
Get early retirees off the golf course and back to work – why early retirement isn't good for UK plc
Every western country needs their more mature workers to keep going, if not full time, then part time. And if not paid work, then unpaid voluntary work that acknowledges the luck that flows from being a 21st-century baby boomer in good health.
Communities, regions and countries cannot afford for older people to pack up and head for the golf course, or worse, book a permanent cruise and spend their cash in international waters.
Last week, the government convened a pensions commission to consider a narrow question: how to boost the incomes of lower-paid workers in retirement.
It is understandable that the government is worried about the increasing numbers of low-income workers who will soon spend a long retirement struggling to make ends meet.
This is a genuine concern and a subject worthy of a commission. Yet there is a need to address a far wider question, which is how society will thrive when the age pyramid is inverted, with only a smattering of young people holding up a mountain of retirees.
Retirement has its origins in the Industrial Revolution and the need to prevent older people from ending their years in abject poverty, not to fulfil a bucket list of expensive desires.
The commission should ask why anyone in the 21st century should think they can put their feet up seven days a week when they are fit and well, and able to participate in economic life.
Yet a prosperous retirement is the aim of so many – and not only when they are approaching their 60s.
If you look at the strike record of full-time university lecturers you would think they obsess about their pensions every day.
Council staff spend precious hours scrolling through WhatsApp groups discussing the most mundane changes to their retirement plans with a degree of attentiveness that, to give them credit, is in line with the generosity of their benefits.
Company boardrooms are no different. Executives will set aside huge amounts of time to manage their complex and stunningly generous pensions. Having a financial consultant ready and available on the phone to talk about their retirement plans has become a must-have demand in the corporate world.
Maybe its the lure of sailing on the Adriatic or cruising the Caribbean that captivates so many, or less positively, the frustration and anxiety from working near, with or for incompetent or venal managers in a succession of modestly paid jobs.
Still, whatever the reason, too many people want to cash out of the economy, trading their pension and property gains for a long period of rest, with only the stress of remembering what day it is to bump their heart rate.
Sign up to Business Today
Get set for the working day – we'll point you to all the business news and analysis you need every morning
after newsletter promotion
Some economists have argued that this moment – when boomers are no longer participating in the workplace – will trigger a profound shift in the economy. Those workers still in the labour market will bid up their wages, pushing up prices and making high inflation a permanent feature.
Governments will find it harder to borrow money, in part because pension funds, after decades of growth, will have a declining need to buy their bonds.
There are also extra bills to pay. In its latest report on the UK, the International Monetary Fund says the effects of population ageing on health and pension costs will account for a further 8% of GDP by 2050 compared with an extra 5.5% of GDP, on average, in other advanced European economies.
These are important issues connected with the nation's finances. So, too, are the ways better-off baby boomers insulate themselves.
First, they take most of the pension money and invest it abroad where the gains are much higher, either because their workforces are young, dynamic and more productive or because the companies are American and enjoy monopolistic strangleholds in their respective markets.
Investing abroad gives the boomer a ring-fenced income no matter how clapped out the economy they call home.
The second track is to import young workers from abroad, boosting the labour supply as boomers make their exit.
Financial insulation is understandable when government finances are under strain. Yet one of the reasons the wheels are coming off the modern liberal state is because baby boomers, who by sheer force of numbers and their better education spurred the postwar recovery, are causing the downturn by bailing out.
Worse, they are cashing out, too.
Without a debate about what it means to be old and the responsibilities that come with receiving a pension, the government's commission will be left to merely tinker.
We are only a few years away from the baby boomer generation all reaching retirement age. Everyone born in the years up to 1964 will be eligible to collect the state pension in 2031. It's a turning point that everyone should be preparing for, especially when all the Pimm's-drinking early retirees are added to the list. The commission's remit should be wider.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Rhyl Journal
33 minutes ago
- Rhyl Journal
Farming burden has ‘crossed the threshold', Badenoch warns
Speaking to farmers in her North West Essex constituency, the Conservative Party leader criticised 'constant Government saying, 'You can't do this, you can't do that, you can't move forwards''. Mrs Badenoch tried her hand at harvesting wheat during her visit to a farm in Little Walden, driving a Claas Lexion combine harvester with farmer Sam Goddard. She told Mr Goddard: 'I am very keen to find out more and more about what this year has been like and about how we're actually going to do the harvest.' Looking at the machine, the MP for North West Essex added: 'It's a lot more complicated than I assumed.' Replacing his machine like-for-like would cost around £400,000, but more up-to-date models would probably be more expensive, Mr Goddard said. Taking questions from farmers about changes to the agricultural property relief from inheritance tax, Mrs Badenoch said that the Government was 'not going to get tax from farms that don't exist'. From April 2026, farmers who previously did not have to pay inheritance tax on their agricultural property will only be able to pass on up to £1 million without facing a bill. Beyond this threshold, they face a new effective rate of 20%. Fiscal watchdog the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) has projected this change, along with a similar change to business property relief, will raise around £0.5 billion for the Treasury by 2027/28. 'If you force people to give up or sell off, then you don't get anything at all,' Mrs Badenoch warned. 'And the bottom line is, this whole argument is because some people do not understand the difference between assets and income, and that just because you have an asset that's worth a lot, it doesn't mean that there's lots of money coming in to tax.' The Leader of the Opposition added that businesses 'need a different tax regime', and continued: 'A lot of farming just feels like constant interference. 'Everything is interfered from the minute you wake up.' Examples of interference included 'chemicals and insecticide, people you're hiring, how much you've got to pay them', plus changes to 'employers' NI (national insurance), then somebody wants to put pylons on, there's compulsory purchase, it's impacting the cost of the land, if you want to add a new farm building, there's planning applications', she said. 'It's just endless constant Government saying, 'You can't do this, you can't do that, you can't move forwards'. 'And the burden in my view has now crossed the threshold.'


ITV News
an hour ago
- ITV News
Taxpayer to foot the bill for Battle of Flowers' overspend with £121,000 government handout
Jersey 's government has decided to pay off all outstanding debt from the 2024 Battle of Flowers' event, despite previously telling ITV News that organisers should cover their own costs. Last year, Battle made a loss of more than £350,000, with many exhibitors and creditors not being paid as a result - despite a record £270,000 government grant. Deputy Kirsten Morel, the island's Minister for Sustainable Economic Development, told ITV News in March that the "Government isn't there to bail out and just pay off the debt". He added: "The Battle of Flowers Association have sufficient assets for us to work out a way for them to pay off their own debts." However, the Government has now confirmed a bailout costing £121,000, only a few months after announcing up to £220,000 of grants to fund this year's smaller celebrations: ITV News understands this latter figure now stands at £158,000. The payment to cover debts has been made as an advance on future funding for the Battle of Flowers, raising questions about whether the event will ever return to its former scale. Steve Bouchard from The Optimists Club, which won last year's event, says: "It is a concern because it's leaving a legacy behind, people will have to take on a debt they didn't incur. "But that's the way it is and at least we have a Battle on this year." In a statement, the island's government explains: "The Battle of Flowers is an essential fixture in Jersey's summer calendar, bringing our community together through thousands of hours of volunteering and drawing crowds to the centre of town. "Ministers have provided this payment to enable the parade to proceed this year." In a letter from Chief Minister Lyndon Farnham and Deputy Morel, addressed to the Chief Officer at the Department of the Economy, the Government adds: "We would ask that any future grants to any organiser of the Battle of Flowers event are made with this funding in mind, accounted for accordingly and deducted from future grants to the event. "It is unfortunate that, despite the efforts of the new organisers and the grant funding already provided by the Department for the Economy, the success of the event should be imperilled due to ongoing challenges in resolving the 2024 overspend." Some islanders believe money from the public purse could be better allocated elsewhere. Ben Shelton from Age Concern explains: "I'm the chair of two charities that do really good work in the island and we could do much better with that money than wasting and squandering it on grants that aren't properly investigated and aren't given out in the right manner."


The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
What are the pros and cons of introducing digital identity cards?
The prime minister is said to be 'seriously considering' a national system of digital identification, both to make it easier to access online services, including government ones, and to clamp down on illegal working by irregular migrants. Given the push to introduce artificial intelligence in so many areas of our lives, it may be an idea whose time has come. But there are political, as well as practical, complications. What is digital ID? It would in essence be a virtual ID card, and using it in the existing, and enhanced, Government Gateway would make it easier for people to manage everything from tax records and social security entitlements to driving licences, education, citizenship and probate – a vast array of areas in which the individual has dealings with the state. It could also be used, as a passport or driving licence is now, to help with all sorts of other activities, such as banking or getting a job. There is a separate, and obviously sensitive, question about whether digital ID should also encompass someone's medical history, voluntarily or otherwise. Why digital ID now? According to the briefings, the aim is to reduce the cost and increase the efficiency of the government machine, so that, for example, people don't have to spend hours on hold when contacting a government agency. Unavoidably, though, it is also a way to detect people who shouldn't be in the country or working in the UK. That, the theory goes, means less of a 'pull factor' for certain sorts of migrant. Would it work? In a sense it is working already, in that almost everyone must have a unique tax reference, a national insurance number, a driving licence number, an NHS number and so on, and can, if they wish, share this information with others. But at the moment the system is compartmentalised and clunky, even if more and more interactions are taking place online and with chatbots. What stage are we at? Reports emanating from a 'senior minister' say that the prime minister has ordered a 'comprehensive and expansive look' at the proposal: 'Keir is leading on it,' they said. 'This is a serious piece of work. After a year in government, it is clear that technology is underpinning everything. Digital ID is foundational. Things are moving forward.' Didn't we have identity cards before? They were introduced as plain cardboard documents during the Second World War as a national security measure. People had to use them to get rationed food and petrol, and had to be ready to produce them on demand, a serious infringement of the traditional British way of doing things. The request for 'Papers, please' has always been regarded as an alien phenomenon. In the words of Boris Johnson in 2004: 'If I am ever asked, on the streets of London, or in any other venue, public or private, to produce my ID card as evidence that I am who I say I am ... then I will take that card out of my wallet and physically eat it in the presence of whatever emanation of the state has demanded that I produce it.' (He subsequently brought in compulsory photo ID for elections.) Even now, a driver stopped by the police is granted 14 days to produce their driving licence at a police station. The wartime measures were resented, and were abolished in 1952. Mandatory ID would be a minor revolution. What about the ID cards Tony Blair wanted? He still does, by the way. Much of the present momentum for change comes from the Tony Blair Institute (TBI), as if the former PM has never given up the struggle. At any rate, the current prime minister's chief aide, Morgan McSweeney, commissioned the TBI to produce proposals, and is said to be 'forceful' in making the case for them to No 10. Certainly, a more primitive version of this project was very much 'on the cards 20 years ago' when the Blair administration tried to bring in ID cards, but it ran into enormous resistance and administrative problems. The motives, in essence, were no different from today. In 2003, the then home secretary, David Blunkett, argued that cards with biometric data were needed so that 'people don't work if they are not entitled to work, they don't draw on services which are free in this country, including health, unless they are entitled to', and that 'when we find people we can identify quickly that they are not entitled and get them out'. When a limited, entirely voluntary ID card was introduced in 2010, some 15,000 were in circulation, but the incoming Conservative-Liberal Democrat government scrapped the entire scheme, after £5bn had been spent. A voluntary biometric residence permit is available as an option for foreign students or workers. Official photo ID cards for voting have also been introduced in recent years. What does the opposition say? Despite showing little interest in it while in government, earlier this year the shadow home secretary, Chris Philp, conceded that digital ID could help tackle 'illegal' immigration. But Nigel Farage remains stubbornly libertarian, and opposes digital ID because he 'doesn't trust this government' and claims that it 'hurts law-abiding citizens'. Labour, and the Tories, could use his reluctance to argue that, given he is not prepared to use every possible measure in the fight against irregular migration, Farage wouldn't succeed in his own ambition to stop the boats. Will it happen? With 40 Labour backbenchers recently calling for change and the Conservatives warming to the idea, alongside the trend towards digitising everything, it feels pretty inevitable, like it or not. Will it work? To some extent, but there are ways to get around any system, and digital is no different from paper in that respect. It could make things worse for some. If a fraudster managed to 'steal' a vulnerable person's digital ID, for example, then it would be 'open sesame' on their entire life, and comprehensive identity theft might become more common. Leaks cannot be ruled out. There's also the grim possibility that a migrant who wanted to come to the UK to work, deprived of any ID, would just melt into the underground economy, and become even more exposed to crime and exploitation. In a worst-case scenario, some criminals or a malign foreign government could execute a mega-hack in which millions of people's data is stolen or frozen and held to ransom. Last, we must reflect on British governments' past lamentable record on grand digital integration schemes – and the fact that the current proposal, which would potentially bring together HMRC, the DWP, the DVLA, the Passport Office, criminal records, local authority records, and the NHS database, would be hugely more ambitious, and hazardous, than anything attempted before.