Re: UK Population.

|On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 09:27:35 +0100, Howie | wrote: | |>I have recently become interested in the UK government's policy |>of increasing the population to solve the future tax burdon for |>the pensions timebomb we hear so much about. | |You mean by immigration? by the time a new generation born now grew up |the situation would almost certainly be completely different.

No. I don't mean by immigration. Immigration is just a red-herring and is not statistically significant IMO. If anything, it can only marginally assist this 'population increase' policy. I mean by increased birth-rate. This was alluded to in my first paragraph which mentioned the incentives of WFTC and increased child benefit for additional children.

Note that all governments are increasingly required to address this question and put plans in place. This appears to be rather unique situation as the government in question are not likely to need to answer for the results. The plan itself and it's implementation at inception and during the government's term of office is judged. However it is a requirement because it shows that the present-day government can be seen to be addressing a known long-term problem.

As far as your thoughts that it is 'almost certain to be completely different', only the financial calculations are likely to change, and this depends on the government's actions which precede it. Don't forget, in 16 years an individual may begin to pay income and other taxes.

However, all this does not really address my original question... !

Reply to
Howie
Loading thread data ...

I hope not. The study of the aging process, which has only really been taken seriously in the last few years, will hopefully have born fruit reducing the dependancy currently associated with old age.

Reply to
Malcolm McMahon

Ireland, UK and the Netherlands are already so overpopulated that they look like parks, not countries. But if their nature is already destroyed, a little bit more population doesn't matter anymore?

I don't like the idea of breeding bonuses. The proportion of single mothers has already exploded and they cause psychological problems to their sons.

UK is no more a closed system. Those young tax payers might escape abroad, which were actually good for everybody. EU needs more internal immigration.

Reply to
First Surname

In article , First Surname writes

Some park. Only a tiny fraction of the 13m hectares in England is developed - one that shrinks further once the wilds of Scotland and Wales are added.

Who does? That's your interpretation of tax policy. Others would say it is a fight against poverty. If you think the benefit increases are sufficient to encourage breeding you obviously don't know how little are compared with the actual cost of raising a child - including potential loss of parental income.

And extra benefits will make even more rush out to breed? Perhaps they should also be denied bathrooms, because everyone knows that they'll just keep coal in the bath.

I refer you to the first line of " This Be The Verse" by Philip Larkin. Marriage don't come into it.

Reply to
news

The nature isn't destroyed. I'm 30 miles from the centre of London and have 6 square miles of protected countryside next to me, and it's not exceptional.

Hmmm when I was at school 20 years ago, the language teaching was abysmal. This will act as a barrier to migration out of the UK if it's still the case.

Daytona (and the deer are grazing outside as I write)

Reply to
Daytona

|In article , First Surname | writes |>Ireland, UK and the Netherlands are already so overpopulated that |>they look like parks, not countries. | |Some park. Only a tiny fraction of the 13m hectares in England is |developed - one that shrinks further once the wilds of Scotland and |Wales are added.

Not really what I am trying to get at. I feel sure that the need for society to develop in size and it's industrial footprint on the country to be expanded is unecessary and destructive, - in more than just an environmental sense.

| |>But if their nature is already |>destroyed, a little bit more population doesn't matter anymore?

For what it's worth, again, I agree that the environmental and social disadvantages are probably completely unacceptable. But I asked the question from a purely economic viewpoint. To analyse it in this way requires analysis of ecology and society to be postponed - for the time being.

|>I don't like the idea of breeding bonuses. | |Who does? That's your interpretation of tax policy. Others would say it |is a fight against poverty. If you think the benefit increases are |sufficient to encourage breeding you obviously don't know how little are |compared with the actual cost of raising a child - including potential |loss of parental income. | Look, this was really a question about the possible effectiveness of this government policy. These benefits incentives have been put in place specifically to help increase the population. I know it doesn't in any way make strong-minded, financially-aware couples begin to breed, but it obviously does allow those who have already 'spawned' to repeat the process!

If you discover a government payout which allows you to earn whatever you can and be subsidised for the rest, that will make you seriously reconsider only having one child purely for financial reasons, it takes away that financial consideration. For that reason alone, it will have an effect. We do NOT know if that effect is significant yet, - but it IS government policy!

The incentives and government announcements are not in question. This is the reality. What I am trying to do is calculate the success of a programme such as this.

|> The proportion of |>single mothers has already exploded | |And extra benefits will make even more rush out to breed? Perhaps they |should also be denied bathrooms, because everyone knows that they'll |just keep coal in the bath.

Please see above..

Reply to
to.reply.pls.see.sig

In article , snipped-for-privacy@end.of.message.com writes

Where did you get such a crazy idea?

Reply to
news

Have you been to Prague?? Your quite an interesting person considering I initially thought you where a lumberjack, stuck out in the middle of nowhere with just a huntin rifle and a racoon hat and a wooden shed. (sorry thats my stereotypical canadian).

Ahh speaking of which, did you ever see the monty python lumberjack sketch? Hilariouso...

Yah, I think prison is a bad place to put people. I think it leads to tougher, meaner criminals..it absolutely worries me to death that the USA has embarked on its policy of locking everybody up during the last ten to fifteen years...I am worried that when those guys get out....its like a ticking time bomb..and the USA will end up like South Africa..which is just "unbelievable"....beyond belief...

Reply to
Stephen GoldenGun

Yup, Quite enjoyed the skit. Though unfortunately I don't have High Heels , suspenders or a bra; like my dear mama. Though having said that....... Here in North America suspenders are defined as a device to suspend one's trousers as opposed to one's stockings and using the former definition I do have suspenders . And my "lumberjack experience" has been limited to clearing brush on my fathers hobby farms

The prevailing logic in the States is to "punish" people for their crimes (unless they've got enough money to buy their way out of course) . Logic is that once people have been in jail long enough they are magically "rehabilitated" and are freed to society with criminal records that prevent them from getting good jobs or getting decent credit. Thereby a whole underclass is developed providing free advertizing for the gun manufacturers with nightly demonstrations of the product on the evening news ! (see it's all good).

Then..... You encourage Mexicans to sneek across the border into the US so that you can have people with no criminal record and no legal rights to ask for minimum wage, job security or benefits to do all of your crappy jobs! It's great. AND ! ...... If they piss you off, you just call INS and they deport them back to Mexico widely publicized on the news to remind all the other "illegals" of what can happen. Who said slavery was removed from the States? Hell this is even better! You're not even responsible for Mexicans. If a person was a Slave owner they'd be responsible for their slaves but with Mexican's, if they f*ck-up just call INS, they'll take them away and in a few hours more Mexicans will be available to take their place. Far more efficient than slavery, no up front costs (purchase price), no maintenance (they feed, clothe & medicate themselves). no shipping costs (they self transport) and no disposal costs beyond a call to the INS. Who said illegal immigration had no upsides?

Some think that capitalism in the US is immoral but it's not, it's amoral. The question is; which is worse?

That's my nightly rant. Night all !

Stephen.

Reply to
System Prompt

In message , Malcolm McMahon writes

Which study is that you are referring to? Was it a specific one?? How does it relate to reducing dependency associated with old age?

Just wondering as I am considered to be in that age bracket.

George

Remove "no spam" in address.

Reply to
George

There have been a number of lines or research in recent years which seem bear dirrectly on the aging process itself (rather than specifically the diseases of aging). To me the research into telomeres is the most interesting but there's also stuff like the calorie restriction work.

Until fairly recently it seemed to be a taboo subject in medical research. An article on free radical scavengers I read a couple of decades back, astonishingly, suggested that this might one day be able to increase the life span of our pets, without daring to mention the possibility of extending human life. That wouldn't happen in today's climate.

I'm inclined to thing I may belong to the last generation to die of old age or, if I'm lucky, the first not to.

A major advance in longevity would, of course, require us to completely rethink the life pattern of today. Perhaps, rather than retirement, you'd have a few years sabbatical then go back into education again to catch up.

Reply to
Malcolm McMahon

In message , System Prompt writes

I think that if you work out how long the human organism can theoretically live for it is about 125 years. If I retire in 5 years... oops what a give away, and think about a life of endless games of golf and lying in the sun drinking pimms (which was the mythology sold to my generation,) and suddenly I am told that there is some technology/lifestyle/surgery to enable me to live for another 60 years then the next 60 years of golf looks a tad boring.

But that does not mean I want to go on working in another career just so that I qualify as a "useful" as opposed to "not so useful" member of society in terms of just paying tax then I have to take issue with that. I don't know how old you are but I haven't been able to afford the luxury of getting a career I like. I did what I had to do to pay the rent. I've done my time.

I can see your point that If I extended my life somehow and then explored different possibilities then I could enjoy the remiander of my life without falling into the "whole retirement scenario". I never wanted to retire, and the career I have now has *compulsory* retirement at 65. Ok the government may change that but their reasons are questionable. "Bring back the workhouse!"

I like the fact that I am looking at a second career. I just want a bit of a beak (sabattical) to explore some of the possibilities, and more education is one of them. Particularly a "skill".

I quite fancy becoming a 65 year old hairstylist. Perhaps an older version of Nicky Clarke. I dunno. Perhaps formula 1 racing, but what with my eyesight ?? :) :).

All the best George

George

Reply to
George

Given that there's no real agreement on the mechanism of aging I think such figures must, necessarilly, be nothing more than guesses.

Reply to
Malcolm McMahon

Excellent Idea!

Reply to
StephenGoldenGun

What you're ruling out formula 1 racing on a little factor like eyesight? Bah! Laser eye surgery will fix that up right as rain! Heck Sean Connery see's himself an action hero in his latest movie and he's 7 years past the onset of being an OAP in this day and age.

I have a different view of work than most (my Father & Grandfather being in the clergy and all). My logic is that people should work at least 2 days per week for at least 40 weeks per year for most of their life. Thus there would be a few hours of one's life available for leisure and a bit of sanity. Perhaps then there might even be a bit less strain on the NHS and group insurance packages with people taking stress leave and all.

Stephen

Reply to
System Prompt

Not so far fetched!

... in the last hundred years in England there has been a considerable improvement in the standard of living amongst the poorer people. Two hundred years ago, however, the average working week in industry was four days. Then the artisan earned enough in these four days to maintain himself during the whole week at a standard of comfort which satisfied him. ... Four hundred years ago the lot of the poorer classes, judged by their wages, was better still. - 'Nature of Society' Chap.VI (Theory and Fact)

formatting link

Reply to
S G

Yes, I knew about the suspenders. Quite a good idea, stops your oshkosh overalls from faling down, although oshkosh have their own suspenders

Not a bad idea...something has got to be done..although statistically the Brits are the best in europe....due to our healthy immigration of canadians, who are the most prolific breeders around, and have a reproduction rate of

2.3 kids per year per couple...amazing really, we think it is something to do with living in close proximity to large woodland areas and being at one with nature.

Sounds logical to me.

Well, we would have to devote an entire newsgroup to that subject....

Absoutey RIGHT...if their is no hope, no future, what are the guys going to do? What about the young teens who can change, who can learn...

Thereby a whole underclass is developed providing free advertizing for the gun

its true what you say.

You should write for a magasine.

Hell this is even better! You're not even responsible for Mexicans. If a person

Unlimited supply, and you can give them back when they get warn out or sick!!

Hey, I'm thinking now of relocating my small business down to texas!

Reply to
Stephen GoldenGun

I assume there could be major problems with human brain. How to regenerate them without destroying memories and personality.

Reply to
First Surname

Well, have you heard they already know how to double the life of a mouse! They actually are doing this, I have also heard that Vitamin C holds a key to longevity?

Reply to
Stephen GoldenGun

Nothing, ultimately, is irreversible except loss of information.

Aging isn't something which evolution has directly selected for. It's actually pretty obvious that evolution would mildly favour longevity (mildly, because in the wild few animals die of old age anyway). More mature, more experienced animals are better parents.

There are basically two theories I'm aware of. One is that the cost of longevity, in terms of growth in terms of metabolic energy is significant so it's not worth evolution's while to give more than a particular species are likely to be able to use.

The other is that there's a specific mechanism (the Halflick limit) which limits the number of cell generations allowed in the adult. This would probably exist as a defence against cancer, since a cancer would rapidly use up these generations. In this theory the judicious application of telomerase might well reset the clocks.

Reply to
Malcolm McMahon

BeanSmart website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.