As a Guardian headline says this morning:
The logic is that:
By age 70, only 50% of adults in England and Wales are now disability-free and able to work. A smaller working population and a large economically inactive population reduces the tax base to pay for pensions – and creates huge labour shortages, which creates its own problems.
So, the answer is to force those not disability free to work longer.
The logic implicit in this is staggeringly wrong. That logic is that because so many are disabled in some way those not suffering from disability must work for longer, ignoring the fact that this will inevitably increase (probably quite rapidly) the number suffering disability in that population that will now be forced to work, making the scale of the disability issue and so the demand on society significantly larger, not smaller.
The issue to be addressed is not the retirement age; it is why so many people have a disability and cannot work, meaning that they are being forced to live in poverty, making little economic contribution to society as a result.
But, since when did we look at issues rather than symptoms from which inappropriate conclusions could be drawn? That would never do.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Treating symptoms is good neoliberal policy as it ensures payments. If you address the causes, the symptoms disappear and people do not have a need to work and spend. That’s why big pharma prefers treatments to cures, and big food is happy to profit from junk food and poor health.
The newspaper article and those proposing an increase in the retirement age was too simplistic. Reducing ill health is in itself essential but we also need to look at the tax paid by various groups. More funds would be available if those on higher earnings (including pensioners) paid more tax.
At a time where in the UK from 2015 onwards the rise of life expectancy has either stalled, or in the poorer parts of the country is actually falling, you can only treat announcements such as this with the deepest distrust.
One of the most alarming features of talking to people under forty is the extent to which even the politically savvy have been brainwashed into believing there will be no meaningful State pension by the time they retire. Softening them up to accept announcements like this.
In France they retire at 62 on a pension that is almost double the UK.
Luxembourg, Belgium and Spain get three times the UK pension.
Since taxes do not pay for government spending, the government could do it.
The argument taxes do not pay for government spending is spurious. That may be true but they are not in any way independent variables and it undermines MMT to suggest that they are.
Could you elaborate a little, that sounds like an important distinction.
I have many times.
What can I add to the many explanations on this issue I gave already published? Doesn’t the fact that tax has to cancel money created make this clear?
So basically if I have this right, because this would be a non-productive intervention ie the money isn’t going towards the mobilisation of productive assets, if the govt were to raise SS on a routine basis ie bring it up to a reasonable level given today’s cost of living, then they’d have to increase taxation proportionately to counter inflation. This couldn’t be just any old where, it would have to be somewhere which would have a counter effect on the amount of money being shovelled over the counter at, say, Tesco, as opposed to taxing the wealthy more as they aren’t shopping in the supermarkets anyway. Is that about right?
There is a need to counter inflation – to some degree. 2%/is just made up though
And let’s not pretend most of the rich do not spend. Some don’t, but a great many do, so they are a completely worthwhile target for extra tax.
The reasons for the high incidence of poor health and disability in later years shortening working life span in a large percentage of the population are well known: poor diet resulting in over 25% obese; well over 50% over weight – 4 million Type 2 diabetics with more undiagnosed and numbers rising by 140,000 a year – circulatory problems and a range of cancers all attributed to poor diet. Henry Dimbleby’s report “The National Food Strategy – The Plan” set out a way forward but sadly was not taken up by Government. Work by Prof Tim Spector’s team at Imperial College and also Chris van Tulleken and others highlighting the dangers on Ultra Processed Foods flag routes towards better diet and health. The food majors have too much influence over both government and research and they need to be challenged and made to change their ways. Sadly, it tends to be the poorest households that eat the worst diets and have the worst health and shortest life expectancies.
It is ironic that improved safety standards and regulation in the work place and generally have much reduced the incidence of accidental injury and yet we demonstrably lack safe guards re food and public health.
Much to agree with
I endorse everything you say but I also think that insufficient attention is paid to many of the work and lifestyle changes that are at the root of many of the problems you describe. So many unhealthy changes. To take but one example
Most people used to start work at between 8.00 – 9.00 with an hour for lunch and finish at 16.00 – 18.00.
It allowed most people to have three meals a day with much more control over what they ate.
Predictable, sociable hours also gave them the time to relax and participate in non-work related activities.
Now we live in in a highly exploitative 24/7 society, with shift working and various forms of stress-inducing “contracted” work that allow little or no social life. People eat where and what they can, a recipe for ill health. We know this is a deadly mix for the health of individuals.
I have always found it grimly amusing that the John the Baptist for this kind of society was Margaret Thatcher who was said to work until midnight, then would relax with a bottle of Scotch, go to bed at 2am, before rising again at 6am. The long term result being early onset dementia.
Hi Paul
The points you raise about meal times, our “grazing” habits etc – made me think of the research reported in Prof Tim Spector’s books and his team’s ZOE App. From reading this, my impression is that it is what we eat, its variety, and how much we eat that is more important than when – the suggestion that we aim for 30 different plants in our diet each week, for example. “Grazing” doesn’t appear to be necessarily bad. Fasting seems to be beneficial, as does ending a meal still slightly hungry.
Thank you and well said, Paul, for both comments.
Helmut Kohl noted in his memoirs that superwoman, who at one summit went on the hunt for the big man when he had sneaked to a bakery for some cake, would often fall asleep in the afternoon sessions and wondered why she did not get a good night’s sleep. That’s never reported here.
I’d add: more sedentary lifestyle, in work (desk or control panel jobs, even checkout operators, machine aided); sedentary leisure time; and car-centric travel, with minimal walking or other exercise (often necessitated by out of town workplaces and shopping, with inadequate public transport).
The health secretary Victoria Atkins has insisted there is no conflict of interest with her husband’s senior role in the British sugar industry.
Victoria Atkins, who is the Louth and Horncastle MP, is married to British Sugar managing director Paul Kenward.
Obesity, diabetes…..sugar ….hmmmm!
Who are the experts?
What are their aims, motivations and fears?
Who funds and promotes them?
Thank you, Steve.
How about BBC regulars Kate Andrews, Divya Chakrabortty and Chloe “low tax” Westley?
I didn’t feel as if I need to add Tufton Street as short hand.
These are pertinent questions and ones that need to be addressed. The major international food companies and lobby groups have large budgets for research, for product promotion and for political lobbying. Researchers move between these companies, the universities and nominally independent charitable bodies spreading these major companies’ influence. In addition, farmer lobby groups are active in promoting their interest. The effect is to confer overwhelming market dominance on the food producers. Too much research has been found wanting but, because it supports these interest group’s BAU aims, they defend it and resist change.
Governments publish dietary recommendations but are reliant on researcher and too easily deflected by the majors / their lobbyists. Politicians, taking their line from the food interests saying, for example: it is wrong for them to tell people what they should eat – decrying the “nanny state” – shamefully abrogating responsibility.
NOVA food classification system which defines ultra processed food with its highly refined ingredients and additives is a sound challenge to our way of thinking about food. Because it undermines their BAU it is derided by the food majors but is gradually being taken up. Developed in Brazil it is a “David v Goliath” contest – “Ultra-processed People”, Chris van Tulleken’s book is worth reading on this.
The objective of employers is to gain the maximum exploitation of workers, thus producing incredible stress, long hours low pay. No wonder there is a reluctance to join this rat race of subjugation where many jobs are precarious, constant, electronic spying/monitoring, unrealistic target setting, penalties for being too long in the toilet, the threat of the P45, and mortgage or rent arrears looming. What a state neoliberalism has caused. Don’t mention bad diet, increasing obesity, air pollution respiratory diseases due to air pollution, and mental breakdowns due to harsh employment conditions.
The same low income population groups suffer the worst working conditions and also the poorest nutrition largely through eating a diet high in ultra processed foods. In both cases it is individuals with little power and influence being dominated and also influenced through media to act against their best interests.
But, this is far from always the case, too many individuals with a genuine choice over the food they eat select health damaging options and allow their health to deteriorate until some years later a serious health problem makes the re-think (hopefully). By then, sadly, damage is done.
Government action is needed on both employment regulation and food.
The UK does not compare well with France or other countries for that matter on both retirement age and being more responsible for your own health. I can’t help feeling these things are associated.
Thank you, Graeme and Paul.
Even as far afield as Mauritius, host to tourists, ask any local loitering on the street corner about that and they can tell you the difference between the French and UK pensions, marvel at the difference and wonder how Britons put up with it.
Since independence from Blighty in 1968, Isle de France / Mauritius has reverted to a big extent to France.
Great, you’ve moved on from the ‘tax doesn’t fund spending’ nonsense, however you’re still pushing the ridiculous notion that increasing tax on the ‘wealthy’ can fund anything we want.
Tax doesn’t fund anything
But tax does control inflation and need a lot more spending so we need to tax the wealthy to control that
Do you read anything I write?
What is really offensive is the idea coming across that the amount of people working has to be equal to those retiring in order for us to be able to afford pensions. Making people work longer is the supposed offset to remedy this. It’s not even proper social insurance that we have.
It’s a mismatch between the young and old and sets one against the other and is divisive.
Also, if people can retire earlier, then arguably those jobs would then be available to younger people. So we have a load of youngsters who have essentially paid privately for their education who may be held back because the State won’t fund retirees sufficiently.
What sort of system is it that encourages you into debt for an education and then holds you back by increasing the working age of those in front of you?
Stupid, stupid, stupid.
As for the disability question – I wholeheartedly agree. I have huge problems with a left knee but cannot help but feel that the answer has been ‘get used it’ and ‘take paracetamol’. No other advice has been given at all about any other aspect of my life.
But pensions in this country remain FUBAR. And tripe like I’ve read above really gets my goat.
While the situation was different to put it mildly the Midland Bank continued to pay my father his salary while he was away in the Army in WW2 and it wasnt just the middle classes either, Percy Parsons a railwayman was the same, and it wasnt as if The Somerset and Dorset Joint Committee was ever flush.
https://www.sdrt.org/product/percy-parsons-50-years-on-the-railway/
But we need to look at a lot of the ‘treatable’ ill health that has been reported on recently – I am sure that Mrs Murphy can comment on this. Then of course there is also the issue of poor productivity in the UK economy and underemployment. Clearly these issues could be tackled to make paying for pensions less of an issue.
And that of course is before we start looking at pension tax relief
I am sure that the 7 million awaiting treatment from the NHS as a significant affect on employment.
As a personal anecdote, having a chronically ill wife (ill since 2006), I’ve had to carry on working to sustain the household and (finally, almost) pay off debt, including rebuilding part of our house. I’m 72, and in the last year or so acquired high blood pressure, am prediabetic, and discovered my kidneys are working about 50% efficiency. Retiring at 65 would’ve been a boon; I’m now planning one more year at work to reduce debt before all the bits fall off, and while I have time to walk some of the bits of UK I haven’t accessed yet.
State and occupational pension don’t make for a decent life since the price /profit hikes.
John
Good luck, and you have my sympathy, knowing what it is like to look after a person who is chronically ill
Richard
Even before this latest announcement I have been wondering how so many charitable orgs who depend upon volunteers to get stuff done are going to survive in future. My last two paid jobs before retiring ‘early’ at a few months past my 60th birthday were in the voluntary sector. That was more than ten years ago. Even then volunteers could pick and choose who to give their time, skill, energy to as the posts available were many more than bodies to fill them. I was so delighted to be finally free to organise how I spent my time. Although health now on the downward slope, I still have interest and inclination to contribute a few hours every week to something I have a heart for – but not 35/40 to get paid on order to comply with a government policy. I’d be miserable and exhausted.
I absolutely feel we should move over and let the young ones learn a work habit and achieve some self esteem and confidence. Otherwise if they lose hope, have no money, nothing to keep busy with or develop skills then – the devil makes work , idle hands and all that.
Thanks
So many aspect to this issue to address, I hardly know where to start. But two aspects that nobody in this set of comments has addressed yet :
1) The HUGE number of people in their 60s and 70s, now retired, who are providing free child care to their grandchildren so the parents can work. I mean, this is HUGE. So who is going to provide childcare if these grandparents are forced to remain in the workplace during those years? Knowing there will be nobody to take care of their kids will be a large incentive for young couples to remain childless, which just exacerbates the imbalance.
2) The HUGE number of jobs being taken over by technology or lost altogether. And being lost or altered by a change in our shopping/spending habits. A bank teller, replaced by a call centre worker located overseas? A supermarket cashier being replaced by a self-checkout kiosk? A GP receptionist being replaced by a set of ‘menu options.’ A postie being dropped because the Royal Mail is ‘downsizing.’ Post offices closed. In fact, you name it. This is happening everywhere now, and the rate of job loss is increasing.
Raising the pension age is NOT going to begin to solve these problems.
Agreed
The answer is to get angry
Physically demanding jobs are often quoted as barriers to working longer but so are mentally and emotionally demanding ones. Eventually the tank can run dry. It makes me want to scream, “We are human beings not robotic wage slaves”.
To quote W.H. Davies, “A poor life this if, full of care, we have no time to standard stare”.
All true
A wee typo there: “standard” should be “stand and” – auto-correct strikes again?.
We seem to have totally omitted Covid in this discussion. This is, and will be, an ongoing problem with people affected by problems caused by the disease which seems to have been totally memory holed by a large proportion of the population and by all political parties.
You are right
It’s been at least 3 weeks since you’ve claimed to have COVID, Richard, you must be due your 43rd episode by now?
Thanks for asking.
I have flu now, since you enquired.
There are just so many contradictions in this idiotic announcement. The UK’s dreadfully unhealthy population with all the drivers of that including diet, housing, exercise, poverty and all the rest. The running down of the NHS which further impacts the level of sickness. A rapidly ageing population. All of that adding up to a shrinking workforce along with low productivity primarily driven by low investment. Then aggravated by a resistance to bringing in people from outside the country who might fill in the gaps in the workforce. I could go on.
And all they can think of is making older, sicker people work longer. From a party of the rich who are able to retire young. As ever its hard to distinguish between the stupidity and the nastiness.
Normalised callousness
It is all very well asking us to work longer but companies have no interest in retaining, retraining or accommodating older workers. I, for one, would like to continue working but my applications just go unanswered for jobs are more than qualified to do. When I did eventually find a job, the difficulty with getting timely healthcare for two conditions has meant that I was forced to give it up. There is absolutely no understanding or flexibility in the workplace when you find yourself as one of the 8 million on the NHS waiting list. It is not only a huge human cost, but ultimately, the self-interested lack of investment and mismanagement of this country’s resources has stiffled any chance of the growth they perpetually crow about. We seem unable to grasp that in order to progress and grow, you first have to invest not asset strip and make off with your swag to some tax haven.
I hear that time and again
Sorry