[Miyazaki]

According to a report on the BBC new this morning, if we were to imagine a yearly calendar of self sufficiency, but today (15th April) we would be relying entirely on imported good.

Add that to the fact that there are several different goods of which we import the same amount as we export and it looks even worse.

If everyone in the world lived as we do, we would need 3 Earth's of resources to support us all.

I wonder why the climate is changing?

[Miniholic]

Some more info here.

http://othernews.uk.myway.com/articl...062012A00.html

"As our total consumption grows, the day on which we begin consuming beyond our environmental means moves earlier in the year.

"In 1961 it was 9 July. By 1981 Britain's ecological debt day was reached almost two months earlier on 14 May.

Its not a new thing, but is getting worse. I wonder how long it will be before we are in the red for the whole year unless drastic action is taken. Doesn't give you much hope does it.

[Nick_UK]

Ahh, but the whole situation is set to change in the next 40 years. In 30 years most of the "baby boomer" generation will be gone, and the population will drop dramatically. This will have a drastic impact on the economy, as well as having an impact on our energy consumption. For effects on global warming, you'll have to look elsewhere in the world.

This is not a racist statement, but were it not for the immigrants coming into the country, our population would be dwindling even faster, because native British young people don't want to breed any more, so it seems.

[holtehero]

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

because native British young people don't want to breed any more, so it seems.

You're entirely correct. In fact, without the benefit system allowing/encouraging those who could otherwise never afford to have children to have them, the situation would be dire. It is therefore interesting that those who choose (often for financial reasons) not to have their own children end up subsidising those who do.

[Nick_UK]

We shouldn't be castigating young unmarried mothers - we should be congratulating them. After all, it's their offspring that will be paying for your pension when you retire (if the government lets you retire).

[Confucius]

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

..... it's their offspring that will be paying for your pension when you retire (if the government lets you retire).

If they ever get jobs, rather than twocing and vandalism.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

We shouldn't be castigating young unmarried mothers - we should be congratulating them. After all, it's their offspring that will be paying for your pension when you retire (if the government lets you retire).

Exactly.

Another factor that people forget, is that 100,000's of Britons emmigrate each year. An estimated 600,000 will leave these shores for new homes in Spain alone this year. A lot of these are going to retire, but increasingly they are not. France, Spain and even Germany have become sinks for qualifed Britons who can't get decent pay (or respect) here.

If it wasn't for the immigrants no bugger would be doing the crap jobs!

Taking up seans point, since the late 19th Century our imports have become dangerously high. Once Germany and the US overtook us in the early 20th C, only our enforced, one way trade to the Empire, kept our industrial exports afloat. After WW1 it was in deep doo and never really recovered.

[shodan]

Just been reading this thread and although I don't understand it as well as you guys, its quite an education for me, and a worrying one at that! No point to this post other than to say thanks for helping me to learn something new today!

Originally Posted by overkill

Exactly.

Another factor that people forget, is that 100,000's of Britons emmigrate each year. An estimated 600,000 will leave these shores for new homes in Spain alone this year. A lot of these are going to retire, but increasingly they are not. France, Spain and even Germany have become sinks for qualifed Britons who can't get decent pay (or respect) here.

If it wasn't for the immigrants no bugger would be doing the crap jobs!:eek:

.

If it wasn't for immigrants you wouldn't have a health service either.

[Nick_UK]

Originally Posted by jakal

If it wasn't for immigrants you wouldn't have a health service either.

That's true, and it's been like that for over 40 years.

Originally Posted by overkill

If it wasn't for the immigrants no bugger would be doing the crap jobs!

This is very true. It's also true that in some areas of the UK, 75% of all new born babies are born to mothers who were not themselves born in the UK. That means only 1 in 4 new babies born in those areas are born to indigenous peoples, not nearly enough to sustain society. We are therefore currently relying on benefit recipients and immigrants to provide enough future workers (if we're lucky) to support the rest of us.

Nobody seems to be asking the question of why those who are well educated, have jobs and have the ability to support their own offspring are choosing not to have children at all.

I'm not sure we should be 'congratulating' single mothers. Unfortunately, all research shows that children born to unemployed mothers on benefit tend to go on to become dependant on benefits themselves (this is especially the case where the offspring are female). Before the lefty heart bleeders claim that this is somehow not true, please, do the reading first - no need to make a fool of yourself simply because the reality doesn't correspond with your utopian theory.

[Nick_UK]

Originally Posted by lucem

This is very true. It's also true that in some areas of the UK, 75% of all new born babies are born to mothers who were not themselves born in the UK. That means only 1 in 4 new babies born in those areas are born to indigenous peoples, not nearly enough to sustain society.

It is enough to sustain society. However, what you have to accept is that British society is going to become more and more diluted by other nationalities. It is up to you to decide whether this is a good or a bad thing.

Originally Posted by lucem

Nobody seems to be asking the question of why those who are well educated, have jobs and have the ability to support their own offspring are choosing not to have children at all.

Because we live in a consumer-led society ? People who have families usually have to make sacrifices in their own lives, and it appears that more and more are choosing not to make those sacrifices.

Originally Posted by lucem

I'm not sure we should be 'congratulating' single mothers. Unfortunately, all research shows that children born to unemployed mothers on benefit tend to go on to become dependant on benefits themselves (this is especially the case where the offspring are female). Before the lefty heart bleeders claim that this is somehow not true, please, do the reading first - no need to make a fool of yourself simply because the reality doesn't correspond with your utopian theory.

I wouldn't doubt that fact, but I think you are jumping to the wrong conclusions over why this happens ?

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

I wouldn't doubt that fact, but I think you are jumping to the wrong conclusions over why this happens ?

And where did you read these conclusions, the ones you apparently consider 'wrong'?

[Nick_UK]

I didn't read any conclusions. I was questioning your reasoning over your statements - "Unfortunately, all research shows that children born to unemployed mothers on benefit tend to go on to become dependant on benefits themselves (this is especially the case where the offspring are female). " and "Before the lefty heart bleeders claim that this is somehow not true, please, do the reading first - no need to make a fool of yourself simply because the reality doesn't correspond with your utopian theory."

You didn't say what you thought the factors were which would cause this ?

There are many reasons why someone should be dependent on benefits - it could be geographical, or ethnic, or even genetic in some cases.

Originally Posted by lucem

This is very true. It's also true that in some areas of the UK, 75% of all new born babies are born to mothers who were not themselves born in the UK. That means only 1 in 4 new babies born in those areas are born to indigenous peoples, not nearly enough to sustain society. We are therefore currently relying on benefit recipients and immigrants to provide enough future workers (if we're lucky) to support the rest of us.

Nobody seems to be asking the question of why those who are well educated, have jobs and have the ability to support their own offspring are choosing not to have children at all.

I'm not sure we should be 'congratulating' single mothers. Unfortunately, all research shows that children born to unemployed mothers on benefit tend to go on to become dependant on benefits themselves (this is especially the case where the offspring are female). Before the lefty heart bleeders claim that this is somehow not true, please, do the reading first - no need to make a fool of yourself simply because the reality doesn't correspond with your utopian theory.

Would you indulge one 'lefty heart bleeder' and divulge your sources of information - Daily Express or Daily Mail by any chance?

To suggest that immigrants are here to provide a breeding program for future 'workers' is frankly obnoxious - let alone untrue. Areas where non indigenous births outstrip indigenous births are very few and far between.

How ever if you can point me towards your sources I am willing to review and change my view as necessary.

Originally Posted by jakal

To suggest that immigrants are here to provide a breeding program for future 'workers' is frankly obnoxious - let alone untrue.

And again, where has anyone suggested this is the case? I most certainly didn't. I merely pointed out the figures, I made no suggestion that it was part of some insidious 'breeding program'. In fact, it's you that entered such a vile concept into this debate

My source was The Times. From memory, it was Peterborough that had the 4 to 1 ration, although in other areas the ratios were indeed much closer.

If you really want to discuss sources, these are the official UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures from December 2005 for the London boroughs:

Births to foreign-born mothers are concentrated in particular areas. In Greater London as a whole the percentage is 49% (Inner London 57%, Outer London 43%) and the following London boroughs have 60% or more of births to foreign-born mothers:

? Brent 68%
? Camden 61%
? Haringey 60%
? Kensington and Chelsea 67%
? Newham 71%
? Tower Hamlets 69%
? Westminster 67%

As you can clearly see, this is quite an anomaly.

By the way, would you care to name your source that claims the opposite?

NickUK - You claim my conclusions are wrong and then have a go at me for not making any conclusions. You appear to be commenting on what you think my conclusions might be. A shame, I had thought you were one of the more reasoned debaters here.

I don't claim to know why the children of benefit recepients tend to go on to benefit claimants themselves, I just know that the evidence proves that is the case.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by lucem

And again, where has anyone suggested this is the case? I most certainly didn't. I merely pointed out the figures, I made no suggestion that it was part of some insidious 'breeding program'. In fact, it's you that entered such a vile concept into this debate

My source was The Times. From memory, it was Peterborough that had the 4 to 1 ration, although in other areas the ratios were indeed much closer.

If you really want to discuss sources, these are the official UK Office for National Statistics (ONS) figures from December 2005 for the London boroughs:

Births to foreign-born mothers are concentrated in particular areas. In Greater London as a whole the percentage is 49% (Inner London 57%, Outer London 43%) and the following London boroughs have 60% or more of births to foreign-born mothers:

? Brent 68%
? Camden 61%
? Haringey 60%
? Kensington and Chelsea 67%
? Newham 71%
? Tower Hamlets 69%
? Westminster 67%

As you can clearly see, this is quite an anomaly.

By the way, would you care to name your source that claims the opposite?

NickUK - You claim my conclusions are wrong and then have a go at me for not making any conclusions. You appear to be commenting on what you think my conclusions might be. A shame, I had thought you were one of the more reasoned debaters here.

I don't claim to know why the children of benefit recepients tend to go on to benefit claimants themselves, I just know that the evidence proves that is the case.

I have worked for the ONS (indirectly) and I cannot see any way in which confidential information such as a mothers nationality would find it's way into the public domain. I would therefore have to say yes, I do place extreme doubt on those statistics.

They are not backed up either by the 'broad brush' census data.

While I would accept that their are a high percentage of foreign nationals living and having children in London, I would also not accept that as an 'anomaly'. London has long (by which I mean centuries not just years) been the centre of mass immigration, and areas of it have a long standing association with it.

I would suggest that in this case, ie your interpretation of the Times, another Right wing, agenda driven, newspapers findings, proves the 'bleeding hearts' right.

As for the assertion that 'single mums on benefits children invariably and up on it themselves', again, where is the data for that? Whilst I would not argue that this may well be the case, I've not seen (having worked for the BA) that link proven beyond doubt either.

Finally, there is unlikely to be more than a tiny percentage of people living in this country who aren't decendents of immigrants from one period or another. Germans, French, Danes, and later Irish (massively so) and Jews. The only real Brits are in Wales and Cornwall. Hasn't done us much harm not being 'British' in the past has it? Would you rather be Welsh or Cornish.........

[Nick_UK]

Originally Posted by sean5302

....... Work for a living? Why would I do that when I can lie in bed till noon, get £58 a week benefit, all my council tax paid, free school meals, free eyecare, dental care, grants for household items etc etc? If a slate blows off the roof, the council sends someone to fix it....

Sounds pretty obvious to me that you've never tried it. Sounds like someone who reads the Daily Mail.

[holtehero]

Overkill, there is clearly no point discussing anything if you will/can not accept the facts as they are presented by those who actually do the research into these areas.

While I would entirely defend your right to ignore/dismiss the facts as you see fit, it doesn't really help.

We all have to accept that some truths aren't maybe what we would like them to be at some point.

[overkill]

Originally Posted by holtehero

Overkill, there is clearly no point discussing anything if you will/can not accept the facts as they are presented by those who actually do the research into these areas.

While I would entirely defend your right to ignore/dismiss the facts as you see fit, it doesn't really help.

We all have to accept that some truths aren't maybe what we would like them to be at some point.

I have done research into those areas, and I actually worked for the organisations mentioned, who correlate the facts.

That post was arrogant presumption that someone (who you choose to believe) has researched and others who don't accept that argument haven't. I also prefaced (carefully) that I doubted those statistics, because that's all they are, not that lucem was incorrect. I dismissed nothing.

Nor do I dislike or like what they purporte to show. As I also mentioned, if you read the post, London has always been an area of high immigration.

Posts yours are merely a personal attack, negative, and contribute nothing to the debate. If you have a sensible point to make regards the issue, make it.

Otherwise don't bother.

[BrianC]

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

Ahh, but the whole situation is set to change in the next 40 years. In 30 years most of the "baby boomer" generation will be gone, and the population will drop dramatically. This will have a drastic impact on the economy, as well as having an impact on our energy consumption. For effects on global warming, you'll have to look elsewhere in the world.

The mass retirement that the baby boomers has started already (assuming you are female) and will really start to bite over the next ten years, I'm not sure how on earth we are going to pay for their pension and health care costs, especially when the tail end of the baby boomer generation (the ones born in the second peak in the first half of the 60s) starts retiring 15 years time.

If the government had any bottle they would be raising the retirement age now rather than in the future so that we can save on the biggest group of people due to retire in the next 40 years or so. However they will never upset such a large group of people, especially as they are far more likely to vote than the yoof of the day, so we end up paying twice for them, once through higher taxes and again with a higher retirement age.

[Reign-Mack]

Originally Posted by sean5302

A single Mum, on benefits, is likely to live in a pretty crappy area.
Poor schools, high crime.
Her offspring will grow up to think this is the norm.

Work for a living? Why would I do that when I can lie in bed till noon, get £58 a week benefit, all my council tax paid, free school meals, free eyecare, dental care, grants for household items etc etc? If a slate blows off the roof, the council sends someone to fix it....
If I get bored during the day I can flog some drugs, go out and burgle YOUR stuff, do a bit of shoplifting etc.

erm I'm pretty sure that most people in their right mind would choose to live like that. "slate blown off a roof"? There are people living on council flats who have to wait ages to get damaged windows and lifts repaired!

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

We shouldn't be castigating young unmarried mothers - we should be congratulating them. After all, it's their offspring that will be paying for your pension when you retire (if the government lets you retire).

Yeah but what if their offsping get bored during the day and start trying to flog drugs (which won't be taxed) or burgle what little the old hardworking people have left...

[Nick_UK]

Originally Posted by sean5302

........ If I go to Tesco's and want to buy a loaf of bread, I pay the same price as everyone else. Why should I pay 4 or 5 times what the council estate people do? I worked for the money to buy my house, the mortgage and all the bills. The council-dwellers receive the same services as me, provided at the same cost to the council. Why am I charged more?

Well, once upon a time we had a much fairer system called "Poll Tax" where everyone paid the same, but the chavs rebelled too much and they got their own way.

[la gran siete]

Paying for local services is not the same as buying a loaf bread because its not about individual choice but about community needs .I pay for things that i myself do not benefit directly for like education( I have no kids) and care foir the elderly. A poll tax was never going to be accepted by the population at large because it didnt reflect abilty to pay ie a guy in a huge mansion would be paying the same as a guy living in overcrowded conditions. The Council tax is by no means perfect as many elderly are paying through the nose but its better than the POLL TAX
BTW they werent chavs out protesting but thousands of ordinary folk

[Nick_UK]

So does a rich person have a bigger dustbin than a poor one ?

Or maybe we could stretch the "ability to pay" thing a bit further ?

How much for a gallon of petrol ? How much can you afford ?

[la gran siete]

PUBLIC services bear no resemblance to what happens in the market place because they directly or indirectly affect the COMMUNITY at large.Its not about individual choice but about collective need.
I may not receive the services I pay for( and frankly using the dustbin arguement is fatuous )but it means that those that need it -do. I may of course one day need some of those services which others would be paying for as well as myself.Kids are our future so its in my interest that they should be educated, so I dont begrudge paying towards their schooling
Just like income tax the council tax attempts (and I say it only attempts) to reflect ones abilty to pay. Thius principle is generally regarded as fair - nothing to do with Chavs. A fairer system would be some kind of local income tax becauyse onl;y then wopuld it refelct abilty to pay.I f apesron only earned a modest income of £10000 then a 5% tax would mean he would pay £500 . whereas a person on £100000 would pay £5000 . That is fair!

[stealther]

Originally Posted by lucem

Nobody seems to be asking the question of why those who are well educated, have jobs and have the ability to support their own offspring are choosing not to have children at all.

It could be that some of us have decided to wait untill we are in a position to not merely scrape by but be able to comfortably provide for our children without relying on handouts from everyone else.

It seems to me that everyone I know is having babies at the moment as if theres a Sale on or something. Its just a shame its the wrong type of people.

[Nick_UK]

I get so peed off when people think that the better off should subsidise the less well off. People who are better off financially are usually so because they generally work harder, and make better financial decisions than people who are worse off.

Why should I susidise the tax of someone who wants to be bone idle, and who wants to fritter his money away ? The people who bleat about not being able to pay council taxes are usually the ones with three cars parked outside, a plasma TV in the lounge, have kids that have to run around in designer label clothes, and who like to get bladdered every Saturday night. They should learn to live according to their means, or get a job that provides them with an income to suit their lifestyle. I'm fairly well off, but not well off enough to have a new Mercedes (which I'd really like), so I don't buy one. I could buy one on credit, and then expect everyone else to chip in to pay my council tax, I suppose.

[GBDG1]

Originally Posted by Nick_UK

I get so peed off when people think that the better off should subsidise the less well off. People who are better off financially are usually so because they generally work harder, and make better financial decisions than people who are worse off.

Why should I susidise the tax of someone who wants to be bone idle, and who wants to fritter his money away ? The people who bleat about not being able to pay council taxes are usually the ones with three cars parked outside, a plasma TV in the lounge, have kids that have to run around in designer label clothes, and who like to get bladdered every Saturday night. They should learn to live according to their means, or get a job that provides them with an income to suit their lifestyle. I'm fairly well off, but not well off enough to have a new Mercedes (which I'd really like), so I don't buy one. I could buy one on credit, and then expect everyone else to chip in to pay my council tax, I suppose.

This is utter rubbish, how can everyone get a better job? Who would do the worse jobs? Besides I think someone working 12hr night shifts of hard physical labour on minimum wage is working harder than your average person in an office earning 20-30k.

[Nick_UK]

Originally Posted by Lawrenzini

This is utter rubbish, how can everyone get a better job? Who would do the worse jobs? Besides I think someone working 12hr night shifts of hard physical labour on minimum wage is working harder than your average person in an office earning 20-30k.

Well, if you can't increase your income, you decrease your expenditure. You shouldn't spend beyond your means and expect someone else to pick up the tab.