AIBU The global fertility crisis is the biggest crisis humanity has ever faced?

We already do pay for it through taxation in countries with socialized medicine. Except for the wealthy ones, elderly people have paid their fair share for health care over their lifetimes. It's not unrealistic at all to expect that they get the care they need because they paid into the system. Taxing the wealthy at the rates they should be paying and eliminating loopholes is the answer to the eldercare problem, not leaving people without care.

OP who are you?

Please tell us a bit about yourself please?

Seriously I think how we are causing other animals to become extinct, how we are killing our planet, how we are blowing each other up, these are all bigger things to focus on.

You are suggesting the elderly should contribute more and take less out.
That money.

What money? I don't follow.

If I'm in a very gloomy mood then I think it may go all cultural revolution and the young will roam the country, killing off the old and rich - and likely anyone else that gets in their way.

I think we ought to do something before it reaches that stage.

Where will the money come from when the current group of well off elderly people have died (or been put down when no longer economically viable)? * *@BoldGreenDreamer.

Well, if you agree that current retirees and the next generation of retirees need to make some sacrifices (to avoid an even bigger crisis being passed down the line), then I'm not sure what we're arguing about.

I'm not advocating for sudden pulling the rug out from the feet of any generation, but we need to make phased changes on a fairly aggressive timetable.

Well, yes. Im 30, out of my friendship group of 6 only two are mothers. We all wanted children at one stage but the cost of everything is the main deterrent. Can’t afford nursery, can’t afford for one parent to stay home. Don’t want to sacrifice a basic decent life to live in almost poverty just to bring a child into a world where there is a constant threat of nuclear war and climate change is at its worst.

I'm entirely up for it, but it doesn't solve the problem. Countries with more progressive taxation have the same issues: low birth rates, population decline and an increased spend on retirement-age benefits.

I do think more progressive taxation would be a huge societal good, it's just that available evidence suggests it does little or nothing for the aging population and demographic crisis.

And what is the “fair share” for the wealthy? The top 10% already pay over 60% of all tax, while generally receiving fewer benefits. At the end of the day you need to keep the support of the net contributors.

Oh no , how terrible…

It will be a huge issue for the next few generations.

After that, in the long term, it’s good news.

Is your personal level of comfort really that much more important than that of your kids or grandkids? Is there nothing to be said for sharing the burden?
I don't think anyone here has said they don't want to share the burden.
Many of us want to and always have.

I'm retired. I absolutely think the WFA should be scrapped for all but the poorest.
When I stopped work I downsized to a tiny cottage, volunteer for two charities and am part of environmental organisations in my town. I keep healthy as possible. I paid tax and saved into a private pension for 40 years. I've tried to do everything I can not to be a burden and to contribute.
I don't have kids but I do care hugely about society and the future of the environment and for the children growing now.

Let's say everything you posted is entirely correct, and would have prevented or mitigated the issue...doesn't really help, does it? The next generation of retirees cant be supported through generous national reserves of accumulated hindsight.

Re. immigration - its not a viable long term solution, given that population decline is a global issue. Its certainly helped postpone the worst of the effect (which is why the UK isnt in the same level of crisis as, say, South Korea) but we cant go on importing more and more immigrants every year (and I don't mean because of dislike of high immigration, I mean because the well of working-age immigrants will run dry).

Funny how many people never do get around to suggesting that, isn't it. It's a fascinating social phenomenon how people tend to protect to the wealthy from paying their fair share.

For the future of mankind and the planet this can only be a good thing

far too many of us!

however I accept there is a serious economic discussion to be had about how to pay pensions when there are far less working age people to fund them

We have 5 and constant comments about having too many. You just can’t win can you.

To be fair, humanity can do with fucking off so that Earth can get a recharge .
And then she can give out the invitations for humankind as or if she wishes.

I did say it was not a pleasant option!

However, I do stand by the point that at the extreme end of the scale. I loved my grandmother. However, for the last 10 years of her life, her quality of life was so poor that, if it was an option I would have sadly, but kindly called time on it, as would have every member of her family. For her sake primarily, but the state’s finances would have also benefited. The grandmother I knew and loved died in 2009, just over ten years before her funeral.

She had dementia for about 15 years. The first few she still had an active life, and good social interactions, and I think (hope) she got joy from it. But by the end? She had no idea who anyone was. She couldn’t read/watch tv/hold any sort of conversation with anyone because she couldn’t hold anything in her mind for more than a moment or two. She became angry, and abusive, with moments of pure fear. Her previous, true, self would have been horrified. She was in a lot of pain from conditions that weren’t life threatening but nonetheless made her final few years a misery. What was she getting out of it? I would be arrested for keeping my dog in that state. She moved in with family so they could look after her but eventually had to move into care. Within a few years the proceeds of her house sale/life savings were gone. The state was paying for her care for years. I don’t think the spending all that money was in her interest or the tax payers. To me, that’s a very clear cut situation.

I appreciate there are very murky grey areas- weighing up the cost/quality of life benefits and balancing the wants of the individual vs the whole population when trying to share limited resources. Obviously if a person is paying privately from their own money then it’s entirely their decision. But in the case where the person’s quality of life is gone, they are in pain and not getting better but not immediately terminal, it doesn’t matter how much the state spends looking after them, the inevitable is coming. I don’t think it’s in the interests of the individual, the state or the younger generations to pour huge amounts of limited resources into dragging that out.

@Bridport You're making a lot of assumptions.

Disabled people can and do contribute to society in many ways including working and being net contributors - in fact if there are more resources available for young people then we may create more opportunities for young disabled people too.

However there may be a limit to the resources we give to any one individual - in the same way NICE analyse the cost of a new drug we need to have limits - do we give millions to one and let 100 suffer?

You also assume that everyone who is retired has worked and contributed - maybe they have because there are many ways to contribute and maybe they have not - they may well have actually been someone who has damaged society and cost them a huge amount of money - criminals and unpleasant people also get old and retire.

People are unwilling to adjust to a lower standard of living, though. They want to punt an even-bigger crisis onto the next generation.

Again, even means testing the winter fuel allowance was so unpopular it needed to be rolled back.

People wont make the personal sacrifies need for a gradual adjustment, they'd rather let the whole system collapse (expecting that they wont be around to see it).

I was listening to a recent episode of The New Agents podcast where they were stating the amount the state pours into supporting the pensioners compare to supporting the children, and frankly, it's shocking! I can't remember the exact numbers but it was something like the budget for the pensioners is 3 times the budget for children and young people, and the budget for pensioners has also increased dramatically in the last 2 decades, while for children it barely moved up. 💔

They want the right kind of babies. The white ones....

(ETA that I do not share their views, obviously).

A conspiracy theory of mine is that the reason assisted dying/euthanasia has been legalised in so many countries recently is precisely to deal with the lopsided demographics and lower the pension burden.

The hard decision should already have been made.

They should have included investment in business, training, education, facilities, infrastructure so that work can be more efficient and effective. That would mean more output and greater economic growth with less workers.

Taxing business and the richest more...making businesses pay more in tax and less in dividends.

Another answer would be to open up free movement with our nearest neighbours. EU immigrants were generally younger and net contributors to the UK.