They're Coming After Your Holidays...
News1 min ago
Poll Says Public Want Immigration Cuts
50 Answers
http://
Time for some to wake up and smell the coffee?
Or just smell what they're shovelling?
Time for some to wake up and smell the coffee?
Or just smell what they're shovelling?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ChillDoubt. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Sorry
it was the OBR not the ONS
from The Telegraph:
/The Office for Budget Responsibility said that spending on the state pension, social care and healthcare will rise from 14 per cent of Britain's GDP to almost a fifth.
The report found that allowing more than 140,000 immigrants into Britain a year, equivalent to 6million people, would help increase the overall number of people who are in work and improve public finances.
Its analysis suggests that Britain's borrowing as a proportion of GDP would rise to 99 per cent if there is a steady flow of immigrants. If there was a complete ban on immigrants, borrowing would rise to 174 per cent of GDP.
David Cameron has pledged to reduce the levels of immigration into Britain to "tens of thousands" during this Parliament. Last year the number of immigrants dropped by 89,000 to 153,000.
The report says: "Our analysis shows that overall migration has a positive impact on the sustainability of the public finances over our 50 year horizon. /
it was the OBR not the ONS
from The Telegraph:
/The Office for Budget Responsibility said that spending on the state pension, social care and healthcare will rise from 14 per cent of Britain's GDP to almost a fifth.
The report found that allowing more than 140,000 immigrants into Britain a year, equivalent to 6million people, would help increase the overall number of people who are in work and improve public finances.
Its analysis suggests that Britain's borrowing as a proportion of GDP would rise to 99 per cent if there is a steady flow of immigrants. If there was a complete ban on immigrants, borrowing would rise to 174 per cent of GDP.
David Cameron has pledged to reduce the levels of immigration into Britain to "tens of thousands" during this Parliament. Last year the number of immigrants dropped by 89,000 to 153,000.
The report says: "Our analysis shows that overall migration has a positive impact on the sustainability of the public finances over our 50 year horizon. /
“Want to cut immigration? - want free petrol?
Hey what's not to like? “
I’m sure you realise, Jake, that such an argument is specious, not to say ridiculous.
Unless you are a rich benefactor who likes to make philanthropic donations to the oil companies and the Exchequer, then there is no downside to obtaining free petrol. However, many people - both within and outside politics - argue that immigration is nothing but beneficial to the UK. There is a counter argument to cutting immigration and it has been used endlessly to oppose those who see the adverse effects of immigration in their communities. So may be aspects “not to like” about cutting immigration.
“…we need 7 million immigrants over the next 50 years to …support the ageing population…”
You’re getting as bad as Jake, Zeuhl !!
And I’m afraid the ONS needs a reality check.
What happens to the 7 million (presumably young) immigrants? If you haven’t guessed. they get old (now there’s a surprise). Or do they die earlier than those already here or perhaps return whence they came? And what do we do to support them in their dotage? Presumably ship in another 10 million. And they get old (cont’d forever). Economics of the madhouse.
Hey what's not to like? “
I’m sure you realise, Jake, that such an argument is specious, not to say ridiculous.
Unless you are a rich benefactor who likes to make philanthropic donations to the oil companies and the Exchequer, then there is no downside to obtaining free petrol. However, many people - both within and outside politics - argue that immigration is nothing but beneficial to the UK. There is a counter argument to cutting immigration and it has been used endlessly to oppose those who see the adverse effects of immigration in their communities. So may be aspects “not to like” about cutting immigration.
“…we need 7 million immigrants over the next 50 years to …support the ageing population…”
You’re getting as bad as Jake, Zeuhl !!
And I’m afraid the ONS needs a reality check.
What happens to the 7 million (presumably young) immigrants? If you haven’t guessed. they get old (now there’s a surprise). Or do they die earlier than those already here or perhaps return whence they came? And what do we do to support them in their dotage? Presumably ship in another 10 million. And they get old (cont’d forever). Economics of the madhouse.
Yes, the UK State pension is run like a gigantic Ponzi scheme. And thereby hangs the tale.
Properly funded pension schemes rely upon the contributions of future claimants to be wisely invested so as to provide a return for them to claim upon retirement. Indeed they could function in no other way. This means that should the scheme be wound up there would still be sufficient funds to pay out those who have paid in. The State pension scheme, by contrast enjoys no such luxury. The (National Insurance) contributions simply disappear into a pot of money that is used for all manner of things including proper pensions for those who have contributed and "pensions" (that is, retirement age benefits) for those who have not. Furthermore there is no direct relationship between contributions and benefits (in fact, in some respects the relationship in inverse - the less you pay in the more you get out).
When determining the sustainability of the State pension scheme those who have made little or no contribution to the fund should be separated from the calculations. The State pension scheme (for those who have made the necessary contributions) is absolutely sustainable and in fact enjoys a surplus. What is not sustainable is to pay a “pension” to people who have not paid enough to earn it.
The best solution of all would be to allow workers to opt out of the State pension scheme entirely (i.e. to be excused NI Contributions if they so wish) and to use those funds to invest themselves. This way they would not have to sustain non-contributors.
Or is this a bit too radical?
Properly funded pension schemes rely upon the contributions of future claimants to be wisely invested so as to provide a return for them to claim upon retirement. Indeed they could function in no other way. This means that should the scheme be wound up there would still be sufficient funds to pay out those who have paid in. The State pension scheme, by contrast enjoys no such luxury. The (National Insurance) contributions simply disappear into a pot of money that is used for all manner of things including proper pensions for those who have contributed and "pensions" (that is, retirement age benefits) for those who have not. Furthermore there is no direct relationship between contributions and benefits (in fact, in some respects the relationship in inverse - the less you pay in the more you get out).
When determining the sustainability of the State pension scheme those who have made little or no contribution to the fund should be separated from the calculations. The State pension scheme (for those who have made the necessary contributions) is absolutely sustainable and in fact enjoys a surplus. What is not sustainable is to pay a “pension” to people who have not paid enough to earn it.
The best solution of all would be to allow workers to opt out of the State pension scheme entirely (i.e. to be excused NI Contributions if they so wish) and to use those funds to invest themselves. This way they would not have to sustain non-contributors.
Or is this a bit too radical?
@NJ We are already in a situation where insufficient numbers of people make any kind of adequate planning for their future pension requirements - and you want to offer even more people an "opt-out" clause from any kind of future planning responsibility? Does not sound a particularly sensible idea to me.
I do agree with you that the State Pension could be likened to Ponzi Scheme ( with, of course, some crucial and significant differences), and that with the changing population demographic -the ageing population- the unhypothecated nature of the NI scheme is a cause for concern, but allowing people to opt -out of the scheme just makes the whole situation much, much worse.
I am not clever enough to think of a suitable, workable alternative, but one is definitely needed, and soon, too.
I do agree with you that the State Pension could be likened to Ponzi Scheme ( with, of course, some crucial and significant differences), and that with the changing population demographic -the ageing population- the unhypothecated nature of the NI scheme is a cause for concern, but allowing people to opt -out of the scheme just makes the whole situation much, much worse.
I am not clever enough to think of a suitable, workable alternative, but one is definitely needed, and soon, too.
Yes you can already opt out to a limited degree, TTT, but only out of the additional State Pension scheme (which is soon to be abolished anyway).
It’s not quite like that, Gromit. (By the way, although you may be right, I don’t recall saying anywhere that I don’t want to fund the NHS or State Education. What I do want is to see my cash that is directed to those schemes spent wisely. It isn’t, but that’s another story ).
Those opting out entirely from the State pension scheme would not, of course, enjoy its benefits. They would be free to invest those funds themselves (and probably receive a far better deal). But neither would they be paying for those who have made no contributions (but who still receive the maximum payments). If it’s called a pension scheme then payments should only be made to those who have contributed. In the same way I don’t expect my occupational pension scheme to make payments to non-contributors. The reason I think this is important is that much play is made of the fact that about 50% of welfare spending goes to pay State pensions. My argument is that a large amount of those payments are made to people who have made little or no contribution and are not, in fact, in receipt of a pension at all but receive retirement age State benefits. But when State pensioners’ payments are in jeopardy (not that they are - apparently - at the moment) it is the payments to all pensioners - including those who have paid well over the odds during their working life - which are under the microscope. In fact it is being continually suggested that "rich" pensioners (who have probably paid in the most to the State scheme) should receive less than those who have paid in nothing.
The government can pay who it likes what it likes but they should not call retirement age benefit’s a “pension”. Furthermore, only genuine State pensions should be subject to the sort of protection such as Mr Cameron’s “triple lock”. Retirement age benefits would be subject to the same jeopardy as working age benefits.
As far as even further imperilling those who have made insufficient funding for their retirement goes, my opt out scheme would only be available to those who can show that they are already making adequate arrangements of their own (as the partial opt out scheme works at present - it is only available to those who belong to a recognised occupational scheme). Those who at present make no arrangements whatsoever (who would not be affected by my plan) can still be paid by the State when they reach retirement age. But it would not be a pension.
It’s not quite like that, Gromit. (By the way, although you may be right, I don’t recall saying anywhere that I don’t want to fund the NHS or State Education. What I do want is to see my cash that is directed to those schemes spent wisely. It isn’t, but that’s another story ).
Those opting out entirely from the State pension scheme would not, of course, enjoy its benefits. They would be free to invest those funds themselves (and probably receive a far better deal). But neither would they be paying for those who have made no contributions (but who still receive the maximum payments). If it’s called a pension scheme then payments should only be made to those who have contributed. In the same way I don’t expect my occupational pension scheme to make payments to non-contributors. The reason I think this is important is that much play is made of the fact that about 50% of welfare spending goes to pay State pensions. My argument is that a large amount of those payments are made to people who have made little or no contribution and are not, in fact, in receipt of a pension at all but receive retirement age State benefits. But when State pensioners’ payments are in jeopardy (not that they are - apparently - at the moment) it is the payments to all pensioners - including those who have paid well over the odds during their working life - which are under the microscope. In fact it is being continually suggested that "rich" pensioners (who have probably paid in the most to the State scheme) should receive less than those who have paid in nothing.
The government can pay who it likes what it likes but they should not call retirement age benefit’s a “pension”. Furthermore, only genuine State pensions should be subject to the sort of protection such as Mr Cameron’s “triple lock”. Retirement age benefits would be subject to the same jeopardy as working age benefits.
As far as even further imperilling those who have made insufficient funding for their retirement goes, my opt out scheme would only be available to those who can show that they are already making adequate arrangements of their own (as the partial opt out scheme works at present - it is only available to those who belong to a recognised occupational scheme). Those who at present make no arrangements whatsoever (who would not be affected by my plan) can still be paid by the State when they reach retirement age. But it would not be a pension.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.