Who’s going to pay our pensions in 20-30years if the UK keeps its birth rate low and also restricts immigration?

I agree. How much does an endless supply of deliveroo drivers actually add to the economy? I would have thought the state massively subsidises a lot of these people.

l built my pension fund singlehanded. As a freelance writer, a successful one on financial parameters (I earned £50K in 1999 for eight months work). My earnings dipped a lot (fell off the cliff) once I had a child..But we considered our options and 20 years on, the options are not bad. Time and patience really really is very important.

Endless immigration especially unskilled or when they may need social housing and top up benefits

So he was born around 1930. No it wasn’t normal to retire at 50 in 1980. Far from it

The Government taking 40% would not encourage me to have more children, the opposite really.

Experts. Numbers. All that hard stuff. You know, facts.

which illustrates my previous post

Isn’t it a government’s job to forecast and plan for what’s needed for the country?

It is but I don't think much of the population actually wants to acknowledge the ageing population & related issues. I mean Reform are selling "lower taxes, lower immigration & improved public services" and people seem keen to buy into that lie.

A family member died recently at 94. During his eulogy it was revealed he retired at 50. All us 40’s somethings raised our eyebrows - but it was probably quite normal for that generation. They were expecting to get to 60 something, but the NHS stepped in and they’ve survived strokes, heart attacks, cancer, stuff that killed previous generations.
I think the state pensions will be replaced by enforced contributions to private schemes eventually. And probably means tested within 10 years.

Experts. Numbers. All that hard stuff. You know, facts.

Thus tiny demographic means nothing I’m afraid. Perhaps check out the stats across the whole country.

The issue is that previously pensions were IHT exempt and now they’re not. It was a big influence in my planning, I have had to rethink things a bit. It erodes confidence in investing in a long term product such as pensions if the Government change the rules of the product during its duration. What else will they do?

They should have left it out of inheritance tax, it’s made me rethink my planning a bit.

I think this is the thinking that keeps birth rates low once they get to a certain point. Some people become acutely aware of how difficult life will be for their dc so stop at one because they want to provide a house deposit and leave them hundreds of thousands. Or some decide they won't have any because they don't want to invest all that into a dc. The gov can't incentivise on that scale.

Maybe we should have incentivised Brits to have more children 20-30 years ago and invested in proper training schemes for essential occupations rather than rely on poaching all those bright young doctors and engineers from poverty stricken countries?

Isn’t it a government’s job to forecast and plan for what’s needed for the country?

Need to bring down living costs - housing, utilities, public transport etc. Then it's easier on pensioners and more working people can afford to pay into pension pots.

Also need to sort out the NHS if you want a healthier population. It's a fucking disgrace rn.

Most people I know have adult children and they are all having dc so I’m not convinced this is the case.

Not convinced by what?

🤣🤣🤣🤣

Most people I know have adult children and they are all having dc so I’m not convinced this is the case.

wouldn’t it be nice if we encouraged them by giving them tax breaks and subsidies for childcare

Pensions were never meant to be passed down as inheritance. They’re meant to be spent by the person saving into them to support them when they’re no longer working.

Pass them to your spouse / civil partner by all means, but I really don’t get the issue that people have about them being subject to IHT.

@Icanttakethisanymore thanks

Initially, though, they do have more children and they are immigrating with qualifications that we haven't paid for, and their own children are more likely to do well at school and become hefty tax payers.
So on balance it probably isn't a bad idea - it provides taxes for pensions now, and fills skills shortages, and then the younger generation is integrated into British society, whereas if you just have worker visas, they might have children here that are in school, but then we get continuing successive waves of people who aren't invested in the UK and don't integrate.
Research shows that language skills are good if you work in your new language (or go to school in it) so that's an argument not to allow elderly dependents but to allow settling and bringing up kids.

here it is -

https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/ifs-zooms-in-the-economy/id1511294104?i=1000676221323

I framed the episode incorrectly, it’s about the uk’s demographic challenges but it talks about other countries pronatalist policies within that.

I am a bit of a pioneer socially. 1956 born, first gen university educated. I had no intention of having a family at all, until I was 42. And a week later I was pregnant. Lucky? Massively. Now 69, I am working quite actively to ensure that a very substantial part of everything I have earned over 40 years of work ends up in asserts owned outright by my DC.

TBH, if you have not done the same for your children, then you need to start thinking NOW how you might give them an advantage. Because whatever MN and SM tell you, clever hardworking people end up with better outcomes.

Agree with the German national health service model. It’s much like Guernseys
We might get an uptick in the number of physicians / 10,000 population like Germany.

@Icanttakethisanymore I will look out for that, thanks