Retirement debate: Is the government right to allow us to work beyond 65?

If one works for a big multi national one will most likely get paid off before reaching 65 anyway in periodic headcount purges, usually in the manner of making an offer not easily gainsaid. Its a form of ageism, since further periodic investment in that age group is less cost effective and younger staff are preferred. The reason some others retire early is because they intended to and can afford to.

Apart from those reasons, the answer I think is a nobrainer, they are just fed-up with their job, worn out; of course, people may find that they have to carry on working due to the Gordon Brown deprivations on private pensions.

I was under the impression that a default age for retirement was needed in order to plan pension arrangements, apart from that, all other factors seem irrelevant; people will retire if they wish to, or carry on if they prefer or need to. The only logical reason that I can see is to enable government to delay the state pension; how will they manage that, will one have to apply for the state pension, and if so how will individuals establish their case.

There is the little problem of finding a job when you are 50+. Anyone tried it recently?

More savings for the Bullingdon Club ?

I thoroughly welcome the move to drop compulsory retirement - we should have had this years ago. Yes, there are staff who will wish to retire early, and that is fine, and yes, perfectly health older people who like meaningful work can simply carry on.

It is true that there are some on both sides who will see downsides in this decision, but the main thrust of dropping DRA will be the likely arrival of a proper work/retirement phase out programs to the benefit of everyone and the economy.

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/blogs/jefflcbba/mad-lemming/and-i-am-voting-for5-party-postpones-retirement

Guys----we all helped create this mess for our children and grandchildren.

We should stick around and see if we can help clean it up.

Anyway, what comes after retirement?

Whad'ya'mean 'Working beyond 65' !

I AM beyond 65

And I AM working

Its what's known as self-employment.

And its what's known as self-reliance.

Todays economics/demographics means that we should ALL be working beyond 65

Anyone who thinks they deserve eg a civil sevant's gold-plated, inflation-proofed, pension - let alone the right to 'retire' at 50 or 65 - is stealing from their preceeding or succeeding generations.

I was retired from the NHS when I was 67 and a half but continued to do locum work in the NHS and privately for a further eight years, without detriment to patients or myself. I am now approaching my 80th birthday and am still as fit as ever beating my 21 year old Grandson at squash once or twice a week. I definitely think that 65 is too early to retire.

Good idea - should be left to the individual - one step towards the state keeping its nose out of ones business.

I retired at 59, which is about 5 or 10 years after most people working as management consultatnts. Working flat out, 12 hours a day, in a challenging and competitive environment it did get a lot harder after the age of 55.

In a large bank with 1500 IT staff, not one was aged over 50.

Companies put a ceiling on age for good reason. It means employees can leave on good terms rather than being sacked because they are no longer able to perform at the top level.

Unions have tried to get the 65 retirement age lifted so that 65 year olds can claim redundancy at that age. BA pilots were attempting this at age 55. Instead of leaving gracefully at the fixed age they then leave with resentment on both sides - not good for either.

I too am well over 65 and still working. I count myself lucky that the company I work for are happy for experienced people who enjoy working to continue. I agree with a previous comment, "What comes after?" It should be left to the individual.

Working past 65 will be an economic necessity for me as I have had disappointments with several successive pension schemes (Robert Maxwell, economic crash and now BP). I am a relatively youthful 61 year old and educated to post graduate level but having great difficulty finding suitable employment after redundancy 9 months ago.

Without eliminating ageism it wont be much use; for people working in demandng jobs they will not be physically capable - try being a dustman or a builder and 65, 70 etc..

Its just a return to the Victorians where the wealthy do what they want and the rest work 'til they die. I guess they will next lower the age you can work so that they can find kids to go up chimneys again.

This is the old old story, the quick fix solution that wipes out Pension Fund Deficits at a stroke by forcing people to work longer.

The snags are;:

a) Where is all this "work" meant to come from.? Private sector employers have been slashing payrolls and are not about to start re-hiring. Now the Public Sector is set to do the same.

b) Also, how are young people meant to find jobs if the older members of the work force are forced to stay on past retirement age?

As for:

"Guys----we all helped create this mess for our children and grandchildren"

I thought that I had done my bit by paying for my parents and grandparents pensions when I was working and I expect my children and grandchildren to do the same for me!

What about those coming up, and the unemployed? How will there be enough work for them AND the never-retires? Where's that much growth going to come from?

This is an obvious way to simply bankrupt small established businesses with ageing staff. A lot of small businesses are struggling to stay afloat, not being able to afford redundancy costs to offload long time staff, but rather keeping them working until retiral age. These businesses have and are keeping people in employment, but the result of this proposal will be to take both young and old out of employment.

An employer must have an exit strategy for aging staff, that does not add even more cost to running a business, particularly when they are in a physical or stressful job.

However, I have no problem with an active person, over retirement age, applying for a position as long as the employer is aware of their age and is not entering into a situation where it costs the employer to end the persons employment.

I cannot imagine saying to a long term employee that they are no longer 'fit for purpose' and taking action to remove them! Surely it is better for all, that a recognised retirement age exists and after that age a person can continue employment with the same or another employer, but without the requirement for long notice periods and redundancy payments.

I have run a family business for 40 years but would not advise my siblings to do likewise, due to the ever increasing burden of employment leglislation and associated crap!

john cornford

keep up the good work Sir. Excuse me for retiring at 48 but had enough of work by then.

I have seen enough people working extra years past retirement and then not have time to enjoy the pensions and savings

Taken together, the five “Experts” at the top of the page said it all. Compulsory retirement at 65 is too young but removing the default legal age will create a lawyers’ bean feast and lots of unpleasant dismissals. The obvious solution is a gradual increase in the DRA. This will please no-one but as a compromise should keep everyone reasonably content.

I believe everybody should be free to choose. I may be biased because I'm still working at 78, and I got a new management job and started a new career when I was 62 and, in competition with 30 somethings, rose to a seat on the board.

I think it's quite different for anyone who has a manual job or a boring repetitive occupation, that's why I say leave it to the individual.

Law of unintended consequences

As anonymous 1 says:

'Companies put a ceiling on age for good reason. It means employees can leave on good terms rather than being sacked because they are no longer able to perform at the top level.'

Instead of leaving gracefully at the fixed age many would have to leave earlier with resentment on both sides - not good for either.

Able employees are asked to stay on anyway.

Hope you are't too bored Anonymous 2

This is a great idea, but I also think people should be given the chance to go part time, thus easeing them out of work and given the younger generation a chance to ease into work, sort of job sharing.

The individual should have regular appraisals of their work and be allowed to make their own decision if the work is of the required standard.

I am 67 and still working as poor returns on investments and annuities make it a financial necessity in order to live a moderately comfortable although simple lifestyle.

If the state pension and savings gave a fair rate many older people would be happy to retire and make jobs available for younger people.

It is galling to those of us who tried to save and who did not have loans to be told we have to suffer from our profliligacy. Not everyone was profligate.

Bad idea people should move over for younger generation who have families to support. As for the experience aspect young only get experience by working and taking responsibility making mistakes the same as the Big Heads did years ago.

I feel the individual should be allowed to choose, if they are able to work and still give value for money. Forcing comanies to pay us past our sell by date is unfair for both employer and employee

Being forced to work on when you have had enough is not on. This will hit the poor hard working people yet again. Those who have worked hard and paid in to the system. We live longer but not neccesarily more able.

Where will all the extra work hours come from? for every person keeping their job instead of retiring a young growing family will be out of work. What is the cheapest to keep a pensioner or a young family??

Has anyone ever looked around hospitals these days? do you notice how many volenteers there are?? what about the huge volentary organisations like Age Concern and dozens more that prop up the failing systems that we have. They are mainly made up of those people who are retired.

We need to let people retire it is an essential part of the cycle allowing the young to come in and keep the workplace vibrant.

i work and i would not be able to live if i did not and i lose most of it as i have a disabled hubby who is olny sixty

There is a view (distorted in my opinion) that 65 plussers still working are taking away jobs from the younger and the unemployed workforce. Firstly most of these senior folk are not into careers as such nor are they seeking job promotions. They wish to remain active and in touch with the rest of the world and yes some need to supplement their retirement income. Many of them work part-time and fill positions unsuitable for the normal full time workforce. After a business career, I teach part-time at a college for professional education in Holland. The students and the college appreciate my practical business experience which I bring to my lectures. They are willing to extend my contract for another 2 years when I reach 65. This teaching keeps me sharp, active and in touch with the younger generation which is very refreshing and often enlightening. All play and no work makes Jack senior a dull fellow, Society should seriouly consider taking on the seniors who are willing and able to work, even by paying them a modest salary for social or public service work done presently by volunteers.

I retired 13 years ago from a well paid, high stress job at 50. Would I like to still be working or even contemplating going on till my old age? NO THANK YOU.

Take up fishing, relax and enjoy your life.

I have recently retired at the ae of 65. I am now 66. I was ready and I am enjoying retirement. Many people of my generation started work much younger. I left school at 14 and worked full time from 15 so I have worked for 50 years.Many people today seem to put off starting work full time until they are nearly 30, even beyond, and assuming that they are fitter and healthier than previous generations they should be able to work to a later age. However there is another side. Some older people, once very good, may decline in their later years and may also have a problem adapting to change so an employer should have the right to make them retire when it seems appropriate without it becoming a redundancy/employment tribunal issue.

DJB

I have a member of staff 76 yrs old, part time still very good at his job,but slowing down as you might expect, know as I understand it I cannot make this person redundant without compensation,which in a small company like mine will mean the difference between survival or not,the person in question therefore can hold the company to ransom.Is this right ?

As mentioned above, unintended consequences will follow from what seems a sensible and helpful idea for those currently approaching retirement. I am nearly 61 and have had great difficulty finding employment over the past two years. In my view, abolishing the retirement age will make this harder still. At present, acknowledging my age, I can offer a clear five years commitment. But will employers be willing to take on experienced 60-plussers when it involves an open-ended contract?

Over the longer term, extending retirement age must be right, but a fixed (though potentially flexible) retirement age surely needs to be built into employment contracts to avoid uncertainty and disagreements.

The idea of working beyond 65 appeals, but not with my present employer!

Retiremment is wonderful if you have plans to do something with it,I retired at 60,having worked very hard and kept a frugal life style We have been able to travel the world over the last 7 years.We drove 23000kms around OZ,slept in our tent 144 nights,alas my wife has discovered she has cancer so our future plans are unsure.

So our motto is JUST DO IT ,one doesn't know what is ahead.

john cornford

If Anonymous 2 is smart enough to work out how to retire at 48 then he's probably smart enough not to be bored.

Besides the unfarness, if a person is in good health and can do the job, I'm 100% for working on. At 68 I'm doing better and pulling more deals off then ever because I have experience by the shed full which took a life time to learn. So let's make it 75 before they can pull the pin, also cut this rediculous pension annuity penelty as I bet that most of us are grown up enough to look after our own lives.

john cornford

As Anonymous 3 mentioned above, no I don't get bored Sir. I must admit to spending up to 90 minutes a day preparing for and making a couple of short term trades but the rest of the day I spend most of my time outside the 4 walls.

Most of my working life was spent in jobs where I had freedom to carry on with my job without interruption from managers, unfortunately after a redundancy I had to put up with an idiot who liked to make life hell for anyone at our company. My investments made enough in 9 years to enable me to give up work and still collect more than the average salary in regular income. Living in a cheaper, warmer country makes that income go a lot further too.

Just don't leave it too late to enjoy spending some of your hard-earned cash because it's not going to be much use to you after your number is up....

they will be brining back the work house soon the way things are going.

it wasnt many years ago we were all told that the hi tech revolution or some other revolution would have us all working less hours and retiring at 50,what happened to that one.

it really shows just what a mess we are in.i am 64 took my pensions a year ago as couldnt find any work in my profession which was HR( yes that lot who think its a great idea to work after your 65...biggest discriminator of the lot in my view)I ound it difficult to find work past 60 other than the odd temp job but that all went pear shaped 2 years ago with the crisis.I dont think its a good idea for people to go past 65,it blocks up the job market for younger people to come along,if lets say we have 50,000 taking this oprtion every years then thats the same number of jobs not open to younger people who definitely do need work.

No surpirses the Tory led coalition has put this one in !!

I can see an issue with unexpeced consequences here. It may make firms more reluctant to employ people around 60 because they may feel that they will be 'stuck' with them. Could also result in people being given roles they can't cope with in order to create a situation where they can be sacked for poor performance. I'm not sure this will turn out to be a good policy.

The main point missed by everyone it seems is that it is not logical for the Government to postpone taking the State Pension until, say, 68, but then allow individuals to be compulsorily retired at 65 by their employment contracts. Under the existing circumstances, benefits would have to be paid to all those compulsorily retired at 65 until they reach the revised State Pension age and this move will reduce the numbers that this will apply to.

By removing compulsory retirement of 65, l wonder if one of the consequences will be that future employment contracts will allow more easy termination of contracts following an employee’s individual annual reviews? After all, I reckon that on many occasions companies have allowed an employee whose performance is deteriorating to continue until their 65th birthday. When they cannot do that, they must have a way open to them to dismiss that employee legally.

Certainly the other main points made are very relevant:

There will be the impact on younger people getting employment and those who are capable of working when they are older will benefit.

In my own case, I was very lucky to be able to retire (albeit then with great reluctance!) from my public sector employment at 50 (following local government reorganisation in Scotland) with my enhanced pension ‘inflation proofed’. If I had not taken retirement, a younger manager in the Department would have been made redundant or re-deployed (probably at a lower grade). I moved to self-employment and then ran down my business activities once I passed 60 to allow me to enjoy family life.

I count my blessings daily!

Most of the comments here have been written by people who have not had a physically demanding job all their lives and are not worn out through years of lifting and hauling, fair enough if you do want to work past 65 the government should set up a pool of experienced workers and at 65 the retiree should go into it with first refusal going to their present employer and then competeing with the rest of the unemployed workforce for a job, let the government take some resposibilty, thats what we elect them to do

I think some people are getting themselves confused.

People have been asking for later retirement since people have been going to work. The reason the Government made people retire was for all the reasons above, too old, too slow, leaving a job so someone else can work etc.

Why do you think "all of a sudden" the law has changed.

ITS TO SAVE MONEY

Make the older people who are probably earning a lot more than a young new starter, work for an extra year. That way they collect more tax and don't have to pay old age pension.

There is a shortage of jobs, more people are on the dole, why on earth would you want to make people work longer rather than pension them off?

If you retire at 65 it doesn't mean you can't work again

Start your own business up

Get a job at B&Q

Wash windows

Cut peoples grass £10 /hour

In fact do what people do when they are out of work at 25 - start thinking for yourselves and stop belly aching about what the company/Government should be doing for you.

As far as I'm concerned I want to retire at 50 - get my £100/week - then get a job.

I'm 52 and been made redundant 3 times in the last 18 months and each time I have got another job

£100/week would come in handy, especally since I've been paying into the kitty since I was 17 and now the Labour Government have "robbed" me of my Old age pension by reducing the number of qualifying years to 30 from 44 and given it away instead of increasing benefits and I'm still paying NI the same for no increase in OAP, and now I've got to work longer

Thanks very much for nothing

As a ship's captain, I have to revalidate my qualifications every 5 years, including taking courses and passing regular exams.

If people want to work beyond the default retirement age, they should prove they can still pass muster. Some doctors (for instance) at 65 would not have passed an exam in 40 years yet make decisions every day which could endanger the lives of their patients. I'm all for people working as long as they feel able to carry on, but the general public has a right to expect that older people are still capable of doing their jobs and this can only be proven by assessment and examination.

Going against the grain: I think the proposal is very unfortunate. Of course people should be able to request continuation after 65 and if employer and employee both want it, I see no problem. That is possible now.

However if you remove the default position and an assumption that people will retire it will lead to many awkward and unpleasant conversations. Employers will have to start describing to nice older people who have often given great service to an organisation, that they are now really past it. You will have to compile lists of examples to prove this and you will end up a great career with bitterness and disgruntlement, when it should be a happy transition into an easier lifestyle. They will find there are many other things they can do, after a natural and happy conclusion to their main carreer.

The other significant consequencies are that organisations will become atrophied, with less and slower opportunities for promotion ("Waiting for dead men's shoes was the old expression") It will therefore also hinder the recovery and keep unemployment higher for longer as 70 year olds cling onto jobs for which they are no longer suited and keep younger people on the dole. I speak as someone who is 65 next month and has spent a large part of my career in HR management, promoting change and management development.

We have heard a lot (mostly from younger financial journalists) about the growing burden on the working population from a rising dependency ratio. Now that the Government has proposed measures to address this by abolishing age limits to work, we have these same people complaining that older workers will block jobs that younger workers need. They really can't have it both ways. Simple arithmetic - a higher labour force means more GDP, lower unemployment benefits and higher tax revenues - all desirable.

After reading all comments, I have to add another. There is an increasing problem in the western world with the "greying population" Simply put, we are living longer, the average age has climbed to around 75. Common sense tells us that this has a consequence for the economy if everyone stops working at 65. The burden of supporting the pension benefits which are largely unfunded will fall upon the decreasing younger population (the average size of the family has declined dramatically). Both China and India do not have this problem at present where more than half the population is in their twenties and lower. However China will have a problem in the future with their one child per family policy. It may take a generation or longer to sort out this problem in Britain and in the short term young people coming onto the employment market may suffer as a result of older people working longer. There is a growing productive pool of people over 65 who are able and willing to work. Use them at lower salaries and more flexible conditions if need be but don't turn them into a burden on society.

MOST are past their prime at 65 and surely can not give their 100% at that age..

lot of loss to employers. therefor the employers have to push out the 65 to bring in the young blood. If the oldie does not go at 65 so youngy does not get the job !!

This could be socialisim from the back door having to keep the staff who can not give their 100% here we go again importing from far east and/or China !!!

because we cant compete !!

Once again we have the elite making laws for those who do not belong to the club.

I personally would like to be gainfully employed whatever age I am: however, my concern would be for those who are the same age as me, not as active, & who look 10 & more yrs older than their age - work places are already ageist - who is going to employ a 65yr old when younger people are finding it hard to find work?

One thing just does not add up: we are in a recession, loads of people have lost their jobs, manufacturing jobs are non existent, so how exactly are we going to get jobs for those who are going to have to come of benefits, as well as for older people who want to go on working for whatever reason? University graduates are struggling to get a job that recognises their qualification: the over emphasis on university education, & lack of opportunity for apprenticeships under nulab government has meant that many young people have been fooled into studying for degrees which have no relevance to the work place - thye have large amounts of debts, & no decent job to be had, for love nor money.

Once again, my distrust of politicians means that they may think their policies are the bees knees, the public however have not much interest in what politicians say or do.

Question: WHERE ARE THE JOBS? WHOSE GOING TO EMPLOY AN ELDERLY PERSON, WHEN THEY CAN EMPLOY A YOUNG UN, & PAY THEM PEANUTS COMPARED TO WHAT AN OLDER PERSON EXPECTS TO GET PAID FOR THEIR EXPERIENCE.

This is not a well thought out policy: but what policy is? I think it is terrible for those who want to quit the workplace having spent their lives working at the supermarket: would you want to continue with this job until you are 80?

If you are self employed, well & good - you do not have to answer to anybody. Can you imagine what is going to happen to those who are elderly being taken to task by someone 30 or even 40 years younger than them? Where is the dignity in this?

It works if you are in a job you enjoy, or in a job which is creative: road diggers, road sweepers, & other more physical jobs may not suit someone of 70. One size does not fit all, & yet again we have someone who has not got a clue about real life, or the real workplace, making policies which have not been clearly thought through.

The only aim of this policy is to make more money for the treasury - it is sickening, that the people who created the problem in the first place, are retiring at 50 with huge sums in their pension pot, while the average man/woman on the street is under siege again.

How about tapering down tax rates for each year worked after 65?

does anybody that matters actually read this and if so will they be accountable for their mistakes

very good very frank discussion

thank you

Alexander Clubb - your 21yr old grandson must be really rubbish at squash or you can't recognize that he is letting you win, in which case I don't think much of your powers of perception in which case you should have retired long long ago

Q.E.D

Nobody should be forced to retire on grounds of age alone. This is blatant age discrimination and should be abolished now - not a watered-down version with loopholes and get-out clauses for employers, possibly in October 2011.

No individual should be labelled 'worthless' from an employment perspective when there are examples of many thousands of people making a worthwhile contribution to the economy and their communities at age 65 and beyond.

But then, how often does the government simply stereotype older people or even show genuine fairness to all the working classes in this country?

It's noticeable how the Labour government was hell-bent on getting as many people on benefits as possible and forced retirement was simply one way of achieving this objective.

We are being 'allowed' to work beyond 65.

Don't be fooled.

If you want a decent pension you will NEED to work beyond 65.

Retiring without enough money to live on is a fate worse than death.

You know all about it and there is no way out.

I was fortunate to start a third career at 59 and am still working at 67 with no plans to retire.

In the US, we can work as long as we want. We can't even draw full Social Security any more at 65. Some of us can get it at 66 and some at 67 or 68, depending on when we were born. I am 63 and an accountant and MBA. I consider myself very lucky that I still have a good position and have no desire to retire voluntarily. I could get laid off or I could get sick, but I hope to work for years to come.

I think Rose G has defined the situation well,but I think we are missing the real problem.

We live in an age where technology has destroyed so many jobs where people used to prepare for a retirement but now cannot accumulate financial independance.

The standard of living of all sections of the community will fall what ever the retirement age is fixed. The priority should be to get our best teams in action in all walks of life, and support the young who will have the greatest drive and enthusiasm.

The idea that the market will somehow create work and that we will go on more or less the same is just not plausible.

I am sure that in all organisations there are jobs worths,but weeding these people out is like rearranging the seats on the Titanic . We need vision on where the country is going and start to be realistic at government level to support new age technology in agriculture,power creation,medical science,

environmental science etc.

Where will the money come from? By increasing taxation on the people who can afford to pay, by bonds or other financial instruments, so that people can do their bit to reduce the effect of change on the country's standard of living.

It will take time, visions do, but at least there will be a plan which people can aspire to.

This probably a cry in the wilderness, perhaps some one will notice.

If employers would no longer be able to automatically terminate a worker's employement at age 65 then they might be faced with the choice of making a very costly (enhanced) redundancy payment or starting dismissal proceedings on grounds of incompetency. The latter could prove time consuming and require costly litigation. Wouldn't this legislation only increase employers' resolve not to burden their businesses by employing older workers? Given the greatly increased risk of time off for illness above age 65 ( as evidenced by private health insurance premiums) and the legal requirement for employer-based sickness pay, wouldn't this legislation amount to a double whammy for employers?

If you 'want' to work beyond 65 or if you have to because your pension provision isn't good enough, then I guess you should be free to do what you want. However, with an increasing population it does mean potentially fewer jobs for youngsters entering the job market. Also if companies expect a 65 year old to perform the same as a 21 year old, I'm worried that many older people may get 'performance managed' out of their jobs and be subject to all the resulting stress and anxiety that goes with it.

Sorry I am late to the discussion, what a brilliant set of reponses to an obviosly contentious issue. If you need to work (for financial or other reasons) you should be able to. If you don't want /need or can't work past 65 thats also ok.

To avoid the legal hassle, employment beyond 65 (or the then state retirement age) can be controlled by 'short term contracts' so employer & employee can each retain their dignity at completion. Contracts need only to be of simple form (so keep the legals & HR away from them) and for periods from say six to twentyfour months. If business picks up an employer can 'invite' a capable and trusted former employee to return on this contract basis. The employer has a certainty of control of his forward labour costs and employee can look forward to another retirement party?

For my part I 'retired' at 60, spent 12 months 'relaxing' and was then invited back...I'm still working (now part time) at nearly 70 and enjoying it ! No contract involved ..... just mutual trust.

You will be unemployed by 65 because you are fit for sod-all. Handouts are means tested ie: if you saved money you will have to 'manage'. Those who drunk all their pay will get their pension as usual.

yet another reason not to save!