Total Debt as a Proportion of GDP

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

But basically no, I don't think we are massively extending people useful working lives - we are extending the part when they are "doddery" and less able.

It would be interesting to see some figures about the general health of the over 60s.

I know a lot of over 60s who are very active but they are probably unrepresentative as they have always been very active sportspeople etc which they have continued into retirement.

System

CLAPTON wrote: »

It would be interesting to see some figures about the general health of the over 60s.

.

There is a report in today's papers on that very subject. Comparing healthy v. unhealthy years of people just retiring with those in the same position 10 years ago.

molerat

Generali wrote: »

..........
For better or worse, the UK and US are dodging the demographic timebomb via immigration.
.....................

Surely you mean delaying ?

Importing labour is just kicking the problem into the long grass for someone else to fix. We are importing an increased next generation of old people and a current generation of schooling, housing and medical needs. IMO the problem began in the 90s when companies started getting leaner and meaner axing anything that did not add an identifiable positive to the balance sheet and training, except for anything that was of immediate need, was the first to go. I honestly thought at the time that it would end badly. By not "investing in the future" then we are now paying for that with a generation of non contributing working age layabouts and importing the next crisis-waiting-to-happen to fill the gap.

CLAPTON

the very brief paragraph in the Telegraph says

a man retiring in 2011 at 65 could expect good health until 75 and then suffer poor health for the last 7 year 4 months
doesn't seem too bad and fully consistent with people working longer

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

molerat wrote: »

Surely you mean delaying ?

Importing labour is just kicking the problem into the long grass for someone else to fix. .

No, that's not right.

We are simply compensating for the millions of missing young people caused by decades of our birth rate being below replacement level.

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No, that's not right.

We are simply compensating for the millions of missing young people caused by decades of our birth rate being below replacement level.

there is no natural or even god given level of reproduction :
there are no missing people young or old.

just as there was no 'law' that says the population of the UK should be 10, 20, 30, 40 50, 65 , 80, 100 million etc.

We have some level of choice: there are advantages and disadvantages in having a larger or smaller population and this should be discuss dispassionately taking all aspects into account.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No, that's not right.

We are simply compensating for the millions of missing young people caused by decades of our birth rate being below replacement level.

It looks like this graph goes further back.

Can you give us the website where you found it?

Only the time frame chosen starts when there was a baby boom after the war. The trend line therefore is skewed by this. What happens when you look further back?

molerat

We are not effectively utilising the current population, do we necessarily need to replace at 1 for 1 on this overcrowded island ?

purch

Shouldn't we really be comparing Debt to each Governments "share" of GDP.

GDP doesn't belong to the Government, only the bit it "takes" belongs to it.

P.S. Shouldn't there be a limit on the number of times any individual can post the same graph :eek:

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

molerat wrote: »

do we necessarily need to replace at 1 for 1 on this overcrowded island ?

It is delusional to think that this island is "overcrowded", we use just 1.1% of land for residential property in England, the percentage for the UK is even lower.

Anyway, here is the ratio of working age people to retirement age people and how it has changed, and will change further without immigration.....

1950- 5.58 workers to support every pensioner

1980- 3.74 workers to support every pensioner

2010- 3.59 workers to support every pensioner

---

and without significant immigration, it would fall to around 2 workers to support each pensioner by 2050.

Obviously, the costs borne by every worker increase significantly the fewer of them there are per pensioner, which has direct and significant implications on the amount of tax and NI paid by working age people.

But the negative impact on people's personal finances is only the beginning... Just wait until you see how bad the national debt gets with lower immigration.

The OBR has forecast the outcomes of three different levels of migration to the national debt over the next 50 years.

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.