Housing Benefit ending for Canal License.

[Robbo]

6 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I have to say that "the country" was far better off forty years ago than it is now, and a lot of that is due to gross overpopulation. People have kids, right left and centre, they can't afford them, but the government takes care of that for the first twenty years. 

It does not make sense. All this technology, all this commuting by car and by train, high cost of living, 

high cost of housing, people can't afford it, so a now its "rent for life" and work till you're seventy [and that's not easy]

We are a aging population, so it’s not kids but old farts that are causing the growth.

[LadyG]

14 minutes ago, Robbo said:

We are a aging population, so it’s not kids but old farts that are causing the growth.

that's a fallacy, there is a huge immigrant population, not sure how many, but probably a good twenty percent of the population.

I can remember seeing my first black man, it was Sauchiehall Street [Glasgow]   and it was about 1953.

Nowadays lots of folk are coloured/mixed race, so I know that the population has expanded "organically" its not just the fact that the baby boomers are ageing. The bay boomers had lots of long term employment opportunities, I mean steady employment, a lot of them are quite comfortably placed, financially.

ps I AM NOT RACIST, just saying the UK population has grown too fast. We don't have the infrastructure/jobs/need for all these people, , I am not talking about "immigrants", I mean the total population is too great.

 

Edited August 23, 2018 by LadyG

[LadyG]

55 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 

Apparently, Scotland displaying more intelligence than our lot, have abolished RTB.

Yeah great, my flat has gone down in price by nearly 20 percent in the last three years. We are in a depression [again].

I can t sell the damn flat, no one is buying. In the meantime, my English relatives are perfectly content with the way things are going. They can't understand the problem.

The problem is London, Westminster,  and politics. 

Can you believe I can get a "work from home" job in London. Apparently there are 30 new  jobs every day! INDEED.

Edited August 23, 2018 by LadyG

[Robbo]

14 minutes ago, LadyG said:

that's a fallacy, there is a huge immigrant population, not sure how many, but probably a good twenty percent of the population.

I can remember seeing my first black man, it was Sauchiehall Street [Glasgow]   and it was about 1953.

Nowadays lots of folk are coloured/mixed race, so I know that the population has expanded "organically" its not just the fact that the baby boomers are ageing. The bay boomers had lots of long term employment opportunities, I mean steady employment, a lot of them are quite comfortably placed, financially.

ps I AM NOT RACIST, just saying the UK population has grown too fast. We don't have the infrastructure/jobs/need for all these people, , I am not talking about "immigrants", I mean the total population is too great.

 

It’s expected by 2045 that 25% of the population will be over 65.    But I don’t think we will have a long term issue, over use of antibiotics and the anti-vac idiots will soon sort us out.

[LadyG]

18 minutes ago, Robbo said:

It’s expected by 2045 that 25% of the population will be over 65.    But I don’t think we will have a long term issue, over use of antibiotics and the anti-vac idiots will soon sort us out.

What relevance has "65" got, folks are expected to work on, and on. BUT,  in what jobs?

I worked in racing, the best age is 19, very few get to 45., I retired myself, aged 50, I was the oldest, by far. I could not get a decent job when I was 50. 

People rarely die of overuse of antibiotics by the way. Nor measles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cancer of course, but obesity is the killer:

I currently swim every day as I have "let myself go"

There are ten year old boys with "beer bellies" these kids are obese, they are not healthy. They won't "age"

Edited August 23, 2018 by LadyG

[Robbo]

14 minutes ago, LadyG said:

What relevance has "65" got, folks are expected to work on, and on. BUT,  in what jobs?

I worked in racing, the best age is 19, very few get to 45., I retired myself, aged 50, I was the oldest, by far. I could not get a decent job when I was 50. 

People rarely die of overuse of antibiotics by the way. Nor measles!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Cancer of course, but obesity is the killer:

I currently swim every day as I have "let myself go"

There are ten year old boys with "beer bellies" these kids are obese, they are not healthy. They won't "age"

Overuse of antibiotics makes them less effective and they then become useless.  Vaccines save millions of lives globally every year.    65+ is what the government class as passed it, sorry pensioner.

Edited August 23, 2018 by Robbo

[LadyG]

2 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Overuse of antibiotics makes them less effective and they then become useless.  Vaccines save millions of lives globally every year.

I am, among other things, a microbiologist. 

Old men die of pneumonia, it has always been thus.

We all have to die; given the choice which is quickest and / or least painful?

Edited August 23, 2018 by LadyG

[Robbo]

Just now, LadyG said:

I am, among other things, a microbiologist. 

Then you should know.

[LadyG]

11 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Then you should know.

I do.

Clean water, and good food will stop starvation in the third world, I know this, 'cos I was told this in 1962, at college. We learned all about the Green Revolution, no more famine!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biafran_airlift

Edited August 23, 2018 by LadyG

[Robbo]

6 minutes ago, LadyG said:

I am, among other things, a microbiologist. 

Old men die of pneumonia, it has always been thus.

We all have to die; given the choice which is quickest and / or least painful?

The average life span before antibiotics was in the 40’s, it’s now nearly double.   Given the choice I rather die at the higher end.

[LadyG]

31 minutes ago, Robbo said:

The average life span before antibiotics was in the 40’s, it’s now nearly double.   Given the choice I rather die at the higher end.

Well, its not all about antibiotics.

It might be due to loss of heavy industry: coal mining, shipbuilding and such like were, and still are, killers

Public health: we take indoor toilets and bathrooms for granted. When I worked, aged 13, in Glasgow East End, the tenements had shared toilets on the landing, I mean several families shared one loo, baths were in a tin bath once a week for male adults.

There was a sweet smell of sewage in the back courts of the tenements, . When it rained, the sewerage backed up.

Older ladies had rickets, older men had tuberculosis and bronchitis

I was washed in the kitchen sink till I got too big, (we were lower middle class!] We were first in our street with a refrigerator, and first with a televison. No one had a washing machine.

Edited August 24, 2018 by LadyG

[Gareth E]

7 hours ago, LadyG said:

that's a fallacy, there is a huge immigrant population, not sure how many, but probably a good twenty percent of the population.

I can remember seeing my first black man, it was Sauchiehall Street [Glasgow]   and it was about 1953.

Nowadays lots of folk are coloured/mixed race, so I know that the population has expanded "organically" its not just the fact that the baby boomers are ageing. The bay boomers had lots of long term employment opportunities, I mean steady employment, a lot of them are quite comfortably placed, financially.

ps I AM NOT RACIST, just saying the UK population has grown too fast. We don't have the infrastructure/jobs/need for all these people, , I am not talking about "immigrants", I mean the total population is too great.

 

The very fact that you need to state that you aren't racist when suggesting gross over population says a lot. It shows how far socialism, and its associated curbs on free speech has come in this country.

 

Over population is not just a problem in the U.K., it's a problem throughout the world. So that covers all races. It also covers people of all religions and for that matter, people of all sexual persuasions too. That's the tick box completed, all the groups of humans that we can't discuss any more at fear of being branded a racist, a bigot, a dinosaur etc. etc.

 

Now this strangulation of freedom of speech has been debunked we can say that the problem is driven in different ways, in different parts of the world. In the third world and developing world having large families is cultural. It's also driven by the notion that a large number of children will protect the parents in later life.

 

In more developed countries, those with socialist welfare states like our own, there's no need for parents to rely on their children in later life; the state adopts this role. This might seem to be a great thing, in terms of limiting the drivers of population growth. However, at the other end of the scale, the government is very generous with its offers for those with children. So much so that someone with low paid or no work can propel themselves into greater riches by having children. No thoughts about the environment the children will exist in, no thoughts to the stability of the relationship that created them. No, however the kids were created and by who, the financial effect on the parents is a positive one. 

 

The solution in the third world is tricky but I suspect human behaviour will cause incidents that will reduce or even completely solve the problem, unless someone with large cojones starts the discussion, rather soon.

 

In developed countries, with socialist inspired family friendly welfare systems, the solution is more simple: Freeze/ reduce/ end completely all the benefits that relate to having or bringing up children. Yes, baby boomers (I'm one of them) will get a painful shafting in their reduced pensions but we all know they are relatively wealthy.  So, better this, surely, than the current steady fall downhill to a disaster that makes a few people being able to eat out a little less often seem like a total irrelevance.  

[Wanderer Vagabond]

9 hours ago, LadyG said:

that's a fallacy, there is a huge immigrant population, not sure how many, but probably a good twenty percent of the population.

I can remember seeing my first black man, it was Sauchiehall Street [Glasgow]   and it was about 1953.

Nowadays lots of folk are coloured/mixed race, so I know that the population has expanded "organically" its not just the fact that the baby boomers are ageing. The bay boomers had lots of long term employment opportunities, I mean steady employment, a lot of them are quite comfortably placed, financially.

ps I AM NOT RACIST, just saying the UK population has grown too fast. We don't have the infrastructure/jobs/need for all these people, , I am not talking about "immigrants", I mean the total population is too great.

 

No, that is the fallacy, the ONS stats for people in the UK not born here is 14.3%, it is one of many statistics over-estimated by a percentage of the population.

 

It is also interesting that when people talk of overpopulation it is a bit like when they talk about traffic congestion what they really mean is that there are too many other people, they themselves are not part of the problem (although they are).

Edited August 24, 2018 by Wanderer Vagabond

[Gareth E]

Yes, everyone who is here already is part of the over population problem. We are where we are, nobody sensible would think of changing that. The challenge is to reduce the birth rate, but I'm sure you knew that already.

[LadyG]

25 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

No, that is the fallacy, the ONS stats for people in the UK not born here is 14.3%, it is one of many statistics over-estimated by a percentage of the population.

Aha, I think I got my 20% from some stat about London and ethnicity.

I am not thinking about the present % of people born in the UK, but at the whole current population which has risen from about 50M  to about 60M in one generation.  A lot of the people who were immigrants in the 1960/70/80/90's have had families, so the new kids on the block are British thru and thru.

Now you can say what you like, but for the first twenty years of their life, these kids are a drain on the UK resources, they cost money in NHS, in education, in welfare benefits. I think education alone, per school child is over £5K per annum. So each child is going to cost a helluva lot before it starts earning, and then it has to pay back in taxes for the next forty years,  assuming it does not have any kids itself. I may be wrong or I may be right, but if the new, younger generation is essential for economic growth, why is the National Debt getting bigger and bigger when we have already had approx 10M new workers?

Edited August 24, 2018 by LadyG

[MtB]

17 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

No, that is the fallacy, the ONS stats for people in the UK not born here is 14.3%, it is one of many statistics over-estimated by a percentage of the population.

 

So once the children of people ‘not born here’ are included, it’s easy to see how the estimate of 20% was arrived at. 

[Robbo]

1 minute ago, LadyG said:

Aha, I think I got my 20% from some stat about London and ethnicity.

I am not thinking about the present % of people born in the UK, but at the whole current population which has risen from about 50M  to about 60M in one generation.  A lot of the people who were immigrants in the 1960/70/80/90's have had families, so the new kids on the block are British thru and thru.

Now you can say what you like, but for the first twenty years of their life, these kids are a drain on the UK resources, they cost money in NHS, in education, in welfare benefits. I think education per school child is over £5K per annum. So each child is going to cost a helluva lot before it starts earning, and then it has to pay back in taxes for the next forty years,  assuming it does not have any kids itself. I may be wrong or I may be right, but if the new, younger generation is essential for economic growth, why is the National Debt getting bigger and bigger when we have already had approx 10M new workers?

Pensioners and health care for the elderly are the biggest drain on the government purse.   If it wasn't for the young generation putting money into the system then we will be in a bigger mess and the older generation would be the first to suffer.

[MtB]

20 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

It is also interesting that when people talk of overpopulation it is a bit like when they talk about traffic congestion what they really mean is that there are too many other people, they themselves are not part of the problem (although they are).

 

In what way do you mean ‘interesting’? I would still be able to identify traffic congestion if I didn’t have a car, in the same way over population can be recognised by people who are part of the over population. 

[LadyG]

2 minutes ago, Gareth E said:

Yes, everyone who is here already is part of the over population problem. We are where we are, nobody sensible would think of changing that. The challenge is to reduce the birth rate, but I'm sure you knew that already.

But the government will never admit that, they keep saying we need more people, then suddenly discover there is not enough housing in the SE, [plenty of empty houses in the NW and Scotland btw, just not where there are jobs!]

Once these millions of houses have been built, they will discover they need new schools and more teachers, then, as these new teachers can't afford these new houses, they need more roads  to transport them, the roads get too crowded, so we need more rail links. You see where I am going here?

[LadyG]

11 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Pensioners and health care for the elderly are the biggest drain on the government purse.   If it wasn't for the young generation putting money into the system then we will be in a bigger mess and the older generation would be the first to suffer.

That's what your government tell you: hereabouts, the older generation in greatest need are selling their property [ie their life earnings] to fund their keep in nursing homes., so all the wealth they have created and stored is going down the drain.

Its not my fault that the previous governments sold the family silver and reduced taxation in order to keep the voters happy. They should have invested the money, Government bonds or whatever they do, and this would have kept the crisis at bay.

I'm not convinced the younger generation are putting much in to the system. They have already taken out a massive amount [education, benefits, etc], then, age twenty something, they start to pay tax on their earnings, that is,  if they are earning and if they don't have children or unemployment.

Edited August 24, 2018 by LadyG

[Robbo]

12 minutes ago, LadyG said:

That's what your government tell you: hereabouts, the older generation in greatest need are selling their property [ie their life earnings] to fund their keep in nursing homes., so all the wealth they have created and stored is going down the drain.

Its not my fault that the previous governments sold the family silver and reduced taxation in order to keep the voters happy. They should have invested the money, Government bonds or whatever they do, and this would have kept the crisis at bay.

Well it is your fault as you had a vote and voted them in.

 

Health care is one of the biggest drains on the system, the wealth today is created is by the working generation, the wealth created when you were working was too look after the system then, but (un)fortunately when you were working life expectancy after retirement age wasn't as high so not putting the pressure on the system.   The older generation have wealth locked up in property, why shouldn't it be used for there care?

Edited August 24, 2018 by Robbo

[LadyG]

44 minutes ago, Wanderer Vagabond said:

 

 

It is also interesting that when people talk of overpopulation it is a bit like when they talk about traffic congestion what they really mean is that there are too many other people, they themselves are not part of the problem (although they are).

I have had no children and I don't encourage people to have children willy-nilly, but they do anyway, even though they can't afford them.

They are entitled to maternity leave, paid for by someone else.

They get paternity leave paid for by someone else.

They leave work because they are raising children, and claim benefits provided by someone else.

Kids get educated from age three to twenty three, mostly subsidised by someone else.

 

oops, am I the only perfect economic model,  living in my unsubsidised house in my perfect bubble ~

 

[LadyG]

12 minutes ago, Robbo said:

Well it is your fault as you had a vote and voted them in.

 

Health care is one of the biggest drains on the system, the wealth today is created is by the working generation, the wealth created when you were working was too look after the system then, but (un)fortunately when you were working life expectancy after retirement age wasn't as high so not putting the pressure on the system.   The older generation have wealth locked up in property, why shouldn't it be used for there care?

I have not voted for most of my life, except that last time when I, personally,  turned out to stop those Scottish Nationalists partitioning us from the rest of Europe.

Other than that I have not voted either because I don't live in a marginal constituency, or because I don't think the available candidates are worthy of my support.

I did not say whether or not I agreed with older folks in greatest need paying for nursing etc. I just said, that is what is happening.

Edited August 24, 2018 by LadyG

[Robbo]

24 minutes ago, LadyG said:

oops, am I the only perfect economic model,  living in my unsubsidised house in my perfect bubble ~

But who payed for your education?   Who will pay for you health care when/if your  no longer to take care of yourself?   You had no children that would now be working and generating wealth for the system and what you put in the system would be very quickly gone if you needed social care?

Edited August 24, 2018 by Robbo
Spelling

[Gareth E]

13 minutes ago, Robbo said:

But who will payed for your education?   Who will pay for you health care when/if your  no longer to take care of yourself?   You had no children that would now be working and generating wealth for the system and what you put in the system would be very quickly gone if you needed social care?

This is the nub of the problem. The 'system' relies on perpetual growth as the contributions of a flatlining population are insufficient to pay for the needs of the elderly. It's a kind of ponzi scheme but the eventual inevitable breakdown won't just be a few hapless people losing their savings.