State Pension Affordability

[Snooky]

It may be glorious hindsight, but public services weren't too bad in the early 90s. Maybe we should look to return to the relatively stable population level pre-2000 as an approach to saving costs and reducing the housing problem, reducing energy demand etc. In my view, we need to increase productivity, not population and need to re-base the UK population to mid-90s levels absent being able to fund public services for c.70m people.

A key problem with this is that, as I mentioned earlier, our population is rapidly becoming top-heavy in age and longevity. This is bad in both financial terms - retired citizens will generally pay far less tax than the working population but will require far more use of health and welfare services - but also in staffing terms - the number of jobs needing to be done isn't decreasing as quickly as the number of people able to do them. Of course this could be seen as a positive because unemployment should be lower, but it also severely hinders growth.

To get more working-age people we either need to have more babies (stats show the trend in the UK has been heading in the other direction for a long time) or import more young people. So in my view, immigration is unavoidable, unless we find a way to lighten the load at the other end of the age scale

[woody1]

Soylent Green...

[DoctorStrangelove]

Logan's Run. .

[willendure]

A key problem with this is that, as I mentioned earlier, our population is rapidly becoming top-heavy in age and longevity. This is bad in both financial terms - retired citizens will generally pay far less tax than the working population but will require far more use of health and welfare services - but also in staffing terms - the number of jobs needing to be done isn't decreasing as quickly as the number of people able to do them. Of course this could be seen as a positive because unemployment should be lower, but it also severely hinders growth.

To get more working-age people we either need to have more babies (stats show the trend in the UK has been heading in the other direction for a long time) or import more young people. So in my view, immigration is unavoidable, unless we find a way to lighten the load at the other end of the age scale

Yes, basically you have the dynamics outlined correctly. And its not just the UK, all western countries are facing the same dilema to varying degrees. Its worse in Germany than the UK for example. Its not nearly so bad in the USA because they have a large millenial generation - only country where millenials outnumber the boomers.

Japan is interesting to look at because it had its baby boom a generation before we did. So we see what the effects of an aging population looks like.

China is interesting too because its baby boom was cut short by the one child policy and its demographics are now declining faster than Japans. And its a huge house of cards too - the collapse there could be dramatic not to mention extremely dangerous if the leadership becomes irrational.

The problem with immigration is that it comes with political tensions - generally the indiginous population do not like it. It can certainly help, but is being overdone. Look at Canada, one of the most immigration friendly countries because of depopulation in the 80s, now backfiring politically and they have tightened up the rules.

People are not having babies because they cannot afford to buy a house until they are too old to reproduce. Yet immigration does not help with the price of houses, since more demand is pushing those same prices up. We could have done and could do a lot more to help young British people find stable housing and a lot of policy has done the opposite.

[sadkingbilly]

Soylent Green...

Logan's Run. .

U.S. healthcare

[Protagoras]

There was a political party leader on the radio this morning explaining that his party would retain the state pension triple lock. Apparently this can be funded by reducing benefits, examples being universal credit and some disability benefit.

[NotAllThere]

Its not nearly so bad in the USA because they have a large millenial generation - only country where millenials outnumber the boomers..

Erm... Not sure what definitions you're using but Millenials outnumber Boomers in the UK as well.
US:

Silent Generation	6%
Baby Boomers	20-21%
Generation X	19%
Millenials (Gen Y)	22-23%
Generation Z	18-19%
Generation Alpha	10-11%

UK:

Silent Generation	6%
Baby Boomers	19%
Generation X	20%
Millenials (Gen Y)	22%
Generation Z	20%
Generation Alpha	10-11%

[WTFH]

People are not having babies because they cannot afford to buy a house until they are too old to reproduce. Yet immigration does not help with the price of houses, since more demand is pushing those same prices up. We could have done and could do a lot more to help young British people find stable housing and a lot of policy has done the opposite.

Or, children & education cost a lot of money, having immigrants come in when they are already educated, reduces the early years costs, but gets them at earning & tax paying age. That doesn't appeal to xenophobes, because they don't like people who want to work and pay taxes.

It's either that, or you get old people to move out of their houses that cost them a lot of money in council tax - get them to move into bungalows and retirement homes that are more affordable for them and frees up housing in parts of the country where the under 60s can live, work and pay taxes.

[malvolio]

Or, children & education cost a lot of money, having immigrants come in when they are already educated, reduces the early years costs, but gets them at earning & tax paying age. That doesn't appeal to xenophobes, because they don't like people who want to work and pay taxes.

It's either that, or you get old people to move out of their houses that cost them a lot of money in council tax - get them to move into bungalows and retirement homes that are more affordable for them and frees up housing in parts of the country where the under 60s can live, work and pay taxes.

Having worked and saved and paid taxes for 50 years (and still paying taxes now I'm retired), why should I sacrifice my comfortable, paid-for, spacious house to live in a shoe box for someone else? And get rid of a life's worth of possessions to do so?

OK, that's harsh, but it is reality. Pensioners are not some out of date underclass. You want a house, then f***ing work for it. Even if you start from where I did, £17 a week, a pregnant girlfriend, no family support and nowhere to live. And I'm a long was from being the only one.

[Protagoras]

Data from a few years ago indicated that the total tax take from retirees exceeded that from the under 30s. But perhaps all that highlights is the poor income and opportunities for under 30s ...