BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Do you want to work after 65?

08:37 UK time, Thursday, 29 July 2010

The government is planning to scrap the default retirement age in the UK from October 2011. Under the proposal, employers would not be allowed to dismiss staff when they had reached the age of 65. Is this a good idea?

The charity Age UK, which has led the campaign to end the default retirement age (DRA), welcomed the government's plan saying "It is a massive win for hundreds of thousand of employees who are at risk of being forced out of their jobs."

However, the business group, the CBI, criticised the speed of the proposals saying the government's timetable for scrapping the DRA would give companies little time to prepare for the change.

Would you like to work after reaching 65? Has there been enough consultation on the changes? Are you an employer? What effect will these changes have on you?

Q&A: Why raise the pension age?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 8

  • Comment number 1.

    NO - and anyone who does must lead a sad life!

  • Comment number 2.

    Do you want to work after 65?

    WOOHOO! who wouldn't!

    By the way what's up with todays papers on this astory.

    The Mail Headline suggests that we all goingg to work past 65.

    The Express reckons we all be thrown on the scrapheap at 65.

    Will the one thats got it completely wrong print a correction tomorrow?

  • Comment number 3.

    I believe the majority of people don't want to work after the age of 65, unfortunately they will have to, particularly with the Government planning to increase the state retirement age until 68. It would have been a bit perverse if employees were forced to leave work at 65, and then have to live on benefits or savings for three years until a state pension was paid.
    My worry is where the jobs will come from, as if employees work on after the age of 65 it means there are less jobs for other workers. By increasing the retirement age the Government is trying to solve one problem it has with pensions, but creating a far greater problem elsewhere. Currently there are a million young people out of work, and this measure will simply make it harder for them to get employment.

  • Comment number 4.

    The question isn't at what age I want to retire, it's at what income.

  • Comment number 5.

    The fact is state pensions days are numbered. And quite right to. Pensioners get far to much already...it should be means tested and save some money.

  • Comment number 6.

    If I feel fit and well enough, it may be a choice I would make.

    Although we are living longer, some of us develop arthritis and other age-related problems and working beyond 65 may be extremely difficult.

    Should not be a hard and fast rule.

    But if we work until we're 80 - when do the school-leavers get a chance at a job?

  • Comment number 7.

    The Government should also look at how occupational pension schemes assume an age of 'maturity' and tend to penalise those who are forced to 'leave work' close to or after that age when negotiating a settlement figure. Given age legislation surely it is unlawful to have any 'age' included in such a scheme other than for reference purposes, and settlements must be seen to be fair at any age.

  • Comment number 8.

    It doesnt really bother me, I work for myself, only myself and my health can prevent me working as and when I choose, 65, 75, or 105!

  • Comment number 9.

    If you have worked hard for 45 years, I think you deserve a rest and time to enjoy the rest of your life. Fine if you are lucky to be a civil or public servant on a final salary pension. However, for those of us in the private sector whose savings and investments collapsed under Brown, we need to work beyond 65. This new initiative or whatever is going to work just like when as an employer you are worried about paying for Maternity leave; there will always be a way out. We are accustomed to seeing people in their 70s doing menial tasks like stocking shelves, but how many sales representatives or line managers will keep their jobs. Not a lot!!

  • Comment number 10.

    Individuals should be able to retire when they want.

    However, I wonder how long it is before the government restrict State Pension payments to those who continue working.

  • Comment number 11.

    Not really..will probably have to though.

  • Comment number 12.

    If there is to be no retirement age, where are the jobs for the people who are unemployed, school leavers, graduates, going to come from. The government may delay paying pensions at one end of the table but will have to keep paying unemplyment benefit to those who cannot get work. Older people often want to keep working because they get fed up at home and cannot think of anything else to do. Younger people want to work because they have familys and mortgages to pay. Keep the retirement age at 65 and you older workers stop being selfish and give the jobs to the next generation.

  • Comment number 13.

    I never have intended retiring at 65 and have already ensured I don't have to, I run my own business and will retire when it suits me.

  • Comment number 14.

    5. At 09:10am on 29 Jul 2010, krokodil wrote:

    "The fact is state pensions days are numbered. And quite right to. Pensioners get far to much already...it should be means tested and save some money."

    Really? Those 'spoilt' pensioners have paid all their lives in national insurance contributions for the state pension and other such benefits. I'm not naive enough to believe that my contributions are saved for when I retire but it does beg the question as if there is not likely to be a state pension when I retire, what on earth I'm paying for?

  • Comment number 15.

    It would really depend upon my state of health at that time. You cannot really make an accurate judgement until you are at least near that age.

  • Comment number 16.

    Despite Mr Cameron's declaration that many people want to keep working into old age - this simply isn't the case. ... Why do people do the Lottery - to escape the entrapment of work!

    Most people would like to retire early and enjoy a fulfilling, active old age. Those that can't cope with retirement probably fall into the low income - not enough money to do much group?

    Unfortunately the cost of living is becoming so expensive in this country, that the only people who are going to manage to retire at all are the rich. The rest of us will soon find ourselves financially trapped in the drudgery of work until we drop!

  • Comment number 17.

    6. At 09:13am on 29 Jul 2010, ruffled_feathers wrote:
    If I feel fit and well enough, it may be a choice I would make.

    Although we are living longer, some of us develop arthritis and other age-related problems and working beyond 65 may be extremely difficult.

    Should not be a hard and fast rule.

    But if we work until we're 80 - when do the school-leavers get a chance at a job?

    -----

    2 tier scrap-heap.

    Professional firms such as accountants and lawyers, as well as doctors are not going to be allowed to carry on in their choosen professions indefinately.

    I predict that they'll still be forced out of their current employment at around 60-65 and expected to take up less cerebral work if they wish to carry on in employment...

    Opening up vacancies for graduates.

  • Comment number 18.

    It's not a case of whether I *want* to work after 65 BBC - I'd rather not work now! It's a case of whether I'll have to work after 65.

    My father's just got made redundant from a marketing company at 80. He needs the money, but he also enjoys working, and he's bored now. This isn't a job he got before the age of 65 either. So my point is that some people want to work beyond 65!

  • Comment number 19.

    Thousands of old duffers blocking the system for the new up and coming young talent is going to be a disaster.
    How are the youngsters going to pay for the wife kids and mortgage if they can't even get in the door??

    I'm around 50 btw.

    If you aint made it by the time you're 65 then you're NEVER going to make it and you should be shoved aside so the next generation gets a fair crack at things.

    After 65, if you still want to work, take up self employment.
    And if self employment sounds too much like hard work...well no more needs to be said on the subject, you're finished, finito, a has-been.

    (Hold head in hands and scream)

  • Comment number 20.

    This is a difficult one. I believe strongly that no one should ever tell you that you must retire at a certain age. I know plenty of 65+ people who are perfectly capable of anything they could do 10 years ago. But this isn't a small group of people and if the elderly feel pressure to work past current retirement age then young people looking to start out in their careers could find themselves in trouble.

    Maybe work scheemes or large infrastructure projects could relieve the pressure? doesn't look like growth is on the current governments agenda though.

  • Comment number 21.

    Perhaps the school leaving age should be increased to 25 to compensate for the extra 10 million jobs needed.

    What the government is actually saying, pay into a pension scheme for your entire working life, then you can have the benefit of this when you die.

    What needs to happen is regulations on pension schemes,the funds should be kept to ensure future payments are available, not robbed by the companies to pay debts. Make pension funds 100% secure and risk free and stop this economic growth stupidity, if you force growth at 5% per annum then everything else must increase. If a country is stable at 0% growth why change?

  • Comment number 22.

    Retirement age should be down to personal choice. Scrapping the mandatory retirement age is a positive step although only if there are sufficient safeguards for those who become unable to work.

    As one of a number of people in the country undergoing a career change I feel I should be able to offer prospective employers at least 25 years of service, bringing my retirement age to 70. If I am still capable of doing the job then I should be allowed to.

    Of course, we could all be forced to step aside at 65 for younger people to fill the vacancies, but will the younger generation be willing to pay for the extra years spent in retirement of those they forced out of work?

  • Comment number 23.

    Great!....Thats what we youngsters really need...More "old timers" blocking the upper and mid level posts in our industries! There is also the problem that eventually, and usually without realising it, an old person will become incompetent to do their job and then make silly mistakes--sometimes with dreadfull consequences...



  • Comment number 24.

    Yep, why not. I've not done any hard labour in my life I pretty much sit in front of a screen most of the day. When i "retire" I will probably do the same. May as well get paid for it?

  • Comment number 25.

    Does this not pass on a large burden of social security on to employers as employees stay on but are only able to undertake limited duties or are frequently off sick? Time to mark down shares sharply if this goes through - but no doubt good for the fiscal balance.

  • Comment number 26.

    Do I want to work after 65? I don't even want to work past 35!

  • Comment number 27.

    Surely many people who work after 65 do so not because they want to but because the have to. I am 62 and retired. I know for a fact that I am not as "on the ball" as I used to be, my memory, whilst not being too bad is defnitely not what it was and my physical capabilities are less. I am sure there are some people who are completely OK at my age but I would be a liability to most employers. I would also be blocking jobs for young people.

  • Comment number 28.

    The main beneficiaries from this will be those people in government jobs where you shuffle bits of paper around a desk and soak up the welfare.

    Most folk can't wait to get out of the private sector from 50.

    IMO this looks like a back room deal with the civil service unions to prevent too much trouble as the pensions gravy train tap gets closed.

  • Comment number 29.

    I have no intention of working past 65. The years after 65 are mine and my families - sooner if possible whilst I am still able and in good health.
    How do we intend to create jobs for the next generation if people are going to work longer.
    My daughter has not been able to find a proper job for 2 years. All she gets now and then is work for a short while in local charity shops or pound shops. The government then take her off job seekers and show her as being in training just for a few weeks then back on job seekers - another con.
    When we offered to pay for a distance learning course for classroom assistant the good old job centre told her that her money would stop because she would not be available for work when in the classroom on placement. How can she win??

  • Comment number 30.

    How long will it be before those who choose not to remain in work are labelled as being lazy and unwilling to work for their pensions?

  • Comment number 31.

    Private companies make many employees in their mid 50s redundant. These individuals are not employed by other companies because there are younger cheaper people the company would rather have. Only the very select few actually work on to 60 or 65 - they will be the favoured few.

    Also the long commutes (average 2.5 hours a day in London) will be a terrible strain for those over 60.
    No I don't want to work in my 60s but finances may require me to do so - if anyone will give me a job at that age.

  • Comment number 32.

    I work from home full-time and my job is not physically exerting. As long as my brain still functions correctly and I can type, I'll carry on. Contrary to the defamatory comments from AM in comment 1 on this page, I enjoy my job and see no reason to leave it just because I've reached a certain day on the calendar.

  • Comment number 33.

    I don't want to work after 50 - but lets see I'm 31 now so who knows?

    I'm really torn on this because a lady my mum works with in the supermarket is 72 and works 20 hours a week. The reason she gives for working is the company as I understand she has been a widow almost 20 years.

    My opinion is that umemployment is very high and surely these 20 hours could go to a working mum or student.

    I think the over 65s do have a right to work but not at the expense of keeping younger people out of work.

  • Comment number 34.

    Does this mean that an employee can keep their job and get their state pension and get their company pension....triple income....Great...especially if they haven't to work too hard for it..e.g. people sitting in warm offices in front of computer screens. (most people in cities are now doing this).
    Compare this to a hard working self employed person, who has to work for a living and cannot afford to retire because they have not got a large enough pension pot.
    Employees in large corporations or government bodies will be laughing all the way to the bank and will cling on to their "cushy" job...This to the demise of the younger folk who will not be able to get that employment.
    It will be a sitters paradise....but not a real workers paradise...more like "work till you drop

  • Comment number 35.

    No. I don't want to work past 65.
    But the way it's going, by the time I get there, retirement age is going to be 70 or 75 anyway... :(

  • Comment number 36.

    Yes, I'd like to continue working. I have an interesting and satisfying job. I would rather continue to do it, derive a good income from doing so, and continue to contribute to my pension rather than drawing from it, for a few years beyond 65.

  • Comment number 37.

    I love my job and, being self-employed I can carry on until I drop.

  • Comment number 38.

    @ 5. At 09:10am on 29 Jul 2010, krokodil wrote:
    "The fact is state pensions days are numbered. And quite right to. Pensioners get far to much already...it should be means tested and save some money."

    As someone who has been working since the age of 18 and has been paying higher rates of tax and national insurance for most of my working life I resent this. I have also invested in pensions where ever I have worked. But why should I then lose out on something I have been paying for the whole of my working life.

    Your attitude only fuels people thinking why should they bother, if they have nothing the state will look after them at the detriment of people who do work hard and save.

    If anything those who work hard and pay more into the state should receive more when they retire not less.

  • Comment number 39.

    Surely this measure will not significantly improve the financial situation. It is robbing peter to pay paul. By having to work longer the elderly will tie up jobs thus preventing younger people getting work. The end result will be therefore that instead of paying pensions, they will be paying benefits to the unemployed, and the financial outlay will be more or less the same. it is diffficult to see the logic in this as the majority of pensioners have worked all their lives, taking nothing in benefit and paying their taxes.

  • Comment number 40.

    Yet again the baby boomer generation are looking after themselves with no regard for the future generations. They had full employment in their youth, free university and benefitted more than any generation from huge increases in property prices. Now as they approach retirement, they change the law to enable them to stay at the top of the tree, depriving future generations of progression opportunities. Thanks

  • Comment number 41.

    No I don't.
    This is not about what the public want, this is about the private sector and the government, wanting more from us for longer. I would suit them if we all dropped dead while on the job.
    All employers should be required to pay out large sums to partners who die in service. That would bring the retirement age down.
    steve

  • Comment number 42.

    Do I want to work after 65 - absolutely NOT!!!!! Will I have to work after I reach 65 probably.

    Why? Because governments of all hues have utterly failed this country by:

    + Wasting money in growing and over rewarding an under performing public sector that is not fit for purpose.

    + Failing to force financial institutions to offer long term (20yr+) fixed mortages. In the Eurozone fixed rate 20yr+ loans are common, people know their repayments for life. As incomes rise they pay back the principle early. This means Europeans, for the most part, are wealthier and ultimately live longer healthier lives.

    + Constant tinkering with tax and pension policy creating instability. Lack of effective regulation of pension/insurance providers eg: Equitable Life. Then not accepting responsibility for their failure.

    + Not creating a "ring fenced" sovereign wealth fund with the UK oil/gas revenues/taxes instead simply flushing the money away.

    + Playing politics with education to the extent that on the OECD standard listing British children are falling behind irrespective of the bogus O and A-level results created by "grade inflation".

    + Selling UK gold reserves at a market low impoverishing the country.

    I for one sincerely hope we will not see too many 65yr old+ MPs deciding on policy. I very much hope not having to work beyond 65 though this seems my destiny.

  • Comment number 43.

    I am now 65 and still working only because I still have a mortgage due to having lived outside the UK for a number of years and don't have a full pension entitlement. If I could afford to retire I would but the sad fact is that a lot of people are in the same position as myself and simple economics make it necessary to carry on working for a few more years.

  • Comment number 44.

    Personally no, I retired at 55. However if someone enjoys their job so much, had nothing better, unfortunately needed the money to live, needs the money for greed, whatever, then no one should be excluded from work by some rule.
    With moderate aspirations, we need quite a bit less to live in later life. I calculated I was going to work 2 days in the week for no benefit at all to my myself. No regrets at all once I made the adjustment. Love every minute of living life, new experiences etc.
    Each to their own though. We have got far too prescriptive. Politicians telling us to retire at 65 then blunding on in the Commons until they are senile... situation normal... don't do as I do etc...

  • Comment number 45.

    I certainly do not want to continue working in a regular paid job after my 65th birthday.
    I would like to retire as soon as possible and do a lot of voluntary work in the social sector.
    What the government should realise is that many retired people are involved in voluntary work. When the retirement age is moved upwards that vast amount of available volunteers will be reduced significantly. Is that something we really want to happen?
    I work fulltime and do not have much energy left after work to do voluntary work and that is why I look forward to my retirement so I can do the work that I really would like to do as a volunteer.

  • Comment number 46.

    I would like to keep doing some sort of job even if its only working on a check out desk at the supermarket ! Having worked as a professional accountant all my life it would make a nice change and keep my mind active to some degree. I often wonder what I would do when I reach that age and what I haven't already done. If one is fit and healthy and wants to top up ones income I say go for it as the state doesn't and won't be able to provide: we are on our own in this respect. Looking around some of the work in my field done by more junior people, they haven't a clue what to do, panic at the first sign of trouble, go sick and they simply do not have the staying power. There's room for us oldies for many years to come !

  • Comment number 47.

    I am 66 and I quite like work; just not all the time. If I can I like to work part of the year and have the summer off. Why can't the pension and employment model be finessed to allow us to retire gradually?

  • Comment number 48.

    This is very important to me, as I am due to retire Feb 2012 and have made little provision for retirement.

    I will be able to stay in well paid job, no NI and tax benefits, then defer or save my state pension to give me extra income when I do retire (68-70). £21-35K total.

    The obvious gain for the state is not paying me £150 pw housing benefit.

    What everybody will have to worry about is a new generation war. This could mean my generation (baby boomers) becoming a hated minority by younger generations.

  • Comment number 49.

    The benefits of not having a DRA far outweigh any disadvantages, now lets get rid of the maximum working time for workers.

  • Comment number 50.

    Here is an idea?

    Let someone retire at any age after 60 (and receive a state pension - if they agree NOT to work) if that have saved, say, a million pound savings pot so that they can look after themselves?

    The corollary could be that until the million pound savings pot is reached you are unable to retire except though ill-health before 70.

    This should free up jobs for school-leavers whilst at the same time ensuring that retired people do not become an excessive burden on the state.

    (The million pound pot will provide an annuity of about 30K a year at the present insanely low interest rates - when more rational interest rates are re-established then the 'pot' size could be lowered to, say, half a million.)

    This way savings are encourage and rewarded, jobs are freed up, the state cost is minimised and those able to work-on can work-on.

  • Comment number 51.

    no let the younger people have a go i want to enjoy my oap years not work till i keel over

  • Comment number 52.

    Will let you know when I’m sixty five, (not “When I’m Sixty four, Paul.), but to have the choice is a good idea, after all the politicians who make all the rules plus all the judges all work past Sixty five.
    I also note that politicians WHO make the rule, after the EU Directives about how many hours we all can work, then at election time boast about how long they work, so they can work long hours and it is good for us.. However, someone working long hours to try and get the best for his family is a bad thing ...

  • Comment number 53.

    1. At 09:05am on 29 Jul 2010, AM wrote:
    NO - and anyone who does must lead a sad life!
    ………………….
    Exactly. Most people I know want to sop working as soon as they can, simply because they wish to “live” their lives. The only reason this so called government is doing this is to bring in more tax and it’s the beginning of the end for state pensions.

  • Comment number 54.

    I worked for the last ten years before I was 65 at a government agency. I was forced to retire but was then asked to come back as a cosultant two days a week to show another consultant how to do the routine part my previous job.

    As it was the other part that I really enjoyed I refused the offer.

  • Comment number 55.

    No I don't, and I would rather retire earlier if I can. This plan fell foul of Gorden Browns and NuLabs attack on Private Pensions to tax them so they could prop up the public pensions - not to mention more recent financial problems.
    However, should anybody wish to carry on working, then that is up to them, but as has been said, it might be more a case of having to.
    The only real way this is going to work is to have a rethink of how Private Pensions are handled. It would obviously suit the Gov't and also the individual if they were given the opportunity to put the money aside for their pension without the fear that a large part of it will be 'taken' by the state through taxes. This would then mean people have an income independant of the Gov't/State that they can live on.
    Anyone putting up to 5K per year into a pension plan should not have to pay any form of tax on those payments or any interest earned by those pension funds - this would include the opting out of payments to the state pension (to boost the funds). Anything higher than that, then a basic rate of tax on both the extra payments and any interest is applicable - same as any other pensions funds you hold (i.e. you can't hold multiple funds that you pay up to the max of 5K per year into).
    This should be encourage from the day anyone starts work (a compulsery payment that increases as your wages increase) so that should you be fortunate to get 30-40yrs of working, your pension pot will be a good size.
    Doing this give people the flexibility they want, as you can retire earlier (should you have the funds for the income you want), you can semi-retire and carry on working part time if you want, or you can carry on working for as long as you are capable should you so choose.
    I understand that some lower paid workers will find it very difficult to contribute, but as the payments in are not subject to tax or NI, this would offset some of the cost ( So for every £100.00 you save, you pay around what is it, about 35% combined Tax and NI rate, £35.00 less in tax and NI). Not that I am saying it should be £100.00 as a minimum, it should be what you can afford.

  • Comment number 56.

    No I don't but I might have to. We don't get any help off this Coalition govt now they will be taking Tax Credits off us as they seem to think that because my husband earns just over the £40,000 mark we don't need these. Yes he earns a good wage which is soon gone after pensions, car insurance, council tax for him and myself etc are taken off.

    I am hoping to start work as a Teaching Assistant in September but with the cuts to everything I can see that drying up. I have no relations nearby so I have to take a job which is term-time only to look after my 8 year old son. I used to be a Childminder but work has dried up there too.

  • Comment number 57.

    What a load of rubbish 1 minute were all being told we will live longer and the next that were all obese and life expectancy for the next generation is poor. As for this OK is you have skills bit of a downer if your a manual worker. Also how will the old compete not with the young but the millions flooding here from abroad.
    Get this we are all loosing here this is nothing to do with what is good for the people its all about money. A slow dismanteling of the welfare state and the robbing of future generations of there right to a decent retirement.
    Truth is the older generation will control a huge vote but due to our politial system the same old numptys will always get in. Even a hung parliament is no obsticle to these boys were stuffed which ever way we vote short of a revolution.

  • Comment number 58.

    My company allowed me to work, as a Chartered Civil Engineer, until I was 69 and if it had been for that fact that I had to lodge away from home from Monday until Thursday night, I would willingly have continued in employment provided that I was in good health.
    In my career, I have encountered those in work who were old at 55,thus extension of employment should be on the basis that one is contributing to company profitability not a right. In other words extension of employment beyond 65 should be by mutual agreement with one's employer.

  • Comment number 59.

    All very well for those who WANT to continue working...

    As my 51st birthday approaches, I'm more interested in planning a sensible retirement whilst I'm still fit and well enough to enjoy it - despite the likelihood of being defrauded by the government's clear intention to default on the obligations that the state has incurred by demanding NI payments throughout my working life. And this is said by someone who enjoys her work - there are just lots of other things that I enjoy as well (including better weather than is found in the UK!).

  • Comment number 60.

    Don't be taken in by this. It's the thin edge of the wedge.

  • Comment number 61.

    The rich retire when they want to, the poor when they are told to.

  • Comment number 62.

    Many people currently work past retirement age but have to take unskilled low-paid jobs to do so. The idea that everybody should retire to their garden at 65 is ludicrous in a modern, healthy society. But it would also be wrong to force people to work because the government "cannot afford" to pay decent pensions.
    Many current 50+ year olds started working -and paying taxes - at 15 or 16 years of age whereas over 50% of our current generation don't start working till over 21. It is unfair to ask the old to work for more years than the young.

  • Comment number 63.

    5. At 09:10am on 29 Jul 2010, krokodil wrote:
    The fact is state pensions days are numbered. And quite right to. Pensioners get far to much already...it should be means tested and save some money.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In that case I'll have the NI contributions I have paid towards my pension back and I'll pay them into my private pension scheme.
    I plan to retire at 65. I am currently 40. I paid into a company pension scheme (DB) for 14 years until I changed jobs. For the past 10 years (ongoing) I have paid 14% of my salary into a DC pension. My company retirement age is 62. My state pension will be paid when I am 67. My deferred DB pension will now only grow at CPI instead of RPI and the returns on my DC pension are laughable. I have tried to do everything I can to have a reasonably funded retirement without being a burden on the state. If annuities and savings continue to fall, what other option is there but to carry on working?

  • Comment number 64.

    In my experience the only people who want to work beyond 65 are

    a) those who genuinely enjoy going out to work ie 'can't live without it' albeit most of those work part time: or

    b) those who cannot afford to retire as they have little (or no) pension provision.

    For the vast majority of us it's quality of life that matters and, by the time you reach 65, we don't want to be going out to work. Nor do most employers want 'old 'uns' on the books when there are plenty of well qualified and willing young peole who are desperate for work. This Government move is entirley predicatable but very much a 'con' to compensate for UK poor retirement provision/planning.

  • Comment number 65.

    As someone commented on another HYS thread, the only people who will welcome this proposal are those who dreamed of being a milk-monitor at school.

    I hate work, always have.

    When it is not being arduous with employers demanding more and more and refusing to pay you a decent wage, then it is boring and repetative.

    I work because I have to, no other reason. I have no power at work. My employer can pay me what they want, they can dismiss me with ease, they can (and have) replaced me with their friends.

    I have worked for stupid directors who got the job because they were somebodies golf buddy, or because they have a special word for the manageing director, that word is 'Dad'.

    I work in management, you know 'part of the team' (meaning I take the blame when my boss does something wrong). I am expected to show commitment (work overtime for no extra pay). But I am a 'highly regarded' which to me means I will be worked until my skills are obsolete and my health fails when I will be downsized.

    The only advantage I have over the younger generation is my attitude which is that I 'live to work' whereas the young 'work to live'. The younger generation will not put up with a bunch of coffin-dodging geriatric jobsworths like me hogging all the best jobs.

    As an aside I read David Niven's autobiography 'The moons a ballon'. He greduated from Sandhurst in the early 1930's and as a young 2nd lieutenant on his first posting met other 2nd lieutants who were in their 30's. Promotion was so slow with older senior officers just hanging on. Niven quit the army for Hollywood, the army was completely outclassed ten years later when up against the professionals of germany.

    Yes we need to keep some expertise but it should be a gradual voluntary process. All this government and the previous one want is for more people to stay in work to save them some public expenditure.


  • Comment number 66.

    I've worked full time ever since leaving university nearly 20 years ago. In that time I've had a family, travelled a bit, found new hobbies, etc. But the one thing that has struck me as most obvious in life is that there are a million things I could do with my time if it wasn't being wasted working for someone else who at the end of the day only cares about profit, not you. Fine if you get your kicks out of work, but I for one intend to retire at the earliest opportunity and enjoy everything life has to offer before it's too late. There's a whole world out there to see and experience!

  • Comment number 67.

    I'm turned 67 and am continuing to work. I like my job and see no reason to stop. I think I'll go on for another couple of years.

  • Comment number 68.

    A classic case of the law of unintended consequences about to come into operation.

    It will actually increase the number of people made redundant in their early sixties. Rather than allowing "Joe" to hang on until retirement at 65 or 66 or whatever, sensible employers will unload anybody showing any sign of wanting to continue as soon as possible. It will also make it much more difficult for those in their early 60s to find employment.

    It will also be totally inequitable for those who want to carry on working to be entitled to any form of state benefit normally associated with "retirement" e.g. not paying National Insurance on earnings, receiving any form of state pension, any "free" medical care, a bus pass, winter fuel payments etc. The opportunity for huge savings by the state is there to be taken.

    If you are made "redundant" at say 68 will you qualify for job seekers allowance still?

    The end result will probably be that you do not qualify for any state retirement "benefits" until you declare yourself retired from work and/or many more jobs offered on say one year contracts.

    Whose job is it anyway? All "social" legislation seems to believe if the employer is stupid enough to take anybody on it becomes the preserve of the employee. Every extra piece of such legislation reduces the attraction of employing anybody and increases the attraction of off-shoring!

  • Comment number 69.

    Just a comment for those who are worried that the old will end up stealing jobs from the young. The reality is that because of the post war baby boom and the decline in birth rates -over the next 20 years there will be more people retiring than there will be entering the labour market. This is why we are so dependant on importing labour from the rest of the world.

  • Comment number 70.

    Does this mean that an employee can keep their job and get their state pension and get their company pension....triple income....Great...especially if they haven't to work too hard for it..e.g. people sitting in warm offices in front of computer screens. (most people in cities are now doing this).
    Compare this to a hard working self employed person, who has to work for a living and cannot afford to retire because they have not got a large enough pension pot.
    Employees in large corporations or government bodies will be laughing all the way to the bank and will cling on to their "cushy" job...This to the demise of the younger folk who will not be able to get that employment.
    It will be a sitters paradise....but not a real workers paradise...more like "work till you drop.

  • Comment number 71.

    I don't see much controversy in this proposal: if you want to retire at 65, you can; if you don't, you don't have to. Of course, that doesn't mean that governments won't seek to change things in the future (they will want to, because more workers drawing less benefits sounds great, doesn't it).

    Personally, I don't want to retire at 65 and therefore I welcome this move. But that's because I'm fortunate in that I love my job. For many people, work is a daily grind. I think it's important to retain an element of choice, and allow people (who don't enjoy their work) to retire at 65. However, those who choose to carry on should not subsidise earlier retirees.

  • Comment number 72.

    I need to work after 65 to boost my occupational pension, but I am being thrown out after my birthday this September.

    The change in legislation will be too late for me.

  • Comment number 73.

    Ref retirement at 65. It`s easy enough for those "Desk Jockeys" to work on in a comfortable wee job. What about people who work on bullding sites, shipyards etc. I worked in heavy engineering all my life for 50 years and if you want to count the overtime I probably worked 75 years. Believe me when you reach 65 you will be glad to retire and take it easy.

  • Comment number 74.

    I worked all my life making other people rich. Why would I want to get out of bed after the age of 65 to carry on doing something stupid like that?

    Do bankers retire at 55 with millions in their back pockets or not?

    I've got a life to catch up with now that I'm finished with the rat race and I love every minute of it.

  • Comment number 75.

    Where I work there are two people who work very hard they are both in their early 70's I wouldn't like to work until that age but when they do leave they will be missed! They have the stiff upper lip way of doing things both have a lovely sense of humour. I have told them both the place will not be the same without them when they leave. The one, his wife also works (not with us at a different place).

    So many die not long after they retire... my lovely boss from years ago. He & his wife retired, having worked very hard & ready to move abroad he took ill & died before he left Great Britian. I was shocked & saddened when I heard.

    I think the age to retire should be 55 for both men & women. But if anyone want to work until they are 60 then fine. It would also give younger people a chance to get a job.

  • Comment number 76.

    'This will increase employers' costs'.... pardon me if I am being thick and missing something but if you have a worker who is not retiring then presumably you won't be having to go through a costly recruitment process to replace him???

  • Comment number 77.

    When I was working in the engineering industry for a goverment defence factory employee's who reached the age of retierment were allowed to continue working well into their 70's. The company trained apprentices and the intake was 60 a year. At that time when a apprentice finished his time they had to leave because of the retirement policy. Eventually the union objected to this policy, and the system changed to allow apprentices to be employed. If the retirement age is implemented I can see them going back to this practice.
    Andy

  • Comment number 78.

    If I could continue my present job for two or three days a week that would be perfect. Keeps the brain cells working, it would bring in some extra cash and I can take advantage of the office location - easy cycling distance, scenic walks around campus, leisure centre and shopping nearby and the work is easy. Also important is the desire to have social contact with a group of acquaintances separate from our joint friends.

    So yes, I would work after I am 65. Well, that's what I think now, aged 58!

  • Comment number 79.

    If this wasn't open to abuse it would be a good thing

    Those employees with good lawyers who are just ticking over and should really retire as they are no longer making a full contribution will use it as an excuse for a good pay off.

    Heavy unionised will find it even more difficult to retire those workers that 'should be retired' simply because they not making a full contibution. There is a big difference between getting rid of someone for misconduct and allowing them to retire gracefully. You will get people hagging around for a pay off and yet again the compensation culture and greed will undo any good this well intended change will bring

  • Comment number 80.

    « Previous | Main
    Do you want to work after 65?
    08:37 UK time, Thursday, 29 July 2010

    The government is planning to scrap the default retirement age in the UK from October 2011. Under the proposal, employers would not be allowed to dismiss staff when they had reached the age of 65. Is this a good idea?
    Would like to work after reaching 65? Has there been enough consultation on the changes? What should the state pension age be? What effect will these changes have on you?

    Yes, provided I am fit and healthy to do so. Why not? I don't think there has been adequate consultation with businesses, Unions, bodies & organisations that should make an input. State age pension should be between 65yrs - 70yrs depedning on the average lifespan and longetivity.

  • Comment number 81.

    Depends on what I'm up to at the time, but I'd like to have the choice.

    I'm reminded of my grandad who worked really hard all his life (14 to 65, construction) and was looking forward to his retirement, was given a car by his firm as a leaving present and never got to drive it. He succumbed to cancer 3 months after.

    All I'm saying is, you never can tell what's to happen, but as long as I'm not working out of necessity when I'm 65, that's all. I would say that as long as you want to go on, you should be allowed to, but if people want to retire, they shouldn't be penalised or short-changed by the government and that's my fear with this move, it a step towards removing the welfare state where the elderly are concerned. We should be mindful of that future.

  • Comment number 82.

    It's all very well giving the over 65s the right to work, the big problem is in getting work in the first place. All your hard won experience, ability, commitment, fealty count for nothing when the person who is looking at your CV is about 20 and considers anyone over 50 has one foot in the grave at the worst and at the best dribbles, walks with a Zimmer frame and has the attention span of a gnat whilst shuffling around in carpet slippers and smelling of pee. We are NOT like that, but I remember at the age of 20, anyone over 40 was OLD! What is needed is some way of checking on such ageist attitudes in agencies and prospective employers and overcoming them.
    One more gripe whilst I am here.. you see an advert for a job and spend time tailoring your CV to make it more pertinent to the role rather than generalist, write a good introduction and then in high hopes send it off to an agency.. only to hear sweet diddly-squat .... ever! It would make a lot of sense that if someone applies for a role in whatever method they use, the agency is by law forced to respond giving a reason as to why they are not proceeding with your application, and one that can be challenged if necessary in a court of law. I have applied for roles which literally match my abilities completely and even more, I have additional abilities and longevity to bring to the table, only for my application to go into a black hole. And its this black hole that anyone over 55's application will disappear as there is no compulsion to give a contestable reason why the application was not considered more seriously. End of rant!

  • Comment number 83.

    No way!

    47 years working is enough for amyone.

  • Comment number 84.

    I have a member of staff who is 62 and says she can't do certain things because of her arthritus and she is now also forgetting things. She has already worked over her retirement age of 60 and I know she will want to work on because she hasn't set aside savings for her retirement. At what stage do we have to sack her because she can't do the job? Not a good end to years of service! Far better a set retirement age so people leave with a good feeling.

  • Comment number 85.

    Whilst I welcome the idea, two issues spring to mind.

    1. Employees do not pay National Insurance Contributions after they reach 65. Will this be changed? If not, there will be less money in the government melting pot.

    2. Will school/college/university leavers find it even harder to obtain employment as there will be less vacancies to fill? That would lead to more people on Jobseekers Allowance with less money in the pot to be able to pay them.

  • Comment number 86.

    The one issue that doesn't seem tom have been raised is that of switching to part-time. Many over 65s would be happy to do some work but not necessarily a 40 hour week.

  • Comment number 87.

    Whoever wrote the comment clearly does not look at his/her payslip! It is totally wrong to say that "Pensioners get far to much already...it should be means tested and save some money". During our working lives we pay many, many thousands of pounds in deductions towards a state pension and also private pensions. One has to work for the majority of ones adult life to qualify for a state pension so "pensioners" are only getting back some of the money that they had deducted from their wages over many years of working.

  • Comment number 88.

    Depends on if I can afford to retire. I have my University Pension and an additional Private Pensions (AVC), which is in the process of being put into a single stakeholder pension fund.

    If I don't loose too much in the transfers, I should have a bigger pot at the end. If it is still enough, I own my house (no mortgage, so will probably end up either selling it to fund a care home or equity release).

    Aged 48 this year.

  • Comment number 89.

    James comment 23

    It's usually the young INEXPERIENCED that make the mistakes not someone with 30 or 40 years experience. It's those people with years of experience we should be utilising not some young damp squib that thinks he knows everything but really doesn't. Until you have at least 10-15 years experience you shouldn't even be considered for mid-management.

  • Comment number 90.

    a) I believe the state pension was introduced to supplement peoples savings in retirement. Now the majority of pensioners believe they should be able to live comfortably on the amount they get (and even go on holidays). In today's Britain the only "investments" which average Joe now has are items bought from China

    b) With life expectancy rocketing (half of kids can expect to live to 100), a falling workforce, and a bankrupt state. What are the other options?

    OK we could try more of the tax the working group to pay for the old. However we now live in a global economy, tax them too much and they will move (especially since for a lot of the young there will be no golden chalice at the end of their life's)

  • Comment number 91.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 92.

    This is good news for all those who need to supplement their income. I have recently taken my previous employers to tribunal for sacking me at 65 but the law allows them to do that without even giving a reason.
    At least those who want or need to work won't stopped by rubbish companies.

  • Comment number 93.

    Any bets on how long before DC announces the end of state pensions and anyone without savings working to the end? There are so many things the UK can't afford I am surprised pensions are not further up the list for a hit. The big problem is being stored up for future generations with the demise of occupational pensions for large numbers of low paid workers needing increased state help with living costs. The UK is supposedly one of the worlds wealthy countries and yet apparently we need to be poorer so we can give more money to India. It is one thing sitting behind a desk until 70 but digging holes in the road is quite something else. One size will never fit all.

  • Comment number 94.

    I have every intention of being retired and living on my military pension on a beach on a Greek island by the time I am 55. Under no circumstances whatsoever do I wish to be working beyond that.
    There is too much of life left to enjoy (leisurewise). I cannot wait to start travelling extensively again, visiting places I haven't been to before (Machu Pichu, Central Africa, Amazon basin, Alaska, trans-Siberian express - the list is endless).
    I work as a hobby to allow me the luxury of saving for some fantastic times ahead. Working after 60 - no way!!

  • Comment number 95.

    It is just another classic example of the capitalist system flogging the poor plebs to death.

    The simple truth is that the Tories and their rich city friends do not want you to retire at all because it then costs THEM money to look after you in your frail dotage. What they want is to use you as a productive economic unit until such time as you are physically or mentally unable to work and then throw you on the scrap heap without recompense.

    ALL they care about is the economy and their own filthy lucre, they don't give a jot about you.

  • Comment number 96.

    Having been retired now for 10 years, I look back and am glad that I did retire when I was 65. It has meant that I could enjoy what is left of my life and also to look upon it as a culmination of 50 years of work.
    The other point of having a "cut-off" age for work is that it opens up the bottom of the ladder for new blood, without this then many firms would not be able to recruit the potential work leaders of the future. Also at 65 the body is slowing down so the work needs to be selective which is wrong and puts a greater load on those younger.
    Are we to go back to the old days of "work till you drop??"

  • Comment number 97.

    Great work until you drop now.What is the point of paying into a State Pension every week or month. What is going to happen to these monies? I take execption to the comment posted by? who stated that pensioners get to much already,If you are a millionaire then the I'm alright Jack brigade will always be selfish.How are the younger generation going to find full time employment. In principal, OK for people who want to continue,however the choice has been taken away from a lot of people.

  • Comment number 98.

    1. At 09:05am on 29 Jul 2010, AM wrote:
    NO - and anyone who does must lead a sad life!

    -------------

    Actually over the last couple of years there have been thousands of cases stacked up at employment tribunals for employees who want to keep working past 65. At the start of 2008 it was already 5,000+ cases. So there are a lot of sad people out there!

    Note that this is an announcement that says the individual has the choice of whether to keep working (as opposed to the employer getting shot of them at 65 without challenge and without redundancy).

    It is not an announcement about pensions, although may people seem to think it is judging by the comments thus far

  • Comment number 99.

    I was made redundant at 58. I had applied for 250 plus job advertisements and the vast majority of employers did not even acknowlege my applications. I found a temporary job for 18 months with the government to cope with the rising unemployment. Next year my contract will end and despite applying for many jobs I am having any successes. Therefore I wonder the effectivenes of this new legislation and it would only prolong the agony and stigma of being unemployed. I would rather RETIRE in grace and call myself a pensioner, be it a poor pensioner.

    On the other hand new legislation is a blessing for those who are in employment and wish to work beyond 65 as employers cannot force retirement. But how many employers are willing to recruit 'older employees'?

  • Comment number 100.

    Its another way of punishing working people. Well done British govt. The French had riots when they brought in retirement at 60. Don't hold your breath for Brits to do the same.

    can we have another "armed forces day"? That's a good waste of money.

 

Page 1 of 8

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.