Only Immigration can save us from Pensioners

nicko33

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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

For pensioners the solution is going to be very much inside a box

nicko33

wotsthat wrote: »

how do we persuade our home grown low skilled sections of society that low skilled jobs really are an alternative to a life of worklessness and not beneath them.

Deprivation might be the only thing that works
Give them enough to live on, and they will

kabayiri

This population growth argument is tripe. Sad over simplistic thinking which doesn't project into the future.

Why do you think we have higher levels of inactive workforce now compared to the days when the boomers were being born?

It's pretty simple. Industry needs less workers for the same productivity. Computers, robots, more refined processes, advanced communications. It's changed the labour force landscape.

Move the picture on to when the current generation become retirees. What's that, 30 to 50 years? That's enough time to see computers interacting with people by voice; increasing numbers of robotic devices doing things which currently require people. Industry backers will push for change wherever they see profit. Billionaires will reap the rewards when iRobot ships in droves.

What exactly do we think these hundreds of thousands of additional migrant workers will be doing? Selling insurance and banking produce to each other?

I'm sure others will touch on finite resources such as food; energy; and raw materials. That's a whole different dynamic.

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Plenty of good counter argumennts to this but not many alternatives. Seems as though all we can do is bump retirement age up to 80 and have done with it.

The only way to really address it is to get rid of the state pension completely. That's won't be acceptable so all you can do is restrict access to it and to reduce the amount it pays out.

Both of these are being done by the government right now. Access is restricted by raising the state pension age and by preventing companies from forcing retirement on its employees (thus allowing the employee to defer his state pension) and by looking at state pension level fixed at a low level (£140pw has been suggested) and allowing people to 'top up' with personal pensions.

The real pension crisis is not so much with the state pension but with the overly generous civil servants pensions. They are the real ticking time bomb.

Percy1983

I have 2 solutions.

1, stop immigration and force the work shy to work, easier said than done.

2, put the work shy on a list and for every good worker we get due to immigration send the worse of the work shy where they came from, if the country won't accept them drop them in the sea.

nomoreboomandbust

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It is currently forecast that the UK will overtake Germany to become the biggest economy in Europe by 2050, largely thanks to our enlightened immigration policies over the last decade.

Reckless is the word I would use. And what use is having a bigger economy than Germany, Brazil now has a larger economy than ours but their population is 200 million or so. What really counts is GDP per capita.

Loughton_Monkey

Eellogofusciouhipoppokunu wrote: »

The only way to really address it is to get rid of the state pension completely. That's won't be acceptable so all you can do is restrict access to it and to reduce the amount it pays out.........

Sounds good but.......

Many Asian and emerging countries have never had pensions [as we know them Jim] and survive very well. This is because (a) they have extremely strong family values that means the elderly will be looked after, and (b) a very strong savings culture.

So if one such resident (a) has no family, and (b) didn't save, then basically they get the raw "subsistence" safety net [which is extremely low].

This works perfectly well, since they are conditioned to know this, and they behave accordingly. Hence very little sympathy applies to poor people because either it's their own fault, or if it is down to some tragic misfortune, then there are charities that identify this and step in.

Britain is a "Nanny State". Here, we tend to define 'subsistence' as a 'nice' house (fully paid) and about £10K a year. So around £20K value a year for a lone pensioner. So when a pensioner has wasted his life, not paid enough NI stamps etc., he still gets (or costs) the state £20K a year.

Simply taking away the state pension puts an equal load on Income Support (or whatever it's called). It makes a complete mockery of the 30 year NI qualification. So if you qualify, you get it. If you don't qualify... er... you still get it. Comes out of the either the left or right pocket at the end of the day - the taxpayer.

If you have, say, a 25 year old chav who won't work, then in theory, the state can tend to deal harshly with him. Cut benefits etc... We tend not to 'mind' doing that although in practice we remain very soft.

But once that chav has got to age 67, is wrinkled, and takes his battered shopping trolley into town, with £12 to feed him for 3 days... we sympathise with him. He has been a "serial offender" for 40 years for gods sake! Never worked. Never saved. P1ssed on Society every day/week/year. But because he's old we sympathise!

Such sympathy is very "nice". It is very "civilised". It is considered by many to be "right" for a society that is "rich". But sadly we are geting poorer by the day, and have only a generation or two left in which we must change our mindsets. That's the only way will ever compete with the 'emerging markets'.

chewmylegoff

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

10 workers with an average income of £100

5 workers with an average income of £150

Assuming a constant tax rate, under which circumstance does the government take more in tax?

isn't the point more that you can't have higher wages without higher productivity, so unless the 5 workers who are here start working a lot harder and producing more stuff, there isn't going to be any more money to pay them with.

aren't these the options (or a combination of these)

1) increase in productivity (either by everyone working harder, or more people turning up and doing work to produce stuff) so there is more activity to tax to pay the benefits pledged to pensioners

2) tax the existing people (lots) more

3) restrict the amount paid to pensioners (potentially by lots)

4) stop spending money on healthcare for people over the age of 65


the first and third look more attractive to me, but others may disagree.

lisyloo

Seems as though all we can do is bump retirement age up to 80 and have done with it.

I don't think this would work very well.
Many people simply wont be able to work up to 80 health wise.
We may be living longer but we're not all in good health.
Anecdotally I'd say about half of my relatives wouldn't be able to work past 65.
So you would only get a proportion (and not a high proportion) of people who were able to work longer.
The problem would be much worse for people with physical skills like builders than for sedentary office workers.
I'm not saying there is no merit in it as I thik retirement age HAS to be raised as part of the solution but you need to factor in that as that age gets older, the % who are able to work is going to decrease and quite significantly.

olly300

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

If you have, say, a 25 year old chav who won't work, then in theory, the state can tend to deal harshly with him. Cut benefits etc... We tend not to 'mind' doing that although in practice we remain very soft.

But once that chav has got to age 67, is wrinkled, and takes his battered shopping trolley into town, with £12 to feed him for 3 days... we sympathise with him. He has been a "serial offender" for 40 years for gods sake! Never worked. Never saved. P1ssed on Society every day/week/year. But because he's old we sympathise!
.

One thing you have missed out of the equation is health outcomes.

If you are richer you tend to live longer as you are less likely to have habits that limit your lifespan.

So our !!!!less 25 year old unless he's really lucky and got good genes is likely to be dead long before you (and the increased state retirement age) due to his smoking, drinking, drug taking, poor diet, tendency to go to the GP too late for treatment of his specific illnesses , inability to follow treatment programs if his illnesses are caught in time etc.