Only Immigration can save us from Pensioners

KrytenIceCubeHead

I'd have thought the average thinking Tory would welcome immigration. It drives down wage costs.

homelessskilledworker

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.

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.

And where does Hamish draw the line at how many immigrants we allow in.
70 million, 100 million, 150 million, 200 million plus?

Percy1983

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

And where does Hamish draw the line at how many immigrants we allow in.
70 million, 100 million, 150 million, 200 million plus?

Whatever it takes rocket house prices it would seem.

homelessskilledworker

Percy1983 wrote: »

Whatever it takes rocket house prices it would seem.

Look at Countries like Holland, Norway, Sweden, Eire over the last few decades for example, countries that will never reach the top economy of Europe and may well find themselves in financial difficulties at times, but their politics and their make up dictates that their fight for growth and personal well being is more balanced than ours.

Economy and growth will always be important, but so is the well being of people, the UK has lost the balance in recent years.

System

The problem arises because pension age has been lagging behind life expectancy.

If you continuously adjust pension age so that the proportion of working life to pensioned life is constant, then the problem self-corrects.

olly300

Clifford_Pope wrote: »

The problem arises because pension age has been lagging behind life expectancy.

If you continuously adjust pension age so that the proportion of working life to pensioned life is constant, then the problem self-corrects.

It's too late for the current crop of upcoming pensioners.

There needs to be at least 11 years warning before the current pension age for people in their fifties to plan their retirement income and transition into retirement.

And while the government has changed the law so everyone under 46 works longer there is simply not enough of us.

Hence why immigration is needed in the short term.

Unfortunately we can't stop immigrants coming to the UK from the EU to do low skilled jobs so the benefit rules need to be changed making it more difficult for everyone to claim them.

A._Badger

olly300 wrote: »

I

Unfortunately we can't stop immigrants coming to the UK from the EU to do low skilled jobs so the benefit rules need to be changed making it more difficult for everyone to claim them.

We could have done, at least for a period, as some other, wiser, EU countries did, but McDoom and Bliar thought they knew better, as always.

We could now, but that would take the political class developing a backbone and unshackling us from the madhouse in Brussels.

N1AK

A._Badger wrote: »

On the contrary, what we really need is a non-partisan assessment of whether immigration's costs outweigh its purported advantages.

I'd be perfectly happy to see one done, more unbiased data never hurts. That said, I doubt that it would achieve much. Anti-immigrant positions are virtually never economic in origin they almost universally are born out of culture, over-population (and yes racist as well) points of view. Are pro-immigration positions much better? Possibly not, although I do believe they probably are. I personally am not passionate about rapidly changing our culture, or paving over the countryside but see them as acceptable costs of supporting an economically beneficial activity. The economic argument is the only reason I wouldn't be happy to see a moderate reduction in immigration.

kabayiri

N1AK wrote: »

I'd be perfectly happy to see one done, more unbiased data never hurts. That said, I doubt that it would achieve much. Anti-immigrant positions are virtually never economic in origin they almost universally are born out of culture, over-population (and yes racist as well) points of view. Are pro-immigration positions much better? Possibly not, although I do believe they probably are. I personally am not passionate about rapidly changing our culture, or paving over the countryside but see them as acceptable costs of supporting an economically beneficial activity. The economic argument is the only reason I wouldn't be happy to see a moderate reduction in immigration.

We would need to see the average tax income brought in by a migrant worker over say the last 5/10 years compared to a non-migrant worker.

If that figure is lower, it suggests that immigration is achieving labour rate cost reductions.

Business will obviously feel lower costs aids their competitiveness. My concern is that the state is supplementing mainly lower incomes and that companies are in effect getting state assistance. That's fine if the state can balance the books, but clearly currently this state can not.

chewmylegoff

kabayiri wrote: »

We would need to see the average tax income brought in by a migrant worker over say the last 5/10 years compared to a non-migrant worker.

If that figure is lower, it suggests that immigration is achieving labour rate cost reductions.

Business will obviously feel lower costs aids their competitiveness. My concern is that the state is supplementing mainly lower incomes and that companies are in effect getting state assistance. That's fine if the state can balance the books, but clearly currently this state can not.

only if you are comparing migrant and non-migrant workers who are doing exactly the same job, otherwise it probably just shows is that a higher % of migrant workers are doing lower skilled jobs.