An ageing population - is it really an issue?

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I never mentioned the birth rate. If people live longer (which they are) then the tax bill is higher whilst the tax receipts are lower.
Greater levels of technology might increase productivity, but require a smaller workforce to achieve it, reducing the tax receipts even more.
Any way you look at it, more people are sucking on the teat.
And I countered your point. It's been documented that this current generation is the first since WWII which will have a lower life expectancy.

Technology can increase industrial competitiveness - which increases profitability and the corporation tax take with smaller workforces. It's not just about income tax.

But, lowered migration would also reduce the infrastructure spend, so you'd need less tax income anyway.
 
For me the problem with mass immigration is that its a vicious circle, more people need more infrastructure which requires more people.
You are so right, but for some reason nobody at an official level seems to be able to make the connection.

In the same way, our whole economic model is based upon exponential growth. This requires a corresponding increase in population to produce, contribute and to consume, as does the perpetuation of a social welfare system. It is quite unsustainable.
 
If you want to see the stark reality of an “aging” population, try and look around the medical wards of your local hospital, and then follow their discharge process back into the community (or care home).

We have lots and lots of people living nearly 40% of their life “in retirement”, with multiple illnesses that would have killed them off much earlier in previous generations. In the health and social care sector, we either need to massively increase the capacity of training for all elements (lots of capital expenditure) and commensurately reward them, or simply be good capitalists and buy it in from abroad.

Or, as mentioned above, withdraw health and social care from your granny once she reaches 70.
 
I think a small part of the problem is the migrants (perhaps through dodgy employers or people wanting a cheap cash in hand jobs) means the money doesn't go back to the HMRC.

I like the points based system, we could also have an earnings clause, follow it up with immigrants having a tax number and if they don't contribute 25% or whatever they claimed the earnings of said role should be, in for an interview and questions asked leading to potential cancellation of Visa.

I dont know the numbers but I doubt NHS tourists and gimmiegrants and make up enough of a defecit requiring us to work another 5-10 years.

If the NHS and Gov Pensions are the issue, phase them out to an extent for Private Insurance and Private Pensions with Tax breaks.

Also, dont vote labour for Nationalization, the amount of 'entitled' pricks supported by the Unions that used to work for Water, Gas and Electricity are to blame for all this shite we are in.
 
Don't fall for the line that all immigrants are young.
The ones I see a lot of are old asians using sticks to hobble around on and more recently, ancient Africans. Must be nice to come here and get a pension and benefits you haven't contributed to.
 
Don't fall for the line that all immigrants are young.
The ones I see a lot of are old asians using sticks to hobble around on and more recently, ancient Africans. Must be nice to come here and get a pension and benefits you haven't contributed to.
Remember this old poem:

I cross ocean, poor and broke. Take bus, see employment folk.

Nice man treat me good in there. Say I need to see welfare.

Welfare say, "You come no more, we send cash right to your door."

Welfare cheques - they make you wealthy! NHS - it keep you healthy!

By and by, I got plenty money. Thanks to you, British dummy!

Write to friends in motherland. Tell them "come fast as you can."

They come in turbans and Ford trucks. I buy big house with welfare bucks!

They come here, we live together. More welfare cheques, it gets better!

Fourteen families, they moving in, but neighbour's patience wearing thin.

Finally, white guy moves away. Now I buy his house and say,

Everything is very good, and soon we own the neighbourhood.

We have hobby, it's called breeding. Welfare pay for baby feeding.

Kids need dentist? Wife need pills? We get free! We got no bills!

Britain crazy! They pay all year, To keep welfare running here.

We think UK darn good place. Too darn good for the white man race!

If they no like us, they can scram. We left plenty room in Pakistan!
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I think a small part of the problem is the migrants (perhaps through dodgy employers or people wanting a cheap cash in hand jobs) means the money doesn't go back to the HMRC.

I like the points based system, we could also have an earnings clause, follow it up with immigrants having a tax number and if they don't contribute 25% or whatever they claimed the earnings of said role should be, in for an interview and questions asked leading to potential cancellation of Visa.

I dont know the numbers but I doubt NHS tourists and gimmiegrants and make up enough of a defecit requiring us to work another 5-10 years.

If the NHS and Gov Pensions are the issue, phase them out to an extent for Private Insurance and Private Pensions with Tax breaks.

Also, dont vote labour for Nationalization, the amount of 'entitled' pricks supported by the Unions that used to work for Water, Gas and Electricity are to blame for all this shite we are in.
That earnings clause leads to accusations of elitism from some quarters. It's nonsense, of course.

But at the same time we need more of those who are already here - and have been for hundreds of generations, not just one or two - to start contributing.
 
A hotch-potch of thoughts, but I hope people can see what I'm trying to get at.

Thoughts?
1. There are literally 1000's of zombie Companies in the UK. IMO, being kept on life support because they employ people.

2. There are far too many in the UK who are employed but need In Work Benefits.

The next crash ( which will happen, sooner rather than later ) will wipe out most of these Companies and send many, many people to the unemployment scrapheap.

A moratorium should be put in place on all immigration until the next crash happens ( some are predicting next year ) and the aftermath has been dealt with. Take stock and move on from there.

The UK is in tatters and perhaps a total crash is needed to actually move forward.

I tend to side with this guy

Bobby Kennedy on GDP: 'measures everything except that which is worthwhile'
/QUOTE]


As relevant today as it was in 68
 
1. There are literally 1000's of zombie Companies in the UK. IMO, being kept on life support because they employ people.
The banks have zero interest whether or not people are employed. However, if a (zombie) company owes the bank a lot of dough, the bank will prefer to maintain the debt on an interest only basis rather than pull the plug on the company and go down for the whole lot.
 
One major elephant in the room is concept.

Let's assume for example, you've built a business up from scratch with a team of dedicated workers. The end product is a hugely successful, viable, prolific business that's given all of its members financial security as well as a sense of belonging, pride, responsibility and ownership...

Along comes a group of people who haven't contributed a single bean of effort who want to syphon from it, and live off of the fruits of other people's hard work.

You'd be a bit peeved, right?

So why should we, as a nation, welcome those who look upon our business with envious eyes, who wish to syphon our product without having put into it?

Home grown idlers, or economic migrants - race shouldn't even enter the debate. The bottom line is if you're expecting to take more out of it than you're prepared to put in, the case is closed and will remain as such until you're prepared to step up.

A successful business means the product is greater than the sum of its parts. To be able to eventually retire on a decent nestegg. To be able to help the wider community by helping them tackle their problems at source (and not just open the floodgates in a free for all type way).

Unfortunately as is the case for most problems in this world, it lies with the system. If it's open to abuse, people will naturally find ways to abuse it.

Get the concept right, and the other problems will disappear.

Asylum is one such concept.

Let's take Syria as an example. People fleeing in terror for their lives. Protect the most vulnerable, offer refuge until such time as it's safe to return. In the meantime, commit aid and resources to tackle the problem at source. Nobody ever solved a problem by running away from it, right?

Ah but the UK Asylum system are soft, they'll let anyone in. Including every Tom Dick & Harry pretending to be Syrian. Hence you have 35 year old males in secondary school in Ipswich clearly not Syrian, clearly not 15 years old. Oh but we'd best believe him as we don't want to look racist, God forbid. And rather than do the sensible thing as detailed above, let's just let everyone in, get Lily Allen and Bob Geldoff telling us to budge over in our homes and shout down anyone else as racists.

And until the concept changes, so these problems will continue.
The sociologists would point out how social capital, or at least in our case, the legacy of social capital has being built up to such a level over centuries that we can hold our society together for now. The third world has zero social capital and many nations are parasites who feed of their own people.

Young people project virtue, but they themselves have a very manichean outlook which means they are probably far less invested in the idea of nation, than those ageing or dying out. Without nations that have social capital, you devolve to select groups and chaos. I would suggest, its NOT the immigration which will turn us into the third world, but ourselves and the loss of trust.
 
An ageing population - is it really an issue?

In a word...Yes.

It's not a question of immigration as such, it's more to do with who pays the ever increasing bills.
An ageing population puts pressure on all public services. Once they reach retirement age they are taking more than they contribute. This is not a criticism, it's a fact.
However if you have unfiltered immigration you're simply increasing the problem as you have more people with more kids, a never ending spiral.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
The sociologists would point out how social capital, or at least in our case, the legacy of social capital has being built up to such a level over centuries that we can hold our society together for now. The third world has zero social capital and many nations are parasites who feed of their own people.

Young people project virtue, but they themselves have a very manichean outlook which means they are probably far less invested in the idea of nation, than those ageing or dying out. Without nations that have social capital, you devolve to select groups and chaos. I would suggest, its NOT the immigration which will turn us into the third world, but ourselves and the loss of trust.
It's an irony that a lot of Left-Wing rhetoric ('Down with the Establishment!' / 'Smash the State!'*) is resulting in some ultimately very Right-Wing (i.e. truly anarchic) attitudes and thinking.




*Albeit only the one we have. Others are apparently perfectly fine.
 

ugly

LE
Moderator
The downside is that the % taxation is going to have to increase, I'm guessing but lets say 25% VAT and base rate PAYE 30% [also probably a freeze on free pay levels so they fall in real terms]. No government is going to dare propose this and expect to get re-elected so it isn't going to happen. Even if you say we'll live with 60 million it's still too costly
I'll play devils advocate and oppose that view on the premise of reduced spending to cover the loss in tax revenue. I suspect that there is no balance that could ever be struck, a healthy populace and a low spending govt aren't ideas we seem to be able to look at seriously.
The thing is if we reduce spending and more folk die earlier then the populace by default should become healthier % wise.
Think reverse keynesiam spend less, tax less. Full on Keynes has the Govt spending the money its taking in tax from the wages it has yet to pay the publicly employed workers on the infrastructure schemes that we really cant afford.
Yes we will have stagnation but its a choice albeit unpalatable.
 
Somewhere on arrse it was quoted, by government statisticians, that for my generation of military, roughly 1970-90, fewer than 20% survive long enough to draw their old age pension.
If similar levels of death apply across the whole population, the surviving aged should be easily supported by the younger generations?
Yet notably family sizes have shrunk: post WW2 many families had multiple children; by the late 20th century a majority of families stuck to two kids, simply on the basis of cost: two kids could be given a better quality of life than 5, or more, for the same income.
Many of those born after the 1980s are still single, without kids, preferring a better lifestyle, more choice in jobs, more mobility, over having a fixed relationship and breeding.
Yet again, that generation works longerhours to earn the same as their parents did, but can still not afford to buy houses because demand far outstrips supply.
Employment, and employability, has become more evolutionary and the rate is increasing: adapt, upskill/reskill or become irrelevant.
It's simple competition for resources, and only those able to evolve will survive the changes coming down the track.
Meanwhile the media demonises the aged, while pleading for ever more support for those society does not need: the mental patients, the disabled, etc. Those the Nazis deemed " useless mouths.

Now, in an ideal society the productive should outnumber the " useless mouths", and be able and willing to treat them humanely, providing the support needed. However we seem, as a nation, to be producing ever more sickly offspring allergic to this, that or the other, mentally subnormal, can't even decide their gender, more violent, degenerate.
None of this is helped by the mass importation of ill educated, but healthy, strong and violent people from the third world, who view these degenerate native Britons as an easy touch ripe for takeover.

It's now probably beyond the capability of any elected government to deal with, because no democracy will survive that takes the steps necessary to resolve the problems.
We face increasing automation, reduced employment, increased leisure time and longevity, but have yet to discover or iterate how we can maintain quality of life without increasing the cost. Reducing the population, by up to 50%, allows those remaining to review their " necessities" and adapt to the new norm.
Continuing to increase expectations while importing ever more takers, while not addressing the costs, can only lead to disaster.
 
Perhaps they do. But it is not the government who service the debt.
No, they just bail out the banks, who are keeping the zombie companies alive, who in turn are keeping people employed, many of whom are in receipt of In Work Benefits.

If you can square that as being beneficial to the UK, you are a better man than me.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
I'll play devils advocate and oppose that view on the premise of reduced spending to cover the loss in tax revenue. I suspect that there is no balance that could ever be struck, a healthy populace and a low spending govt aren't ideas we seem to be able to look at seriously.
The thing is if we reduce spending and more folk die earlier then the populace by default should become healthier % wise.
Think reverse keynesiam spend less, tax less. Full on Keynes has the Govt spending the money its taking in tax from the wages it has yet to pay the publicly employed workers on the infrastructure schemes that we really cant afford.
Yes we will have stagnation but its a choice albeit unpalatable.
I disagree. See posts above. Obesity and little/no exercise is rife. In many cases, the older generation is far fitter stronger and healthier than those two or three generations younger - a damning state of affairs.
 

Cold_Collation

LE
Book Reviewer
Somewhere on arrse it was quoted, by government statisticians, that for my generation of military, roughly 1970-90, fewer than 20% survive long enough to draw their old age pension.
If similar levels of death apply across the whole population, the surviving aged should be easily supported by the younger generations?
Yet notably family sizes have shrunk: post WW2 many families had multiple children; by the late 20th century a majority of families stuck to two kids, simply on the basis of cost: two kids could be given a better quality of life than 5, or more, for the same income.
Many of those born after the 1980s are still single, without kids, preferring a better lifestyle, more choice in jobs, more mobility, over having a fixed relationship and breeding.
Yet again, that generation works longerhours to earn the same as their parents did, but can still not afford to buy houses because demand far outstrips supply.
Employment, and employability, has become more evolutionary and the rate is increasing: adapt, upskill/reskill or become irrelevant.
It's simple competition for resources, and only those able to evolve will survive the changes coming down the track.
Meanwhile the media demonises the aged, while pleading for ever more support for those society does not need: the mental patients, the disabled, etc. Those the Nazis deemed " useless mouths.

Now, in an ideal society the productive should outnumber the " useless mouths", and be able and willing to treat them humanely, providing the support needed. However we seem, as a nation, to be producing ever more sickly offspring allergic to this, that or the other, mentally subnormal, can't even decide their gender, more violent, degenerate.
None of this is helped by the mass importation of ill educated, but healthy, strong and violent people from the third world, who view these degenerate native Britons as an easy touch ripe for takeover.

It's now probably beyond the capability of any elected government to deal with, because no democracy will survive that takes the steps necessary to resolve the problems.
We face increasing automation, reduced employment, increased leisure time and longevity, but have yet to discover or iterate how we can maintain quality of life without increasing the cost. Reducing the population, by up to 50%, allows those remaining to review their " necessities" and adapt to the new norm.
Continuing to increase expectations while importing ever more takers, while not addressing the costs, can only lead to disaster.
Good points.

I'll add that many current 'useless mouths' would, a generation or so back, have been obliged to get off their arses and be, well, 'useful'. Or, at least, functioning and self-sufficient.

That they're not now is political expediency.
 

Latest Threads

Top