Uk state pension forecast

[Marisawright]

27 minutes ago, Paul1Perth said:

Not saying that there's still a shortfall but that's mostly to do wirh inflation.

Well yes, of course it's to do with inflation.   It's bleeding obvious that people retiring in twenty years' time will need a much, much higher pension than people retiring today, (due to inflation), so contributions should always have increased in line with inflation, to take that into account.  If they don't, then pensioners either get less, or don't get it until they're much older, which is exactly the way it's heading.

Edited October 4, 2021 by Marisawright

[Parley]

11 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

Well yes, of course it's to do with inflation.   It's bleeding obvious that people retiring in twenty years' time will need a much, much higher pension than people retiring today, (due to inflation), so contributions should always have increased in line with inflation, to take that into account.  If they don't, then pensioners either get less, or don't get it until they're much older, which is exactly the way it's heading.

Or there are more current workers. You seem to think that the NI premiums you made years ago are what is funding your pension today. It doesn't work like that.

As I explained, All the NI premiums made this year by workers in the UK are used to pay all the pension payments this year for pensioners.

I think the premiums received exceed the pensions and so there is a surplus which is used to pay down government debt.

So in your example above you are neglecting the fact that what is needed is more workers paying NI each year, not higher premiums.

[Marisawright]

2 hours ago, Parley said:

So in your example above you are neglecting the fact that what is needed is more workers paying NI each year, not higher premiums.

I know that.  I feel as though I'm going round in circles.

Most people in the UK think that the contributions they pay into NI, pays for their pensions when they retire. But because those NI contributions were so low, that was never going to be the case, and as you say, it's the money from younger people's contributions that is paying for our pensions.  That may be creating a surplus right now, but it won't last -- because as you know, the baby boomers were a big generation. So if all our contributions have already gone and we're now eating up the current workers' contributions, who's going to pay for their retirement?  What is the government going to do, pay people to have kids?   

[Paul1Perth]

4 hours ago, Parley said:

Or there are more current workers. You seem to think that the NI premiums you made years ago are what is funding your pension today. It doesn't work like that.

As I explained, All the NI premiums made this year by workers in the UK are used to pay all the pension payments this year for pensioners.

I think the premiums received exceed the pensions and so there is a surplus which is used to pay down government debt.

So in your example above you are neglecting the fact that what is needed is more workers paying NI each year, not higher premiums.

It's going to be more of a problem in the very near future then. AI, robotics, remote mining, technology advancements are going to lead to less and less manual labour required. All this STEM garbage isn't going to help, there just isn't going to be enough jobs. A lot of countries have recognised and accepted that there's going to have to be "universal income", there's heaps about it online. Basically getting an income with no job. 

It's going to be a massive upheaval for everyone.

[Parley]

3 minutes ago, Paul1Perth said:

It's going to be more of a problem in the very near future then. AI, robotics, remote mining, technology advancements are going to lead to less and less manual labour required. All this STEM garbage isn't going to help, there just isn't going to be enough jobs. A lot of countries have recognised and accepted that there's going to have to be "universal income", there's heaps about it online. Basically getting an income with no job. 

It's going to be a massive upheaval for everyone.

There will be different jobs. I think it is a myth to think there will be a lot less jobs. Like the paperless office.

Also immigration leads to more workers coming into the country.

[Paul1Perth]

2 minutes ago, Parley said:

There will be different jobs. I think it is a myth to think there will be a lot less jobs. Like the paperless office.

Also immigration leads to more workers coming into the country.

It's pretty widely accepted that's the way it's heading Parley. Look up universal income on line and there's discussions galore about it.

Going to be a massive problem in the next 10 years or so and get slowly worse.

No easy answers. Obbviously they need people in work to pay the income to the non workers, who's going to be happy doing that?

[Robert Dyson]

Just now, Parley said:

There will be different jobs. I think it is a myth to think there will be a lot less jobs. Like the paperless office.

Also immigration leads to more workers coming into the country.

Paul is more right than wrong.  Countries have been built on the concept of ever-expanding economies, which means people coming in at the bottom to do the shitty jobs to get on the ladder.  Your Mexicans propping up the southern United States, your Germany's allowing in a million Syrians because they had a deficit of a million immigrants to do the bottom level jobs at low wages.

What happens when those jobs start disappearing  and companies realise they cannot rely on a 7% profit every year to pay to shareholders as dividends...all the efficiencies will be technology-based with fewer top level workers required to provide the creativity but less of the grunt? 

So Governments get lumbered with a growing number of people with nothing useful to do and nowhere to earn, as we currently understand being "useful".  Maybe there will be a need for Governments to provide jobs at universal income levels to look after society, while society looks after itself. The climate change and sustainability requirements are going to drive a lot of this. 

Donut economics is a good place to start...Amsterdam are looking at basing their post-covid economic model around this.

[Paul1Perth]

15 hours ago, Robert Dyson said:

Paul is more right than wrong.  Countries have been built on the concept of ever-expanding economies, which means people coming in at the bottom to do the shitty jobs to get on the ladder.  Your Mexicans propping up the southern United States, your Germany's allowing in a million Syrians because they had a deficit of a million immigrants to do the bottom level jobs at low wages.

What happens when those jobs start disappearing  and companies realise they cannot rely on a 7% profit every year to pay to shareholders as dividends...all the efficiencies will be technology-based with fewer top level workers required to provide the creativity but less of the grunt? 

So Governments get lumbered with a growing number of people with nothing useful to do and nowhere to earn, as we currently understand being "useful".  Maybe there will be a need for Governments to provide jobs at universal income levels to look after society, while society looks after itself. The climate change and sustainability requirements are going to drive a lot of this. 

Donut economics is a good place to start...Amsterdam are looking at basing their post-covid economic model around this.

It's one of those dilemas that in theory you draw some nice diagrams and explain how everythings going to work.

In practice it means an awful lot of people are going to have to accept a much lower standard of living, no certainty of ever having a job, what's that mean for the opportunity to buy a house? Keep the power on.

There's got to be a massive change in peoples expectations and I really can't see anything but social and political unrest. Won't matter how much money you have, it's going to affect everyone. Start in the Cities first and in countries that are already overpopulated.

It's going to end up like one of those futuristic films where everythings turned to crap and humans are battling for survival.

Not for a few years yet and if China invades Taiwan the US will be dragged in and then us and Europe. Might be a third world war that this time fought remotely with much more devastating weapons.

Climate crisis will be the least of our worries.