Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Thread gallery
9
january1244 · 20/05/2026 17:52

Lougle · 19/05/2026 17:29

According to the National Office for Statistics, the percentage of working age people who are out of work is hovering at 4.9-5% this year. The percentage of working age people who were out of work in 2016 was 4.9-5.1%. So there's not a big change at all.

25% of working age people don’t work. The 5% are just those actively looking for work

taramasalatatata · 20/05/2026 18:03

january1244 · 20/05/2026 17:52

25% of working age people don’t work. The 5% are just those actively looking for work

This is a totally average percentage though and many countries with virtually no welfare state have a higher percentage of their working age population not working.

NorthXNorthWest · 20/05/2026 18:11

Differentforgirls · 20/05/2026 13:56

She was the carer. I'm a tax payer - I have no problem having that grace. I'm retired btw and won't get my state pension for another 5 years. Still pay tax.

That's nice for you.

january1244 · 20/05/2026 18:13

Doglover254 · 19/05/2026 23:10

1.84 m out of work. Not millions

11 million working age people are out of work. Not all will be claiming benefits. But only three quarters of people of working age are in employment of any kind

january1244 · 20/05/2026 18:24

taramasalatatata · 20/05/2026 18:03

This is a totally average percentage though and many countries with virtually no welfare state have a higher percentage of their working age population not working.

But that’s 25% of working age people not working, hence presumably not saving into a pension. Leaves 20% of employed people making inadequate provision, which might be younger people or people who absolutely cannot save right now due to cost of living.

I would say, even £100 a month (if you can) really increases with compound interest. Plus then the government top up

taramasalatatata · 20/05/2026 18:27

january1244 · 20/05/2026 18:24

But that’s 25% of working age people not working, hence presumably not saving into a pension. Leaves 20% of employed people making inadequate provision, which might be younger people or people who absolutely cannot save right now due to cost of living.

I would say, even £100 a month (if you can) really increases with compound interest. Plus then the government top up

I agree that anyone who can pay in absolutely should and it needs to be a high priority.

Middleagedspreadisreal · 20/05/2026 18:46

I've never earned enough to save for a pension, will have to rely on the state pension

nearlylovemyusername · 20/05/2026 18:48

january1244 · 20/05/2026 17:52

25% of working age people don’t work. The 5% are just those actively looking for work

The 5% are just those actively looking for work

I believe 5% are those claiming JSA. People who are actively looking but not claiming wouldn't be part of this stat. And yes, about 25% of working age population are economically inactive.

Apprentice26 · 20/05/2026 18:54

ThingsAreNotWhatTheyWere · 20/05/2026 17:25

I think that's comparing apple and pears somewhat. The point is that children once they become adults are independent financially, as well as in every ither way. However, if that adult is not able to live and work independently and needs round-the-clock care, the/one parent either cannot work as they are fulfilling this role and gets a paltry contribution towards unpaid work or if they are unable or unwilling to do this, some kind of permanent residential care will need to be found which the state will probably have to fund. The first option is therefore by far the most cost-effective from the point of view of the government!

My next-door neighbour’s wife died of cancer leaving him with a disabled child. The first thing he did was put the kid into full-time state funded residential care.
If more parents/carers did that, perhaps they would take the role more seriously.

january1244 · 20/05/2026 18:54

@nearlylovemyusernameno the 5% are not those claiming JSA. Those figures are separate. Apparently it’s the number of people who have been applying for jobs in the last four weeks

missmollygreen · 20/05/2026 19:09

FernFaery · 19/05/2026 19:31

Its 75%

Regardless. There is obviously and incentive to work for the majority of people.
Plus not the full 25% out of work and not actually wanting to find work.

Allonthesametrain · 20/05/2026 19:15

I may be wrong but if on UC state pension contributions are still paid? So the expectation that we need to pay into our state pensions for 38 years from wages is false?

If you don't then you get pension credit which comes with lots of extras like contributions to rent, dental care, council tax etc?

Most companies and government sector have an automatic private pension which are taken out of earnings. There is the option to opt out but after advice from elders it really is best to keep paying into it.

This figure does seem incredible, most if not all jobs do jave a pension scheme, NEST for zero hours.

jumpingjohnny · 20/05/2026 19:20

OneShyQuail · 20/05/2026 13:09

And apparently not save £100 a month for a holiday with your children but put it into your pension pot instead.

Some posters assumed ive saved £100 a month for decades for holidays amd blasted me for wanting to take my kids away. Nope, this is the first year I have been able to put money aside for a holiday.

But yeah, I wont take them on holiday, il put £100 into my pension pot for 12 months instead.

Like honestly wtf?!

Oh and the £25 a month i put into their birthday and christmas funds.....apparently £300 on a birthday/christmas (split) is too much money and that should go into my pension too?!

So no Christmas or birthdays for them?

I love rich people telling poor people how to spend their money 🙄

Why would you think people choosing to only spend what they can afford on kids birthdays/Christmas and budgeting or foregoing holidays abroad are rich????? Quite the opposite! But still have the sense to pay into a pension.

DH is self employed so any we pay into his private pension comes back as a tax rebate. I am on carers allowance and work ~10hrs a week. Still put a little bit into a workplace pension.

ThreadGuardDog · 20/05/2026 19:23

Allonthesametrain · 20/05/2026 19:15

I may be wrong but if on UC state pension contributions are still paid? So the expectation that we need to pay into our state pensions for 38 years from wages is false?

If you don't then you get pension credit which comes with lots of extras like contributions to rent, dental care, council tax etc?

Most companies and government sector have an automatic private pension which are taken out of earnings. There is the option to opt out but after advice from elders it really is best to keep paying into it.

This figure does seem incredible, most if not all jobs do jave a pension scheme, NEST for zero hours.

Pension credit is nothing to do with UC - it’s entirely dependent on income below a certain threshold. And not everyone on UC is unemployed.

ThreadGuardDog · 20/05/2026 19:26

DrRylandGrace · 20/05/2026 16:00

SIPPs have been available in the UK since 1988. How old are you that you’ve had no opportunity over the last 37 years to use one? To have retired in 1988 at say 60 years old you’d have to be 97 by now. In which case you are excused for not having a private pension fund. Otherwise, it’s a lame excuse. And even before SIPPs were established it was still perfectly possible to invest your money post-tax, just as people still do today in addition to having pensions.

And how old are you that you’ve never heard of zero hours contracts ?

croydon15 · 20/05/2026 19:29

FernFaery · 19/05/2026 17:31

Well there’s just no incentive to work. How can there be, if people are vociferously arguing that those who don’t work should get exactly the same?

It's already like that some people on benefits get as much if not more than some people working on minimum wages and being on benefits open the doors to lots of freebies which l am not begrudging for seriously disabled people

Papyrophile · 20/05/2026 19:32

ObelixtheGaul · 20/05/2026 17:09

I was interested by an article I read a year or so ago, I think it was Martin Lewis. Apparently, there's been a rise in people with private pensions cashing them in early as a lump sum to hand over to their kids to get them on the housing ladder/contribute to uni fees/ whatever is needed, leaving themselves much worse off for their retirement. Naturally, he advised against this.

The increase in people having children at an older age is having an impact on what people do with their pension pots, with more hitting late 50s with teenagers still at home and elderly parents needing care. It's tempting to see that sum of money becoming available as a lifeline for today rather than to keep you tomorrow.

In addition you have people headless-chickening about their children having to pay IHT without thinking about their own needs whilst they are still living.

But this is often sensible, provided that you have been fortunate to earn well and prepared to save properly during your working years. We did this last year with our lump sum. At 70, we haven't started drawing down the accumulated pension yet, plus it's still accruing new money from rental income. We have state pensions, and I have a very small one from my last paid employment. We're also the owners of the small business that DH started and still runs, so we have another income on a post-retirement profit share basis. The house can be sold to fund care if necessary.

Our DC is in the process of buying a modest house with our gift plus the inheritances from our mothers, which bypassed us via deeds of variation to their wills. Provided one of us lives another seven years, that part of our estate will be outside IHT.

DC has been a member of our SIPP since the age of two. It has been carefully planned over 30 years. I turn slightly apoplectic when Chancellors re-write the rules, and there's zero prospect of investing in any hare-brained government-approved schemes.

ThistleTits · 20/05/2026 19:36

Brahumbug · 19/05/2026 17:19

That's why workplace pensions need to be compulsory with no opting out.

Some people barely have enough to live on. And require UC to top up their pittance wage. Perhaps employers should be taking more responsibility.

jumpingjohnny · 20/05/2026 19:45

ThistleTits · 20/05/2026 19:36

Some people barely have enough to live on. And require UC to top up their pittance wage. Perhaps employers should be taking more responsibility.

If you're on UC, the payments are calculated post-pension contributions so you'd actually be better off paying into a pension (for future) and getting more in UC (for now). It would be foolish not to!

Allonthesametrain · 20/05/2026 19:52

ThreadGuardDog · 20/05/2026 19:23

Pension credit is nothing to do with UC - it’s entirely dependent on income below a certain threshold. And not everyone on UC is unemployed.

Pension credit is a transfer from UC and it is true that you could theoretically be on UC your whole life and it's transferred to pension credit.

Of course many who work get UC but the view some work a certain amount of hours to meet the pay requirement to be able to get UC on top is seen as calculated.

ObelixtheGaul · 20/05/2026 20:01

Papyrophile · 20/05/2026 19:32

But this is often sensible, provided that you have been fortunate to earn well and prepared to save properly during your working years. We did this last year with our lump sum. At 70, we haven't started drawing down the accumulated pension yet, plus it's still accruing new money from rental income. We have state pensions, and I have a very small one from my last paid employment. We're also the owners of the small business that DH started and still runs, so we have another income on a post-retirement profit share basis. The house can be sold to fund care if necessary.

Our DC is in the process of buying a modest house with our gift plus the inheritances from our mothers, which bypassed us via deeds of variation to their wills. Provided one of us lives another seven years, that part of our estate will be outside IHT.

DC has been a member of our SIPP since the age of two. It has been carefully planned over 30 years. I turn slightly apoplectic when Chancellors re-write the rules, and there's zero prospect of investing in any hare-brained government-approved schemes.

The key here is that you have other income streams. Not everybody cashing out to help their children does. Which was the point Lewis was getting at.

LoyalMember · 20/05/2026 20:05

The truth is, sadly, that a lot of people need all the money they can get their hands on nowadays. I pay over a £100 into my pension, and I could really do with an extra ton every month these days..

OneShyQuail · 20/05/2026 20:59

DrRylandGrace · 20/05/2026 09:17

Exactly. Attitudes like that - thinking pension saving is optional - are exactly why auto-enrolment needs to be mandatory with no opt out. Otherwise there are people who will prioritise luxuries over pension saving which is essential, leaving taxpayers to foot the bill.

There will always be a small proportion of people too disabled to work and the state pension should be a safety net for that situation. For everyone who can work pension saving should not be a choice. £150bn and rising per year is going on state pensions and it’s simply not affordable when we’re paying £100bn in debt interest and can’t afford to fund schools and healthcare etc properly. People need to accept being responsible for their own retirement funds.

The PP’s comment to which you responded also shows many people have no grasp of basic maths and compounding, another reason why the opt-out needs to be removed. Pension saving needs to be treated like a tax, in effect, but with everyone saving for their own so that changes in demographics don’t bankrupt the country. Anybody who understands even very basic maths can see that it is a mathematical certainty that the current system is not sustainable, especially the triple lock, but ultimately the UK public will have to accept the state pension beings means-tested.

The country is broke and we can’t afford to continue this largesse to pensioners, far in excess of the tax they have contributed. Over 25% of those in receipt of state pensions are millionaires and a further 25% have incomes higher than the national average full time salary (£39k). For us to be handing out welfare to people in this situation is ridiculous when they have minimal costs and means testing it at this level would cause no poverty to anybody. To be demanding state welfare you have no need of while taxes are sky high and public services is crumbling is absurdly entitled and anti-social and frankly should be ignored. Nearly 70% if pensioners have no housing costs and those that do largely have this paid via benefits on top of the state pensions welfare!

It’s not acceptable for living standards for those of working age, infrastructure, education, healthcare and defence to crumble and a large proportion of children to be living in poverty just because people will kick up a fuss if they don’t get state handouts they don’t require when they are the richest cohort in society by far and over half of them have absolutely no need for state welfare to have a comfortable standard of living, particularly when this situation was foreseen and entirely predictable and they chose not to demand politicians rectified it decades ago when they should have and voted for tax cuts for themselves instead.

Australia anticipated the demographic problem and implemented sensible system decades ago. We should have done the same. We need to do this now; better late than never.

I think you misunderstand my post.
I do pay into a pension. I haven't opted out.
I paid into a pension when I had a good career for a few years. I had my children amd left work to raise them for a while supported by my partner. Things went wrong. He left (very unexpectedly).
My plan was to return to work when my youngest started nursery, when the relationship broke down, I couldnt.
Once back on my feet I started work again, but couldnt return to my career when on my own with the children.
Since being in work I pay into a pension. Its a meagre amount a month and im not young so time is not on my side.

I have managed to keep a mortgaged roof over my children's heads, clothe them, feed them, save for emergencies, run a car and not get into debt. There was nothing spare to put more into a pension.

Years on from that, I met my DP. I can now save £100 a month to take them on holiday.

Apologies if it is not on my radar to take that extra £100 a month and put it in my pension.

I do understand basic maths and I know how to use a pension calculator. Which I have done. The money I contribute from my salary til I retire wont get me much. Id need a hell of an income to do that. It might happen in the future, who knows?! But my youngest is only 6 and needs me around. So I stay where I am for now.

I work hard. I haven't opted out of anything. There's no need to be so rude and make assumptions that people are thick.

Life isnt linear nor does it go to plan. If my girls dad had stayed, and id gone back into my career id have a very good pension pot now among plenty of others things....I wouldnt be worrying about £100 a month saved for 1 holiday thats for sure!!!

OneShyQuail · 20/05/2026 21:02

Katypp · 20/05/2026 17:12

I'm not rich. Our household income is under £60k with two full-time workers.
But i think your attitide pretty much sums up the way lifestyles have crept way beyond what they used to be. And what used to be considered a extra - eg a holiday - is now seen as a basic need.
We are constantly told on here that families are spending every penny and struggling to make ends meet, yet when i walk past a nursery in my very working class area, you can't move for SUVs no more than three years old.
Soft play, play cafes, takeaway coffee shops, ice cream parlours, nail bars, beauticians, tanning shops, vape shops, endless hairdressers, dog grooming shops - someone must be using these places, yet they none of them existed 40 years ago.
So every penny may be being spent - but is driving a car far bigger and newer than really needed, getting a dog groomed, a couple of takeaway coffees a week and a soft play session really more important than a pension?

Again, this is the first year I can save and take my children away abroad?! They are 6 and 12....ive been a single parent for 5 years......
Household income under 60k and you aren't rich. Do you think you could manage keeping a house, bills, feed and clothe 2 children, run a car and save for emergencies on under a third of that?!

OneShyQuail · 20/05/2026 21:06

jumpingjohnny · 20/05/2026 19:20

Why would you think people choosing to only spend what they can afford on kids birthdays/Christmas and budgeting or foregoing holidays abroad are rich????? Quite the opposite! But still have the sense to pay into a pension.

DH is self employed so any we pay into his private pension comes back as a tax rebate. I am on carers allowance and work ~10hrs a week. Still put a little bit into a workplace pension.

I was referring to a PP telling me that £300 split over my two children's birthdays and Christmas in a year is too much?! And that i should be putting that money into my pension.

And £100 a month towards a holiday (over 12 months) should also go into a pension instead of a holiday?!

Anyone who is telling someone on a tight budget what to do with their money clearly has no idea what its like to have so little money. This has been shown but other posters on here saying they have a household income of 60k but they aren't rich. Try living on 1/3 of that.

I pay into s pension i haven't opted out but only wage its meagre and I haven't been paying in long so its not rrally going to touch the sides!