Restoration of Age related allowances - government petition - all please read

jamesd

There are various criteria that can be used when adjusting immigration. Things like age, academic qualifications and work experience as well as family size. Developed countries tend to have systems that encourage those with good work and academic qualifications and discourage those with few or no qualifications. Qualifications of those sorts tend to result in smaller family sizes - because education is associated with smaller family sizes - higher incomes and less chance of needing benefits.

Whether a particular family is desirable from the paying for pensions for the boomers point of view would depend in part on when the immigration happened and the age of the children. A newborn today would be in their late twenties at the start of the peak need, so that's a bit too young to be desirable for the start. It's OK to cover the post-peak sustaining part, though. Teens would fit better, being nearer to peak earning and tax paying years - 40s - when the demographic stress is greatest. So for the purpose of this discussion, I don't agree with you that families are undesirable, because they are actually desirable to maximise tax revenue at the time it's most needed.

Immigration from within the EU excluded from this because migration within the EU is a right of all EU citizens and not something normally subject to national qualification requirements.

Switching away from this specific discussion to more general economics, the big baby boom generation is starting to retire. Who's going to replace them in the labour force, given the smaller following domestic generations? We have to accept a shrinking economy - less people working - or do something about it. I suppose we could supply free hole punches for condom packets on the NHS or offer cash incentives to have children, which does happen in some countries already. Perhaps someone with the funds would establish a foundation that would pay £10,000 per child to graduates with good degrees, not sure if that's been tried or not anywhere yet, but I expect it has somewhere.

I'm not suggesting anything remotely close to HK, just arranging for smoothing of working and retired population sizes so we don't end up with a high per-person tax bill and shrinking economy.

Randvegeta

Perhaps, when you have made up your mind, you will let us know what you really think, meanwhile we sad people who live in this unnatractive place, will try to make the best of it while you have a ball in Lithuania.

I have made up my mind. Just because I like Lasange, doesn't mean I don't think it can be made better, perhaps with meat, and less cheese .

Let me put it this way, if you, or anyone else likes the UK so much, why vote against the existing government? I want to see a change for the better, not the worse. The sad thing is, don't see it happening.

And not if this small country is to be turned into a land like Hong Kong with tower-blocks wall-to-wall! I love my 'green and pleasant land' and don't want to see it concreted over.

Have you ever been to Hong Kong? Its 75% untouched country side with overe 50% of the total land reserved as country parks. I live in the country side in Hong Kong, go hiking through mountains weekly, watch wild cows/bulls roam. I'm not joking either. HK is very green, anf very mountanous. There isnt much England that is 'untouched' and there are only small hills. Plenty of farm though.

JamesD, how about we disregard 'standard of living' as a factor in how much to pay out in state pensions, and instead offer what can be afforded, or nothing at all? Why not have large 'old people homes' offering the basic neccessities of life such as a roof over your head, a bed, food etc. Surely this is the most cost effective solution.

And I stress, if living in hostel like accomodation is good enough for holiday makers, it should be good enough for people to live (free). If they want better, they can pay for it. If they can't afford it, tough. I want to live in a giant mansion. I can't afford it. Not going to expect others to pay for me. Many in developing countries could only dream of such 'luxuries'. If you feel so bad about the standard of living of others, why not help them to?

jamesd

Randvegeta, that's roughly the level of provision for those who end up depending on state funded homes at some point after they can't care for themselves.

State pensions aren't set solely on minimum income needs, though, they are in part set based on past undertakings about how much would be paid and who would get it. Those have been torn up and made much more generous in recent years but the concept is still a benefit when retiring in exchange for taxes now, as a right, not a means tested benefit.

Randvegeta

I have not heard of government run old people homes.

Why not scrap the pension system and have people who cant afford to live on their own savings head off to the home :-).

If it's not good enough, they can always have their children (presumably now generally/relatively high earners) pay their way through retirement. I plan to help out my own parents if needed when they retire. I don't expect others to help them, just as I dont expect to help others (and by that I mean FORCED to help).

le_loup

I warned you James.
This guy even thinks when you pay for an insurance policy called National Insurance designed, among other things, to pay a pension, you should not collect.
I think he would fit in very well with the rest of the fundamentalists in certain mid-west states of the USA. Fortunately for the rest of us we do not have to live with Darwinian Economics.

Randvegeta

le_loup wrote: »

I warned you James.
This guy even thinks when you pay for an insurance policy called National Insurance designed, among other things, to pay a pension, you should not collect.
I think he would fit in very well with the rest of the fundamentalists in certain mid-west states of the USA. Fortunately for the rest of us we do not have to live with Darwinian Economics.

Oh no, I do think if you pay for NI, you should get somthing back out, but it doesnt work.

Since I think pensions and other benefits should be brought to a minimum, NI should not be paid at all :-).

You still havnt answered why you think others should pay for 1 person's retirement. Do you want to pay for me? If so, I can give you my bank account and you can send me some cash. It's always welcome :-)

jamesd

Randvegeta, it's likely that most homes in the UK have more people in them with state funding behind them than they do without. Local authorities have a legal obligation that covers this and must house people who meet certain criteria. While there's a lot of outsourcing there are also a lot of places run by local authorities.

The UK already has lower state pensions than most European countries. The state pensions could be scrapped but there's general acceptance here that a safety net minimum income should be provided and there's also the problem of how to transition from now to there without breaching the undertakings already given to people that in exchange for paying their taxes to support others now, they will receive benefits in the future themselves.

It's quite hard for those who have no children or dead children to be funded by them. It'll be even harder in China and Japan once the demographic shocks fully mature in those two countries, Japan is already well along that track. China's one child system represents a huge demographic challenge as the parents retire.

le loup, I lived in the US for many years so I'm quite familiar with the views that are held by many people over there. On the whole I prefer the UK setup, it's a lot safer. I don't mind explaining some aspects of the UK system to Randvegeta.

Randvegeta

Do you think what the older generations have paid into the system is sufficient to cover the cost of their retirement? Do they pay in an equal amount to what they take out? If the answer is no, then it's not a good system.

The problem with the model, I find, is that is that it isn't 'self funded'. Meaning, if their own NI contributions paid for their pensions, there would not be a problem today. And if it WAS enough, the government spent all that money, long ago ON THEM (at least their generation). So either way, it seems today they are footing the bill with today's younger tax payers.

Am I wrong? If so, I'm happy to hear what the real story is.

Le Loup, how about that free money? Can I have some of your hard earned cash? Is it not my right to have some money that I did not earn?

jamesd

One of the objectives is that it should be reasonably even across generations. That isn't happening with the baby boomer generation that is starting to retire now for these reasons, among others:

1. Longer life expectancies, so they were paying out for fewer years than they will be receiving.
2. The baby boomer generation is much larger than the next two generation so the per-person cost to them was lower than it will be for he generations paying for them.
3. Payments to people who weren't part of the system, like parents who were receiving child benefit but often not paying income tax or NI.
4. Payments at higher levels than in the past.

But your logic is flawed. It's not what they receive that matters but what those who support them will receive. If the next two generations receive benefits of the same total value then it can be fair for the currently retiring generation to receive more than they paid out.

John_Pierpoint

jamesd wrote: »

Randvegeta, it's likely that most homes in the UK have more people in them with state funding behind them than they do without.

Unfortunately the local authority/NHS, with a monopolist buying power, can get the generally outsourced accommodation cheaply.

The "self funders" are cross subsidising the "can't pay won't pay", other residents.

There is a school of thought that says relatives should stand back from their elderly, thus forcing the Local Authority to negotiate a price with a care home and only then take over the contract.

In the final analysis, elderly care is expensive, when not done by close relatives - it is one of the reasons why the government gave up on the initially cheap option of exporting the UK's criminals to Australia.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/alistair-osborne/9237462/Care-homes-sound-a-more-tuneful-venture-for-Guy-Hands-after-EMI-debacle.html

Talking of colonies, Randvegeta might find this radio programme, about c0ck-ups versus conspiracies, interesting.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01gnhs8