This old chestnut

avantra

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Because as it stands today, (and I'm including NI as a tax here) your taxes, and my taxes, and the taxes of every other worker, are not paying for our own pensions and old age care, they are paying for those of todays retirees.

That works OK, when the number of workers exceeds the number of retirees.

But it doesn't work at all well when the number of retirees exceeds the number of workers.

The only viable solution for the long term, is to bring forward the pensions and care liability through the generations, so that each generation is paying for it's own, and demographic swings don't matter.

To put it in perspective, if you wanted to do that in one lifetime, you'd probably need to increase NI contributions to 30% of income.... On top of the 20% to 50% income tax, and all the various other taxes.

It's impossible to do it quickly.... And by quickly I mean within a lifetime. So immigration becomes the only solution for the next few decades at least.

.

True in theory but useful migrants will need a bloody good incentive to come here.

A. Strong Economy
B. Good reduction in the unbelievable level of Xenophobia and underline racism
C. More equal opportunities
D. Less obsession with the class system (many already have it at their old countries)

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

Fair point, but you did not address the issue of why import workers when we have millions unemployed already here.

Because I don't think we can set long term immigration and population growth goals around a short term fluctuation of the unemployment count.

Immigration over the long term is needed. We have to get population up by at least 10 million, maybe far more, and keep a steady flow of youngsters coming into the system, either through birthrates or more immigration.

If you are constantly chopping and changing long term policy based on short term fluctuations in unemployment, you'll never achieve what you need to.

And full employment is never achievable anyway. A certain pool of available labour is needed within the market in order to avoid harmful wage inflation setting in.

avantra

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Because I don't think we can set l
Immigration over the long term is needed. We have to get population up by at least 10 million, maybe far more, and keep a steady flow of youngsters coming into the system, either through birthrates or more immigration.
.

No problems. I read somewhere that young British females are the most fertile in the EU and that they tend to start early.;)

treliac

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Many people are fit and healthy enough to work well beyond the "statutory" retirement age, and in fact doing so. Even if just on a part time basis.

Life doesn't stop at 65 or whatever the pension age is set at.

Agreed, but where are the jobs going to come from? And how are ageist attitudes going to be changed? And what about a priority need to get young people started on the employment road?........... and so on.

As regards ageism, we know from other issues that legislation doesn't change attitudes and only seems to have limited beneficial outcomes, e.g. equal pay for women and a million and one prejudices that have been legislatively outlawed but which thrive in every community.

treliac

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Immigration over the long term is needed. We have to get population up by at least 10 million, maybe far more, and keep a steady flow of youngsters coming into the system, either through birthrates or more immigration.

That's a flawed theory -

• Increased population demands increased infrastructure and public services to support it.
• All these people will become old too.
• We are already in an overcrowed (subjectively) country, which causes all sorts of difficulties in everyday life and moving around on congested roads. (You know what happens to rats when too many are put together!).
• We are struggling to achieve racial harmony as it is.
• We are changing Britain's demographic map to such an extent that many feel very unsettled and concerned about the experimental nature of such manipulation of the population and fear where it may lead us.
• We do, as has been stated, have a ready made, untapped source of labour that needs to be utilsed before we become fully split in lifestyle and economic contribution; the growth of which is already causing deep division, unrest and is far too high a cost to society in many ways.

Thrugelmir

treliac wrote: »

Agreed, but where are the jobs going to come from? And how are ageist attitudes going to be changed? And what about a priority need to get young people started on the employment road?........... and so on.

As regards ageism, we know from other issues that legislation doesn't change attitudes and only seems to have limited beneficial outcomes, e.g. equal pay for women and a million and one prejudices that have been legislatively outlawed but which thrive in every community.

Older people have skills and experience that are invaluable. Not all jobs have to be full time.

On a side note. My mum is 83, and has taken Keep Fit classes for over 50 years. She currently takes 4 classes a week for the over 60's during term time. She is paid by the Local Authority and uses the money to supplement her pension income.

Tighter contol on the issue of work permits for people entering the country. Is a must. In order for the younger generation to gain work experience.

blueboy43

treliac wrote: »

Agreed, but where are the jobs going to come from? And how are ageist attitudes going to be changed? And what about a priority need to get young people started on the employment road?........... and so on.

As regards ageism, we know from other issues that legislation doesn't change attitudes and only seems to have limited beneficial outcomes, e.g. equal pay for women and a million and one prejudices that have been legislatively outlawed but which thrive in every community.

1) People have asked where are the jobs going to come from for as long as I remember. As long as the business climate is right, they just do.

2) We have imported a huge amount of labour and outsourced jobs to Asia over the last 15 years and still had several million people inactive / choosing not to work.

3) Legislation helps change attitudes. It just doesn't happen overnight.

4) Many people will work past 65 / 68, but many of them will work part time. There are fewer jobs today that require the manual strength of jobs a generation ago.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

treliac wrote: »

That's a flawed theory -

No, it's a fact.

You only have two choices.

Mass immigration, or NI contributions of somewhere around 30% of income for all people. Which of course would destroy the economy. So actually, you only have one choice.....

Increased population demands increased infrastructure and public services to support it.

Which creates jobs.

All these people will become old too.

But they will have children. At a far greater rate than native born people do.

We are already in an overcrowed (subjectively) country, which causes all sorts of difficulties in everyday life and moving around on congested roads. (You know what happens to rats when too many are put together!).

Only 8% of the UK is built on.

We are struggling to achieve racial harmony as it is.

OK, lets give in to the racists and xenophobes.... And then what?

You can't raise the taxes by enough to fix the problem without destroying the economy in the process.

So whats your solution?

We are changing Britain's demographic map to such an extent that many feel very unsettled and concerned about the experimental nature of such manipulation of the population and fear where it may lead us.

See previous answer.

We do, as has been stated, have a ready made, untapped source of labour that needs to be utilsed before we become fully split in lifestyle and economic contribution; the growth of which is already causing deep division, unrest and is far too high a cost to society in many ways.

How do you propose to grow the population by the tens of millions required, just by increasing the employment percentage of the existing population?

How do you propose to restrain runaway wage inflation (and consequent general inflation) if you move to a full employment model?

How do you propose to raise taxes by enough to pay for the elderly care without destroying the economy if population stagnates?

I think you really fail to grasp the scale of the problem. Read post number 8 again and have a think about it.

drc

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Immigration, Immigration, Immigration.

There is no other solution..... Unless mass euthanasia appeals to you.

Or do what Germany does and encourage people to have kids by offering incentives such as free childcare etc so that people can go out to work without paying more in childcare fees than they actually earn after tax.

ILW

drc wrote: »

Or do what Germany does and encourage people to have kids by offering incentives such as free childcare etc so that people can go out to work without paying more in childcare fees than they actually earn after tax.

This government does encourage people to have kids by giving them council houses, cash etc. Sadly these are not generally the ones who will ever work.