UK needs +7 Million immigrants to keep debt down

ILW

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We have more than enough resources.

Less than 4% of the UK is built on.

Trouble is that the majority of immigrants want to live in the bits that are the most crowded. Apparently the Highlands or Dartmoor are not that popular with Romanian Gypsies.

ILW

OffGridLiving wrote: »

The only way to get out of this is to encourage people to sort out their own pensions and pay a state pension that is basically minimum wage and to use a 'guest worker' scheme where economic migrants can work here and pay income tax but a lower level of national insurance and no citizenship entitlement. They will be entitled to NHS, etc. as they pay tax but won't qualify for a state pension. Once they finish work, they return to their original country.

Everyone's a winner.

Cannot see Brussels agreeing with that.

N1AK

Cornucopia wrote: »

The UK pension scheme is not a pyramid scheme for the following reasons:-

- It is not designed as such.
- It can be brought to equilibrium by the Government, as you say.
- Even if left as is, it does not require an excess of new members over old in order to continue (equal contributions are all that is required).
- It is not doomed to fail.

I think where my position and yours differ is that when you say something must be 'doomed to failure' and allow for the possibility that it can be brought into equilibrium then nothing would fit this definition of a ponzi scheme. Any scheme could be changed fundamentally (refusing to let the earliest members cash out and investing the money in shares and distributing the return amongst all members for example); obviously that doesn't happen, but the possibility that it could would stop it being a ponzi scheme by your definition.

Perhaps it is best that we talk about it instead as: Based on its current terms, the pension system suffers the same terminal flaw as pyramid schemes.

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

Perhaps it is best that we talk about it instead as: Based on its current terms, the pension system suffers the same terminal flaw as pyramid schemes.

I don't disagree based on the current position of UK plc - declining.

In a growing economy where incomes were rising, through greater productivity, a healthy balance of trade surpluses and where taxes were paid on income where earned. Then the welfare state and pensions would not necessarily need ever growing numbers to maintain it.

jayjay88

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Yes, yes, we'll all be working three day weeks while robots service our every need.

Why is this so stupid? This was actually the response to the same problem in Japan - many older people and declining numbers of the younger generation. Instead of opening its borders it has put a lot of energy into developing robotic technology to care for the elderly, which is why the nation is one of the leaders in robotics. The technology might not be that great right now, but like a lot of things it is rapidly advancing and this won't be so far fetched in a couple of decades.

N1AK

grizzly1911 wrote: »

I don't disagree based on the current position of UK plc - declining.

In a growing economy where incomes were rising, through greater productivity, a healthy balance of trade surpluses and where taxes were paid on income where earned. Then the welfare state and pensions would not necessarily need ever growing numbers to maintain it.

Even based on the governments projections the cost of providing pensions is increasing vs GDP and government spending and those projections aren't based on a declining economy and include considerable immigration.

We would have to notably cut pension provision and increase government revenue dedicated to it (by less spending elsewhere or more tax) to remove the financial need for immigration.

We need a system of economic governance that forces proposals by major parties to be evaluated over a ~30+ year window. Currently it is far too easy to promise unsustainable spending in th present to buy votes.

TruckerT

N1AK wrote: »

We need a system of economic governance that forces proposals by major parties to be evaluated over a ~30+ year window. Currently it is far too easy to promise unsustainable spending in th present to buy votes.

It's a nice idea, but economists/politicians have absolutely no way to provide such predictions.

Short-term weather forecasting has made great strides forwards in recent years, and their results are demonstrable.

That is despite the fact that long-term climate 'averages' are demonstrably under attack.

TruckerT

grizzly1911

N1AK wrote: »

Even based on the governments projections the cost of providing pensions is increasing vs GDP and government spending and those projections aren't based on a declining economy and include considerable immigration.

.

The economy has been in decline for years we are just projecting forward from a point of weakness. If real productive growth as I suggested, not selling off "the silver" and ever spiralling debt, had been achieved then the sytem wouldn't be bu**ered.

The problem wasn't (couldn't be) tackled decades ago.

TruckerT

grizzly1911 wrote: »

The economy has been in decline for years we are just projecting forward from a point of weakness. If real productive growth as I suggested, not selling off "the silver" and ever spiralling debt, had been achieved then the sytem wouldn't be bu**ered.

The problem wasn't (couldn't be) tackled decades ago.

When you say that the economy has been in decline 'for years', do you mean since 2007/8? 1979? 1950? 1920? 1890?

Is there a 30-year cycle in the capitalist/socialist dialogue?

TruckerT

grizzly1911

TruckerT wrote: »

When you say that the economy has been in decline 'for years', do you mean since 2007/8? 1979? 1950? 1920? 1890?

Is there a 30-year cycle in the capitalist/socialist dialogue?

TruckerT

60/70s was my time line but I am sure it can be tracked back closer to the start of the century by people who really know their stuff.

I don't suppose the starting point is the issue more when it started to become less controllable. .