To wonder how immigration fixes pension black holes?

[nickiredcar]

Surely it just delays the problem as all the people relocating will need to be paid their pension? But it kicks the problem down the road. It's like a Ponzi scheme.

It counteracts the problem of an aging population. Ideally the population would remain stable or grow from an economic point of view, but we have a low birth rate in this country. Immigration brings working age adults: pure gold to the economy.

It's not just 'kicking the problem down the road', as you aren't factoring the debt, and resultant interest, of paying a pension scheme which is unafordable without enough working age adults.

State pensions are paid by the working taxpayers, private ones out of the profits created by the workers in the firms where the pension funds invest. Either way, you need a balance between the number of working age people and the number of pensioners and students/ unemployed they are supporting. When people live longer and have fewer children that balance changes. So you either need to import more working age people (who then also have kids and grow the population) or cut pensions and make people work until they drop.

Fairly basic, really, but something which the generation that wants to retire at 60 and cut immigration seems to struggle with.

But doesn't that mean the population will have to continually grow to support everyone?

No.

Younger generations have a lower life expectation than their parents. That will do wonders for the pension black hole. Especially as it's the same generation which seems to be relying on the government to support them as opposed to taking responsibility for themselves and their families.

It only works if the immigrants in general are taking less from the state than they are paying in. This is/was true for EEA immigrants, but the opposite is true for immigrants from outside the EEA.

The population is growing in this country, by the way.

Ideally the state saves a lot of money not having to raise, educate and bear the cost of birth to immigrants - with each child costing the same as a house, of which the state often bears a large proportion, it makes sense to import ready-made.

Works well for young, educated, single 20-somethings, but doesn't for those who bring extended family or with poor education.

The two most costly parts of your life when it comes to leeching off the state are 0-21 and 65+.

Immigrants don't go through the 0-21 phase here, so they leech much less than natives.

Their visas are also often conditional on employment, so they are more likely to stay in jobs and therefore pay tax than natives, who can lose their job and live on benefits however long they like.

That's why immigrants put far more into the economy than they take out. Read the latest Guardian report for a decent study on the exact numbers.

Human society is generally a Ponzi scheme though.

Most civilisations only “work” whilst growing. As soon as they start to shrink, they start to fail. Internal strife or external,invasion do them in.

The trick is getting the right rate of growth- grow too fast and you either need emigration or war or famine to trim numbers, or technological and agricultural innovation to feed more people on the same territory, or expansion so the extra people have somewhere to go.

There’s the odd isolated civilisation that manages to pull off stability for a while, just replacing itself. But those types of societies are often really vulnerable to invaders, as so much emphasis is given to stability and internal cohesion, stagnation can occur.

"Read the latest Guardian report for a decent study on the exact numbers."

Any reliable alternatives?

What about the environment of immigration, more people more houses needed, less countryside?

This is/was true for EEA immigrants, but the opposite is true for immigrants from outside the EEA.
You do realise that "immigrants from outside the EEA" is a catch-all term, covering asylum seekers and semi-literate cousin spouses as well as neurosurgeons and software architects? For much of 2018, the salary cut-off point for a work visa was hovering around £50K-£55K.
I found it quite weird when a known EU rights grassroots movement started pointing out the same - "us good immigrants vs them bad immigrants", and then, bizarrely, complaining about hostility and alienation.

That just sounds bloody selfish brining people over once they've been supported by another country. Plus if they bring children or parents doesn't the whole scheme fall flat?

Only works if people come over once educated and they don't have any children

The two most costly parts of your life when it comes to leeching off the state are 0-21 and 65+.

Immigrants don't go through the 0-21 phase here, so they leech much less than natives.

You do realise that lifetime redistribution is how a welfare state is supposed to work? We pay taxes all our working lives and it balances with our childhoods and old age, which cost taxpayers more. But we’re all taxpayers and the atate is only redistributing our contributions across a lifetime.

Characterising children and pensioners as “leeches” is pretty unpleasant.

Only works if people come over once educated and they don't have any children
One can always start a petition to introduce permanent sterilisation to the ever-expanding list of immigration criteria. I am sure it will be widely supported in certain circles.

That just sounds bloody selfish brining people over once they've been supported by another country. Plus if they bring children or parents doesn't the whole scheme fall flat?

Immigration isn't an ethical choice. It's a practical one. People move to countries that are attractive to live in for the benefit of themselves and their lives. Nobody says "Hey, I should stay in my country my whole life because the government paid for my schooling and work off that debt".

With regards to bringing children, no, not really. Assuming a nuclear family of 2 parents and 2 children who come over. Both parents have not used any resources when they themselves were children, and will be working, thus generating tax revenue. If they were not working, they would not be able to claim any benefits such as child support. The children, assuming they don't move back to their country of origin when they're 21, will grow up to work and contribute tax income of their own.

With a native family, the situation is exactly the same, except the parents have no obligation to work (due to not having to maintain a visa and having immediate rights to various benefits thanks to their native status) and the state had to support the parents through their own childhood and education, thus costing the state more money than the migrant family.

This concept of one person coming over to work, then bringing their whole family across in order to scrounge from our benefits system is a crock of shit dreamed up by the tabloids. Nothing else.

We pay taxes all our working lives and it balances with our childhoods and old age

Hypothetically. Realistically an aging population and gig economy is dragging that ideal somewhat out of whack, and nobody is interested in raising taxes to compensate.

Characterising children and pensioners as “leeches” is pretty unpleasant.

I was using "Leech" as a verb, not a noun. I.e. the action of taking something while giving nothing back at that time.

Characterising children and pensioners as “leeching from the state” is still pretty unpleasant.

And an incoming family of four are pretty cost neutral or a slight chain on thr exchequer unless both adults are earning extremely well because two members of the family are what you call “leeching”; incirring a cost to the taxpayer of two educations, two lots of NHS care.

Which is not a reason not to allow family migration, as there may be other benefits (cultural, humanatarian, filling skills gaps etc), but it’s true that families migrating aren't nearly as likely to be net contributors as the same number of childless adults.

@ViragoKnows
I don't know how to explain this kindly, but the NHS and the British state school system are not exactly a magnet to a global educated professional. I am a single immigrant mother with two children (and not earning extremely well), I am still pretty sure I am a net fiscal contributor.

They dont have to be a “global magnet” to be used by residents, do they?

It’s a nonsense that’s bandied around a lot, in relation to the equality gap, as well as immigration.

Most residents aren't net contributors. Thats more than fine. Nobody (born Brit, or migrant) should have to be in the higher income deciles to justify their worth or their societal contribution. (Think of nurses, for an obvious example.) It’s just itritating that it keeps coming up in both debates.

Sethis The two most costly parts of your life when it comes to leeching off the state are 0-21 and 65+

Really??? yet I am told every day on different discussion boards, on social media on the news etc how its a disgrace that WORKING age people need to rely on state benefits like housing benefit, tax credits and child tax credits in order to survive, that's not just people working in the gig economy, that's people on low wages and part time workers.. There are plenty of working age people who 'leech' off the state by having their wages supplemented by tax free benefits whilst paying no or very little tax and ni into the system that helps support them, would you say a single mum who needs state help to feed and house her children is leeching of the state? I am sure you wouldn't yet you think someone who is over 65, who may have paid into the system for 30 plus years and who may have not claimed any benefits during their working life are leeching off the system because they are too old to work, have health issues and no-one would employ them anyway.

Please don't forget that many many pensioners are tax payers because unlike tax credits and child tax credits their pensions are added to any other income they may have and are taxed, My DH is a case in point he is 69 and still works, he does of course pay tax on his earnings, but he doesn't pay tax on the £17,000 pa he gets as a charity shop manager, he has a state pension and private pension of £15,000 so pays tax on an income of £32,000, he may not have to pay ni but the extra tax he pays compensates for this, even when he gives up work next year he will still pay tax, if your definition of leeching of the state is taking something while giving nothing back - at the time, then you are going to have to rethink your post and include lots of working age people.

You do realise that lifetime redistribution is how a welfare state is supposed to work?

Yes, but you do realise that your state pension isn't there as a physical pot you've built up all your life, which you then draw down on retirement?

A lot of people seem to think it is, when in reality, in the same way as other welfare benefits, pensions are funded by the current work force. Hence needing enough people in employment and paying taxes to pay for retired people.

"This concept of one person coming over to work, then bringing their whole family across in order to scrounge from our benefits system is a crock of shit dreamed up by the tabloids. Nothing else."

That only happens occasionally, I agree.

However, I know of many couples, were one works, brings the Partner over, then after they get indefinite leave to remain, they don't work legitimately, again.

Likewise, Women deliberately having children with a UK citizen, so their children are UK Citizens and gaining LTR that way and never working again.

I don't judge them, at all. I would do everything I could to get out of their County. But they often also come with health issues.

As for the working age Adults, from what I've seen, they live very basically, because they are saving, or sending money home and we need money circulating in our economy.

We don't just benefit from tax via earnings, we need spending in our high streets.

"Hence needing enough people in employment and paying taxes to pay for retired people."

That's correct.

However, in some regions, especially Up North, immigration adds to unemployment and housing issues.

There was a whole team of Russian Telephone Engineers working outside my house the other day. I know for a fact that we don't have a skills shortage. In an City (Liverpool), that has a, unstable, low paid employment and been fucked over by Austerity, I can help feeling that it's wrong not to back British Workers.

Look up the concept of peak child.