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

[AlertEagle]

posted from another forum
Serious question. The UK’s birth rate is well below replacement level, meaning fewer young people entering the workforce. At the same time, the political mood seems pretty anti-immigration, even though immigration is one of the only things that’s kept the tax base stable.

State pensions are paid by current workers’ National Insurance contributions, not some magic fund. So… what happens when there’s a huge retired population and not enough working-age people to support them?

Will the government raise taxes, increase the retirement age, cut pensions, or eventually U-turn on immigration just to prop things up?

Feels like a ticking time bomb no one’s really addressing. Curious what others think, is anyone actually planning for this?

Or are we as a nation willing to give up state pensions if it means less immigration?

I work in benefits advice in a city where half the population are asian and quite shocked by how many elderly are allowed to come over from India presumably because they have family here. I don't understand how they are able to claim pension credit etc . How are they getting recourse to public funds? I've come across one this week who arrived here in 2020 and is claiming pension credit, attendance allowance etc yet making regular extended trips back to india, so the benefits keep stopping then the family want help reclaiming them when she gets back !

no, but they go to school, potentially needing 1:1 support as they don’t speak English, and use emergency health care. As soon as they’ve got ILR they stay forever - a family of 6 with one low wage worker, destined to be housed and supported forever by the state. Pensions, care homes, everything. It’s not working. Someone said a health care worker on £25k can still bring dependents- that maths doesn’t work out at all.

Or four future taxpayers and contributors to the economy. Kids learn new languages incredibly quickly when they’re immersed in them. They’re unlikely to ever use care homes; the cultures of these people mean they look after their own elders.

I’m sure you are right. The whole thing is quite depressing

no wonder councils are bankrupt

How do you not say something

it’s quite unbelievable especially when pensioners living here are so scrutinised

Going rate for care worker visa is >£31k. In certain circumstances (age, in training etc) it can be >£25k.
"Care worker visa holders applying on or after March 11, 2024, are generally not allowed to bring their partners and children (dependants) to the UK"

Yeah, dependants are allowed to use public services and that obviously costs taxpayers money. Kids are likely to he net contributers and learn langauges quickly. As for emergency heath care, they pay an annual fee to be entitled to use that. But not everyone on dependent visa is not working. There isn't statistics on thia.Also according to gov there were around 280k work visas issued and 250k dependant visas in 2024 (all workers). And 430k student visas and 94k student dependant visas. Onbiosuly large numbers but not everyone brings large extended families.

Depends on the background. Children of Hong Kong Chinese and Indian immigrants tend to do well at school. Children of Pakistani heritage less so.

I come from a city with a very high immigrant population and it is absolutely not true to say their elderly do not end up in care homes. These families face the same issues that non immigrant families face: it is very difficult to provide care at home for people with advanced dementia, and other serious illnesses. And where care is provided at home, it is provided by other adults who are not working outside the home and paying taxes, but who are claiming carer‘s allowance etc.

These workers will never earn enough to pay for their own use pro public services. Let alone their children. As for their elderly relatives, after 5 years, they can do what they want. So there you go, it’s an absolute disaster.

This is the norm in low skilled immigration picture. Yet, people leading sheltered lives with no knowledge of anything outside their own bubble with refute and gaslight you telling you that it cannot be possibly true.

Why wouldn’t their children? The children of migrants do incredibly well because they place such high value on education. There are entire immigrant families of doctors, lawyers and accountants.

And where care is provided at home, it is provided by other adults who are not working outside the home and paying taxes, but who are claiming carer‘s allowance etc.

Thus saving the state a vast amount of money.

Less folk on benefits so no need to keep raising the pension age. Benefits no more than minimum wage.

This doesn’t make sense. If we bring in two people from India, and one cares for the other - with attendance allowance, carers allowance, housing element, UC, etc - we are not saving money because they aren’t using a care home. They could have not been brought over in the first place, or not been given any entitlement to benefits at all, or not been eligible for permanent residency.

That is true of some groups of migrants.

It is absolutely not true of others. Children from poor, badly educated, non English speaking backgrounds, tend to perform poorly at school - especially where they are educated in areas with high social need. The idea that they all go on to become net contributors is just not true.

The idea that they all go on to become net contributors is just not true.

Did anyone say that?

I think it was definitely implied in your statement that “the children of migrants do incredibly well because they place such a high value on education…..doctors, lawyers, accountants”

“All” wasn’t implied and net contributors definitely wasn’t. It’s an erroneous concept anyway because the level of contribution versus the amount of receipts varies according to life stage and circumstances. People without school age children will be net contributors at a lower income level than those with. Some people will be net contributors their entire working life and then this changes when they start claiming their pension. There are so many variables it’s meaningless.

The government is well aware of this problem but they won’t personally be responsible for it so will just ignore the problem and kick the can down the road.

Pensioners today won’t give a toss because they are already pensioners.

And most working age people aren’t thinking that far ahead as they are just trying to live day by day.

Buy yes I worry about it !

The government is well aware of this problem but they won’t personally be responsible for it so will just ignore the problem and kick the can down the road.

Pensioners today won’t give a toss because they are already pensioners.

And most working age people aren’t thinking that far ahead as they are just trying to live day by day.

Buy yes I worry about it !

Governments know this needs tackling which is what we keep having pensions reviews. No one votes for the extra tax that is needed so politicians have to lie and do tax by stealth. And the worst blame asylum seekers as if solving that would solve the problem.

we need to pay more tax if we don’t want to retire at 75. Most people can afford it but argue they can’t cos they want more “stuff”

There will be no pensions. People too old/ill to work will have to sell their homes and move to small flats to have money to live on or start multi generational living.

The pension system as we know it now won’t exist. You can have high levels of low-skilled immigration or a welfare state. Not both. Seems obvious which one we’ve chosen.

Of course Austerity collapsed wages, public sector pay rises were 0 or 1% private sector followed suit.

Blair had productivity levels & GDP growth that were excellent.... they dropped like a stone post GFC & Austerity, only now v slowly coming back up.

You keep harking back to Labour but the Tories were in for 14 years... longer than Blair, 10 of which they had no global issues to deal with - they allowed in three times as many migrants than Blair did, exc Ukrainians.

One reason Europe has higher levels of unemployment than UK is they did invest in automation.

Business will use any excuse to hold down wages.

Between Blair and Brown, who held office for 13 years, and the Tories' 14 years there's only one year in it. Arguably, both parties had courses of action forced upon them by events (2008 GFC, 2020 Covid, 2022 Ukraine) and both made unforced errors. Blair could have imposed restrictions on the influx of the 2004 accession countries' migration, but didn't, and this undoubtedly suppressed wages, which affected the referendum result.

Honours approximately even, but the current Government are not covering themselves in glory yet; 110,000 new asylum claims in their first 13 months as I read this morning.

Wages didn't stagnate until Austerity, public sector pay levels gave business what they wanted - low prices rises/higher profits.

Proof? now public sector rises are higher, so are private sector ones, each has to compete.

11000 claims? yes 37% of which are people who came in on visa's and who let in over 2m on such visas?

imho the country was a lot nicer place in 2010, i had an nhs dentist, an ambulance didn't take 12 hours to arrive, AE didn't take 24hrs & certainly didn't have to worry about smashing up my car on a pot hole on A or B roads.