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?

But most people have
Childcare
Saving for expensive house deposit.
paying uni costs for dc
shopping bills through roof
Energy bills through the roof
Transport anywhere is expensive

How do people have any spare money to save anything?

We had high levels of low skilled workers and a welfare state in the past. In fact the welfare state was founded in an era of low pay. What’s so special about the 21st century?

How about having more people born here by lowering house prices and encouraging people to have families rather than just importing a solution that makes life more difficult for everyone ?

Yes its about political choices and leadership, nhs and welfare state opposed tooth and nail by the Cons and if they could they'd get rid of both now.

Yes if only

The volume of people dependent upon it, and longer life expectancy.

Life expectancy is decreasing. Try again.

Really? You save for a private pension like everyone else. If you are half right then the state pension is toast. Even if it wasn’t, it’s a ticket to poverty in old age. So do something about it while you are earning.

Encouraging them how exactly? Free or affordable childcare? Cheaper food to feed kids? Good schools so we know they’ll get decent education with more £££ needed?
And what are we doing to lower the house prices? thatcher sold off social housing - the affordable, rental housing? Are you telling me people are going to be happy to have their homes devalued? So the house you paid £400k for last year with drop to £250k in a few years, leaving people with negative equity???

A period of austerity was unavoidable, and Gordon Brown acknowledged it. And threw the election to avoid enforcing it.

That’s an interesting interpretation.

Go and read the Michaela/KBalsinbargh thread in education today to understand the issues. Until schools actually enforce discipline and uniforms and compliance, there's only mayhem. I taught, quite briefly, as a career change and decided to fuck off out, although I loved the class room.

The election was due. Labour won in 2005. So the next election if they were going to a fixed term was 2010.

So he didn’t ‘throw’ an election.

I do think Gordon Brown knew the scale of the problems that were heading into the next government in 2010. Austerity was going to happen regardless of the party badge. The Tory Lib Dem coalition just stepped up for it. I think they did a fair job honestly. Cameron had a split party and went nuclear, to my mind, daft, but I also voted out so not excusing my share of the blame. I think it will be better to be on the fringes in the future

No one throws an election, Labour had had their time.

Austerity for 3 or 4 years, yes but we ve still got it 15 years later.

With an aggressive Russia, a crazy USA, a strong EU with UK at the centre is essential, why else was Putin in favour of Brexit?

Austerity was ideological and has been soundly debunked by virtually every reputable economist. Every economy was affected by the global crash and those that recovered fastest didn’t slash and burn all their public services. Even if the 2010 government had been a Labour/Libdem coalition that made cuts, it certainly wouldn’t have decimated the country’s public service infrastructure like Osborne did.

Exactly.

It was the coalition government that caused all the problems with their drive for austerity. When it wasn’t needed, AND when Europe was heavily investing in their infrastructure and services.

Austerity was a choice not a necessity.

All the clever intelligent commenters have arrived en masse. so I am a bit flattered by the attention! It is the big issue we all need to think about, and resolve, and we (all of us) need to row together to force a fair solution. Not a strip the rich nor a shame the getting by.

To get the equivalent of the state pension by saving into a private pension, you need to have built up a fund of around £135,000. With pensions auto-enrolment, most private and voluntary sector employers, especially in lower paid roles, (say, below £30,000 pa) are contributing only the minimum 3% of salary. You are likely also only putting in the minimum, 5%. How are you ever going to reach £135,000? This is the reality of means testing.

There are also very many people in all kinds of sectors who nowadays are forced to work under arrangements of bogus self employment where they are described as ‘freelance contractors’ etc and paid their hourly ‘wage’ (although you mustn’t call it that …) without deductions. These arrangements have always been around, but they were turbo charged by the introduction of pension auto enrolment and are accelerating with the changes to employer NI, promises of ‘guaranteed hours’ etc etc in the employment rights bill, and so on.

These people are not just not saving into a private pension. They are not even contributing to a state pension because the employer is avoiding employer national insurance contributions. What a mess.

To get the equivalent of the state pension by saving into a private pension, you need to have built up a fund of around £135,000. With pensions auto-enrolment, most private and voluntary sector employers, especially in lower paid roles, (say, below £30,000 pa) are contributing only the minimum 3% of salary. You are likely also only putting in the minimum, 5%. How are you ever going to reach £135,000? This is the reality of means testing.

There are also very many people in all kinds of sectors who nowadays are forced to work under arrangements of bogus self employment where they are described as ‘freelance contractors’ etc and paid their hourly ‘wage’ (although you mustn’t call it that …) without deductions. These arrangements have always been around, but they were turbo charged by the introduction of pension auto enrolment and are accelerating with the changes to employer NI, promises of ‘guaranteed hours’ etc etc in the employment rights bill, and so on.

These people are not just not saving into a private pension. They are not even contributing to a state pension because the employer is avoiding employer national insurance contributions. What a mess.

Sorry - posted twice - on a train with dodgy signal!

Sorry - posted twice - on a train with dodgy signal!

The last few posters have included some of the posters whose opinions I have most respected here, many over several years, even when we haven't agreed. We may not always agree on the detail, but I would like to say that I always read anything you post carefully.

Thank you (assuming you were including me!). It’s a two way street, I’ve learnt too.