Total Debt as a Proportion of GDP

CLAPTON

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

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.

why not show the effects of different level of productivity improvement so we can produce the same level of goods and service with the reduced work force

why not show the impact of older people actually being allowed to work
why not show the impact of older people being able to work part time.

as always these graphs ask the WRONG question so inevitable lead the reader to the support the authors prejudice.

why not show the issues around having to import a higher and higher percentage of our fuel and food to feed a larger population irrespective of our level of exports

why not show the very damaging effects of high house prices in London and the SE on young people due to the population growth


why don't they recognise that a higher proportion of earned income can be used to support public services if the overall productivity of the (fewer) people can be improved so that every one can be better of.

lisyloo

]

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

I would be interested to see how they defined "good health".
For the purposes of what we were talking about, I'd define it as being able to do a full time job without significantly increased sick time off.
I'm afraid my experience is that most people at 75 do not experience the level of good health which would enable them to keep down a full time job (even the sedentary type).
I accept that's just my experience though, although I do come from a family that enjoys longevity.
I'd say it's unusal to be able to hold down a full time job at 75.

CLAPTON

lisyloo wrote: »

]I would be interested to see how they defined "good health".
For the purposes of what we were talking about, I'd define it as being able to do a full time job without significantly increased sick time off.
I'm afraid my experience is that most people at 75 do not experience the level of good health which would enable them to keep down a full time job (even the sedentary type).
I accept that's just my experience though, although I do come from a family that enjoys longevity.
I'd say it's unusal to be able to hold down a full time job at 75.

I don't know their definition but I don't think it necessary to hold down a full time job.
if people could do a good part time job to 75 it would make a huge difference : today the constraint isn't older people's willingness to work; it's largely the opportunity

molerat

The whole country is like the iPhone generation, throw it away (but keep on paying for it) and get a new one rather than fixing what we already have, instead of investing in our future by re-training and utilising our existing population we are buying a quick fix which will bring its own problems in the future.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

molerat wrote: »

The whole country is like the iPhone generation, throw it away (but keep on paying for it) and get a new one rather than fixing what we already have, instead of investing in our future by re-training and utilising our existing population we are buying a quick fix which will bring its own problems in the future.

You keep repeating that myth despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you that it's false.

Any reason why?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

why don't they recognise that a higher proportion of earned income can be used to support public services if the overall productivity of the (fewer) people can be improved so that every one can be better of.

That's just, well, nonsense though.....

When the ratio of working age people to old people drops in half, productivity and taxation on earnings would have to double just to stand still....

Far better to keep the ratio the same and let people keep more of that productivity/earnings gain rather than taking most or all of it to support the old.

molerat

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

So 8 years worth of immigrants sitting on their !!!!!! being non productive. The governments and employers over the past couple of decades have been negligent in not preventing this.

Graham_Devon

Hamish, where do you get the graph from? As I say, the timescales are very selectively picked, but it looks as if you can go back further to get a more true sense of birth rates in the UK without it being heavily weighted due to the starting point.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Hamish, where do you get the graph from?

Can't remember.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As I say, the timescales are very selectively picked, but it looks as if you can go back further to get a more true sense of birth rates in the UK without it being heavily weighted due to the starting point.

Here is the data going back to the 1920's.



It doesn't help your argument though.

The birth rate didn't fall below the replacement rate of 2.1 until the mid 70's.....

Even during the war years.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

molerat wrote: »

So 8 years worth of immigrants sitting on their !!!!!! being non productive. The governments and employers over the past couple of decades have been negligent in not preventing this.

Lump of Labour fallacy.....

You keep repeating that myth despite it being repeatedly pointed out to you that it's false.

Any reason why?