Whatever your political persuasion, defend your corner here. All we ask is that you voice YOUR opinion, rather than just post a link to a half-hour youtube video. Politics can get a bit lively, and if you prefer a less combative debate, please post in the Politics for Moderates section instead.
I don't consider that your argument holds water, In Germany maybe this is the accepted way,
Not sure what you mean. What should be accepted? That people who are entitled to benefits are indeed claiming them?
Firefly wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2017 4:51 pm
I don't think that we are thinking family allowances here, but all the other benefits that people claim because they have so many children, without the income to support them as they should. Not everyone is honest and our system is abused.
I take it you mean by abuse that people are claiming e.g. for children who don´t even live with them (but e. g. back in Romania).
Of course, there will always be abuse of any benefit system. It´s unavoidable, I´m afraid. But this abuse isn´t that widespread that it justifies doing away with the whole system (at least in Germany and I doubt the UK will be much different). That would mean throwing the baby out with the bath water.
Firefly wrote: ↑Wed May 17, 2017 4:51 pm
I'm sure that the state pension system as we know it will be fazed out in time, so more children will NOT be needed to fund it.
I doubt there will ever be a public pension system which doesn´t need an active generation supporting the retired one. At least for now that seems futuristic and the current system relies on the younger generation contributing. That means children will be needed as they will be the contributors of the future. Who else should be? And by the way they´re not only needed as future contributors. Or do you want the country turned into an old age home with ghost towns in which noone is living anymore?
This more kids to fuel the pension pot only works if
1) They all grow into productive taxpayers
2) They are supported by their parents for the duration of their childhood and never dependant on the state
3) They thoughtfully die or return to their parent's country of origin before it is their turn to claim pension.
Otherwise you are just at best kicking the can down the road, or at worst making a hyperbolically greater problem for the next generation.
Still, at least that won't be our problem, eh?
ad 1) No, not all have to grow into productive taxpayers. Just a sufficient percentage is good enough. And to have sufficient numbers of future taxpayers you need have sufficient numbers of children.
ad 2) Why should a child supported by the state not become a net contributor?
ad 3) What are you talking about? Emigrating won´t affect the pension entitlement (at least in Germany - is that any different in the UK?). And even someone refusing to die early will (on average) have helped to kick the can down the road (which the pension system is all about).
Btw: Is the UK pension system funded by tax or social security contributions?
ad 1) No, not all have to grow into productive taxpayers. Just a sufficient percentage is good enough. And to have sufficient numbers of future taxpayers you need have sufficient numbers of children.
ad 2) Why should a child supported by the state not become a net contributor?
ad 3) What are you talking about? Emigrating won´t affect the pension entitlement (at least in Germany - is that any different in the UK?). And even someone refusing to die early will (on average) have helped to kick the can down the road (which the pension system is all about).
Btw: Is the UK pension system funded by tax or social security contributions?
1) If you consider a contributor/pensioner ratio of around 2:1 [which is ridiculously low] , and factor in the fact that they too will become pensioners, it means you must have a success rate [i.e. those that perform constantly at or above median income for their age] of around 80%
2) because it represents such a massive front end investment. Effectively, 18 years of investment is something you will not be cashing in on for another 50 years. If you factor in depreciation due to inflation, interest, cost of capital and admin, and lost opportunity costs it making financial sense is an insurmountable obstacle, even if you achieve the success ratio in 1) which I'd be rather sceptical about actually hitting
3) I mentioned 'return' because I always thought that was the original strategy of the Gastarbeiter planning [and therefore success criteria] relied on a willingness to return home, repatriation grants and an assumption of no enduring benefits [although I appreciate it hasn't quite worked out that way for you]. Even at low ratios of population growth to pensioners adopting this as a strategy kicks the can down the road, as you say, but each kick increases the problem hyperbolically [i.e. as a geometric function]. It's lunacy
As I see it, people who abuse the benefit system are people claiming for children that maybe they don't have, how does the state check on dependants who are claimed for, but who live abroad ? Immigrants who come to live in the UK, but then want to bring in ALL their relatives. The system is also abused by irresponsible parents who continually have children to fund a life style, not working and living in a large house funded by the state, or the tax payer ultimately. It happens.
I don't know how your pension system works in Germany, so by accepted, I mean that you produce children to finance your pensions, is that correct ?
You are twisting my words by suggesting that I might want my country turned into a old people's home. I am happy for any couple who are responsible and can afford children to have them, without expecting the tax payer to bring them up. By the way, we have enough residents here thank you, no possibility of ghost towns !
Jackie
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
1 a form of fraud in which belief in the success of a non-existent enterprise is fostered by the payment of quick returns to the first investors from money invested by later investors.
Pyramid scheme:
1 a form of investment (illegal in the UK and elsewhere) in which each paying participant recruits two further participants, with returns being given to early participants using money contributed by later ones.
It seems to me that (except for the legality side of things) either of the above definitions may reasonably be applied to the State Pension Scheme in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Clearly, for these pension schemes to continue to function, there has to be population growth.
In its simplest form, for every couple, married or not, they need to 2 produce children for the population to just stand still. In the US the fertility rate is a stable 2.1 which will ultimately lead to population growth (albeit modestly). However, in the UK the fertility rate for 2015 was 1.82, in Germany 1.5, France 1.96, Italy 1.35 and Cyprus 1.32. In fact, using the EU produced figures, not a single country within the EU is producing enough children to support the long term future of their state sponsored pension schemes. It's no wonder, therefore, that Angela Merkel offered places for 1,000,000 immigrants last year. This wasn't an act of huge benevolence to refugees so much as a method of supporting an ever ageing German population with an influx of workers in order to pay state taxes and therefore continue to pay German benefits and pensions.
The UK simply cannot afford (especially after Brexit and reduced immigration) to continue to pay the level of benefits and state pensions it currently pays. Measures to address this have included raising the pension age, increasing contributions and reducing some benefits.
However, more needs to be done if we are to ensure that our children and grandchildren have anywhere near the quality of life we have come to expect ourselves. We need to analyse ALL universal benefits and not be afraid to cut where there is no need, but similarly to increase where the money needs to be targeted. We need to ensure population growth at a time when we have an ever increasing elderly population. The number of people over 60 has TRIPLED since 1950 due to peace, better general health and far better medical treatment.
However, although good news, it cannot go on without root and branch reform in the benefit and pension arena.
Pete G wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 2:06 pm
1) If you consider a contributor/pensioner ratio of around 2:1 [which is ridiculously low] , and factor in the fact that they too will become pensioners, it means you must have a success rate [i.e. those that perform constantly at or above median income for their age] of around 80%
Thank you for making my point. That´s exactly why you need to have more children as this is the best way to keep the contributor/pensioner ratio up. Apart from that there are more parameters you can fine-tune to adjust the system (e. g. increase contributions and/or lower pensions, increase retirement age etc.).
Pete G wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 2:06 pm
2) because it represents such a massive front end investment. Effectively, 18 years of investment is something you will not be cashing in on for another 50 years. If you factor in depreciation due to inflation, interest, cost of capital and admin, and lost opportunity costs it making financial sense is an insurmountable obstacle, even if you achieve the success ratio in 1) which I'd be rather sceptical about actually hitting
How do you know it´s an unsurmountable obstacle? E. g. the German pension system was "invented" by Bismarck already in the 19th century and has managed to kick the can down the road through all the troubles including 2 wars, each followed by currency reforms which destroyed the value of money. Seems rather resilient to me. A capital covered system would have failed to do so. A Lehman crisis might be enough to make it fail - not even talking about the effects of the wars. Apart from that an 80% "success rate" doesn´t seem too ambitious to me. I´d hope the number is higher. If not there is something wrong with the education system.
Pete G wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 2:06 pm
3) I mentioned 'return' because I always thought that was the original strategy of the Gastarbeiter planning [and therefore success criteria] relied on a willingness to return home, repatriation grants and an assumption of no enduring benefits [although I appreciate it hasn't quite worked out that way for you]. Even at low ratios of population growth to pensioners adopting this as a strategy kicks the can down the road, as you say, but each kick increases the problem hyperbolically [i.e. as a geometric function]. It's lunacy
What has the Gastarbeiter problem to do with it? Are you talking specifically about foreigners? Even if so, what would it help if they returned to their home countries. They would still be entitled to their pensions, wouldn´t they? It would probably make more financial sense if they stayed and spent their pensions in the UK or Germany, depending on what country you´re talking about. But I was talking in general - not specifically about foreigners. About the kicking the can down the road problem please refer to what I said in the above paragraph. The system was designed like that from the beginning and has survived until this day. Maybe it´s not as lunatic as you think.
As I see it, people who abuse the benefit system are people claiming for children that maybe they don't have, how does the state check on dependants who are claimed for, but who live abroad ? Immigrants who come to live in the UK, but then want to bring in ALL their relatives. The system is also abused by irresponsible parents who continually have children to fund a life style, not working and living in a large house funded by the state, or the tax payer ultimately. It happens.
I don't know how your pension system works in Germany, so by accepted, I mean that you produce children to finance your pensions, is that correct ?
You are twisting my words by suggesting that I might want my country turned into a old people's home. I am happy for any couple who are responsible and can afford children to have them, without expecting the tax payer to bring them up. By the way, we have enough residents here thank you, no possibility of ghost towns !
Jackie
Like Pete G you seem to be talking specifically about immigrants. I´m not. But be that as it may be. Of course, there have to be checks to avoid this kind of abuse. Btw only recently Germany reduced the child grants for children living outside Germany (not familiar with the details though). And I´m not saying that social grants should be sufficient to live on it in luxury or in an inappropriatley large dwelling (in Germany that´s limited to 45 sqm for a single plus 15 sqm for each family member). That should be easy to rule out. Parent´s spending money rather on cigarettes than their kids should be dealt with by youth authorities.There are ways to secure the system against that kind of abuse - but only to a degree. As with any grant system there will always be a ceratin amount of abuse. That doesn´t mean you should do away with the whole system because of it. You should merely fight abuse.
Not specifically about immigrants, read the third sentence of the first paragraph again. These people are not usually immigrants, although undoubtedly some will be.
What 'youth authorities' are your referring to, and you didn't answer my query regarding German children and pensions.
It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog.
Firefly wrote: ↑Thu May 18, 2017 4:53 pm
What 'youth authorities' are your referring to, and you didn't answer my query regarding German children and pensions.
I don´t know how you´d call the UK equivalent of the German "Jugendamt" (literally translated: youth authority). That´s what I meant. They are in charge of dealing with problems specific for children and youngsters. They could even take children out of their families if necessary to protect the best interest of a child (of course, they need a court decision to back that up). One of my neighbours in Germany is fostering 2 children taken from their parents by the Jugendamt (in one case the mother is a drug addict, I forgot about the reason for the second child) and I know of 2 more families that do. I assumed the UK will have an equivalent of that.
The German pension system gives a certain incentive to have children as you´ll get a higher pension for having children (not very much though - I think something like € 30.- per month and per child). Also, years spent at home looking after your children will be counted as if you had paid contributions (if I remember correctly 75% of the national average contribution) even though you didn´t. You´ll also get "Elterngeld" ("parenting money") amounting to 67% of your last salary, capped at € 1800.-/month (not sure for how many years though as this was introduced only once my kids were too old for me to qualify) if you stop working in order to look after your children (which at least in Western Germany is standard procedure until kids reach Kindergarten age - e. g. I took 6 years of parental leave myself). You´ll also pay lower contributions towards the mandatory nursing care insurance if you have children - but that´s also negligable (I think about 0,5 % of your salary).
I´m not sure if that is what you were asking. I think your question has been anwered though by Royal´s post when he said : "Clearly, for these pension schemes to continue to function, there has to be population growth. " This is what I meant - even if I wouldn´t go as far as claiming that population growth is necessary (given the increase of productivity) - but maintaining a certain minimum size of the workforce is, which necessitates having children unless you want to rely on immigration. Does that answer your question?
Dominic I really don't understand what your problem is.
I don't post to mislead people or to create misinterpretations. I try to post with integrity and portray my opinions, note - opinions.
I posted in good faith my opinions on people having children they clearly cannot afford, yet can afford two cars, foreign holidays, private school fees,etc etc yet complain that they cannot afford child care fees and move back in with ageing parents to then have that child care for free. Not, in my opinion, acceptable.
You then posted this comment - "So, today's parents all send their kids to private school and get huge benefits? Where did you get that notion from?"
I very clearly did not say this, you took one comment from my post and placed your own interpretation on it and ignored the rest. I absolutely neither said nor implied this. As I have already posted.
When I queried your comment you then said that it was a direct quote from my post, which it very clearly was not and I said this to you. You then amended your comment to say "That's how I interpreted your words anyway"
I made it very clear that your comments bore little resemblance to what I had posted and commented that "How you interpreted it is rather more your concern than mine." I stand by this, but it gives you no entitlement to assume I have no concern over how people interpret my posts.
To then prettily draw this comment into it being my responsibility as to how you or anyone else interprets my posts is nothing short of ridiculous!! I went to great lengths to explain and amplify my post, yet you chose to totally ignore that and turn it on it's head to suit your view. Again, not acceptable in my opinion.
"If you aren't concerned how people interpret your posts, why post at all? Surely you want people to interpret your post in the correct fashion?"
Again, you are taking poetic licence, nowhere did I say I'm not concerned how people interpret my posts, I said it was more your concern than mine, which is a mile away from your interpretation.
I have no problem with how anyone interprets my posts so long as they interpret the whole post, not just picking out the bits which suit their views and political alliance and so long as they quote them correctly.
Several times now you have not done this, not only have you not done this, you have twisted and incorrectly used my comments to suit your views. Again, not acceptable Dominic.
As others have said, surely everyone is entitled to an opinion, without it being misquoted and misconstrued?
