Youth unemployment

[saknog]

There was years ago a research group (can’t remember who) that worked out it might be cheaper to offer people working over the age of 50 the option of early retirement and hand their jobs over to the younger generation trapped on benefits.

As I’m over 50 I would consider it to enjoy life while I’m still able to.

What would be the pro’s and con’s of this?

[GiantEnemyCrab]

Boat loads of companies now staffed by people with no experience or corporate knowledge?

A fktonne of money needed (from where?) to pay off the richest generation again?

[Countdown]

The main “con” would be the cost of funding the early retirement. All you would be doing is paying benefits to the “early retiree” rather than the young person. I don’t see what benefit there would be for the taxpayer.

[Truckosaurus]

As I've mentioned on similar threads, I suspect we will see more people retiring 'early' now that DB pensions are getting rarer and you'll have plenty of people with healthy DC pension pots that they are itching to spend rather than keep grafting for another 5-10-15 years.

You could move the age you can take your pension forward to encourage that behaviour, but, sadly, I suspect the Government makes more from tax from older people than it spends on benefits for youth, so might be more likely to move that age back to keep people working older.

[saknog]

How I understand it, I pay taxes that go towards benefits and pensions for others hoping there will be enough in the pension pot when I retire, if the young person is employed then they pay taxes to go towards pensions as there is less people on benefits, with the understanding that they could retire earlier.

And as for the “Richest generation” not all of us are making tons of money but still pay taxes to support some (not all) people on benefits who seem to have a better lifestyle than those who work.

[MustangGT]

Countdown said:

The main “con” would be the cost of funding the early retirement. All you would be doing is paying benefits to the “early retiree” rather than the young person. I don’t see what benefit there would be for the taxpayer.

A younger person is in need of a higher income than an older person, they still have their whole life to get through, a family to start etc. An older person has less needs and, probably, a property to live in already.

[Countdown]

MustangGT said:

Countdown said:

The main “con” would be the cost of funding the early retirement. All you would be doing is paying benefits to the “early retiree” rather than the young person. I don’t see what benefit there would be for the taxpayer.

A younger person is in need of a higher income than an older person, they still have their whole life to get through, a family to start etc. An older person has less needs and, probably, a property to live in already.

I don’t disagree with that. I just don’t see the benefit to the taxpayer. Apologies if I’m mistaken but the OP seems to be suggesting “I’d rather it was me sitting at home claiming benefits and have a young person doing my job” if that’s the case the net benefit to the taxpayer is nil, and the employer loses a skilled worker for somebody inexperienced.

[MustangGT]

Countdown said:

MustangGT said:

Countdown said:

The main “con” would be the cost of funding the early retirement. All you would be doing is paying benefits to the “early retiree” rather than the young person. I don’t see what benefit there would be for the taxpayer.

A younger person is in need of a higher income than an older person, they still have their whole life to get through, a family to start etc. An older person has less needs and, probably, a property to live in already.

I don’t disagree with that. I just don’t see the benefit to the taxpayer. Apologies if I’m mistaken but the OP seems to be suggesting “I’d rather it was me sitting at home claiming benefits and have a young person doing my job” if that’s the case the net benefit to the taxpayer is nil, and the employer loses a skilled worker for somebody inexperienced.

I see it as the younger person is going to end up on benefits far longer than a senior person, therefore less drain on the finite resource. Also, if you get younger people into work they will be paying money into a pension pot, therefore in less need of Government support in later life.

[StevieBee]

The theory assumes an employment scenario that enables a one-out, one-in situation. That isn't the case. It is becoming increasingly prevalent that when someone retires, their job is either dispersed amongst an existing team, outsourced overseas or just disappears.

The only way it might work is to enforce the policy. In other words, everyone retires by 55 (or whatever age is deemed appropriate) and everyone under the age of 25 is found a job. But many people actually like working. And by the time someone reaches their mid 50s, they've accumulated a great deal of experience and knowledge which would be lost if they all retired.

And keep in mind that we're living longer. Someone in their 50s today has the highest probability of reaching 90 than ever before. That's a lot of years to fund.

There's a great many things why young people are finding it difficult to get work but older people working isn't one of them.