Not since 1971 have the British had enough kids to increase the population

[chem1st]

Err,no, you can't.

 

edit: need to check definition.

[ferno]

 

You just say your self-employed or employed in the UK.

 

You just say your self-employed what?

 

Look at the link, you cannot claim benefits without having worked, it cannot be done, it's a BNP myth.

[callippo]

it might be an idea if somebody pointed out that the fertility rate in the UK is higher than anywhere else in Europe except Iceland, Albania, and France.

[callippo]

ring up 0800 055 66 88 and have your benefits begin to accrue before you have even stepped onto the plane.

 

have you ever tried ringing up 0800 numbers outside the UK? Even with a +44 prefix, they don't go through.

[chem1st]

it might be an idea if somebody pointed out that the fertility rate in the UK is higher than anywhere else in Europe except Iceland, Albania, and France.

 

Thank you for bringing the thread back on topic

 

And even though we have one of the higher fertility rates wrt Europe.

 

It has not been above replacement level for over 41 years.

 

The natives are literally dying out due to the lack of breeding. We might not be in as bad a position as the Italians. But we can't replenish ourselves.

[Rupert_Baehr]

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.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11281670

 

"You have a habit of posting rubbish." You don't do so badly yourself and I suspect that the gentleman who wrote that article for the BBC News may not have had his thinking head on when he did so.

 

He's using global statistics (which most certainly do NOT apply in the developed world) to quantify regional problems.

 

How many of the 3rd world residents (the people who brought the life expectancy down to 52 in 1960) live in a country which has any form of pension? It's irrelevant (as far as pensions go) whether they die at 52 or 102 - they aren't getting any pension if their state doesn't pay one. (Unless, of course, they come to the UK )

 

Many countries have, or will have, problems with funding pensions. Those problems may be similar - but they are not all the same.

 

In the UK (the place which pays British Pensions) Life expectancy for a male was:

 

1901-------------45

1908-------------50. Old Age Pensions introduced, between 1s and 5s per week, payable to people aged 70yrs or more.

 

1951-------------67 (Pension payable at age 65, you could expect to draw it for 2 years.)

1971-------------69.5 (You could now expect to draw it for 4.5 years.)

1991-------------74 (9 years on a pension)

2011-------------78

 

If the government was to say "We are going to set the retirement age at such a number that the average male will draw a state pension for 4 years" then the retirement age (this year) would be 74. - A far better deal then the first pensioners got - They had to exceed their life expectancy by 20 years before they got a pension.

 

It's not quite as simple as that, however. People are living longer, but they're (in many cases) not staying healthy for longer and in some cases they're 'burned out' (or at least consider that they can no longer do their job) at 65 - or less.

 

If the retirement age increases and a person is no longer fit enough to do a job some years before he would have reached the retirement age, what then? Do you allow that person to retire early? - Or do you find him a less-demanding job at the same pay?

 

Some countries have 'ring-fenced' pension schemes. The money the government takes from you to provide a pension goes into a pot which provides pensions - and nothing else.

 

Others have smaller state pensions, but encourage citizens to save for their own.

 

In the UK, the money the government takes from people 'for pensions' goes into the general tax pot. They can spend it as they like and given that they do not ring-fence the money you pay in, why should they try to put a fence around the money going out? Why not simply take money from the general tax pot to pay for pensions?

 

There will have to be some changes to the way in which pensions are funded. Those changes are likely to hit those who are pensioners (or who will be during the next 15-20 years) and those about to enter the work force, or who have been in it for a few years.

 

Old Age Pensions may not increase by very much over the next 20 years.

 

Those in the workforce may be required to pay taxes to support existing pensioners AND to put money aside to provide for their own pensions.

 

If you've got more than 20 years to go until you retire, you'd better start saving - and save as much as you can.

 

If you've got less than 20 years to go and you haven't already started saving, start now - and keep on good terms with your kids.

 

Over the past few years, more young adults have been living with their parents to a later age. In a few years time, the parents might start moving in with their children at an earlier age.

 

Multiple generations in the same house was not uncommon in the past; it might become more common in the future, too.

[alchresearch]

How many hours have you worked this week just to pay the rent?

 

Five. That good or bad?

[chem1st]

UK media now releasing articles that have the headline "baby boom".

 

Birth rate is still below replacement level, if it were not for immigration we would have a shrinking population. Hardly a baby boom.

 

The 42 year long baby bust continues!

[Happ Hazzard]

The idea that we need lots of kids to fund future pensions in the future is ludicrous in this day and age.

[JFKvsNixon]

The idea that we need lots of kids to fund future pensions in the future is ludicrous in this day and age.

 

So how do you believe that future pensions should be funded? Remember it's not just the pensions that need funding, health and social care will also need funding as well.