Long term economic impact of mass early retirement ?

Linton

Brenster said:

I think for the current generation it will be much more difficult to achieve early retirement, through a combination of cost of living, tax increases, house prices, the costs / debt associated with their own education and the cost of their current / future children's education.......... 

I think you will find it was difficult for previous generations as well.  OECD data shows that the averge age for male retirement in the UK in the 5 years 2013-2018 was 64.7, increasing from a low point of 62 in 1990.  It was 67.7 in 1970.

Dansmam

iamnotasoldier said:

hugheskevi said:

Few points to consider on the financing side:

• We are currently at 'peak DB' with pensions paid from DB pensions at the highest they will be. From now the total paid out will decline as the decline of DB schemes from the 1990s (and earlier, but especially from 1990s onwards) takes effect on pension paid out.

Excellent point. We may well be at Peak Early Retirement & future generations will align more with the SP age. I wonder how they will view the "Boomer" generation that enjoyed these generous DB pensions, which could facilitate early retirement ?

Well I for one am giving what I can to help with higher house deposits and pointing my children towards FIRE sites explaining why today's shiny lovely stuff is just a drag on their incredible futures. I am a total hypocrite having bought them much blue and pink plastic in the past because I thought it would make them happy. It didn't . They get that. And they know I understand I got that wrong when they were younger. We live and learn. DB (full disclosure, I have one which will deliver 25k+ in 18 months time at 60) in my view is the lazy way to retirement on other people's terms. FIRE is the opposite and the best current alternative. Has always been the best option. Only wish I'd recognised that 20 years ago 😉

Mickey666

Thrugelmir said:

Deleted_User said:

green_man said:

It is an interesting question.

I retired at 47 (now 54) I was a higher rate tax payer and if I was still working I would have continued to be so. Since retiring I have been a non (income based)tax payer.  

So is the gov drawing in less tax due to my retirement? I don’t think so.  Basically someone else is doing my job, someone will have moved up into my role, this allows the usual job progression you get in a large company and ultimately enables them to take on more graduate level starters, without these opportunities it’s this age group than can struggle to establish their careers and become a burden on the state.

So overall I don’t think retiring early does  reduce tax take.  The only time it would be a big issue is if we have near 100% employment.

People are employed by businesses for a reason and its not so they get paid lots.  Employment is not a zero sum game. If trained and experienced people in their prime leave employment, it cuts the overall output.  And yes, it does reduce tax intake. 

Technology has removed the need for many tiers of management and supervisory levels over the past 30 years. 

. . . But bureaucracy has probably added at least as many new roles to replace them.  It sometimes seems we’re taking a risk to even breathe these days unless we have obtained formal consent and/or have carried out a formal risk assessment (ok, ok, I exaggerate, but just give it more time).

hugheskevi

But bureaucracy has probably added at least as many new roles to replace them.  It sometimes seems we’re taking a risk to even breathe these days unless we have obtained formal consent and/or have carried out a formal risk assessment (ok, ok, I exaggerate, but just give it more time).

Isn't that the definition of a COVID-secure workplace?