Retire at 80? Might have no choice...

henry24

Thank you Lesson, It's not just me I'm thinking about as my house is paid for I don't owe any money and between me and the wife we earn enough but haven't always had enough spare for pensions.


What I'm trying to say is when I'm 60 I will have paid NI for 44 years and with a state pension from it of maybe £7000 I could finish work but the government seems to want to keep us working even though its getting hard, I enjoy my job but don't want to do it until I die.


Now on the other hand near where I live there is a market garden that for 8 months a year employs about 40 people below the age of 40 all from abroad because the locals won't do it, they turn up do 2 hours then finish to stay on benefits, benefits that are more than what I would claim as a SP.


To me this is the wrong way to do things but how anyone changes it I don't know.

lessonlearned

40 people x 2 hrs a day does seem rather prescriptive but presumably the work pattern is driven by the needs of the business.

And, again presumably the under 40 rule suggests that the work is deemed too physical for older people.

Shame because those kind of hours, or even say 20 people by 4 hours a day would be ideal for those seeking part time work, such as mums with young children or active younger retirees.

But back to you, if your mortgage is paid off perhaps you could consider downsizing your working week, assuming your employers would agree.

My SIL, aged 62 has just done this, dropping to 4 days a week. She says it's working really well. Dropping a day a week can be surprisingly affordable, less tax to pay, lower work expenses such as travel costs etc.

As I say try looking at reducing your outgoings, saving more etc. If you can do that for the next few years you could build up a "war chest" to allow you to work a little less, rather than slogging it out full time to the bitter end.

Mojisola

teddysmum wrote: »

Reading 'historical' novels set in the 1930s/40s it can be seen that poor old Mrs Smith, on her last legs, is in fact about 45 to 50.

People did look older - life in general was hard and that's reflected in their faces - but I've done quite a bit of family history research and most of mine lasted well into their 70s and 80s and that's going back into the 19th century and earlier. Some were still working during their last years.

The average age of death was younger because of the number of children who died but, it seems to me, that those who made it through to adulthood were very tough and lived good long lives.

henry24

Sorry Lesson I've not explained it well enough, they employ 40 people from abroad who work full time but the locals who are English get sent by the jobcentre only work 2 hours then quit saying it's to hard but because they have turned up they keep there benefits but older people can't have a pension. Yes the work is to physical for older people.


With regards to your other points I'm lucky that I only do a 4 day week and do save money for later in life, but it's not just me what about the ones who can't or woman who thought they would be retiring at 60 to now find it's 67.

lessonlearned

Yes, I fell foul of the new pension rules for women. It affected quite a few of us.

As for the current benefit situation - I think that's probably why so many people who visit this and similar money sites are so committed to FIRE.

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Mojisola wrote: »

...
The average age of death was younger because of the number of children who died but, it seems to me, that those who made it through to adulthood were very tough and lived good long lives.

The death of children certainly affected average age.

BUT the length of life expected has most certainly gone up - take a look at the 4th chart here - http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-has-life-expectancy-changed-over-time/ - entitled "Life expectancy at older ages continues to increase meaning our pensions need to last longer"

You can see how someone aged 65 back in 1950 would have expected 8-10 years less lifespan than today.

Mojisola

Mojisola wrote: »

most of mine lasted well into their 70s and 80s and that's going back into the 19th century and earlier.

ThinkingOutLoud wrote: »

BUT the length of life expected has most certainly gone up - take a look at the 4th chart here - http://visual.ons.gov.uk/how-has-life-expectancy-changed-over-time/ - entitled "Life expectancy at older ages continues to increase meaning our pensions need to last longer"

You can see how someone aged 65 back in 1950 would have expected 8-10 years less lifespan than today.

And it confirms my research - even back in the 1850s, people who made it to 65 could expect an average of 10+ years. Allowing that some would die at 66 and so on, others would live well into their 80s.

I also wonder how many of our extra years now are healthy, active ones - a longer life or a slower death?

ThinkingOutLoud_2

Mojisola wrote: »

And it confirms my research - even back in the 1850s, people who made it to 65 could expect an average of 10+ years. Allowing that some would die at 66 and so on, others would live well into their 80s.

I also wonder how many of our extra years now are healthy, active ones - a longer life or a slower death?

You might find this interesting - talks directly about how the average figure skews perceptions - https://understandinguncertainty.org/why-life-expectancy-misleading-summary-survival

The things that kill us have changed too - as has the fact that people are less active for less years and eat processed food and infant mortality has reduced a lot in the first world.

Quality of life is very difficult to assess as almost every study defines it differently...and you cannot go back and ask these kind of qualitative questions.

margaretclare

Well, I dunno. I have a perspective on this, obviously.

I am fast approaching my 82nd birthday (August) and my DH got there last December. His grandad, and my great-grandfather, both saw their 90th birthdays. Apart from those two, no one else on any side of the family has reached 80. I've lived longer than all my female antecedents and most of my relatives, going back into the 19th century. As well as the good health-care, I've had a much easier life than every one of those women. No carrying heavy buckets and baskets around, down on knees scrubbing floors, out in all weathers - terrible for your complexion! Up early, bed late.

I had a career and a working life from age 16 to 65, but most of those women had no chance of ever retiring, and they were sent out to work at age 14, some into 'service'. No sentiment about service as a way of life! They were as bright as anyone else, but little chance of education. I've had a far better education and was the first generation of female relatives to leave school into an office job, not into service.

Both DH and I have had joint replacements. Up to about 40 years ago these did not exist. I had a great-aunt who - I now know - needed a hip replacement. I used to leave my bike at her house to catch the school bus. She could hardly move and was in agony. This was the late 1940s, I left school in 1951. I don't know when she died, but she was in pain right up to the end of her life. How many others like that? Living in pain and immobility?

DH wouldn't still have 2 legs and not one-and-a-bit, if it wasn't for the great strides in modern surgery and technology. We can go out, can plan to go on holiday, because we have a car. Without that we'd be much less mobile. A bus pass isn't much use to us.

We're looking forward to enjoying the remaining years of our lives together.

I am fortu