It's not the baby boomers who Osborne will sanction. But we need them to keep working for their sake – and ours

One section of society who will be sitting comfortably after George Osborne’s Autumn Statement are pensioners. The Chancellor may have no good news on tax credits and will have to show some sleight of hand on police cuts, but, once again, pensioners will enjoy his protection, with the state pension increased to £119.30 a week from next April.

Yet what does 21st-century retirement look like for those still in work? Research shows that more than three million people currently working – one in 10 of the total UK workforce – have no plans to retire once they reach state pension age. This is partly due to having no formal pension (something a third of workers lack, according to the research by Baring Asset Management) so they have no choice but to carry on – but there’s something else. It is the rise of an army with one of those horrible mashed-up names that nevertheless conveys the meaning perfectly: the “wellderly”.

The state pension age was designed a century ago, when average life expectancy in the UK was below 60. Although recent changes are gradually raising pensionable age, by 2020 this will be still a relatively young 66 for both men and women. Today, people can live three more decades beyond it: the number of nonagenarians has nearly tripled since 1982 (and centenarians have quadrupled over that period), and it is not only about living longer, but having a healthier older life. Thirty years is a long time to receive a smaller amount of money than you are used to, even if it means taking it easy – so why wouldn’t you want to carry on with some sort of job?

Of course, some older people will be less mobile and suffer more health problems than younger workers. But the “wellderly” – physically and mentally fit older people – can offer a great deal to society through their experience if they keep working. In any case, staying in work might keep them more physically and socially active than in retirement. More over-60s in work would make them more visible in society, so they would be better valued by employers.

In his landmark book The Pinch: How the Baby Boomers Took Their Children’s Future – And Why They Should Give It Back, published in 2010, former Conservative minister David Willetts noted that the baby boomers, who have just begun or are on the brink of retirement, own more than half of the nation’s £6.7trillion wealth – a staggering amount of assets. Yet at the same time, they are benefiting more from the welfare state than any other generation: Lord Willetts calculated that people born between 1956 and 1961 will get 118 per cent more out of the welfare state than they put in.

His argument was that this inter-generational inequality is grossly unfair, and that the newly retired should give back more to society, particularly the young. His argument of five years ago is even more sound today, because his Government is cutting benefits for the young. It is also absurd that better off retirees qualify for the winter fuel allowance, free TV licence and other benefits. Yet the Government refuses to take anything away from pensioners, no matter how wealthy, because they are more likely to be Conservative voters.

So there is something rather admirable about the three million people who do not plan to retire. But surely the question is why aren’t there more than one in 10 who choose to carry on working past 65. If the figure were six million, and not three, just think of how society would benefit, through less burden on the NHS and a greater contribution to the economy. No longer regarding the over-60s as “elderly” would be a good place to start.