Jeremy Hunt in plea to early retirees: ‘Britain needs you’

Grumpy_chap

Altior said:

I can't see too many people having issues with someone in their 50s retiring if they can afford it themselves. The issue does come if they can't afford it, and expect other taxpayers have to supplement their lifestyle.

The recent press hysteria references these, apparently large, numbers of over-50's that are retiring.  Given the pension freedom rules, would I be fair to assume that this reference to early-retirees really refers to over-55's and not over-50's?

What is the criteria for being able to afford early retirement at age 50?

When the pension freedoms were initially introduced, there was much speculation in the press that people would turn 55, draw the tax-free sum and then splurge out on a sports-car, thus leaving themselves with inadequate means for their full retirement.
There does not seem to be much evidence of that type of behaviour being the reality.

However, I wonder, and it is pure speculation as I have no figures or data, but I still wonder.  Are those retiring at age-55 really able to afford to retire?
At one level, I suppose anyone who has reached LTA should be able to fund a suitable life-style for practical eternity.
However, there have been the odd thread on here with people mentioning that they have reached 55, would it be a good idea to draw their pension lump sum from what seems to be a smallish pension fund, pay off what is left of their mortgage and then live on the remaining pension income going forwards.
I am not yet 55, and I have thankfully achieved mortgage-free, but I do not feel that my pension fund (which is larger than some of these other threads seem to have when deciding for early-retirement) is sufficient for me to consider retirement as soon as 55 arrives.
So, back to my wondering - will we have a swathe of people that have retired early in 2020 at age 55, realising they've run out of money at age 62 and then deciding they have no choice other than to return to work?
At that point, the individuals may have lost much of their working capacity through the time away from the work-place and out of the constraints of forced routine, but they'll be wanting to go back to a higher-end salary like they enjoyed previously yet with the reduced skill set.  I am not in any way saying that age 62 is too old to be very useful in the work-place.  This is in the context of the long break in work and then returning, having not kept abreast of development, etc.  I mean, I find it a bind to go back after two-weeks annual leave in the sun, let alone after a theoretical break of a few years.  In some industries, to maintain employment, certifications have to be renewed periodically but one assumes the early-retiree will not have been doing so.

I suppose we will need to wait another 3 - 5 years or so before we find out whether there were early-retirees thta were not really able to afford to be an early-retiree.

NedS

EdSwippet said:

"We will look at the conditions necessary to make work worth your while"

It's clear from the responses in this thread they have a fundamental choice between carrot and stick:

Carrot: We will reduce the tax burden to try to entice you back into work

Stick: We will increase the tax burden to try to force you back into work

Or as also suggested, maybe they really don't care either way and it's just a tactic to divert attention and blame away from themselves and onto others.

Or maybe they are just appealing to the good nature of those who may have become a little bored of sitting at home for the last couple years and this will be enough to nudge them back into work.

I would love to be a fly on the wall in that policy meeting

zagfles

mumf said:

unfortunately,the majority of government, MPs and the like are ex Public School, ( Hunt is) ,so therefore are from wealthy families. They are born,reared and educated in a world that is miles apart  from people who do proper work.

Liz Truss wasn't, she went to a comprehensive. Bring her back, she did a much better job

mumf said:

ln fact ,it was rather interesting to see who wasn’t actually missed at that time -  those were the ones who earn (ed) a shed load of money ,unlike the ‘basic’ workers who were praised. How soon society and parliament have forgotten. 

Yeah, like footballers. They weren't missed, not by me anyway

MACKEM99

Grumpy_chap said:

Altior said:

I can't see too many people having issues with someone in their 50s retiring if they can afford it themselves. The issue does come if they can't afford it, and expect other taxpayers have to supplement their lifestyle.

The recent press hysteria references these, apparently large, numbers of over-50's that are retiring.  Given the pension freedom rules, would I be fair to assume that this reference to early-retirees really refers to over-55's and not over-50's?

What is the criteria for being able to afford early retirement at age 50?

When the pension freedoms were initially introduced, there was much speculation in the press that people would turn 55, draw the tax-free sum and then splurge out on a sports-car, thus leaving themselves with inadequate means for their full retirement.
There does not seem to be much evidence of that type of behaviour being the reality.

However, I wonder, and it is pure speculation as I have no figures or data, but I still wonder.  Are those retiring at age-55 really able to afford to retire?
At one level, I suppose anyone who has reached LTA should be able to fund a suitable life-style for practical eternity.
However, there have been the odd thread on here with people mentioning that they have reached 55, would it be a good idea to draw their pension lump sum from what seems to be a smallish pension fund, pay off what is left of their mortgage and then live on the remaining pension income going forwards.
I am not yet 55, and I have thankfully achieved mortgage-free, but I do not feel that my pension fund (which is larger than some of these other threads seem to have when deciding for early-retirement) is sufficient for me to consider retirement as soon as 55 arrives.
So, back to my wondering - will we have a swathe of people that have retired early in 2020 at age 55, realising they've run out of money at age 62 and then deciding they have no choice other than to return to work?
At that point, the individuals may have lost much of their working capacity through the time away from the work-place and out of the constraints of forced routine, but they'll be wanting to go back to a higher-end salary like they enjoyed previously yet with the reduced skill set.  I am not in any way saying that age 62 is too old to be very useful in the work-place.  This is in the context of the long break in work and then returning, having not kept abreast of development, etc.  I mean, I find it a bind to go back after two-weeks annual leave in the sun, let alone after a theoretical break of a few years.  In some industries, to maintain employment, certifications have to be renewed periodically but one assumes the early-retiree will not have been doing so.

I suppose we will need to wait another 3 - 5 years or so before we find out whether there were early-retirees thta were not really able to afford to be an early-retiree.

Given the pension freedom rules, would I be fair to assume that this reference to early-retirees really refers to over-55's and not over-50's?

Also someone who is 90 is over 50 so is he expecting them to go back to work?

MACKEM99

Has no one thought about the huge number who are still in education at 18 and in some cases after Uni do not go into the workforce till they are 25, thus not paying tax, whereas many of those retiring now started work at age 16 and starting paying tax and NI at a much earlier age.  When I left school there was only 5% who went on to Uni.  Currently I understand it is something like 50%.  This must have an effect?

zagfles

MACKEM99 said:

Has no one thought about the huge number who are still in education at 18 and in some cases after Uni do not go into the workforce till they are 25, thus not paying tax, whereas many of those retiring now started work at age 16 and starting paying tax and NI at a much earlier age.  When I left school there was only 5% who went on to Uni.  Currently I understand it is something like 50%.  This must have an effect?

It has a major effect, as discussed earlier and in the other thread. The two main increases in reason for "economic inactivity" have been students and long term sick.

MACKEM99

zagfles said:

MACKEM99 said:

Has no one thought about the huge number who are still in education at 18 and in some cases after Uni do not go into the workforce till they are 25, thus not paying tax, whereas many of those retiring now started work at age 16 and starting paying tax and NI at a much earlier age.  When I left school there was only 5% who went on to Uni.  Currently I understand it is something like 50%.  This must have an effect?

It has a major effect, as discussed earlier and in the other thread. The two main increases in reason for "economic inactivity" have been students and long term sick.

Which other thread?

zagfles

MACKEM99 said:

zagfles said:

MACKEM99 said:

Has no one thought about the huge number who are still in education at 18 and in some cases after Uni do not go into the workforce till they are 25, thus not paying tax, whereas many of those retiring now started work at age 16 and starting paying tax and NI at a much earlier age.  When I left school there was only 5% who went on to Uni.  Currently I understand it is something like 50%.  This must have an effect?

It has a major effect, as discussed earlier and in the other thread. The two main increases in reason for "economic inactivity" have been students and long term sick.

Which other thread?

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6413040/please-come-back/p3

Andy_L

mumf said:

unfortunately,the majority of government, MPs and the like are ex Public School, ( Hunt is) ,so therefore are from wealthy families. They are born,reared and educated in a world that is miles apart  from people who do proper work. And that basic ‘proper ‘ work was clapped for and congratulated during COVID 19. In fact ,it was rather interesting to see who wasn’t actually missed at that time -  those were the ones who earn (ed) a shed load of money ,unlike the ‘basic’ workers who were praised. How soon society and parliament have forgotten. 

From 2019, 

"Overall 29% of current Members of Parliament come from a private school background,"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/elitism-in-britain-2019

mumf

Andy_L said:

mumf said:

unfortunately,the majority of government, MPs and the like are ex Public School, ( Hunt is) ,so therefore are from wealthy families. They are born,reared and educated in a world that is miles apart  from people who do proper work. And that basic ‘proper ‘ work was clapped for and congratulated during COVID 19. In fact ,it was rather interesting to see who wasn’t actually missed at that time -  those were the ones who earn (ed) a shed load of money ,unlike the ‘basic’ workers who were praised. How soon society and parliament have forgotten. 

From 2019, 

"Overall 29% of current Members of Parliament come from a private school background,"

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/elitism-in-britain-2019

Fair figure from four years ago. Almost a third of them then? That’s still a substantial number.