living a long time with dementia and multiple other painful and distressing health conditions, unable to do anything for themselves. I'd be interested to know if the years people have in good health is much longer than in the past. Or if its a similar length of time in good health, just the time in very poor health at the end that has been extended.

All of that is absolutely true except too late to make arrangements to protect inheritance from IHT and more importantly from care home costs. It’s not too late in the case of IHT - although there is an argument that it’s unfair to deprive the state of taxes used to provide public services. It’s virtually impossible to protect money (normally the proceeds of a house sale) from care home costs and I believe it’s morally wrong to do so - why should taxpayers foot the bill for care when someone has the money to pay for their own?

Large rise in the proportion of working mothers in paid work, up from 50% in 1975 to 72% in 2015. Rise particularly large amongst lone mothers and mothers of pre school & primary age dc.

I'd be interested to know if the years people have in good health is much longer than in the past. Or if its a similar length of time in good health, just the time in very poor health at the end that has been extended.

there has been little change in healthy life expectancy

It means they were super lucky to earn well and have good health. What more could one wish for in life?

My assumption is that they will stealth remove the state pension rather than means test it. The easy route to this is via pension credit which is already means tested.

The obvious route is to axe the triple lock, and allow state pension to gradually devalue, while allowing pension credit to steadily uprate with inflation.

They will never actually have to remove state pension, but it will become worthless while those with little/no private pension provision will be protected via pension credit.

It means quite a long period of paying a lot in and taking very little out. And yes, very lucky.

A government funded scheme that allows people age 45+ to study/retrain part time ( if working) to fill skills Gaps would be ideal. But I don't think study and upskilling should be prohibitive for anybody, in work or not. We should all be able access free/subsidised training while in work or taking breaks for caring responsibilities etc