[alancalverd]

The pension fund is negligible for most. The government takes takes today and pays them out today, they do not invest it.

The average pension income in the UK is about twice the state pension, so the portion derived from investment (private and company schemes) is not negligible.

The alleged point of privatisation of obvious monopolies was that they could be profitable, if properly managed. Clearly some (railways) are just seen as subsidy farms and others as licensed fraud (water) but there's no reason why energy and telecoms can't be run as state industries at a profit (like oil in Norway), and it's even conceivable that rail could run at a reduced loss and water could be returned to a drinkable and swimmable condition under public ownership rather than emergency bailout (i.e. more fraud).So there is plenty of opportunity for diverting tax revenue to supporting the elderly rather than Tory donors and foreign banks, or even investing taxes into profitable industry.

Longer term, council house rents could subsidise dustbin collections andd social care, instead of "right to buy" mortgages subsidising bankers' bonuses.

Why didn't anyone think of this before?  Let's call it "socialism" and see if it gets any votes!

[Petrochemicals]

The average pension income in the UK is about twice the state pension, so the portion derived from investment (private and company schemes) is not negligible.

Negligible pension fund fornstate pensions.

The point was that the proportion of  money spent on retired persons by the treasury would vastly increace, money garnered through tax and spent almost immediatley.

Consider the population in three cohorts: 0 - 20, 20 - 60, 60 - 100. Let there be N people in the first cohort, and assume for simplicity that all babies........................

Yes i get the idea, but in 2 generations for a couple of  new born child rearing age  there would be 8 grand parents who would be retired and 4 parents who although not retired would be most probably 50 plus. That would be 6 people of working age for 9 non workers. (they could all possibly be unemployed)

Of these 6 working people 4 would probably be approaching retirement and may require government support, i dont know how much an mri scan sets the tax payer back?

[alancalverd]

Yes i get the idea, but in 2 generations for a couple of  new born child rearing age  there would be 8 grand parents who would be retired and 4 parents who although not retired would be most probably 50 plus. That would be 6 people of working age for 9 non workers. (they could all possibly be unemployed)

2 generations, say 40 years. Average age of the working population is 40 so the average worker will already have lost half of his grandparents  assuming a life expectancy of 80.

The simple fact is that there are roughly twice as many people aged 20 - 60 than aged 60 - 100. That's the meaning of "life expectancy", and the reason that tax-funded pensions work at all!

Properly organised, an MRI scan should cost the NHS less than ?150, but thanks to Thatcher and Blair, it's about twice that.

[Petrochemicals]

The simple fact is that there are roughly twice as many people aged 20 - 60 than aged 60 - 100.

That is the point, the rattio will change and probably reverse.

[alancalverd]

Worth doing the maths. The ratio of workers to retired decreases slightly over time but is more than compensated by the decrease in under-20s, so the working fraction initially increases to about 0.65 and never falls below the present 0.5.

[Petrochemicals]

Worth doing the maths. The ratio of workers to retired decreases slightly over time but is more than compensated by the decrease in under-20s, so the working fraction initially increases to about 0.65 and never falls below the present 0.5.

Under 20s are not particularly expensive in healthcare, housing benefits or pension payments. They do not require care homes, at most a birth, a few vaccinations, schooling and a bit of afterschool care during term times.

[alancalverd]

Education is the second largest central departmental budget, about 35% of the size of health and social care. Whilst most kids ages 5 - 20 are fairly physically robust, the period -1 to +5 takes up a considerable proportion of hospital, GP and social service  budget.
Between the ages of 18 and 21 about half the population acquires a debt of GBP 30 - 80,000, half of which is never repaid and simply represents an ever-growing black hole in public finances.
About half of all police and justice costs are due to the activities of under-20's, though these tend to be hidden under local government  tax revenues.
Plus, of course, the direct cost to a parent of about GBP 250,000 to raise a child from birth, of which the munificent  taxpayer contributes about GBP 15,000 for the second child. Under my scheme, not having a second child would earn a woman about GBP 45,000 and save her at least another GBP 100,000.

[acsinuk (OP)]

But the problem is to find jobs for those kids 16 to 20.  In Sahara and middle east with 50% of population under 20, it was great to have large families in old days as there is plenty of land to be farmed and 2 acres will provide a family of 4 people. So ask the chief for an extra 2 acres per child and self sufficiency is guaranteed.
But give one man a tractor and he can manage 10 acres without a large family just one son to take over the farm.  It is the large families with no jobs that are causing over population and poverty leading to refugee crisis and global warming

[alancalverd]

In Sahara ...... there is plenty of land to be farmed

Yes, with all that rain and fertile topsoil, it's bursting with crops and livestock. Like Somerset or Tipperary, but warmer. Pray tell us more!

[Bored chemist]

But the problem is to find jobs for those kids 16 to 20.  In Sahara and middle east with 50% of population under 20, it was great to have large families in old days as there is plenty of land to be farmed and 2 acres will provide a family of 4 people. So ask the chief for an extra 2 acres per child and self sufficiency is guaranteed.
But give one man a tractor and he can manage 10 acres without a large family just one son to take over the farm.  It is the large families with no jobs that are causing over population and poverty leading to refugee crisis and global warming

If you think there are people farming in the Sahara, then you have disqualified yourself from further discussion.

[Bored chemist]

Worth doing the maths. The ratio of workers to retired decreases slightly over time but is more than compensated by the decrease in under-20s, so the working fraction initially increases to about 0.65 and never falls below the present 0.5.

Under 20s are not particularly expensive in healthcare, housing benefits or pension payments. They do not require care homes, at most a birth, a few vaccinations, schooling and a bit of afterschool care during term times.

The sad truth is that your first day is the  most dangerous day  of your life.
Very young children are, on average,  rather expensive to provide medial care for. Most cost next to nothing.
But, unfortunately, some need a lot of support.
The risk falls until you are about 5.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10346-021-01838-8/figures/6


life expectancy.jpg (66.54 kB . 502x347 - viewed 629 times)

[Petrochemicals]

But the problem is to find jobs for those kids 16 to 20. 

No, no its not.

After the black death, labour was so scarce that the government upended the principle of capitalism and market forces, essentially catering to the needs of the wealthy land owning minority, much in the way they do today, be it agricultural workers, lorry drivers, nurses or doctors, if the market is against thoes with the power we suddenly turn into an incidious communist state.

[acsinuk (OP)]

Yes, the problem of global warming is an over supply of workers with no jobs because our technology makes any worker 10 times more efficient than our grand parents.
Result is millions of out of work refugees and a need to limit family sizes to sustainable numbers particularly in North Africa.
One happy loved child is preferable to having many out of work disgruntled kids to feed surely.

[Bored chemist]

Yes, the problem of global warming is an over supply of workers with no jobs because our technology makes any worker 10 times more efficient than our grand parents.
Result is millions of out of work refugees and a need to limit family sizes to sustainable numbers particularly in North Africa.
One happy loved child is preferable to having many out of work disgruntled kids to feed surely.

Why assume people need jobs?
If the machines are doing all the work,  that's fine. The people can play games, drink beer and write poetry or whatever.

[paul cotter]

Play games, drink beer, hmm. Then they will fornicate and restart the process!!

[alancalverd]

Human reproduction, even in the absence of artificial contraceptives, is remarkably inefficient.

Many creatures, like salmon and bees, mate once in their lives and produce thousands of offspring.

If the rugby songs are to be believed, humans go at it several times a night, but we rarely produce more than two offspring in a lifetime.

My suggestion of offering GBP500 every 6 months to every woman if she is not pregnant, will buy  a lot of contraceptives and not much beer. It now turns out that there is a precedent: apparently the NHS is paying men to lose weight. Onwards!

The sad truth is that your first day is the  most dangerous day  of your life.
Very young children are, on average,  rather expensive to provide medical care for.

And not just the kids. Maternity care, postpartum complications, maternity leave, career breaks....all Damage the Sacred Economy.

[paul cotter]

Highly inefficient, yes, but we make up for that by extraordinary levels of copulation. Most animals will do the business at oestrus only, we do it at all times. As regards an average of two offspring, I doubt it, but I have no data. I would like to see average family sizes prior to contraceptives, including condoms, which could be difficult as rudimentary forms of condoms have been in use for a long time. 

[alancalverd]

Current UK statistic is 1.58 children per woman. Moving in the right direction!

[paul cotter]

Good afternoon Alan, nice to see you are still alive and kicking! In this part of the world we are doing ok as regards offspring rates but in poorer areas they are still breeding like rabbits(or guinea pigs).

[acsinuk (OP)]

Exploding populations in refugee camps in Gaza, Cox Bazaar, Yemen and Sahara were caused by water or land disputes leading to  displacement of whole villages of farming parents who are now unemployed and most dis-spirited about their children having to join millions of other jobless youths in other refugee camps         ?We can assist with food aid         but we must guide all these displaced peoples and their leaders          into having sustainable size families and to live in peace with their neighbours.