Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The human being has been born who will live to over two hundred years human beings are living longer due to medical advances and tech." You need to be able to afford the treatment or have access to it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ..." Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. " That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension. "Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)"We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age. "True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need "One burley bloke one burley woman and a burley horse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need "At the start of the century there were about 4 workers for every pensioner. It's now about 3 to 2 and is estimated to hit 2 to 1 in the next 30 years. Quick sums say c 10 pc of tax is on state pension. Income tax and NI is almost 50pc of all tax income. So assuming for ease constant adult population of 40m (makes numbers easy) today we have 30m workers, and 10m pensioners In 30 years time we have 20m of both. So pensions have doubled, meaning a 10 pc increase in over tax our and tax in down by a sixth. To make that up in income related tax alone, you'd need to increase it to be 50pc higher than today. Or increase all taxes by 25pc (I'm hoping my maths is correct here) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need
At the start of the century there were about 4 workers for every pensioner. It's now about 3 to 2 and is estimated to hit 2 to 1 in the next 30 years.
Quick sums say c 10 pc of tax is on state pension.
Income tax and NI is almost 50pc of all tax income.
So assuming for ease constant adult population of 40m (makes numbers easy) today we have 30m workers, and 10m pensioners
In 30 years time we have 20m of both. So pensions have doubled, meaning a 10 pc increase in over tax our and tax in down by a sixth.
To make that up in income related tax alone, you'd need to increase it to be 50pc higher than today.
Or increase all taxes by 25pc
(I'm hoping my maths is correct here)
"Your maths is almost certainly better than mine. It does seem then that unless tax rises you need more workers than pensioners. The problem with that is those extra workers will become old themselves and now you have a higher pensioner population. In turn even more immigration to provide even more workers than before. It looks like an ever increasing spiral of needing new workers to pay for past new workers | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need
At the start of the century there were about 4 workers for every pensioner. It's now about 3 to 2 and is estimated to hit 2 to 1 in the next 30 years.
Quick sums say c 10 pc of tax is on state pension.
Income tax and NI is almost 50pc of all tax income.
So assuming for ease constant adult population of 40m (makes numbers easy) today we have 30m workers, and 10m pensioners
In 30 years time we have 20m of both. So pensions have doubled, meaning a 10 pc increase in over tax our and tax in down by a sixth.
To make that up in income related tax alone, you'd need to increase it to be 50pc higher than today.
Or increase all taxes by 25pc
(I'm hoping my maths is correct here)
Your maths is almost certainly better than mine. It does seem then that unless tax rises you need more workers than pensioners. The problem with that is those extra workers will become old themselves and now you have a higher pensioner population. In turn even more immigration to provide even more workers than before. It looks like an ever increasing spiral of needing new workers to pay for past new workers"or you recontract what is actually provides by the state. The state pension was meant to last give years not twenty. People worked until they couldn't. However that sucks if your 30. And no way someone coming up to 67 will say it's fair that the state pension moves to 75 or higher because their generation was asleep at the wheel. And encourage people to support themselves. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disclaimer - I apologise without reservation in advance should this offend anyone, especially if you suffered any kind of loss. A few more pandemics with inadequate or downright dangerous government policy (of moving sick and untested elderly into care homes to free up hospital beds) should help to tackle the ageing population issue!" You forgot lack of winter planning for a no gas, ultimately no electricity, scenario. What back up provision do care homes and elderly at home have for prolonged power or gas outage. Next public enquiry into excess winter fatalities next year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need
At the start of the century there were about 4 workers for every pensioner. It's now about 3 to 2 and is estimated to hit 2 to 1 in the next 30 years.
Quick sums say c 10 pc of tax is on state pension.
Income tax and NI is almost 50pc of all tax income.
So assuming for ease constant adult population of 40m (makes numbers easy) today we have 30m workers, and 10m pensioners
In 30 years time we have 20m of both. So pensions have doubled, meaning a 10 pc increase in over tax our and tax in down by a sixth.
To make that up in income related tax alone, you'd need to increase it to be 50pc higher than today.
Or increase all taxes by 25pc
(I'm hoping my maths is correct here)
Your maths is almost certainly better than mine. It does seem then that unless tax rises you need more workers than pensioners. The problem with that is those extra workers will become old themselves and now you have a higher pensioner population. In turn even more immigration to provide even more workers than before. It looks like an ever increasing spiral of needing new workers to pay for past new workersor you recontract what is actually provides by the state. The state pension was meant to last give years not twenty. People worked until they couldn't.
However that sucks if your 30. And no way someone coming up to 67 will say it's fair that the state pension moves to 75 or higher because their generation was asleep at the wheel.
And encourage people to support themselves. "Yes I mentioned previously that I would not be spurt to see the pension age continuing to rise as it has already done. Your figures show that immigration is not only a sticking plaster but in the long run will make the situation worse as they will need support themselves at some point | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need
At the start of the century there were about 4 workers for every pensioner. It's now about 3 to 2 and is estimated to hit 2 to 1 in the next 30 years.
Quick sums say c 10 pc of tax is on state pension.
Income tax and NI is almost 50pc of all tax income.
So assuming for ease constant adult population of 40m (makes numbers easy) today we have 30m workers, and 10m pensioners
In 30 years time we have 20m of both. So pensions have doubled, meaning a 10 pc increase in over tax our and tax in down by a sixth.
To make that up in income related tax alone, you'd need to increase it to be 50pc higher than today.
Or increase all taxes by 25pc
(I'm hoping my maths is correct here)
Your maths is almost certainly better than mine. It does seem then that unless tax rises you need more workers than pensioners. The problem with that is those extra workers will become old themselves and now you have a higher pensioner population. In turn even more immigration to provide even more workers than before. It looks like an ever increasing spiral of needing new workers to pay for past new workersor you recontract what is actually provides by the state. The state pension was meant to last give years not twenty. People worked until they couldn't.
However that sucks if your 30. And no way someone coming up to 67 will say it's fair that the state pension moves to 75 or higher because their generation was asleep at the wheel.
And encourage people to support themselves.
Yes I mentioned previously that I would not be spurt to see the pension age continuing to rise as it has already done. Your figures show that immigration is not only a sticking plaster but in the long run will make the situation worse as they will need support themselves at some point"or everyone needs to support themselves.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Being responsible when having kids and less entitled" Care to elaborate? Surely less kids will cause a problem funding state pensions unless workforce is bolstered by immigration? Is it “entitled” to expect a state pension? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need
At the start of the century there were about 4 workers for every pensioner. It's now about 3 to 2 and is estimated to hit 2 to 1 in the next 30 years.
Quick sums say c 10 pc of tax is on state pension.
Income tax and NI is almost 50pc of all tax income.
So assuming for ease constant adult population of 40m (makes numbers easy) today we have 30m workers, and 10m pensioners
In 30 years time we have 20m of both. So pensions have doubled, meaning a 10 pc increase in over tax our and tax in down by a sixth.
To make that up in income related tax alone, you'd need to increase it to be 50pc higher than today.
Or increase all taxes by 25pc
(I'm hoping my maths is correct here)
Your maths is almost certainly better than mine. It does seem then that unless tax rises you need more workers than pensioners. The problem with that is those extra workers will become old themselves and now you have a higher pensioner population. In turn even more immigration to provide even more workers than before. It looks like an ever increasing spiral of needing new workers to pay for past new workersor you recontract what is actually provides by the state. The state pension was meant to last give years not twenty. People worked until they couldn't.
However that sucks if your 30. And no way someone coming up to 67 will say it's fair that the state pension moves to 75 or higher because their generation was asleep at the wheel.
And encourage people to support themselves.
Yes I mentioned previously that I would not be spurt to see the pension age continuing to rise as it has already done. Your figures show that immigration is not only a sticking plaster but in the long run will make the situation worse as they will need support themselves at some pointor everyone needs to support themselves.... "Of course everyone should support themselves and plan ahead for retirement. But at what point do you draw the line and say “right you lot won’t be getting a state pension”. How would it work? The workers today are paying for the state pensions of current retirees. But who will pay the state pension for the current workers? I mean, it wouldn’t be fair to take away their pensions because their tax snd NI has been paid (and used for current pensioners) so surely they are entitled to expect a state pension too? But then that means the children today will need to pay the pensions of today’s workers so they too should be entitled to expect a state pension when they retire as they paid tax and NI? So where/how do you draw the line because wherever you do, one generation will lose out! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disclaimer - I apologise without reservation in advance should this offend anyone, especially if you suffered any kind of loss. A few more pandemics with inadequate or downright dangerous government policy (of moving sick and untested elderly into care homes to free up hospital beds) should help to tackle the ageing population issue! You forgot lack of winter planning for a no gas, ultimately no electricity, scenario. What back up provision do care homes and elderly at home have for prolonged power or gas outage. Next public enquiry into excess winter fatalities next year." Anyone that can’t afford gas or electricity this winter should self identify as an asylum seeker / refugee and get put up in a hotel. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Disclaimer - I apologise without reservation in advance should this offend anyone, especially if you suffered any kind of loss. A few more pandemics with inadequate or downright dangerous government policy (of moving sick and untested elderly into care homes to free up hospital beds) should help to tackle the ageing population issue! You forgot lack of winter planning for a no gas, ultimately no electricity, scenario. What back up provision do care homes and elderly at home have for prolonged power or gas outage. Next public enquiry into excess winter fatalities next year. Anyone that can’t afford gas or electricity this winter should self identify as an asylum seeker / refugee and get put up in a hotel." Then again we could try to tackle the root cause of all of this immigration/asylum seeking! Happy, safe, full stomached people rarely emigrate. Tackling poverty, war and famine overseas will ultimately reduce pressure on immigration. But those same people who shout about immigrants and asylum seekers also shout about cutting or stopping overseas aid. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I don't know the details but there is a way of searching all institutions for lost, orphaned and untraced pensions. It covers private and government and only one firm to fill out. Google will give details needed." That could be a solution, if the pension companies that were used by default, are still operational over the coming years. I can see this being a problem 30 - 40 years down the line. The simplest solution is for all contractors to have their own single pension, they can have the payments made to that, but talking to a friend who works for an agency, she tells me the majority don't and call into have the payments stopped. The system is not working as expected, is my feeling. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need
At the start of the century there were about 4 workers for every pensioner. It's now about 3 to 2 and is estimated to hit 2 to 1 in the next 30 years.
Quick sums say c 10 pc of tax is on state pension.
Income tax and NI is almost 50pc of all tax income.
So assuming for ease constant adult population of 40m (makes numbers easy) today we have 30m workers, and 10m pensioners
In 30 years time we have 20m of both. So pensions have doubled, meaning a 10 pc increase in over tax our and tax in down by a sixth.
To make that up in income related tax alone, you'd need to increase it to be 50pc higher than today.
Or increase all taxes by 25pc
(I'm hoping my maths is correct here)
Your maths is almost certainly better than mine. It does seem then that unless tax rises you need more workers than pensioners. The problem with that is those extra workers will become old themselves and now you have a higher pensioner population. In turn even more immigration to provide even more workers than before. It looks like an ever increasing spiral of needing new workers to pay for past new workersor you recontract what is actually provides by the state. The state pension was meant to last give years not twenty. People worked until they couldn't.
However that sucks if your 30. And no way someone coming up to 67 will say it's fair that the state pension moves to 75 or higher because their generation was asleep at the wheel.
And encourage people to support themselves.
Yes I mentioned previously that I would not be spurt to see the pension age continuing to rise as it has already done. Your figures show that immigration is not only a sticking plaster but in the long run will make the situation worse as they will need support themselves at some pointor everyone needs to support themselves....
Of course everyone should support themselves and plan ahead for retirement. But at what point do you draw the line and say “right you lot won’t be getting a state pension”. How would it work?
The workers today are paying for the state pensions of current retirees. But who will pay the state pension for the current workers? I mean, it wouldn’t be fair to take away their pensions because their tax snd NI has been paid (and used for current pensioners) so surely they are entitled to expect a state pension too?
But then that means the children today will need to pay the pensions of today’s workers so they too should be entitled to expect a state pension when they retire as they paid tax and NI?
So where/how do you draw the line because wherever you do, one generation will lose out!"it's a Ponzi scheme. Made worse because the intergenerational promise is so weakly defined. We see it as "I pay your state pension and and my kids will pay for mine". Which seems fair. But the promise is more like "I will pay for ten years on average for your state pension, my kids can pay for fifteen years of mine". Is that fair ? Imo we need to start moving the state pension age up and set expectations it will keep going up. Start talking about how it is there go cover the last 10 years of life, not start at a given age. It's not going to be popular for sure. That's why we are where we are today ! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need
At the start of the century there were about 4 workers for every pensioner. It's now about 3 to 2 and is estimated to hit 2 to 1 in the next 30 years.
Quick sums say c 10 pc of tax is on state pension.
Income tax and NI is almost 50pc of all tax income.
So assuming for ease constant adult population of 40m (makes numbers easy) today we have 30m workers, and 10m pensioners
In 30 years time we have 20m of both. So pensions have doubled, meaning a 10 pc increase in over tax our and tax in down by a sixth.
To make that up in income related tax alone, you'd need to increase it to be 50pc higher than today.
Or increase all taxes by 25pc
(I'm hoping my maths is correct here)
Your maths is almost certainly better than mine. It does seem then that unless tax rises you need more workers than pensioners. The problem with that is those extra workers will become old themselves and now you have a higher pensioner population. In turn even more immigration to provide even more workers than before. It looks like an ever increasing spiral of needing new workers to pay for past new workersor you recontract what is actually provides by the state. The state pension was meant to last give years not twenty. People worked until they couldn't.
However that sucks if your 30. And no way someone coming up to 67 will say it's fair that the state pension moves to 75 or higher because their generation was asleep at the wheel.
And encourage people to support themselves.
Yes I mentioned previously that I would not be spurt to see the pension age continuing to rise as it has already done. Your figures show that immigration is not only a sticking plaster but in the long run will make the situation worse as they will need support themselves at some pointor everyone needs to support themselves....
Of course everyone should support themselves and plan ahead for retirement. But at what point do you draw the line and say “right you lot won’t be getting a state pension”. How would it work?
The workers today are paying for the state pensions of current retirees. But who will pay the state pension for the current workers? I mean, it wouldn’t be fair to take away their pensions because their tax snd NI has been paid (and used for current pensioners) so surely they are entitled to expect a state pension too?
But then that means the children today will need to pay the pensions of today’s workers so they too should be entitled to expect a state pension when they retire as they paid tax and NI?
So where/how do you draw the line because wherever you do, one generation will lose out!it's a Ponzi scheme. Made worse because the intergenerational promise is so weakly defined. We see it as "I pay your state pension and and my kids will pay for mine". Which seems fair. But the promise is more like "I will pay for ten years on average for your state pension, my kids can pay for fifteen years of mine". Is that fair ?
Imo we need to start moving the state pension age up and set expectations it will keep going up. Start talking about how it is there go cover the last 10 years of life, not start at a given age.
It's not going to be popular for sure. That's why we are where we are today !"Hmmm not sure on this. The headline figure that people are living longer is all well and good but is the reality that they are also remaining healthy and able to work into their late 60s early 70s? Do we really want jobs clogged up with 70 somethings preventing young people from entering the workforce? Do we want buses driven by 70 somethings? Roofers and builders still in the trade (even able to do the workload)? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ..." When no one wants to wipe their asses or clean their pissy diapers, they will soon change their mind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need
At the start of the century there were about 4 workers for every pensioner. It's now about 3 to 2 and is estimated to hit 2 to 1 in the next 30 years.
Quick sums say c 10 pc of tax is on state pension.
Income tax and NI is almost 50pc of all tax income.
So assuming for ease constant adult population of 40m (makes numbers easy) today we have 30m workers, and 10m pensioners
In 30 years time we have 20m of both. So pensions have doubled, meaning a 10 pc increase in over tax our and tax in down by a sixth.
To make that up in income related tax alone, you'd need to increase it to be 50pc higher than today.
Or increase all taxes by 25pc
(I'm hoping my maths is correct here)
Your maths is almost certainly better than mine. It does seem then that unless tax rises you need more workers than pensioners. The problem with that is those extra workers will become old themselves and now you have a higher pensioner population. In turn even more immigration to provide even more workers than before. It looks like an ever increasing spiral of needing new workers to pay for past new workersor you recontract what is actually provides by the state. The state pension was meant to last give years not twenty. People worked until they couldn't.
However that sucks if your 30. And no way someone coming up to 67 will say it's fair that the state pension moves to 75 or higher because their generation was asleep at the wheel.
And encourage people to support themselves.
Yes I mentioned previously that I would not be spurt to see the pension age continuing to rise as it has already done. Your figures show that immigration is not only a sticking plaster but in the long run will make the situation worse as they will need support themselves at some pointor everyone needs to support themselves.... "I agree we should all do what we can to support ourselves. Problem is not everyone can and rely on the state pension. It seems from what others say, that we need 3 or 4 workers for each pensioner. If you fill the shortfall, those new workers will each need 3 or 4 new workers to support them and so on in an ever increasing circle | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... When no one wants to wipe their asses or clean their pissy diapers, they will soon change their mind." They are probably better at doing it themselves than you are | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need
At the start of the century there were about 4 workers for every pensioner. It's now about 3 to 2 and is estimated to hit 2 to 1 in the next 30 years.
Quick sums say c 10 pc of tax is on state pension.
Income tax and NI is almost 50pc of all tax income.
So assuming for ease constant adult population of 40m (makes numbers easy) today we have 30m workers, and 10m pensioners
In 30 years time we have 20m of both. So pensions have doubled, meaning a 10 pc increase in over tax our and tax in down by a sixth.
To make that up in income related tax alone, you'd need to increase it to be 50pc higher than today.
Or increase all taxes by 25pc
(I'm hoping my maths is correct here)
Your maths is almost certainly better than mine. It does seem then that unless tax rises you need more workers than pensioners. The problem with that is those extra workers will become old themselves and now you have a higher pensioner population. In turn even more immigration to provide even more workers than before. It looks like an ever increasing spiral of needing new workers to pay for past new workersor you recontract what is actually provides by the state. The state pension was meant to last give years not twenty. People worked until they couldn't.
However that sucks if your 30. And no way someone coming up to 67 will say it's fair that the state pension moves to 75 or higher because their generation was asleep at the wheel.
And encourage people to support themselves.
Yes I mentioned previously that I would not be spurt to see the pension age continuing to rise as it has already done. Your figures show that immigration is not only a sticking plaster but in the long run will make the situation worse as they will need support themselves at some pointor everyone needs to support themselves....
I agree we should all do what we can to support ourselves. Problem is not everyone can and rely on the state pension. It seems from what others say, that we need 3 or 4 workers for each pensioner. If you fill the shortfall, those new workers will each need 3 or 4 new workers to support them and so on in an ever increasing circle"But how many older people will it take to teach a real work ethic and to get kids away from their screens? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... When no one wants to wipe their asses or clean their pissy diapers, they will soon change their mind. They are probably better at doing it themselves than you are " Ah don’t get your tenna men in a twist.  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"a few people are living a bit longer but many people are not from long lived families & are lightly not to live to a very old age. As usual the government has ripped off old people who have paid into pension schemes all their life. " Not sure how the Govt has "ripped off old people". The Government pays the pensions they provide out of Tax. These "unfunded" schemes include State Pension, Military, Civil Service, Judiciary, Teachers, Police, Firefighters, etc. Local Authorities (LGPS) and the like have contribution pensions where the pension contributions are invested like private pensions. One of the difficulties that has arisen is the failure of large sections of the population to have any pension provision at all in the hope that the safety net of the State Pension will provide. This has put a huge load on the State Pension forcing it's payments to increase in real terms and increase in numbers of pensioners. I do not believe the solution lies in blaming others for the "elderly problem". It lies in recognising the actuarial predictions based on birth data. The "Post WW2 baby boomer" generation started in late 1930s and went on to 1960. The excess of boomers who are now pensioners will unwind over the next 20 to 30 years. If those working now ensure they make private pension provision to supplement their anticipated State Pension they should be ok. Private pension pots are invested in the stock market and bonds and substantially support the economy until the contributor retires. I has been suggested to me that the rough rule of thumb ratio is 20 to 1. If you want a pension of £1,000 per annum you need £20,000 invested by the time you retire. If you use this simple rule you will see that you need to start paying into a scheme as soon as you start work or the contribution load later in your working life gets too great to bear. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Sebs approach to immigration has highlighted the current need for immigration. But as he alludes, immigration can't be the (only) soultion. So other than euthenasia, what else can be done? A focus on fairness would be interesting. We are where we are because there have been generations who have ignored the issue of longevity or applied the immigration band aid. Is it right a 30 yo had to pick up a bigger bill to pay today's state pension than previous generations did... And also risk not get the same level of benefits in the future? Especially when the current retired population are now trying to remove the option of the immigration band aid ... Others have mentioned that today you are more likely to live to a good age with the advances in medicine. I can see the retirement age increasing further still. I'm not completely convinced immigration is the total answer. I guess it depends on the ratio. How many working people does is take to support a pensioner. That sounds like a ponzi/ pyramid scheme or the state pension.
Lol, it does a bit doesn't it. But there must be a ratio otherwise how do you know how many workers are needed. Hopefully it's less than one worker to one pensioner, at worst it will be equal ( one to one)
We have private pensions in the UK plus the house and the shirt of your back to pay for owd age.
True but I hear we need to increase the work force to pay for pensions which many are entitled to even if they have a private pension. So was wandering how many we need
At the start of the century there were about 4 workers for every pensioner. It's now about 3 to 2 and is estimated to hit 2 to 1 in the next 30 years.
Quick sums say c 10 pc of tax is on state pension.
Income tax and NI is almost 50pc of all tax income.
So assuming for ease constant adult population of 40m (makes numbers easy) today we have 30m workers, and 10m pensioners
In 30 years time we have 20m of both. So pensions have doubled, meaning a 10 pc increase in over tax our and tax in down by a sixth.
To make that up in income related tax alone, you'd need to increase it to be 50pc higher than today.
Or increase all taxes by 25pc
(I'm hoping my maths is correct here)
Your maths is almost certainly better than mine. It does seem then that unless tax rises you need more workers than pensioners. The problem with that is those extra workers will become old themselves and now you have a higher pensioner population. In turn even more immigration to provide even more workers than before. It looks like an ever increasing spiral of needing new workers to pay for past new workersor you recontract what is actually provides by the state. The state pension was meant to last give years not twenty. People worked until they couldn't.
However that sucks if your 30. And no way someone coming up to 67 will say it's fair that the state pension moves to 75 or higher because their generation was asleep at the wheel.
And encourage people to support themselves.
Yes I mentioned previously that I would not be spurt to see the pension age continuing to rise as it has already done. Your figures show that immigration is not only a sticking plaster but in the long run will make the situation worse as they will need support themselves at some pointor everyone needs to support themselves....
I agree we should all do what we can to support ourselves. Problem is not everyone can and rely on the state pension. It seems from what others say, that we need 3 or 4 workers for each pensioner. If you fill the shortfall, those new workers will each need 3 or 4 new workers to support them and so on in an ever increasing circle
But how many older people will it take to teach a real work ethic and to get kids away from their screens? "Seb that is a bit of a trope and ironic seeing as posting here on Fab we are all glued to our screens! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Assisted dying bill is supposed to be getting debated in UK parliament again. " Will being over 60 and having been unable to predict the future as a young person be among the qualifying criteria?  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Assisted dying bill is supposed to be getting debated in UK parliament again. Will being over 60 and having been unable to predict the future as a young person be among the qualifying criteria? "Qualifying criteria to be a politician? Absolutely!  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The Assisted dying bill is supposed to be getting debated in UK parliament again. Will being over 60 and having been unable to predict the future as a young person be among the qualifying criteria?
Qualifying criteria to be a politician? Absolutely! " | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about people who have never and will never be economically productive? Many babies, children and young adults who require thousands of pounds to fund their care ? Or is it more palatable to discuss older people in this way" It's more palatable to discuss older people this way. There's a lot of reasons for that but mostly we're deemed to be no longer useful economically unless we're providing free child care. Discussing young people in the same way would be seen as distasteful and unkind. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"What about people who have never and will never be economically productive? Many babies, children and young adults who require thousands of pounds to fund their care ? Or is it more palatable to discuss older people in this way It's more palatable to discuss older people this way. There's a lot of reasons for that but mostly we're deemed to be no longer useful economically unless we're providing free child care. Discussing young people in the same way would be seen as distasteful and unkind." Exactly ?? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
