Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Economically inactive people……

235 replies

Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 18:23

AIBU to think that the government needs to clarify who they mean when they say that they want to reduce the number of people who are economically inactive?

And to think they need to differentiate between the reasons for economic inactivity, including providing numbers who fall into each category.

It’s lazy to make this a headline without taking into account the different reasons and specifying who they mean.

Presumably they mean people who are unemployed, but economically inactive could include students, carers, disabled people, stay at home parents and those who have retired early.

Some will be reliant on the state for support but many will be completely self reliant and not claiming a thing from the government.

Why aren’t the government clearer on who they mean? Do they think they’ll persuade people who have retired early and others who have enough income without claiming any benefits to restart work?

OP posts:
bindin · 02/08/2025 18:58

Presumably they mean people who are unemployed, but economically inactive could include students, carers, disabled people, stay at home parents and those who have retired early.

This is exactly who it is, plus people who are ill.

bindin · 02/08/2025 18:59

Do they think they’ll persuade people who have retired early and others who have enough income without claiming any benefits to restart work?

I pretty sure the ones who retired early are from lower incomes but it's due to ill health.

bindin · 02/08/2025 19:00

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-52660591.amp

this article breaks down who they are

myplace · 02/08/2025 19:02

When I retire, I’ll be more economically productive I think. Someone will take my job so they’ll be economically active. I will spend far more than I currently do- tourism, lunch out etc.

And I’ll continue or ramp up voluntary work.

I can’t see a downside for the government. At the moment I’m earning but have no energy to spend it. Downside for me and the government!

RaininSummer · 02/08/2025 19:06

I think they are initially thinking of all the Neets and the underemployed. Then perhaps the disabled people who could maybe do some work. Not students or carers. They can think what like about those who retired early but they will be self funding so none of their business.

Original poster
Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 19:08

bindin · 02/08/2025 18:58

Presumably they mean people who are unemployed, but economically inactive could include students, carers, disabled people, stay at home parents and those who have retired early.

This is exactly who it is, plus people who are ill.

Yes I should have mentioned them too

OP posts:
Original poster
Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 19:11

bindin · 02/08/2025 18:59

Do they think they’ll persuade people who have retired early and others who have enough income without claiming any benefits to restart work?

I pretty sure the ones who retired early are from lower incomes but it's due to ill health.

Not necessarily. Some friends of ours have retired before reaching 60, they were high earners, company directors, drs etc.

Want to retire to enjoy time off and can fully fund it and their wives too.

OP posts:
Fearfulsaints · 02/08/2025 19:11

I thought economically inactive meant people without a job, who were not looking for work.

So unemployed are people out of work, looking for work.

Economically inactive is sahm, retired early, disabled, carers etc.

Original poster
Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 19:12

RaininSummer · 02/08/2025 19:06

I think they are initially thinking of all the Neets and the underemployed. Then perhaps the disabled people who could maybe do some work. Not students or carers. They can think what like about those who retired early but they will be self funding so none of their business.

Edited

Exactly, so they should clarify who they mean and not lump people in totally different situations in together

OP posts:
CaptainMyCaptain · 02/08/2025 19:14

bindin · 02/08/2025 18:59

Do they think they’ll persuade people who have retired early and others who have enough income without claiming any benefits to restart work?

I pretty sure the ones who retired early are from lower incomes but it's due to ill health.

Not always. I know someone who retired early in her 50s with an enhanced pension because her employer was making people redundant. My Dad took voluntary redundancy at 59 although he did decide to get another job after a while off work.

PerfectTuesday · 02/08/2025 19:21

My husband is one - hasn't worked due to ill health for the last 4 years, but he's not 65 till next year (when he should get a small occupational pension, not enough to live off) and no state pension till 2028.

I pay more than enough tax for both of us, though, and we've never had a penny off the state - we're childfree, so not even child benefit.

MyBirthdayMonth · 02/08/2025 19:21

I'm retired and certainly not economically inactive. I buy stuff all the time.

FourIsNewSix · 02/08/2025 19:24

Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 19:12

Exactly, so they should clarify who they mean and not lump people in totally different situations in together

Show quote history

Actually, they might mean the whole lot - they would love to make the overall number smaller and they will look into what could motivate/enable/force different groups.

Early retirees are spending money and self-funding, but they are not paying income tax and national insurance from their income, so it might look as a potential opportunity.

Some of the people will illness and disability might be able to work in some adjusted part-time job.

And so on.

Youdontseehow · 02/08/2025 19:27

FourIsNewSix · 02/08/2025 19:24

Actually, they might mean the whole lot - they would love to make the overall number smaller and they will look into what could motivate/enable/force different groups.

Early retirees are spending money and self-funding, but they are not paying income tax and national insurance from their income, so it might look as a potential opportunity.

Some of the people will illness and disability might be able to work in some adjusted part-time job.

And so on.

Show quote history

Well DH and I both took early retirement and we both pay tax on our pensions - although not NI.

Youdontseehow · 02/08/2025 19:27

MyBirthdayMonth · 02/08/2025 19:21

I'm retired and certainly not economically inactive. I buy stuff all the time.

😂😂😂

summerskyblue · 02/08/2025 19:34

I never understand this concept.

Someone who does not have a job still contribute to the economy when they go to the shops, take the bus, pay their rent...

People who are carers for a disabled kid or adult or for their elderly parents save the taxpayer money because it would cost much more for them to be cared for in care homes.

Someone who retired early still spends money to buy food, socialise and so on. Or they might volunteer.

This black and white thinking is nonsensical.

It is like this obsession with 'working families' which seems to imply if you are single, childfree, a student, a pensioner or whatever Labour does not think you actually matter and have a place in society. Just bizarre.

mumda · 02/08/2025 19:41

The welfare state was created based on the findings of the Beveridge report of 1942 which identified the '5 giant evils' in society (Squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease

Idleness has to end.
Everyone can do something.

AvidJadeShaker · 02/08/2025 19:42

I retired at 52 and pay more taxes than a lot of employed people. Plus I spend lots of money on goods and services.

BoredZelda · 02/08/2025 19:56

mumda · 02/08/2025 19:41

The welfare state was created based on the findings of the Beveridge report of 1942 which identified the '5 giant evils' in society (Squalor, ignorance, want, idleness and disease

Idleness has to end.
Everyone can do something.

Being economically inactive doesn’t mean you are on welfare. It also doesn’t mean you could work but are choosing not to. Most of the groups of economically inactive people are unable to work due to circumstances. A large group of these are familial carers, caring for disabled or elderly relatives. If these people returned to work, who is going to look after those people? Will the government step in and provide proper respite or daycare for disabled children/adults?

ohtowinthelottery · 02/08/2025 20:03

I've been 'economically inactive" since 1999 when I gave up work to care for our disabled DD. I did get carers allowance but the 24/7 365 days a year i worked for the approx £55pw (at the time) that i got, I'd say they've got a nerve calling me economically inactive when I was saving them ££££'s in care costs!
Since DD died i have been supported by DHs salary but I have undertaken a number of voluntary roles over the last 25 years (saving yet more Government money!)
I am now 'retired' in receipt of a final salary pension from the years I did work. DH has also retired. We don't qualify for State pension for a number of years but neither do we claim benefits. We contribute to the economy in many ways - more volunteering and having money to spend which means VAT goes to the government. DH also pays income tax.
The term economically inactive is very misleading in my opinion.

Havanananana · 02/08/2025 20:10

"Early retirees are spending money and self-funding, but they are not paying income tax and national insurance from their income, so it might look as a potential opportunity."

If their total income is more than £12,571 a year, early retirees certainly pay income tax if they have any form of income, as do pensioners. The full state pension alone (£11,973) uses up most of the personal tax-free allowance.

Original poster
Watermelonnice · 02/08/2025 20:13

ohtowinthelottery · 02/08/2025 20:03

I've been 'economically inactive" since 1999 when I gave up work to care for our disabled DD. I did get carers allowance but the 24/7 365 days a year i worked for the approx £55pw (at the time) that i got, I'd say they've got a nerve calling me economically inactive when I was saving them ££££'s in care costs!
Since DD died i have been supported by DHs salary but I have undertaken a number of voluntary roles over the last 25 years (saving yet more Government money!)
I am now 'retired' in receipt of a final salary pension from the years I did work. DH has also retired. We don't qualify for State pension for a number of years but neither do we claim benefits. We contribute to the economy in many ways - more volunteering and having money to spend which means VAT goes to the government. DH also pays income tax.
The term economically inactive is very misleading in my opinion.

Yes exactly my point, I think they’re being deliberately vague and misleading

OP posts:
Mavvera · 02/08/2025 20:15

I retired at 60 so I think I was one, I think it includes anyone not working up to age 64, not just those claiming benefits. Didn't Jeremy Hunt try to have a plan to get early retired people back to work.

BoredZelda · 02/08/2025 20:18

I posted about this the other day. The numbers are quite easy to find, but your average daily Mail reader wouldn’t bother. Much easier to brand all these people lazy.

Of the around 11 million of working age economically inactive people, 1.6 million are unemployed and seeking work, a further 1.8 would like to work but are unable to for various reasons (caring responsibilities, illness, disability etc)
That leaves around 7.6 million people.
2 million are students
1.2 million have taken early retirement on a private pension and/or savings
1.3 million have caring responsibilities (largely women caring for children or parents)
2.1 million are unable to work through disability (largely between 50 and 64)
Around a million people are not working because they don’t need to work, they are financially independent.
Of the 11 million economically inactive people, who are not looking for work, the number of people the taxpayer is supporting is not “millions”. The government and the tabloids want you to believe there are millions sponging off the state, but the statistics do not bear that out. If everyone who is able and claiming out of work benefits and returned to work, there would still be about 9 million working age people who are economically inactive.

ARichtGoodDram · 02/08/2025 20:18

Yes exactly my point, I think they’re being deliberately vague and misleading

They certainly are.

By badging everyone "economically inactive" together they make it sound like a huge number of people who could be economically active, or even should be.
^
So when they^ announce their next measures targeting whoever they go for people are supportive of it because they have the huge bunched together figure in their brain, rather than the actual number.

In their eyes I'm economically inactive as I'm a carer for my youngest DD. A place to get me back to work would be economically stupid given what it would cost to have her in full time care.