Well as a result of the 400,000 increase in population last year there will be that many more pensioners down the road in decades time. What will be the answer then? How long can this go on in the light of this country earning its living in the world? Let alone the strain on electricity, water, social services, the general environment etc.

My answer to his question is that I will work on despite paying national insurance for years on the basis of a retirement promised at 65. As I said it was/is a Ponzi scheme in which the goalposts have already been moved.

"Well as a result of the 400,000 increase in population last year there will be that many more pensioners down the road in decades time. What will be the answer then? "

Uh..the same? And no there won't be that many more pensioners because there will be a huge number of dead boomers.

"My answer to his question is that I will work on despite paying national insurance for years on the basis of a retirement promised at 65. As I said it was/is a Ponzi scheme in which the goalposts have already been moved."

That's not an answer at all. He posed very direct questions and as usual you dodge and demagogue.

And what is your solution to the "ponzi scheme". Privatization?

Are you saying that the population of the UK will decline in the interim? Seriously?

And yes my answer was very clear, to repeat its #1.

My solution is very simple - as a function of the economic cycle the government should balance its books. Surplus in good times and a defecite in bad. Have you any idea how much the UK and USA pay in interest to those who lend them money? It is astronomical, even so much as to make them "too big to fail". What a racket.

"Are you saying that the population of the UK will decline in the interim? Seriously?"

After the boomers die off yes there will be a drop off. That's why they're called baby boomers. The number of people in their 40s/50s right now is relatively small as is the number of young dependents.

"My solution is very simple - as a function of the economic cycle the government should balance its books."

Right everything is simple with you. I forgot. It's as if government doesn't try to do exactly that. And where does national insurance fit in? Should it be cut in good times? Talk about a non sequitur.

Also there is plenty of evidence to suggest that surpluses hurt the economy. Clinton surplus in late 1990s led to Bush recession in early 01/02.

So you predict that the population will decline? No weasel words about drop off in the rate of increase please, it is a decline that you have to commit too.

On NI the clue is in the name - national insurance. If you had it deducted every month from your pay packet, what would you think you were paying for? Here's a clue - read the Beverage report. On the huge proportion of the tax take paid out in interest I thought that we would find common ground - obviously not.

On the problem of a country with a limited industrial and resource base paying its way in the world particularly with an increasing population (400,000 last year) you are silent.

Yes it will decline. I've said this a couple of times now. It has to decline, the pace at which we will lose boomers will not be met by the rather low birthrate.

"On the huge proportion of the tax take paid out in interest I thought that we would find common ground - obviously not."

Sure there is 'common ground' but you aren't proposing anything, you're just complaining about it. I asked you how specifically your prescription of cuts in good times, spending in bad fits in with how National Insurance should work and you just complain about interest payments.

"On the problem of a country with a limited industrial and resource base paying its way in the world particularly with an increasing population (400,000 last year) you are silent."

Attracting working age people to your country helps pay your way. Unless you're assuming all your migrants are dependents, which is insulting. You need people to do the work pensioners are no longer doing. Who is that going to be?

Magical elves.

@ putin +1 (+1)
''Yes it will decline. I've said this a couple of times now. It has to decline, the pace at which we will lose boomers will not be met by the rather low birthrate.''

The Office of National Statidtics disagrees with you:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/npp/national-population-projections/2010-based-projections/sum-2010-based-national-population-projections.html

73.2 million by 2035.

And here is something from the Independant:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uk-population-will-soar-by-nearly-10-million-by-2037-with-immigration-attributed-to-projected-increase-8924418.html

And i thought that the voice of Russia would be fun too

http://voiceofrussia.com/uk/news/2014_06_27/Fears-that-fast-growing-population-will-trigger-housing-crisis-in-UK-4449/

In all seriousness, this is a major issue for Britain. i started by quoting the elephant in the room, but others here have reminded me of children sticking their fingers in their ears crying ''I can't hear you'' at the top of their voices.

''Attracting working age people to your country helps pay your way. Unless you're assuming all your migrants are dependents, which is insulting. You need people to do the work pensioners are no longer doing. Who is that going to be?''

As a stop gap then yes attracting workers will help to raise the tax take and hence support an aging population. However, in the long term it will just make the problem worse as I think I have demonstrated. More importantly, however, you have still failed to answer this question:

On the problem of a country with a limited industrial and resource base paying its way in the world particularly with an increasing population (400,000 last year) you are silent.

And in 1965 the ONS overestimated Britain's population for the year 2000 by 16 million, and its currently estimates a life expectancy increase of 10 years by 2035, which is hard to fathom.

"On the problem of a country with a limited industrial and resource base paying its way in the world particularly with an increasing population (400,000 last year) you are silent. "

No I just answered that question and you just replied to it.

Anyway Japan has stifled any kind of migration to their country for decades and it has very bleak prospects for future growth. I suppose that's the model the demagogues are following.

That is a very good point, Putin. Japan's population has been in decline for around a decade, having only grown very slightly before that. At the same time, the *proportion* of the population who are elderly has risen significantly. Japan has not had an influx of working age migrants, and it is having real problems as a result. The UK certainly doesn't want to follow that example.

Well thank you very much for that; an argument against The Office of National Statistics. I rest my case. Perhaps they are looking for some new statisticians (!)

''No I just answered that question and you just replied to it. ''

Npe no answer received at this end. you spoke of the tax take, but not the problem of the balance of payements - two different things.

@ Jamiet, so you dispute the figures from The Office of National Statistics too? fingers in your ears old chap?

@ Putin were you by chance reading this:
Fifty years of United Kingdom national population projections: how accurate have they been?

I ask because yiou don't give a reference to your quote here: ''And in 1965 the ONS overestimated Britain's population for the year 2000 by 16 million, and its currently estimates a life expectancy increase of 10 years by 2035, which is hard to fathom.''

Perhaps you didn't have that in mind. Anyway I have taken the trouble to try and source your quote mining. Would youn or Jamiet like to discuss it further?

That's funny Fulham. Everywhere you're always claiming you're "skeptical" about official science and statistics, now you take it on faith even though that study you reference exposes the fact that ONS's estimates have been wide of the mark for the simple fact that population projections are extremely difficult to do accurately. Rest your case all you want, it's a fact that ONS admits because it's actually honest about its inaccuracy that it missed projections by 16 million.

As for the life expectancy claim, here:

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lifetables/historic-and-projected-data-from-the-period-and-cohort-life-tables/2012-based/stb-2012-based.html

"Npe no answer received at this end. you spoke of the tax take, but not the problem of the balance of payements - two different things."

Please explain to me what you think is "problematic" about the UK's balance of payments. Balance of payments always equals zero. Either the UK is importing more goods than it is selling or it is importing more investment capital than it is selling. Either way balance of payments says absolutely nothing about the strength of Britain's economy.

@putin - I'm an advocate for liberal immigration policy, but some of your arguments are flawed. Your premise about needing working age migrants to help pay for the ageing population would only be credible if we were approaching full employment. There is no advantage to migrants picking fruit on low wages while a 'local' kid claims out of work benefits. The ageing population problem doesn't just apply to the UK. What is the point of taking working age people from say Spain and Greece to help pay taxes in the UK which then go to UK pensioners, if the pensioners in Spain and Greece now have fewer working age people paying taxes?

We have to move towards balancing a person's contributions with their likely requirements. If that means increasing taxes, working longer, cutting some universal benefits where they are not needed, etc. then those things should all be on the table for discussion.

The one thing we shouldn't do is blame migrants for our housing, education and NHS problems. We can resolve them all with a little radical thinking.

There's a whole series of complex things to consider.

First, the impression I got was that the bulk of the UK immigrants weren't coming from places like Spain or Greece, but rather Poland, India, and Nigeria. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Second, I was also under the impression that the sectors migrants target are sectors where there is an actual shortage of applicants - like truck drivers, plumbers, electricians etc. It seems that migrants are much more professional overall and not doing low-wage menial labor.

Third, the UK recently made it more expensive to hire agency workers, which were a way into the labor force for youth.

Fourth, the UK is making education more expensive, while education in places like Poland is both cheap and high quality. There are simply more migrants with needed skills than young people with needed skills.

Fifth, the UK certainly does have an aging population problem. This is also related to youth unemployment, as older workers who should be retiring are doing the jobs that younger workers used to do. So if you're going to blame somebody to taking young people's jobs, blame the elderly.

http://www.parliament.uk/business/publications/research/key-issues-for-the-new-parliament/value-for-money-in-public-services/the-ageing-population/

http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2013/mar/13/workers-aged-65-older-increasing

*not just doing low-wage menial labor

Just thought of this, but re: 'balance of payments', if this were a serious concern, an instant fix would be to join the EMU. The main worry of current account deficits (which is what people really mean when they talk about balance of payments crisis) is that they'd cause exchange rate depreciation. Why? Because the demand for foreign currencies to buy imports to the UK is higher than the demand for the British pound to buy British exports. Joining the euro would eliminate that problem since you'd all be on the same currency.

@ fulhamish: "so you dispute the figures from The Office of National Statistics too? fingers in your ears old chap?"

No. I didn't say that. The ONS are probably right that the UK population will increase between now and the 2030's. What I'm saying is, that may be no bad thing, if you look at what has happened to Japan with their stagnant, non-growing, increasingly elderly population.

@ putin ''And in 1965 the ONS overestimated Britain's population for the year 2000 by 16 million..............''

You have just given the classic example of a cherry picling fallacy, thank you it will be very useful.

''When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument.''

We could go on to discuss the reference in more detail once you have at last admitted where your evidence comes from.

@ Jamiet. Thank you for your reply it is vety clear.I am pleased that you disagree with Putin on this one. My point about the increase in population is that long-term it rather nullifies the argument that we need an influx of young migrants to support our aging population. In fact all it does is kick the problem further down the road as those migrants will in turn become old. Do we then have another influx of migrants to support them in turn? At some point, and in my view we have already passed it, this will become unsustainable. Perhaps you could read my comments on energy, water, the balance of payements, housing, social services etc. again in that context?