MrSmith Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Not very logical, since that idea wouldn't even come close to being a solution. You have a habit of posting rubbish. A child born in 1960 could expect to live for 52 years. Today, the figure is 69 years. By the middle of the century, it is likely to be higher still, well over 70. At the same time, people are having fewer children. In 1960, there were 33 births for every 1,000 people. The number has fallen to 20, and it is expected to decline further as people in the developing world have fewer children. Insults don't make you appear smart; they make you appear stupid, especially when you are wrong again. Why do we need a young population to care for the healthy aging population when the healthy aging population can just work longer and care for themselves for longer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rubydazzler Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 What have you done since then, mate. Hope all is well. mel has lived an interesting life ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balpin Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 mel has lived an interesting life ... I bet he has. Most of it on the interest of thine and mine tax I bet. Armchair worker it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 Insults don't make you appear smart; they make you appear stupid, especially when you are wrong again. Why do we need a young population to care for the healthy aging population when the healthy aging population can just work longer and care for themselves for longer? What would the entire fiscal revenue be and how would it come near to paying the pay-as-you-go pensions? How much longer do you want people to work, ten years, twenty years. Thirty years extra would contribute less than 5% of the contributions needed. I'm not insulting you, I'm, pointing out that your solution is laughable, it would not come anywhere near solving anything, read the link, look at the maths. It's not insulting to say you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I'm not sure what problems the OP thinks can be solved by increasing population. They can be delayed, for sure, until the newly-increased population grows old - but then it'll be a much bigger problem than it is right now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melthebell Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 I bet he has. Most of it on the interest of thine and mine tax I bet. Armchair worker it seems. tch jealousy gets you nowhere, fyi ive been working on a crappy wage like the rest of you for the past 7 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 There are currently 4 people of working age supporting each pensioner in Britain, by 2035 this number is expected to fall to 2.5, and by 2050 to just 2. The baby boomers are retiring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 What would the entire fiscal revenue be and how would it come near to paying the pay-as-you-go pensions? What pensions? Older people will still be working, not drawing a pension, so the pensions bill would collapse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 What would the entire fiscal revenue be and how would it come near to paying the pay-as-you-go pensions? How much longer do you want people to work, ten years, twenty years. Thirty years extra would contribute less than 5% of the contributions needed. I'm not insulting you, I'm, pointing out that your solution is laughable, it would not come anywhere near solving anything, read the link, look at the maths. It's not insulting to say you haven't got a clue what you're talking about. Again. You are insulting, it’s just as easy for me to say what you write is laughable, and based on your previous assault on my posts you are pig ignorant and rude. But then if we all acted like you, there would be no discussion just an exchange of insults. So if you must criticise a post do it constructively, insulting people because you think something different doesn’t make you right, it just make you rude and ignorant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted February 3, 2012 Share Posted February 3, 2012 You are insulting, it’s just as easy for me to say what you write is laughable, and based on your previous assault on my posts you are pig ignorant and rude. But then if we all acted like you, there would be no discussion just an exchange of insults. So if you must criticise a post do it constructively, insulting people because you think something different doesn’t make you right, it just make you rude and ignorant. What are your figures please? How would extending working lives solve the problem? What would be raised against the shortfall? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.