Rupert_Baehr Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 It would rather beg the question of how the very small number of working age people when the target was achieved were supposed to care for and support the large number of elderly people that would make up most of that 30 million. Probably the same way that they looked after the aged 100 years ago. Adult children would rear their young and look after their parents. Those who did not have children would have to rely on the money they had saved (money they didn't have to spend to rear those children) to pay somebody to look after them in old age. The country would have sufficient agricultural land to support its population without importing food and - particularly if the forecast reduction in use of agrochemicals and mechanisation was to occur - there would be an increase in the number of low-skilled agricultural jobs available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
retep Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 As BF has pointed out the bogus colleges offering non-existent courses were the targets of the clampdown. You really should do a little research before making ill-informed comments. Still going on about vested interests with no comment on your own hypocrisy in using MigrationWatch data to substantiate your own point of view I see. Surely if the data the University used is unreliable when applying your own strict criteria, then so is MigrationWatch's? ---------- Post added 14-03-2013 at 16:12 ---------- Big earner, EU students vanish without repaying millions in loans to study in British universities - and UK taxpayers are picking up the bill Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297951/EU-students-disappear-repaying-millions-loans-study-British-universities--UK-taxpayers-picking-bill.html#ixzz2ORka4guD Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Probably the same way that they looked after the aged 100 years ago. Adult children would rear their young and look after their parents. Those who did not have children would have to rely on the money they had saved (money they didn't have to spend to rear those children) to pay somebody to look after them in old age. There wouldn't be sufficient working adults to do that. The country would have sufficient agricultural land to support its population without importing food and - particularly if the forecast reduction in use of agrochemicals and mechanisation was to occur - there would be an increase in the number of low-skilled agricultural jobs available. Great, so the vastly fewer working age adults can now work in low paid manual labour if they like. But there the massively top heavy population requires expensive medical care, pensions paying, and support. None of which is possible due to the reduced workforce, reduced tax base and reduced number of people available to work in the care industry. 100 years ago is as far as I know not a parallel situation at all, massive population reduction as proposed causes an inversion of the age pyramid, that hasn't happened in recorded history, certainly not in the last century. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikem8634 Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Big earner, EU students vanish without repaying millions in loans to study in British universities - and UK taxpayers are picking up the bill Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297951/EU-students-disappear-repaying-millions-loans-study-British-universities--UK-taxpayers-picking-bill.html#ixzz2ORka4guD Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Another rubbish link to data presented by biased people with a vested interest in demonising the EU. I haven't actually read the article but I still know it's rubbish. Get the point? Why do you not apply the same criteria to your own evidence as you do to the evidence presented by others? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Big earner, EU students vanish without repaying millions in loans to study in British universities - and UK taxpayers are picking up the bill Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2297951/EU-students-disappear-repaying-millions-loans-study-British-universities--UK-taxpayers-picking-bill.html#ixzz2ORka4guD Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook More fool the British authorities for accepting these students,and not pursuing them for the debts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 Probably the same way that they looked after the aged 100 years ago. Adult children would rear their young and look after their parents. Those who did not have children would have to rely on the money they had saved (money they didn't have to spend to rear those children) to pay somebody to look after them in old age... There wouldn't be sufficient working adults to do that. Why wouldn't there be sufficient adults of working age to look after their own parents? Great, so the vastly fewer working age adults can now work in low paid manual labour if they like. From what I've read on this forum and elsewhere, there is no shortage of people who are poorly educated, unskilled, or who have skills which are not attractive to employers the UK. Those people are competing for a shrinking number of low-skilled jobs. If they are unwilling or unable to obtain the skills and qualifications they would need to obtain and keep well-paid, highly-skilled jobs then somehow they must be found work which they can do. There is, however, a shortage of well-educated highly-skilled people and employers are having to import suitably-qualified people to fill the jobs they have on offer. Migration is a two way street and both the trains which pass through the Channel Tunnel and the Channel Ferries operate in a Southbound as well as a Northbound direction. Most immigrants who come to the UK do so with the intention of 'bettering their lot'. If they do that by earning money, paying taxes and contributing positively to society then they should be made very welcome. I certainly was. You appear to be arguing that "It is important that we increase the number of people in the country so that there are more people to support the elderly." That argument is flawed! Those people coming into the country can only support the elderly if they get jobs, pay taxes and contribute to society. If they don't manage to get jobs (either because there are no jobs available or because they can't or won't do the jobs which are available) they do not help to support the elderly, but rather take money out of the pot which supports the elderly and all the other people in need. Irrespective of whether they contribute positively (and I accept that most do) they place an additional load on an already crowded country (and England is now the most densely-populated country in Europe and one of the most densely-populated countries in the World) A reduction in population to 30 or 40 million would be possible - but it would take a long time. Probably until the end of the century. When the population of the UK was 38 million (in about 1900) was there a shortage of skilled people to do the work? There was no shortage of manual labourers, nor was there a shortage of jobs for them. But there the massively top heavy population requires expensive medical care, pensions paying, and support. None of which is possible due to the reduced workforce, reduced tax base and reduced number of people available to work in the care industry. Why? If young adults look after their children and look after their parents (as they did for many years before anybody even thought about a 'cradle-to-grave Welfare State') the demand for services would be reduced greatly. Pensions are a problem. - but that problem was caused by the original operators of the Welfare State and continued by subsequent governments who would send you or me to prison should we get caught trying to operate a Ponzi scheme, but have no qualms in doing so themselves. We have already been told that future generations will have to provide their own pensions and will, presumably, have to pay the pensions of those who retire between now and about 2050. The pension problem is here already and importing a lot of extra people isn't going to make it go away. Healthcare is another problem - a problem which may well confuse outsiders. I read (on this forum and elsewhere) about how 'the UK has the Best NHS in the World.' That may well be the case. (AFAIK, none of the other health services calls itself the NHS, so it probably has the only NHS in the world.) If you are happy with the NHS, then I am pleased for you. Then I read a thread complaining about having to wait for NHS services (or complaining about something else.) What do you expect? 'Eat all, drink all, pay nowt' isn't confined solely to Yorkshire (and it's the phrase which goes through my mind when I hear people moaning about the NHS.) The Germans pay 12.5% of their gross income (starting with the first Euro earned) for healthcare. They have problems funding their healthcare on 12.5%, so the figure is continually 'up for review'. The Brits pay 12%. But that's not 12% for healthcare - Oh no! - The 12% is supposed to pay for healthcare, care in old age, old age pension, various allowances, unemployment benefits and the whole host of other 'goodies' provided by the Welfare State. If the Germans can't pay for healthcare with an income of 12.5% of national wages, how can the Brits pay for everything with a mere 12%? You get what you pay for and if you don't pay enough, then you will have to wait a long time for what you do get and you may well find that many services and treatments are unavailable. There is indeed a problem with healthcare funding and that problem is likely to get worse. IMO, it's got less to do with the number of immigrants (or the 'lack' of immigrants) and more to do with the unwillingness of the British Government to charge a proper and adequate rate for healthcare and to ring-fence that money for the funding of the NHS. Why would the population be 'massively top-heavy'? A number of places (I live in one during the winter) have deliberately set about attracting retired people, because: 1. They pay taxes for education but they don't take many places in schools. 2. They require services. All sorts of services. - They don't paint the outsides of their houses, they don't do much DIY, they spend a lot of money and time on healthcare, they spend money in shops (Albeit they probably don't spend a hell of a lot of money on the latest mobile phone.) They provide a hell of a lot of jobs. 100 years ago is as far as I know not a parallel situation at all, massive population reduction as proposed causes an inversion of the age pyramid, that hasn't happened in recorded history, certainly not in the last century. The population reduction will occur amongst all age groups - old as well as young. You don't have to go back even 100 years to find massive changes in demographic pyramids in a range of countries. Consider the changes in many countries (including the UK) between 1945 and (about) 1955. Those changes were painful, but (most) people survived them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted March 24, 2013 Share Posted March 24, 2013 An article here about a woman who feels 'like a stranger where I live' many other people on here have also shared the same sentiment, so our inner cities isolating the indigenous populous? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9831912/I-feel-like-a-stranger-where-I-live.html I think you must mean 'populace'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 Probably the same way that they looked after the aged 100 years ago. Adult children would rear their young and look after their parents. Those who did not have children would have to rely on the money they had saved (money they didn't have to spend to rear those children) to pay somebody to look after them in old age. The country would have sufficient agricultural land to support its population without importing food and - particularly if the forecast reduction in use of agrochemicals and mechanisation was to occur - there would be an increase in the number of low-skilled agricultural jobs available. 100 years ago, the way the aged would be cared for if without any resources or family to fall back on, would have had to throw themselves on the mercy of the parish dole and/ or the workhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gnvqsos Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 100 years ago, the way the aged would be cared for if without any resources or family to fall back on, would have had to throw themselves on the mercy of the parish dole and/ or the workhouse. By 1913 a Liberal government had created a national insurance system and a pension system,removing local responsibility for care of the poor.Therefore workhouses declined rapidly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plain Talker Posted March 25, 2013 Share Posted March 25, 2013 By 1913 a Liberal government had created a national insurance system and a pension system,removing local responsibility for care of the poor.Therefore workhouses declined rapidly. You will find that workhouses weren't officially abolished until after the National Insurance act of 1947. And the way this government are going, it won't be too long before they are re-established. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.