UK faces " Randontimeinthefuturethatnobodyknows BOMB" from ageing population

Graham_Devon

This comes from the IEA, and warn that politicians must wake up to the size of the debts.

In order to prepare for the future, cuts equalling 9.6% of GDP need to go ahead. This is equivalent to cutting current spending by a quarter.

Britain's ageing population has created a "debt timebomb" that can only be defused through a combination of significant spending cuts, faster increases in the state pension age and ending universal free healthcare, according to a respected think-tank.

The Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA) warned that the Government would need to slash public spending by a quarter in order to get Britain's debt mountain down to sustainable levels.

In a set of radical proposals, the IEA called on the Government to end "unhelpful" policies such as the "triple lock guarantee" that ensures the state pension increases by the higher of inflation, average earnings or a minimum of 2.5pc every year.

It also said charging for some NHS services would help to reduce demand.

"Politicians must wake up to the size of the debt time bomb in the UK. Older generations have voted themselves benefits that will indebt future generations, meaning crippling tax hikes for our children and grandchildren," said Philip Booth, editorial director at the IEA.

"Very significant spending restraint and reform of entitlements will be required in the next parliament and beyond to get our debt levels back under control."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11192855/UK-faces-debt-timebomb-from-ageing-population.html

Would you agree to some chargeable services in the NHS? Think I would.

It was mentioned earlier that the average wage earner today, under 30, has no chance of earning enough money to live, and also save a pension on which they could live on when they retire. So how are we going to sort it?!

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

We've been banging on about this for ages graham

The imbalance in the age of the population will cause massive financial and economic issues.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

We've been banging on about this for ages graham

The imbalance in the age of the population will cause massive financial and economic issues.

And we all know your solution.

But I'm looking at what the IEA state here and their solutions. Would you support some chargeable services in the NHS?

It's coming. As suggested, the average under 30 cannot earn enough to pay their life expenses (at current trends).... so we need to start doing something now to try and sort this out.

System

Given that "cutting current spending by a quarter" isn't possible it's almost as if the only way to fix it is allow immigration to continue to pay for the oldies while the issue is tackled gradually.

Can't think where I've heard that before.

ukcarper

Graham_Devon wrote: »

And we all know your solution.

But I'm looking at what the IEA state here and their solutions. Would you support some chargeable services in the NHS?

It's coming. As suggested, the average under 30 cannot earn enough to pay their life expenses (at current trends).... so we need to start doing something now to try and sort this out.

What services would you charge for.

wotsthat

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Would you agree to some chargeable services in the NHS? Think I would.

Yes. Maternity care to be chargeable, same with IVF and paediatrics. Were those the things you were thinking of too?

I'd just privatise the whole thing TBH and make sure the premiums reflected true risk.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It was mentioned earlier that the average wage earner today, under 30, has no chance of earning enough money to live, and also save a pension on which they could live on when they retire. So how are we going to sort it?!

They'll have to back-load their pension savings then. I know we often talk about the early savings being the best (and they are) but there's nothing like staring at your 50th to make the impossible of 25 years ago seem possible! I think the reality is this is how most people approach pension savings.

Graham_Devon

Joeskeppi wrote: »

Given that "cutting current spending by a quarter" isn't possible it's almost as if the only way to fix it is allow immigration to continue to pay for the oldies while the issue is tackled gradually.

Can't think where I've heard that before.

Immigration is a short term solution to a long term problem.

Import a million people today and you sort out the pensioners for the next 10 years. After that, you face the exact same problem, just with further people to support.

Immigration itself is also a political headache as much as cuts are. So politically it poses the same type of challenges as cuts do. Neither cuts or increased immigration is politically palatable.

On top of that, you'd need to spend money on building more hospitals, more roads, more services. Immigration does not come as no cost....it comes at a cost of increased infrastructure.... so in effect, once you have put your short term solution into place, you are left with more people to support, further debt for increased expenditure and further spending on welfare type budgets. Your problem is insurmountably worse... all for a quick fix.

sinizterguy

I would if it meant it would work better. But, that seems unlikely.

Graham_Devon

wotsthat wrote: »

Yes. Maternity care to be chargeable, same with IVF and paediatrics. Were those the things you were thinking of too?

Possibly, yes. I wasn't really thinking of anything, just throwing it out, but I think you would be right to throw in charging for these services.

They are afterall services you use due to your choice to use them.

Maybe you could throw in sports injuries etc etc. Charges for using A&E when drunk.

Easier, though, like you say, to simply charge for everything. Whether that's through a new tax, insurance type scheme or some other way would be up to people high above ourselves!

Maybe charge everyone for all medication and keep the service itself free at the point of care. Ultimately that will give some choice to people and gives them more incentive to avoid the need for medication by looking at their lifestyle.

Get rid of child benefit alongside getting rid of winter fuel payments for everyone over a certain age, bus passes etc. Lots of money can be saved.

StevieJ

We can start with no-brainers like a £20 charge for appointments (refundable when people turn up).

Patients who fail to attend NHS appointments cost the NHS about £700m a year, with up to six million appointment slots wasted annually.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-17298612

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Would you support some chargeable services in the NHS?

I would, yes.

But that's not the solution being presented.

What the article said was.....

- Slash public spending by a quarter

- Faster increases in the state pension age

- Ending universal free healthcare

None of those things would bother me personally, but the UK public would go mental and vote any government out of office that tried to implement them.

Which is exactly why we'll end up with mass immigration to rebalance the population.

The alternatives are completely politically impossible to implement.

People don't like immigration, but when asked to choose between it or 25% cuts in public spending and an end to free healthcare, I'd bet money they'd choose immigration.....

What the politicians now need to do is be honest about it, and explain to the masses that those are the only choices.

Slash spending by a quarter and end universal free healthcare, or accept immigration.....

Choose..... Because this gap has to be filled somehow.

Import a million people today and you sort out the pensioners for the next 10 years. After that, you face the exact same problem, just with further people to support.

No that's simply not true at all Graham.

We're in this mess because we had decades of births being below the replacement rate, we are simply missing millions of people, and have needed to replace them via immigration.

The problem is we haven't had enough immigrants yet to complete the job, and our birth rate remains too low.