For those who are retired do you ever find yourself wanting to re-enter the workforce due to sheer boredom?

@swirlie "... a fool's game". So too, is imagining while still at work, that retirement will be boring. Some people make that mistake, because they have not seen it as an opportunity. Or some perhaps, because they tend to think negatively, generally.

@ArishMell
I agree with you 100%. I have some friends who are 'seniors' who are afraid to retire because of what you've just stated. Instead of retiring and starting a new life, they choose instead to continue working after being employed for 43 years with the same firm because their job IS their life. They say they would have NO life whatsoever if it weren't for their job providing that life.

@swirlie They seem unable to imagine themselves doing anything else. I wonder why some people are like that, though I could understand it perhaps if they had followed an unusually interesting and rewarding career. Although I have known many people who have had rewarding careers and very active interests.

I used to work for a small electronics company that employed two senior citizens a couple of days a week in the metalwork shop. They had had full careers at high technical-managerial levels, and this was a return to skilled bench work they found interesting and could perform to very good quality.

I also knew of a former departmental head in a research establishment - where he basically told other scientists what had to be done, and signed off their reports. Though at his level he also met equivalent people in the customer's organisation, for technical meetings, e.g. within contract negotiations, and likely found that very satisfying. I learnt that after retiring he set himself up as a paid, part-time consultant in his industry, so returning to being a professional Engineer. Possibly at home as his work was intensely mathematical analysis and designing, not laboratory-based. His hobby? Also Engineering but in a very different way: helping restore and maintain preserved, steam, railway locomotives.

@ArishMell
That is probably why statistically speaking, the average life expectancy for someone who retires at age 60 or beyond, is about 18 months if they've made their job their life.

@swirlie Good point! It will of course depend on other factors too, but that is an important one.

@ArishMell
The opposite is also statistically true where if one retires earlier than age 60, their life expectancy beyond age 60 increases exponentially by a factor of 4 to 1... you gain 4 years of life expectancy for every year prior to age 60 you retire.

Retiring at age 55 for example would be 5x4 = 20 years of statistical life expectancy beyond one's age of 60, which of course would now be 80.

@swirlie Interesting: seems we can't win!

I retired a year early, at 64, and am now 73 and though fraying round the edges am still all here.

Unlike a friend who is older than me... though Parkinson's Disease can hit anyone irrespective of their general health or style of life.

@ArishMell
My grandfather always told me, "The objective when choosing one's retirement date is to organize oneself so as to collect pension for as many years as one contributed to the plan!".

@swirlie I like that!

@ArishMell
My grandfather told me that his intentional longevity while under his full control at all times, was his way of screwing the system by living longer than his former employer was prepared to pay him for!

@swirlie I don't suppose it "screwed" anything but I rather like his attitude...

Only one of my employment pension schemes is of Defined Benefit form, based on eightieths. I was paying into that for only ten years before we were sold off; so its nett pension is merely [ (10/80) X my final salary]... which was not very high.

@ArishMell
DB pension plans are very rare these days. Most pensions today are based on defined contribution (DC), not defined benefit anymore.

@swirlie Indeed, because DB plans are more expensive to operate. My last employer operated a Defined Contributions scheme with the facility for the employee to add extra to it, from what would be the nett pay.

Though it may not make a huge difference to your own pension eventually because the threshold on total pension income before income-tax on it, is not very high!

@ArishMell
I think one of the main differences between DB and DC pension plans is that a Defined Benefit plan is created and maintained with pre-tax dollars, whereas a Defined Contribution pension plan is created and maintained with after-tax dollars, but then taxed a second time when the proceeds are eventually withdrawn as pension income down the road.

@swirlie Ah, we do live in different countries so the tax rules will differ, but in Britain the pension contributions are deducted from Gross Pay, before tax, irrespective of the type of scheme.

However, we can only draw a certain amount (I think currently £12500) of pensions in total (State + Company + any private scheme) before being taxed on the income above that. The effect is that one of my modest company pensions is pretty well wiped out!

The pension-scheme trustees pay the taxes for most people who have always been on the "Pay As You Earn" tax system. Just as well because tax rules are very complicated and difficult, and must be a nightmare for those who must complete an annual Tax Return (mainly the self-employed).

Similarly for the income from employee-shares holdings. I have only a very small block of them so the income is merely a little annual treat, but its managers pay the tax on it for me.

There is also a tax rule to protect company and private pension scheme holders from their own greed. It's a long time since I've read the details but I think if you take it back in one go before retiring, it will be subject to a heavy tax bill. Such premature withdrawal would be self-defeating anyway, even without the tax.


You may have encountered the common complaint heard among older Britons, of "I have paid into [the State Pension scheme] all my working life!"

Oh no we haven't!

Our State Pension, like other national benefits, is paid from the taxes on those still working. I think the confusion arises from the name "National Insurance" used since its inception for the tax levvied on wages to fund the National Health Service and the State Pension, alongside Income Tax.

It is not an "insurance" or even savings plan at all. The State Pension is not over-generous but if from a pure savings plan it would be even lower!

We give a lot back anyway by indirect taxes such as VAT and "Council Tax" (the latter is for local services).