Economically inactive people……

[Watermelonnice]

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?

I thought it meant people who don't pay tax. The number of net contributors to the tax system is absolutely tiny 😐😡

This is what politicians do. Build narrative around words that are largely meaningless.
I would argue that no one is economically inactive.

Perhaps this is an unhelpful term but we do need to have a term that references the fact that we have a lot of people not working. We're relying on a smaller and smaller percentage of the population to produce the goods and services we need which is causing a lot of our problems.

I don't think it's particularly helpful to focus on early retirees as we have so many young people who either can't find a job, can't be arsed to find a job or are employed in low productivity roles (e.g. recent graduates working part time at Costa). We need to fix this first.

Financialcareerstuff excellent post

No one is challenging specific groups and saying "you are a scrounger" or "you must work".

We are saying the maths does not work having such a huge proportion of working age people not in paid full time work.

A degree of it is demographic - the current boomer cohort was very big and are now primarily retired and in ill health, which is a drain on state resource as they are heavy NHS/care users. Lots also had generous public sector backed DB pensions which are expensive for the government to be funding.

When that generation die it should ease the burden BUT you then have the issue that there are some very small generations coming behind as people are having fewer children

@financialcareerstuff you're conflating two things here.

There's one set of maths which looks at whether or not someone is a net contributor to government finances. In this case a very wealthy retiree may look positive (assuming they're not using the NHS etc.) and a full time carer would be negative.

There's another set of maths which looks at whether or not someone is a contributor to the economic output of the country in terms of goods and services produced. In this case a wealthy retiree would be zero. I would argue a full time carer is not because the job they're doing could be a paid role if they were caring for someone not related to them.

There are lots of jobs which are very high in terms of economic output (e.g. farmer) but low in terms of wages and therefore tax receipts. We massively underestimate the importance of these roles in our economy. We could survive as a nation of farmers, we could not survive as a nation of wealthy retirees.

It's important to also understand where the money for private pensions comes from. It comes primarily from things like the stock market. Growth in the stock market comes from growth in economic output (i.e. people working).

The simple fact that if there are not enough people paying tax then services will suffer is clear.

The point I am making is that many of those not out at work are providing the services that the government cannot afford (or does not prioritise) whilst also paying taxes.

So we are doing both - paying taxes and plugging the gaps in services for free.

@VanessaFenceyes indeed- thank you. I don’t think contradictory to what I said - I think it is somewhat included in the growth element I mentioned, but a very enriching addition, and I agree.

I think it is clear. They want to reduce the numbers in ALL categories, including people who are ill, disabled, carers and older. The principle isn't a bad one as it suggests measures that will remove barriers so that everyone has an opportunity to be EA in accordance with their abilities and finding a way around any restriction Unfortunately these measures have been tried many times by successive governments and are almost always poorly executed, with more effort going into implementing consequences than into removing barriers.

My mum is economically inactive I’d say. Early 60s, stopped working late 50s to spend more time with my dad who is older. Now cares for him, has a tiny pension from a previous career (£200 a month - used as pocket money), dad’s good final salary pension pays the bills.

Ultimately for all the working years any of us have there is a number that equates to all the tax and NI we have ever paid. There is also a number harder to quantify and that is the amount any of us have taken out of the system by using public services and by claiming benefits.

We were net contributors for around 30 years. The increasing hostility towards the better off and calls for taxing them even more when you are one of the people paying loads in taxes is irritating.

But thats bs, I wrote this because I have seen it with my own eyes. I personally know 2 people who have no mental health issues but claim uc and do not work but they are perfectly fine, they just dont want to work. One of them has never worked a day in their life.

I think economic inactive isn’t a good term because it’s factually incorrect and they should be clear what they mean - is it income tax they are solely interested in, is it bringing money into the country rather than shovelling it around / exporting it by buying from abroad , is it reducing the burden on the taxation system by getting people off benefits of whatever type ( why only those with no jobs - why not better jobs for those on benefits with work?)

I see it all the time in my job. truly baffling how these people get awarded the Limited capability for work and work related activity element of UC. Apparently over two thirds of people who go through the assessment get awarded it( deemed unfit for any kind of work or work related activity ) hence why the changes to Uc from next April are being brought in with that element halved for new claimants. It's unsustainable. Many people have just been continuing to claim the LCWRA for years with no re-assessments because the system is so far behind with re-assessing people especially since covid. The whole system is a mess.

They don’t need to do that. The government’s ambition is to REDUCE the numbers of economically inactives, not eliminate them.
For some, they will be able to join the workforce; some won’t.

Why are you concerned about this?

I’m not concerned about it, I’m interested in it.

I am not a fan of this government and I would prefer them to be honest and transparent with the electorate and not talk in sound bites, saying things that when you stop and think about it in more detail, or relate it to your personal experience and that of those around you is totally unrealistic or makes zero sense.

I would prefer them to spell out exactly what they think the problem is and have a sensible plan to fix it.

some posters on here talk more sense than the government.

I agree with those who say addressing the Neets would be the best way to start. My dd is at uni but wanted a summer job. She applied for loads and heard nothing back, most wanted experience, which is hard to get if you can’t find work. She got a job in the end but is only getting 2 shifts a week. She could do a lot more, but the opportunity isn’t there. At least with 2 shifts a week she is gaining valuable experience and earning a bit of money. She is really enjoying it and has gained a lot of confidence since joining. I really worry about the young adults who aren’t in education, training or work at all and think it can’t be good for them socially, physically or mentally to be at home all the time.

I can’t imagine any scenario which would entice the early retired, financially independent back to work. I aspire to be this in the next 5-10 years, it’s what keeps me going.

Re the sick and disabled, many I’m sure would love to be able to access faster treatment and access to work. Many I’m sure would prefer to work if they’re able. More flexibility with working eg from home with flexible hours would really help here but there seems a push against this which is short sighted.

Re carers, I agree those caring for people with severe needs are saving the government a large amount of money, but it depends on the level of care required and if this could be provided in a group setting or in smaller periods of the day rather than 1-1. Parents giving up work to home educate seems to be happening a lot and again this is unsustainable if multiple numbers choose to do this. Maybe the government need to investigate the reasons for this and address the core issue.

re students, I agree these are the workers of the future, but many seem to study for years now, doing degree then masters etc,then travelling, almost putting off work. It also seems many are struggling to find work after their degree. Again this needs looking at. Why are many staff being recruited from overseas (eg junior drs) when our own can’t find work.

Who is talking about pensioners?

There needs to be more support available for those who have been out of work for a long time and those who have disabilities (mental or physical) that disadvantage them in the job market.

It is too simple to say that everyone who on the surface can work should work.

As an employer I would want people who are motivated and reliable and certainly not "pressed men" who will not do a good job, either because they cannot do so or do not care.

Many people with disabilities, even minor ones, are used to being discriminated against in the workplace and throw in the towel in the end, even though they are capable of working.

I used to work for the Shaw Trust (https://shawtrust.org.uk/) who provide support for people in the workplace, but they need funds in order to do their job. Nothing is cost free.

Well, DH will be retiring at 55 and living off his private pension, and I'll be doing similar a few years later. We won't be claiming any benefits. Who does it harm?

You are misunderstanding this. Most of us in employment will have a workplace pension. The boomer generation are still able to access final salary pensions. As Gen X retire these were switched to define contribution. Same money put in, but no where near as good. So why should the young privileged retirees not pay NI on their monthly pension, until their official retirement age? More people will have to work longer, so subsidising those who were just lucky. NI contributions until retirement age would bring in billions.

Yes we have had personal experience of this. My husband lost his well paid job at 58, having worked since the age of 17. He thought he would be snapped up. He got loads of interviews, but no job offer. He is now in a job, same pay as in the 90s. He is more experienced than most in his company, but only has 3 years left until retirement. So he just gets on with it.

I'm not following the numbers. PP said of the economically inactive, 2 million are students. But elsewhere, I read that there are 2.9 million students in UK and about 75% of students work at least part time. Those numbers don't agree.

Also PP said that 1.6 million are seeking work (so mostly on universal credit?), 2.1 million have disability (so many are claiming benefits I imagine...) seems like at least 2 million ppl are being supported by taxpayer = "millions". I didn't include the "1.8 million not looking for work but would like to but can't due to disability etc." : might be some claims for benefits among them, too

It's all very well saying people need to be working, but you've got to find someone who will employ you. Illness, disability, lack of experience, being seen as too old, not having a personality type that is good with interviews and / or poor interpersonal skills, not being able to access the workplace at a time when you're required to be there due to transport issues. All of these are blockers that will disqualify you in the eyes of employers. It's really difficult to get work at the moment in some areas even if you don't have blockers.

Yes that’s what i meant by the government needing to look more into the reasons why people don’t or can’t work, and ways to improve that….

transport costs, transport availability (very unreliable where we are, regularly cancelled), childcare costs, cost and times of summer clubs, work experience opportunities etc

I agree, please encourage her to leave and start a thread so that we may vicariously enjoy her liberation 💃🏼

Pretty much of that applies to me. I am never going to be the number one candidate for any job.

There is a huge difference between someone who can’t work due to disability and someone who doesn’t work because they don’t want to. Let’s get that straight.