UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) warned the UK's ageing population was squeezing public finances and said there was "clear evidence" that migrants, who tend to be working age, have a "positive effect on the public sector's debt dynamics".

Something that has been completely obvious for some time.

Good to see it being reported more often now, and some figures being identified as to the serious costs of reducing immigration.

.Under an annual flow of 140,000 migrants from 2016 the public sector net debt to GDP ratio would reach 99% by 2063 but that would soar to 174% if there was a complete block on immigration.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/07/18/uk-migrants_n_3615076.html

But as interesting as that is, it's only half the story.

The central projection they have used, of 140,000 net migrants, reflects this governments stated aim to reduce immigration from the 250,000+ seen during most of the last decade yet still shows net debt at around 100% of GDP 50 years on.

The zero net migration options shows UK debt shooting off the charts and nearly doubling over the same timeframe.

But the higher migration scenario, which is actually not high at all but rather what we have been used to in recent times at around 250K per year, shows we could radically reduce the national debt to just 40% of GDP over the same timeframe.



It is quite clear why politicians like to talk tough on immigration to get elected, and then quietly allow it to remain high anyway once in office, but perhaps it is time the nation had a good debate about immigration where the politicians don't pander to the right and explain just how vital it is to the nations economic well being.

TruckerT

I saw this item on the news a few days ago, and there was no serious question asked about why we need to increase immigration in order to guarantee pensions.

I don't understand.

TruckerT

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

TruckerT wrote: »

I saw this item on the news a few days ago, and there was no serious question asked about why we need to increase immigration in order to guarantee pensions.

I don't understand.

Easiest way to explain it is this.

-When the UK pension and NHS systems started, there were already a bunch of old people who had never paid in to the system.

-So the costs for those old people were paid by the young.

-And the costs for the young, once they aged, were paid by following generations of the young.

And so on.

People today don't pay for their own pensions and aged care, they pay for their parents and grandparents pensions and aged care.

This works well so long as there are enough young people, and the young continue to outnumber the old.

But advances in medicine have caused people to live longer and declining birth rates have caused there to be not enough young people.

Which is why we need immigrants (who are mostly young). To keep the balance between young and old at current levels.

Immigrants also have the advantage of being cheaper to society, as you don't have to pay for their birth and education, so they are a net fiscal gain.

Graham_Devon

And all those we usher into the country will require pensions too...

It's a pyramid scheme, nothing more, nothing less.

TruckerT

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Easiest way to explain it is this.

-When the UK pension and NHS systems started, there were already a bunch of old people who had never paid in to the system.

-So the costs for those old people were paid by the young.

-And the costs for the young, once they aged, were paid by following generations of the young.

And so on.

People today don't pay for their own pensions and aged care, they pay for their parents and grandparents pensions and aged care.

This works well so long as there are enough young people, and the young continue to outnumber the old.

But advances in medicine have caused people to live longer and declining birth rates have caused there to be not enough young people.

Which is why we need immigrants (who are mostly young). To keep the balance between young and old at current levels.

Immigrants also have the advantage of being cheaper to society, as you don't have to pay for their birth and education, so they are a net fiscal gain.

I think your final sentence is probably the most telling.

The stuff about advances in medicine etc is probably crucial.

But we still have millions of unemployed people in the country, and the fiscal gain (whatever that means...) from getting them into work would surely be better than bringing in loads of foreigners.

TruckerT

Sampong

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And all those we usher into the country will require pensions too...

It's a pyramid scheme, nothing more, nothing less.

You beat me to it.

The immigrants themselves will one day get older and require public services and pensions. What then? Increase immigration even more?

The theory looks like madness to me. We need to find a way of managing the economy without relying on millions of immigrants.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

but perhaps it is time the nation had a good debate about immigration where the politicians don't pander to the right and explain just how vital it is to the nations economic well being.

Well you're absolutely bang on with this point, a proper debate about immigration is years overdue. It needs to be unprejudiced and allow reasoned debate form both sides of the argument.

But just to point out, it's the "big two", with particular emphasis on Labour, who stifled debate on the issue by calling anyone with a view on it racists, bigots, xenophobes.

Hmmm....where have I heard all that before? Oh yeah - from Hamish.

Any Labour supporter who claims a debate on immigration is long overdue is at the height of hypocrisy.

shortchanged_2

Won't this help push house prices up further Hamish?

Come on Hamish, what's the real agenda here?

michaels

Suppose that people are economically productive on average from 20-67 and live to 94.

This means the average person is productive for 47 years (20-70) and needs supporting for 47 years (0-20 and 67-95) so a ratio of 1 year productive for each year requiring support.

Now consider an immigrant who arrives in the coutry at 20. Still provide 47 years of output but only need 27 years of looking after.

Now if each woman on average has less than two children immigration could fill the gap to keep the population stable and would improve the ratio of working years to years requiring support - no need for a spiralling population, migration clearly bringing benefit.

Of course this is just an example of the maths, it is not making any moral / social judgement.

TruckerT

michaels wrote: »

Suppose that people are economically productive on average from 20-67 and live to 94.

This means the average person is productive for 47 years (20-70) and needs supporting for 47 years (0-20 and 67-95) so a ratio of 1 year productive for each year requiring support.

Now consider an immigrant who arrives in the coutry at 20. Still provide 47 years of output but only need 27 years of looking after.

Now if each woman on average has less than two children immigration could fill the gap to keep the population stable and would improve the ratio of working years to years requiring support - no need for a spiralling population, migration clearly bringing benefit.

Of course this is just an example of the maths, it is not making any moral / social judgement.

It would also be possible to require the NHS to destroy at birth a variable number of babies, in order to maintain some kind of balance.

TruckerT

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And all those we usher into the country will require pensions too...

Immigrants of young working age (as most are) will pay a full tax load for their working lives, but cost society less as we don't have to pay for their birth, childhood care, and education.

So even if we pay them a pension, it's a net fiscal gain to society.

It's a pyramid scheme,

It's nothing of the sort, and that suggestion is laughable.

Immigration is simply rebalancing demographic profiles to counteract an increase in people living longer, and falling birth rates.

It's maintaining the ratio's we had in the past, not creating new ones.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

TruckerT wrote: »

It would also be possible to require the NHS to destroy at birth a variable number of babies, in order to maintain some kind of balance.

TruckerT

Or to euthanise the old.

Neither of which would be a palatable option to civilised society.