Immigrants & Benefits

Sampong

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

So they did actually take possession of a house then?

They pay money, they get the use of the house.

Not a Ponzi.

Are you seriously still going on about this? :rotfl:

homelessskilledworker

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

You could compare the property market with an elephant if you wanted to, but that wouldn't make the comparison valid.

In a Ponzi scheme, the participants by definition do not end up with the goods (usually stocks and shares) they were promised, because no purchase of such goods was made but instead the funds were stolen to pay others.

So unless you can show me a few million people who paid money for a property but were never actually sold a property, it's not a Ponzi.

Hold on here Hamish

Your off again just making things up, property has not even been mentioned here. We are talking about your love of mass immigration to feed the non productive element in the UK, and then having to increase it again in years to come to feed them, and then having to...... well you get it the idea.

grizzly1911

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You said "paid money for a property, but never actually sold a property".

I answered.

You've now changed this too "paid money for a property and got use of the property".

I'm just batting out the answers to what you say Hamish. Keep changing what you say, and I'll just bat you another answer! The interest only mortgage though is the key downfall in your argument. For the many who can't now, and the many in the future who will never pay it off, they never got SOLD a property, they got use, as you say.

And if they have sell/sold at a loss?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

homelessskilledworker wrote: »

. We are talking about your love of mass immigration to feed the non productive element in the UK, and then having to increase it again in years to come to feed them, and then having to...... well you get it the idea.

Maintaining dependency ratio's in the population does not necessarily require exponential growth of immigration.

It does require a sufficient supply of working age people such that the number of workers to pensioners remains constant.

There are a number of ways to address this, immigration is one, increasing retirement age is another, increasing birth rate is another, etc.

What we do need at the moment is more working age people, as we have a demographic bulge of pensioners about to come through, and we have not yet rebalanced our finances such that people pay for their own retirement instead of paying for the retirement of two generations ahead of them.

We can do so, but it will take many decades to move the financial burden of aged care down two generations.

the_flying_pig

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Maintaining dependency ratio's in the population does not necessarily require exponential growth of immigration.

It does require a sufficient supply of working age people such that the number of workers to pensioners remains constant.

There are a number of ways to address this, immigration is one, increasing retirement age is another, increasing birth rate is another, etc.

What we do need at the moment is more working age people, as we have a demographic bulge of pensioners about to come through, and we have not yet rebalanced our finances such that people pay for their own retirement instead of paying for the retirement of two generations ahead of them.

We can do so, but it will take many decades to move the financial burden of aged care down two generations.

depends what shape of pyramid you're aiming for, H.

the pyramid we had, say, 10 years ago, with people in their 30s & 40s vastly outnumbering the retired, if we were chasing that shape for ever, now that would be crazy/unstainable.

of course it might be possible to do a little bit of smoothing so that we don't end up almost [i exagerate for dramatic effect] in the reverse position, with oldies outnumbering workers.

but some pain is going to be inevitable.

kabayiri

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Maintaining dependency ratio's in the population does not necessarily require exponential growth of immigration.

It does require a sufficient supply of working age people such that the number of workers to pensioners remains constant.

There are a number of ways to address this, immigration is one, increasing retirement age is another, increasing birth rate is another, etc.

What we do need at the moment is more working age people, as we have a demographic bulge of pensioners about to come through, and we have not yet rebalanced our finances such that people pay for their own retirement instead of paying for the retirement of two generations ahead of them.

We can do so, but it will take many decades to move the financial burden of aged care down two generations.

You continually ignore productivity gains possible due to advancing technology.

Here's a simple question for you then. In 30 years time, will we need the same number of people to do the tasks which currently require human involvement?

Your premise of growing populace suggests we will. I contest that.

Here's a clue. In this century we will see changes in technology at a rate we can only dream of. Whether we profit from them is down to us.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

It does require a sufficient supply of working age people such that the number of workers to pensioners remains constant.

There are a number of ways to address this, immigration is one, increasing retirement age is another, increasing birth rate is another, etc.

A decrease in the cost of living, making current funds go further, is another. There are a variety of ways....not all easy, that this can be achieved.

We simply don't have the resources for "more more more".

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

We simply don't have the resources for "more more more".

We've had these predictions for hundreds of years.

They've been wrong for hundreds of years.

gorgeyetsun

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You said "paid money for a property, but never actually sold a property".

I answered.

You've now changed this too "paid money for a property and got use of the property".

Actually Hamish said:

"paid money for a property but were never actually sold a property".

You've now changed this too (sic): ""paid money for a property, but never actually sold a property"

You're wrong anyway with your IO approach. Regardless of whether you have a repayment mortgage or IO mortgage, the property is in the owners name not the mortgage providers. That's why we can't use 'Jingle Mail' to post the keys back to the mortgage provider - the property isn't theirs, it's yours.

The property is registered in the purchasers name via the Land Registry. The mortgage is secured against the property, but the person who bought the house is the owner.

grizzly1911

gorgeyetsun wrote: »

Actually Hamish said:

"paid money for a property but were never actually sold a property".

You've now changed this too (sic): ""paid money for a property, but never actually sold a property"

You're wrong anyway with your IO approach. Regardless of whether you have a repayment mortgage or IO mortgage, the property is in the owners name not the mortgage providers. That's why we can't use 'Jingle Mail' to post the keys back to the mortgage provider - the property isn't theirs, it's yours.

The property is registered in the purchasers name via the Land Registry. The mortgage is secured against the property, but the person who bought the house is the owner.

If they can't/won't repay or meet the interest charges as they fall due, under the terms of the loan, following due process they will lose that control.

It is academic and pedantic as you know what the gist of the point being made.