Pensions

MFW_ASAP

CLAPTON wrote: »

3. A preparatory action or measure.

*sigh* here we go again.

What exactly are you preparing for with the aging population?

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

*sigh* here we go again.

What exactly are you preparing for with the aging population?

The question was directed at you

If you don't think a decline in the economically active people in the country is an issue then just say so.
Job done.

MFW_ASAP

CLAPTON wrote: »

The question was directed at you

If you don't think a decline in the economically active people in the country is an issue then just say so.
Job done.

You have moved from 'productive/non productive people in this country' to 'economically active'.

Everyone in the country, regardless of age will be economically active. When you retire, you don't go into suspended animation. You still need to buy the basics (to feed, clothe and house yourself). You may also want to have a beer at the local, go on holiday, buy consumer products for yourself, the children and grandchildren). Everyone is still economically active.

Are you now changing the discussion from how we'll cope with an aging population, to how will we cope with a declining population?

CLAPTON

MFW_ASAP wrote: »

You have moved from 'productive/non productive people in this country' to 'economically active'.

Everyone in the country, regardless of age will be economically active. When you retire, you don't go into suspended animation. You still need to buy the basics (to feed, clothe and house yourself). You may also want to have a beer at the local, go on holiday, buy consumer products for yourself, the children and grandchildren). Everyone is still economically active.

Are you now changing the discussion from how we'll cope with an aging population, to how will we cope with a declining population?

Either stick to the substantive issues or don't bother.

MFW_ASAP

CLAPTON wrote: »

Either stick to the substantive issues or don't bother.

What are the substantive issues with an aging population*, in your opinion?

* or a declining population if you are now moving onto that discussion.

Kennyboy66

Generali wrote: »

You should write a paper on it if you're that certain. It's certainly a view I've never seen from a professional economist.

What is well know. In economics is the principle of deadweight loss. Compare the taxation and spending levels of the countries and then consider why GDP growth is consistently higher in Australia.

You might then want to look up something called crowding out and then think about why investment in Aus is higher than in the UK.

Seek and ye shall find!

I'd be fairly sure that Australian GDP growth per capita was pretty similar to the UK between say 1980 and 2000.

Since then Oz mining exports have gone from about 25% of exports in 1998 to 52% of exports in 2012.

Mining related business investment used to account for 10% of investment, it now accounts for 40% (again 2012 so drop off since then).

The mining boom in terms of output is not over, but in terms of investment it certainly is.

I'd be a long term optimist for the Oz economy, but you would have to worry that some of the benefits of the boom have been squandered, arguably not unlike the UK oil boom that also made the currency grossly over valued.

Property seems madly over valued, not helped by the fact that you can offset investment property income losses (if mortgage interest exceeds rental) against your salary tax liability. When my cousin told me this I thought it couldn't be right. Hard to imagine a more bonkers idea to encourage property speculation.

N1AK

Generali wrote: »

You should write a paper on it if you're that certain. It's certainly a view I've never seen from a professional economist.

And you won't find a professional mathematician stating that a shape with two-dimensional shape with 4 sides is a triangle, but that doesn't make saying it isn't a fringe argument. You should really be able to do better than attempts to discredit arguments by vague references to unrelated points.

Anyone who thinks Australia's budget would be the same if it wasn't one of the fastest growing economies on earth is a fool. Anyone who thinks that maintaining a larger military wouldn't require them to either cut other services or tax a higher proportion of GDP is also a fool.

The rest of the post seemed to be based on an assumption that I think high government spending is a good idea, or that I don't think it can limit the growth of an economy. You're obviously perfectly welcome to believe that, even if I've said nothing of the kind

System

Loughton_Monkey wrote: »

to put a few buns away in the oven for our retirement. .

! I think only women can do that ?