Only Immigration can save us from Pensioners

homelessskilledworker

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Anyway, from memory, the current ratio of workers to pensioners is 4:1.

If the number of pensioners increases by 150,000 a year, then to maintain the same ratio, the number of workers must increase by 600,000 per year.

WARNING!!!


Watch what you say on this thread, Hamish is just looking for yet another reason(along with his tribe of saints) to call anti immigration posters racist, same old same old.

Loughton_Monkey

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

To illustrate your point as being not necessarily correct.

Increasing the average wage does not necessarily increase the tax take.

Agree the words "not necessarily".

But if you have (as we do) a substantial threshold below which Income Tax is not payable, then it is as plain as day that X workers earning £100,000 between them will pay less income tax than <Y workers earning £100,000.

However, Income Tax seems to diminish in importance compared with all the other 153 taxes we pay.

But I would put it to you that our beloved successive governments will not be particularly 4rsed as to whether we have 25 million low wage workers, or 18 million high wage earners. They will find a way of taking their 'screw' [and more] come hell or high water.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

ILW wrote: »

it could though, depends on the numbers.

Sure.

But getting such wage gains to stack up economically also depends on productivity gains and an increase in consumption per head.

Again, to use nice round numbers to illustrate the point....

If a persons wage doubles, the tax on their wage doubles, then their spend in the wider economy must also double to maintain GDP and wider tax take at current levels.

But to justify their increase in wage, then productivity must also double.

How do you propose that happens?

michaels

Could we not outsource all the pensioners to Spain - lots of empty property, cheaper heating bills and lots of unemployed youngsters to do all those caring things.

Graham_Devon

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

But unlike their parents, boomers' children have reacted. They spend all their money. Live for "now". Don't worry about the niceties of affording children before having them. And in a lot of extreme cases, having more kids is more money - innit? [We have Brother Brown & Co to blame for that]..

Yes. Forget the fact that one of the opening paragraphs in the article states "we've known for years this was coming up" (my editing to shorten it), and blame your kids.

Not your kids obviously. They are saviours. Just everyone elses kids. Though judging by a lot of your comments on anyone who had the audacity to be born after you, I'm leaning on the train of thought that you have no kids....

...Which would be all the more amusing, considering your reliance on blaming those who didn't have kids and wanted a certain lifestyle. Mind yer foot.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

michaels wrote: »

Could we not outsource all the pensioners to Spain - lots of empty property, cheaper heating bills and lots of unemployed youngsters to do all those caring things.

Not completely without merit as far as lateral thinking goes.

And I rather suspect some form of outside the box thinking will be required to ultimately find a workable solution.

PaulF81

There is another solution. No NHS surgery past retirement age apart for a and e.

Graham_Devon

Hamish Hamish Hamish.

You never ever answer this point....

If we bring a load more people into the country to pay for todays's pensioners, that just means loads more people to pay for when those people imported require pensions themselves.

As I keep saying to you, it's a pyramid scheme through and through.

You hardly ever answer this point, though have seen you suggesting that all the immigrants will duly pay their taxes through their working life, and then emigrate back to their home countries just before retirement. Head in clouds stuff that my boy. Head in clouds.

But it would be nice for you to look at what you are doing. Just shovelling more people at the bottom of the pyramid in the hope it keeps those at the top going.

The music stops at some point. You know that, I know that. Shovelling more and more people into the bottom of the pyramid just makes the problem bigger. However, it sorts your lifetime out. And that's about the crux of it. Someone else with no kids, no grandkids, and no concern for those following them in respect to these issues.

CKhalvashi

There are two flip-sides to this argument, and I still don't know which is best.

You can either a) Keep the pound weak, thus increasing tourism, increasing spending in the UK and strengthening the pound. you'll be encouraging large imports with a strong pound from currency (a), weakening the pound (b) and selling to foreigners with currency (c) at huge profit

or b) keep the pound strong, thus encouraging international investors to save and invest.

There's no unique or ideal answer to this, although I'd hedge a bet that the latter is much safer.

CK

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hamish Hamish Hamish.

You never ever answer this point....

If we bring a load more people into the country to pay for todays's pensioners, that just means loads more people to pay for when those people imported require pensions themselves.

I've answered it numerous times Graham.

You just choose to ignore it.

As I keep saying to you, it's a pyramid scheme through and through.

Under your definition, the entire history of the human race is a "pyramid scheme".