What a fun, fun, argument

Britons may have to work longer if immigration is cut in the wake of Brexit, according to a warning from the Government’s pension adviser.

John Cridland, a former CBI director reviewing the state pension age for the Government, said the “Brexit Factor” had made the future of the state pension uncertain.

The Government’s decision on pension changes, due in May, will be informed by Mr Cridland’s report to be published one month earlier.

Probably a true one too. Given the low rate at which we indigenes reproduce there aren’t all that many young people to pay for the old. So, it’s necessary to import more younger and more fertile in order to pay for the old.

Or, pay the old less or for a shorter period of time.

But the real point here is that governments have lied for the past century and more. The way they set up the pensions system was not sustainable, that’s exactly what we’re being told here.

30 comments on “What a fun, fun, argument

  1. So, it’s necessary to import more younger and more fertile in order to pay for the old.

    Except that far too many immigrants are sub-literates who go on welfare and only cost the rest of us though the dole, higher costs of security in the streets and at home, prison, the costs associated with being the victims of crime and so on.

    It is necessary for the socially useful sections of society to reproduce. Introducing even more Morlocks will not save a single Eloi.

  2. Or structure our tax and benefit system so that a replacement level of children rather than a geometrically growing level can support us. If I’d wanted to join a multi-level marketing scheme I’d have signed up for Amway.

  3. Having lots of kids is too expensive if you are not on handouts.

    Reverse that along with the “She can have it all” shite that sees lots of women wasting their best childbearing years on lousy office jobs.

    Also I will already have to reach 68 to get the state pension for which they have been stealing from me for decades. Any twat who thinks that I am going to accept that AND having my nation turned into Dindustan as well has another think coming.

  4. Yeah, this is nonsense.

    Hannan’s been all over this. This isn’t about stopping people coming here to work. The pre-EU system with EEC countries was that you produced a letter showing that you had a job and as a result, you could come and work here. And there was no public objection to the scale of immigration when that was the situation.

    We simply do not need Poles and Spaniards staffing shops and cafes. Pushing a button on the espresso machine in Starbucks is not a hard-to-get skill, and the net contribution by such people is probably negative after everything is considered.

  5. Bloke in Wiltshire – “We simply do not need Poles and Spaniards staffing shops and cafes. Pushing a button on the espresso machine in Starbucks is not a hard-to-get skill, and the net contribution by such people is probably negative after everything is considered.”

    The Poles are not the problem and everyone loves Manuel. The problem is the Muslims and Africans.

    We may as well be honest about it.

  6. The birth rate is even lower in eastern europe isn’t it? So EU wide, free movement makes the problem worse.

  7. BiW: “We simply do not need Poles and Spaniards staffing shops and cafes. Pushing a button on the espresso machine in Starbucks is not a hard-to-get skill…”

    No, but being polite to customers and accommodating to your manager is, at least, for today’s cossetted snowflakes.

  8. Only a tiny handful voted Leave in hopes of ending all immigration – that’s just a Remoaner fabulation to explain their own loss. Ending uncontrolled immigration OTOH …

  9. Ending uncontrolled immigration OTOH …

    And the actual ability to deport people who we don’t want here, such as those here illegally, those who have convictions for criminal acts, etc etc.

  10. Britons may have to work longer if immigration is cut in the wake of Brexit

    You never know, but a few of the currently unemployed 1.6m people might start working to replace them.

  11. That’s just tosh that is. (“Sherpa to aisle 4 please”)

    The amount of people remains the same, the GDP produced by that number of people remains the same, the total amount of wages remains the same.
    Fewer people working means each working person gets paid more so each working person contributes a higher amount.
    A Starbucks coffee will cost 75p (cuz a robot presses the button) whereas a plumber (expensive to automate) will cost £120 per hour.

    Tales of woe and disaster are just that, tales (also called fake news)

  12. May should take John Cridland’s report and hand it to Edward Timpson – minister for children and say … ‘do your job’.

  13. SMFS,

    “The Poles are not the problem and everyone loves Manuel. The problem is the Muslims and Africans.”

    I’ve nothing against Poles as a people. I do have a problem with this nonsense that they are critical to our economy. To be clear: anyone working in a cafe is probably not a net tax contributor after you take away all the costs of everything they get from the state. And that applies to Britons as much as Poles. The difference is that we already have Britons, and they’re our people.

  14. The pension Ponzi scam is a horrid one. OAPs got 2.5% under the triple lock, which is Sweet FA per person, but multiplied by some millions comes to a lot of money.

    Another poster somewhere (I forget where, it might even have been me) pointed out that if you were still working post pension age or had made proper arrangements for your retirement, you could see 40% of your state pension immediately handed back.

    However, if you had always been on benefits, you would go into retirement never having paid a penny in, but getting all sorts of supplements and doing as well as you ever did.

  15. A Starbucks coffee will cost 75p (cuz a robot presses the button)

    No, it will still cost £3 because mugs will be happy to pay and the landlord/council will still gouge the shop for all the economic rent it can grab.

  16. It’s only true in a misleading way.

    We don’t want immigrants. That would include a significant number of people who either would be on welfare or who would be so low paid they would produce no increase in tax revenue.

    The “pension problem” is insufficient people generating tax money to be spent on pensions versus too many people drawing on the same pool.

    So what you want, surely, is managed immigration where you allow in people who will or are likely to contribute financially ?

    (Not that it fixes the problem. Unless you throw the immigrants out at 65 or whatever and replace them with another lot all it does is shove the problem down a generation)

  17. John, there is a back street abortionist who would love abortions to be stopped, he’d have no end of customers in this country rather than just his current workload when he’s here.
    Stopping abortions does not prevent abortions happening.

  18. The arguments forwarded to this post are predicated on immigrants being net recipients of benefits. In fact thess arguments rely on that. So if those young immigrants are not net recipients… ?

    So what are the facts? The real facts; not the SMFS Thick.Racist.Prick facts. And the evidence? Do young immigrants make a fiscal contribution or do they take from the state?

  19. And what exactly is wrong with asking people who can work to do a bit of work for their living instead of leaching off the working population? What gives older people the right to sit on their arses and spunge from the young?

  20. The “pension problem” is insufficient people generating tax money to be spent on pensions versus too many people drawing on the same pool.

    And this also goes a long way to explaining the current wailing in the Progressive media about how this generation will be the first one to be poorer than their parents. I’m not convinced this is true, but demographics can explain why it might be the case, and not globalisation/neo-liberalism blah blah.

    Anyway, when people talk about the “current generation”, which one do they mean?

  21. When the referendum campaign was in full swing I found this academic paper from 2000 that I found interesting: Who’s afraid of low support ratios? a UK response to the UN Population Division report on ‘Replacement Migration’ (pdf)

    Conclusions

    There is no ‘solution’ to the problem of population ageing and cannot be one short of high rates of population growth or mass age-specific euthanasia. The answers to the two questions posed in the subtitle of the UN Report (can immigration solve problems of population decline and population ageing) are quite simple. They are respectively:

    1. yes, if you really think you want to, and
    2. no, except at rates of immigration so high that they would generate economically and environmentally unsustainable population growth rates and permanently and radically change the cultural and ethnic composition of the host population: ‘replacement migration’, indeed.

  22. @Ironman

    The facts are: some do; some don’t (equally true of people who are 23rd generation Brits, of course). What many of us would appreciate is the ability to make some determination of which is more likely to be the case prior to admitting them.

  23. “In 50 years, every street in London will be buried under nine feet of manure.”

    said The Times in 1894

    and yet

    necessity is the mother of invention, and the invention in this case was that of motor transport.

    By 1912, this seemingly insurmountable problem had been resolved.

  24. Chris Miller

    “What many of us would appreciate is the ability to make some determination of which is more likely to be the case prior to admitting them.”

    Not many on this blog, our minds are already made up.

  25. “What many of us would appreciate is the ability to make some determination of which is more likely to be the case prior to admitting them.”

    A good start might be to look at where they come from. One might look at Japan, for example and think “good place, we need some of what they’ve got”. One might look at Bangladesh and think differently.

    UK immigration policy should start with “no goatfuckers” and take it from there.

  26. If only there was a market system to determine the numbers who come to the UK to work from the EEA, rather than having some incompetent government committee with oversight of the selection mechanism and running it at tax payer expense.
    Er, hang on, there is one.
    We just need to keep the criminals out.

  27. “Britons may have to work longer if immigration is cut in the wake of Brexit”

    BUT THAT’S WHAT WE VOTED FOR!!!! That I work X hours a week instead of that Lithuanian chap working X hours a week.

  28. Bongo,

    ‘We just need to keep the criminals out.’

    No, some of those with past misdemeanors might have learned their lesson (for what might be trivial youthful offences).
    What I want is the ability to deport those foreigners that commit UK offences whilst they are here.

    Within the EU there is freedom to live, work and offend, had TPTB addressed the last of these issues, EU membership would not be a problem. (ie. freedom for first two is withdrawn if you can’t behave).
    It’s either deport foreign crims or deport domestic crims to wherever we import foreigners from, we have enough crims to satisfy demand, we don’t need to import anymore (despite what serco says).

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.