Anyone spot the problem with this article?

[Scott777]

Yes immigration adds to the population.
some (but not all) of the migrants will go back so fewer of the migrant workers will become OAPs than native born.
What is your problem with the population increasing? Why does it matter if the UK population is 68m or 72m?

You're really struggling with this.  Saying some migrants will go back is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT when we know what the population increase has been in the last 20 years, and it's not because of high birth rates, therefore it's immigrants who are not going back home.   Get it?  And still you gaslight by ignoring that it means we will eventually have that many more elderly migrants.  If it's 72M now, not 68M, then it will be 4M extra elderly people, who are migrants, in the long-term.  Which bit don't you get?

[Unlucky4Sum]

So you're saying they should be taxed even less than they already are? . .

No, read it again.  Differently is not necessarily less.  Some companies would pay more and some would pay less.  The latter being those that actually add net value to the UK instead of exploiting it.

[BeElBeeBub]

Everything you said here is irrelevant because you won't address my point, which is that we have an increasing population, not due to birth rates, but due to immigration, which means we will have more elderly people in the future.  I don't know, maybe your brain cannot comprehend time beyond the span of 20 years, of maybe you are expecting all the elderly migrants to disappear, fly to never never land or be abducted by aliens, but they have not been doing that in recent decades, which is why the population keeps growing.  The fact that you keep gaslighting suggests you have no answer.  Why not admit it?  Be stunning and brave.

You are obsessing with the population number.
Yes immigration adds to the population. 
But that is besides the point. We need workers now (and in the next few decades) to avert the worker/pensioner ratio. 

We have 2 choices, higher birthrates or higher immigration. 

Both will increase the population but birthrates won't address the worker ratio issue for a good 20 years or so, increaces the dependency burden now and still has the issue that those people will eventually age out too (or do only immigrants age?)

Immigration addresses the worker ratio now, doesn't come with the dependency burden and some (but not all) of the migrants will go back so fewer of the migrant workers will become OAPs than native born.

What is your problem with the population increasing? Why does it matter if the UK population is 68m or 72m? 

[Scott777]

The bit you quoted is 100% correct.

I'm not ignoring to increase from migration. I'm trying to explain why we need migration due to our UK born population distribution tilting towards older.

As for you argument about migtsts eventually becoming OAPs - yes and no.
Yes they do get older and if they stay eventually join the retired but there are 2 points around that
1) the point is to keep the ratio of workers to non workers from falling outside a workable band - the absolute number of people is less of an issue than the ratio
2) migrants are more likely to emigrate (and thus remove themselves from the oap pool) than non migrants.  Not every single migrant who arrives here stays here until they die. In fact a large number of those that have arrived recently are on time limited visas.

You are obsessed with the absolute number of people in the UK and ignoring the structure of our population

There are issues with absolute numbers but all of those are relatively easily fixable. The problems caused by structure are very hard.

Everything you said here is irrelevant because you won't address my point, which is that we have an increasing population, not due to birth rates, but due to immigration, which means we will have more elderly people in the future.  I don't know, maybe your brain cannot comprehend time beyond the span of 20 years, of maybe you are expecting all the elderly migrants to disappear, fly to never never land or be abducted by aliens, but they have not been doing that in recent decades, which is why the population keeps growing.  The fact that you keep gaslighting suggests you have no answer.  Why not admit it?  Be stunning and brave.

[BeElBeeBub]

"a birth rate of around 2.1 per female is about the level to keep a stable population (the 0.1 bit is to account for women who don't have children) that results in 2 children for every 2 adults. If the life expectancy doesn't change the population will remain stable."

It won't be true, no matter how much you repeat it.  You continue to ignore the population increase from migration, which I take to be gaslighting.

The bit you quoted is 100% correct.

I'm not ignoring to increase from migration. I'm trying to explain why we need migration due to our UK born population distribution tilting towards older. 

As for you argument about migtsts eventually becoming OAPs - yes and no. 
Yes they do get older and if they stay eventually join the retired but there are 2 points around that 
1) the point is to keep the ratio of workers to non workers from falling outside a workable band - the absolute number of people is less of an issue than the ratio
2) migrants are more likely to emigrate (and thus remove themselves from the oap pool) than non migrants.  Not every single migrant who arrives here stays here until they die. In fact a large number of those that have arrived recently are on time limited visas.

You are obsessed with the absolute number of people in the UK and ignoring the structure of our population

There are issues with absolute numbers but all of those are relatively easily fixable. The problems caused by structure are very hard. 

[Borg Refinery]

Why untrained? And since when does it need degree holders to trundle dirty washing around, clean floors, deliver meals, etc. Does it need more than a week to train support staff to make a bed, clean windows, dust rooms, etc...?

Does it take untrained 20 year olds to look after potentially violent Alzheimer's patients who's own families can't care for them despite years of having had to look after them, after having been forced to sell the house to fund their care?

Aren't old people already abused enough by violent, untrained and frankly asinine care staff in many cases? And you want to make the problem even worse whilst espousing supposed Labour values..?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKa9eoa23TQ

[Borg Refinery]

Not sure they should pay more but we tax companies more the more they give people decent jobs, we give them tax breaks when they make people redundant

So you're saying they should be taxed even less than they already are?

So Ireland should have given Apple 0.05% tax rates "because they give people decent jobs". Your treasured EU seems to disagree with that assessment, are they mistaken to do so?

we make it illegal for them to give the less able jobs at a fair wage .. [..]
And as a result we have 9.5 million working age people so called 'economically inactive'.  Bonkers.

What you're arguing for is an abolition of the minimum wage. And you're suggesting "the less able" are retarded and of low IQ when there's no proof that's the case particularly despite you making this argument many times before, many intelligent people with degrees end up being rejected from the Co-Op these days because they are in fact "over qualified", that's the kind of bizarre corporate insanity we're living in

And you seemingly want to make it even worse, while espousing supposed Labour values

and we tax profit when we should take revenue and dividends.

That would probably increase the amount of tax they pay, if you ONLY tax profit then you end up taxing them less

Are you sure your ideas are actually workable?

[Scott777]

A birth rate of around 2.1 per female is about the level to keep a stable population (the 0.1 bit is to account for women who don't have children) that results in 2 children for every 2 adults. If the life expectancy doesn't change the population will remain stable.

It won't be true, no matter how much you repeat it.  You continue to ignore the population increase from migration, which I take to be gaslighting.

Things that can help reduce this issue.

- Import workers aka immigration.

More gaslighting, as you completely ignored that in the long-term, this will mean more OAPs, so it's an eternal cycle.  Have you ever considered having a conversation with someone rather than with yourself?

[Unlucky4Sum]

Agreed, they should pay so much more and the recent EU ruling against Apple in Ireland is something I can commend the EU on.

The Irish don't know what to do with their windfall, after working hard as possible to help the rich evade tax and let them get away with whatever they want. But at least the Irish now have some more money to pay for things - like more tax breaks

Not sure they should pay more but we tax companies more the more they give people decent jobs, we give them tax breaks when they make people redundant, we make it illegal for them to give the less able jobs at a fair wage and we tax profit when we should take revenue and dividends.

And as a result we have 9.5 million working age people so called 'economically inactive'.  Bonkers.

[Borg Refinery]

The way we tax and regulate corporations that very much is true.  Because the way we do that is completely stupid. 

Agreed, they should pay so much more and the recent EU ruling against Apple in Ireland is something I can commend the EU on.

The Irish don't know what to do with their windfall, after working hard as possible to help the rich evade tax and let them get away with whatever they want. But at least the Irish now have some more money to pay for things - like more tax breaks

[Unlucky4Sum]

The problem with that is that corporations will not use it to improve people's lot in life, they will use it to enrich themselves and throw everyone on the dole . . 

The way we tax and regulate corporations that very much is true.  Because the way we do that is completely stupid.  

[Unlucky4Sum]

Baby boomers did  their bit to boost the population, which should have continued. We had three kids.
Our three kids have had an average of two kids. The average has risen from an all time low of 1.63 to about 1.9 in recent years.
Muhammed or variants are the top name choice for newborn boys. . . 

Less than 1 in 20 of new born boys  Latest ONS stats on names

[Unlucky4Sum]

Firstly, Cromwell didn't give a figure, he just said we have Brits unwilling to work, secondly, you can't possible know how many layabouts we actually have. Speaking to a friend of mine that works at the JobCentre, it isn't just a few.

Except he actually posted 'The problem is that we have Brits unwilling to get off their backsides and work,'

'The' (single definitive article)

[patman post]

I mean if you are happy to be in a care home staffed with untrained 20year olds who are only there to collect their benefits.....

Why untrained? And since when does it need degree holders to trundle dirty washing around, clean floors, deliver meals, etc. Does it need more than a week to train support staff to make a bed, clean windows, dust rooms, etc...?

[patman post]

18-24 is different regulations.

So your initial response was a lie.

You should have said "some NEETs" etc. Then you wouldn't have been wrong...