We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
financial incentives to address human overpopulation
Comments
-
In general we need to work for longer as life expentency increases, not just keep increasing population levels until the whole thing collapses.
That's already inevitable, but it won't fix the problem. It might buy you a decade, if you're lucky.
And you still haven't answered the question.
How much more are you willing to pay?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Remember, we don't pay for our own state pensions and healthcare, we pay for the pensions and healthcare of people two generations ahead of us.
So again, how much are any of you willing to pay?
well some people do pay for their own healthcare. and many don't need the state pension. if you increase wealth during your earning years by foregoing breeding you have a LOT more disposable income to put towards your own pension. plus if your parents only have one or two children your inheritance is likely to be higher also.
the only reason many have had to rely on the welfare state / state pensions is precisely because of the cost burdens of having children during their working years.Those who will not reason, are bigots, those who cannot, are fools, and those who dare not, are slaves. - Lord Byron0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Absolutely wrong.
China is now starting to feel the pain from it's disastrous one-child policy.
The country now faces an inevitable economic decline as the rapidly expanding aging population overburdens the shrinking number of working age people.
http://www.thechinabeat.org/?p=2660
According to a graph in this article, the peak of China's population growth rate was 2.7%/year in 1965, when the population was 720,500,000.
Assuming they didn't take any steps to address population growth and it continued to increase at that rate:
Year Population
1965 720,500,000
1985 1,235,227,291
2005 2,104,533,050
2025 3,585,622,978
2045 6,109,047,393
2065 10,408,361,468
Do you think that kind of population might have been an overburden on the planet's resources?0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »That's already inevitable, but it won't fix the problem. It might buy you a decade, if you're lucky.
And you still haven't answered the question.
How much more are you willing to pay?
Why will it not fix the problem? Just a matter of degree.0 -
aging people don't need supporting if they have adequate retirement funds. .
They don't have adequate retirement funds. And there isn't enough time for them to save them now.
So how much more are you willing to pay?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Do you think that kind of population might have been an overburden on the planet's resources?
I'm not really that bothered.
I do however want to know how much more you're willing to pay for UK population decline?
Put a number on it. An additional 10% of income? 20%? 35%?
How much more are you willing to pay?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
Why will it not fix the problem? Just a matter of degree.
Because a one time delay through extending retirement age might buy a decade, it doesn't change the fact that people will eventually have to stop working, and we're on track to change from 5 workers supporting every pensioner to 2 workers supporting every pensioner.
So how much more are you willing to pay?“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
well some people do pay for their own healthcare. and many don't need the state pension.
But the vast majority don't, and do.
So again, how much more are YOU willing to pay?
Because until some of you face up to reality, that this little idea of population decline is going to cost an absolute fortune for your generation and your children's generation, then it's a total non-starter.“The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived, and dishonest – but the myth, persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic.
Belief in myths allows the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
-- President John F. Kennedy”0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »Because a one time delay through extending retirement age might buy a decade, it doesn't change the fact that people will eventually have to stop working, and we're on track to change from 5 workers supporting every pensioner to 2 workers supporting every pensioner.
So how much more are you willing to pay?
Wrong, retirement age could be constatly upped to tie in with lifespan, for example 10 or 15 years retirement.0 -
HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »I'm not really that bothered.
I do however want to know how much more you're willing to pay for UK population decline?
Put a number on it. An additional 10% of income? 20%? 35%?
How much more are you willing to pay?
I'm not bothered Hamish - in your world of unlimited population growth, my money will lose most of its value anyway as resources become scarce.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards