On 01/11/15 02:56, RayL12 wrote:
I could donate my 40 hours to pulling weeds from riverbanks.

Chap round here wanders the footpaths with a pair of leather gloves, and
secateurs. I asked him if he was allowed 'Oh yes, I phoned the council,
and they said 'fine with us''

Of course is not a Labour council.



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/11/15 02:56, RayL12 wrote:
I could donate my 40 hours to pulling weeds from riverbanks.

Chap round here wanders the footpaths with a pair of leather gloves, and
secateurs. I asked him if he was allowed 'Oh yes, I phoned the council,
and they said 'fine with us''

Of course is not a Labour council.

all councils have their Council Tax rates capped by central government. If
there's no money to look after the footpaths, it doesn't matter which party
runs County Hall.

--
Please note new email address:

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:01:46 +0000, charles wrote:

all councils have their Council Tax rates capped by central government.
If there's no money to look after the footpaths, it doesn't matter which
party runs County Hall.

Of course it does - because different parties may prioritise different
expenditure.

B'sides, it's only the increase in CT that's capped by gov't, not the
actual rate - and even that cap can be exceeded, so long as a local
referendum agrees it.

On 01/11/15 12:01, charles wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/11/15 02:56, RayL12 wrote:
I could donate my 40 hours to pulling weeds from riverbanks.

Chap round here wanders the footpaths with a pair of leather gloves, and
secateurs. I asked him if he was allowed 'Oh yes, I phoned the council,
and they said 'fine with us''

Of course is not a Labour council.

all councils have their Council Tax rates capped by central government. If
there's no money to look after the footpaths, it doesn't matter which party
runs County Hall.

There is money. But they are happy to save it.

Council taxes are much lower than adjacent Labour boroughs

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 01/11/15 02:56, RayL12 wrote:
I could donate my 40 hours to pulling weeds from riverbanks.

Chap round here wanders the footpaths with a pair of leather gloves,
and secateurs. I asked him if he was allowed 'Oh yes, I phoned the
council, and they said 'fine with us''

Of course is not a Labour council.

??

Considerate secateur wielders are welcome on mine:-) Please don't
discard the debris into the crop.

Also welcome are the occasional litter collectors.

--
Tim Lamb

In message , Adrian
writes
On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:01:46 +0000, charles wrote:

all councils have their Council Tax rates capped by central government.
If there's no money to look after the footpaths, it doesn't matter which
party runs County Hall.

Of course it does - because different parties may prioritise different
expenditure.

B'sides, it's only the increase in CT that's capped by gov't, not the
actual rate - and even that cap can be exceeded, so long as a local
referendum agrees it.

Umm.. the responsibility for keeping rural footpaths clear rests with
the landowner. Taxpayers may fund a *rights of way* officer to chivvy
things along.

--
Tim Lamb

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:01:46 +0000, charles wrote:

all councils have their Council Tax rates capped by central government.
If there's no money to look after the footpaths, it doesn't matter which
party runs County Hall.

Of course it does - because different parties may prioritise different
expenditure.

B'sides, it's only the increase in CT that's capped by gov't, not the
actual rate - and even that cap can be exceeded, so long as a local
referendum agrees it.

True - but has any council tried that, yet?

--
Please note new email address:

On 01/11/15 14:42, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Adrian
writes
On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:01:46 +0000, charles wrote:

all councils have their Council Tax rates capped by central government.
If there's no money to look after the footpaths, it doesn't matter which
party runs County Hall.

Of course it does - because different parties may prioritise different
expenditure.

B'sides, it's only the increase in CT that's capped by gov't, not the
actual rate - and even that cap can be exceeded, so long as a local
referendum agrees it.

Umm.. the responsibility for keeping rural footpaths clear rests with
the landowner. Taxpayers may fund a *rights of way* officer to chivvy
things along.

It wasn't actually a foot path - it was a 'green road'


IIRC that comes under the county council

--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 01/11/15 14:42, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Adrian
writes
On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:01:46 +0000, charles wrote:

all councils have their Council Tax rates capped by central government.
If there's no money to look after the footpaths, it doesn't matter which
party runs County Hall.

Of course it does - because different parties may prioritise different
expenditure.

B'sides, it's only the increase in CT that's capped by gov't, not the
actual rate - and even that cap can be exceeded, so long as a local
referendum agrees it.

Umm.. the responsibility for keeping rural footpaths clear rests with
the landowner. Taxpayers may fund a *rights of way* officer to chivvy
things along.

It wasn't actually a foot path - it was a 'green road'


IIRC that comes under the county council

if it is a Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) it does.

--
Please note new email address:

In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 01/11/15 14:42, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , Adrian
writes
On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 12:01:46 +0000, charles wrote:

all councils have their Council Tax rates capped by central government.
If there's no money to look after the footpaths, it doesn't matter which
party runs County Hall.

Of course it does - because different parties may prioritise different
expenditure.

B'sides, it's only the increase in CT that's capped by gov't, not the
actual rate - and even that cap can be exceeded, so long as a local
referendum agrees it.

Umm.. the responsibility for keeping rural footpaths clear rests with
the landowner. Taxpayers may fund a *rights of way* officer to chivvy
things along.

It wasn't actually a foot path - it was a 'green road'


IIRC that comes under the county council

Pass for Suffolk. In Herts. the land belongs to the landowner but the
surface is *vested* in the local highways authority. I look after my
by-way otherwise I couldn't get to my fields.


--
Tim Lamb

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 14:56:52 +0000, charles wrote:

all councils have their Council Tax rates capped by central
government. If there's no money to look after the footpaths, it
doesn't matter which party runs County Hall.

Of course it does - because different parties may prioritise different
expenditure.

B'sides, it's only the increase in CT that's capped by gov't, not the
actual rate - and even that cap can be exceeded, so long as a local
referendum agrees it.

True - but has any council tried that, yet?

Yes, one. Bedfordshire, in May this year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32694166

On Sun, 01 Nov 2015 15:18:09 +0000, charles wrote:

Umm.. the responsibility for keeping rural footpaths clear rests with
the landowner. Taxpayers may fund a *rights of way* officer to chivvy
things along.

It wasn't actually a foot path - it was a 'green road'

IIRC that comes under the county council

if it is a Byway Open to All Traffic (BOAT) it does.

A BOAT is a right of way, but that doesn't mean that it's adopted. And if
it's unadopted, the council have no ability to maintain it, let alone a
responsibility.

On 29/10/2015 22:45, dennis@home wrote:


What makes you think a final salary pension isn't funded in the same way
as a personal pension?

These days most final salary pensions are public sector. They hope there
will be enough tax income to pay them. As the lawmakers (MPs) are
beneficiaries of these schemes it seems likely there will be.

Andy

On 01/11/2015 22:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 29/10/2015 22:45, dennis@home wrote:


What makes you think a final salary pension isn't funded in the same way
as a personal pension?

These days most final salary pensions are public sector. They hope
there will be enough tax income to pay them. As the lawmakers (MPs)
are beneficiaries of these schemes it seems likely there will be.

So it's a scam then.


Mine is not funded by tax.

On 01/11/2015 3:46 AM, Rod Speed wrote:


"RayL12" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/2015 9:19 AM, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
"Norman Wells"
wrote in :

Even at the existing rate of growth, it will
reach 16 billion by 2100 from the current 7 billion, and the harsh
truth is that it can't possibly produce enough food for that many.

Never mind your figures are made up, but why the hell not?

There just isn't enough land that can be productively cultivated.

There is, besides productivity can be increased.

Even here in nicely arable Britain, using all the farmland available,
we can currently only produce enough food to sustain just 60% of the
population, or about 36 million.

You could do better if pressed (but there is no need to).

Some facts to make you think: The largest exporter of agricultural
goods in the world are the USA. Which country do you reckon is no. 2?
Wait for it: The Netherlands.

One of the most densely populated countries on earth, a quarter of it
is taken up by what is basically one giant metropolis. But it cannot
only sustain itself, but even export groceries (and tulips . Granted
they import food as well, as bananas and coffee don't grow in northern
climate, but their import/export balance is close to zero. That means
in theory the Netherlands could feed their comparatively large
population on that small surface, even in an adverse northern climate
where plant growth basically stops for a few months each year. Not just
that, they enjoy one of the highest living standards at the same time.

And don't say that it goes at the expense of nature. The Netherlands
are not an environmental wasteland, but a overall pleasant place and
even a popular tourist destination.

All it takes is for the rest of the world to adopt Dutch style
agriculture (or any other method of increasing productivity). Of course
that takes work, but it's doable. It's just a thought experiment
though, the actual challenge is much easier.

One of the requests, I made several times, to different Employment
Officers is, 'Give me something productive to contribute to!'.

And they said to you 'Get qualified in an area where there is a lack of
suitable people'

I'm not gonna get employment during a world recession!

The best people do.

Use me for something good, I say.

Trouble is you wont get off your arse and get qualified to do that.

So, my options were, sit at home and wait for the phone to ring or, I
could donate my 40 hours to pulling weeds from riverbanks.

Or you could get qualified in an area where there is a
lack of suitable people. There are always those areas.

If there was ever a time to get someone sensible to organise us...

The most employable organise themselves.

You know what, Rodders, I'm going to leave any comments to others.

--
One click voting to change the world.
..https://secure.avaaz.org/en/index.php
Join Now! Be a part of people power.

Phase Conjugate Waves
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3wwdmwv0zk

....and, Why You Know Nothing
http://www.delusionalinsects.com/sty...-32/index.html

Startpage - The PRIVATE Search Engine!

On Friday, 30 October 2015 18:07:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:26:07 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

It's like those pyramid schemes that can out years ago that have all been
banned.

Nothing like in fact.

Yes it is, how many do you need to immigrants supoport one persons pension ?


The few at the to make a fortune the rest lose.

No one makes a fortune when immigrants
ensure that there are enough working to
pay for those who are no longer working.

so how many workers does it take to support the non workers ?


And no one loses either. Even the immigrants
do better than they would have if they had
stayed where they come from, that's why they
migrate.

So the coun tries that lose their doctors, nurses, enginners to come and work in our NHS don't lose doctors, nurses, enginners etc.. from their own coun try.
Only yuo can be think enough to not know this basics.

On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 22:54:46 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 01/11/2015 22:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 29/10/2015 22:45, dennis@home wrote:


What makes you think a final salary pension isn't funded in the same way
as a personal pension?

These days most final salary pensions are public sector. They hope
there will be enough tax income to pay them. As the lawmakers (MPs)
are beneficiaries of these schemes it seems likely there will be.

So it's a scam then.


Mine is not funded by tax.

Neither is mine. I'm retired from a university and am receiving a final
salary pension from the Universities Superannuation Scheme. That final
salary pension plan has been closed to new entrants. There is now a plan
in which the amount of the pension is calculated on the basis of salary
during all years of membership, not just the final year (or few years).

In both cases the pensions are paid from the scheme's funds which are
invested. The funds come from the members' contributions (deductions
from salary) before retirement and the parallel contributions from the
employers.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

In message , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 22:54:46 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 01/11/2015 22:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 29/10/2015 22:45, dennis@home wrote:


What makes you think a final salary pension isn't funded in the same way
as a personal pension?

These days most final salary pensions are public sector. They hope
there will be enough tax income to pay them. As the lawmakers (MPs)
are beneficiaries of these schemes it seems likely there will be.

So it's a scam then.


Mine is not funded by tax.

Neither is mine. I'm retired from a university and am receiving a final
salary pension from the Universities Superannuation Scheme. That final
salary pension plan has been closed to new entrants. There is now a plan
in which the amount of the pension is calculated on the basis of salary
during all years of membership, not just the final year (or few years).

In both cases the pensions are paid from the scheme's funds which are
invested. The funds come from the members' contributions (deductions
from salary) before retirement and the parallel contributions from the
employers.

Don't you also get the state OAP? Surely THAT's funded by today's state
NI contributions (etc)?
--
Ian

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 30 October 2015 18:07:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:26:07 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know
which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at
least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

It's like those pyramid schemes that can out years ago that have all
been
banned.

Nothing like in fact.

Yes it is,

No it isn't.

how many do you need to immigrants supoport one persons pension ?

Pyramid schemes don't work like that.

The few at the to make a fortune the rest lose.

No one makes a fortune when immigrants
ensure that there are enough working to
pay for those who are no longer working.

so how many workers does it take to support the non workers ?

Pyramid schemes don't work like that.

And no one loses either. Even the immigrants do
better than they would have if they had stayed
where they come from, that's why they migrate.

On 02/11/2015 19:08, Ian Jackson wrote:

Don't you also get the state OAP? Surely THAT's funded by today's state
NI contributions (etc)?

Not yet! Maybe when I am old enough.

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 19:08:32 +0000, Ian Jackson
wrote:

In message , Peter Duncanson
writes
On Sun, 1 Nov 2015 22:54:46 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 01/11/2015 22:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Vir
Campestris wrote:

On 29/10/2015 22:45, dennis@home wrote:


What makes you think a final salary pension isn't funded in the same way
as a personal pension?

These days most final salary pensions are public sector. They hope
there will be enough tax income to pay them. As the lawmakers (MPs)
are beneficiaries of these schemes it seems likely there will be.

So it's a scam then.


Mine is not funded by tax.

Neither is mine. I'm retired from a university and am receiving a final
salary pension from the Universities Superannuation Scheme. That final
salary pension plan has been closed to new entrants. There is now a plan
in which the amount of the pension is calculated on the basis of salary
during all years of membership, not just the final year (or few years).

In both cases the pensions are paid from the scheme's funds which are
invested. The funds come from the members' contributions (deductions
from salary) before retirement and the parallel contributions from the
employers.

Don't you also get the state OAP? Surely THAT's funded by today's state
NI contributions (etc)?

Yes, but this part of the thread is about final salary schemes.

The quote above from Andy (Vir Campestris) says "These days most final
salary pensions are public sector". I'm just pointing out that I and
quite a few others are in final salary schemes which aren't public
sector and funded by tax payers.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Mon, 2 Nov 2015 19:34:54 +0000, dennis@home
wrote:

On 02/11/2015 19:08, Ian Jackson wrote:

Don't you also get the state OAP? Surely THAT's funded by today's state
NI contributions (etc)?

Not yet! Maybe when I am old enough.

Hang in there!

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

On Mon, 02 Nov 2015 21:28:46 +0000, Peter Duncanson wrote:

The quote above from Andy (Vir Campestris) says "These days most final
salary pensions are public sector". I'm just pointing out that I and
quite a few others are in final salary schemes which aren't public
sector and funded by tax payers.

As the man said... most.

On Monday, 2 November 2015 19:19:25 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 30 October 2015 18:07:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:26:07 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know
which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at
least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the elderly,
work indefinitely?

It's like those pyramid schemes that can out years ago that have all
been
banned.

Nothing like in fact.

Yes it is,

No it isn't.

how many do you need to immigrants supoport one persons pension ?

Pyramid schemes don't work like that.

you know the parents of the kids yuo order for becayse their parents can;t do it. Who's paying for their pensions?
How many people do you need to import as immigrants in oder to support their pension unless it's one or less theres your pyramid.

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 2 November 2015 19:19:25 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 30 October 2015 18:07:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:26:07 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know
which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's
biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at
least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our
economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the
elderly,
work indefinitely?

It's like those pyramid schemes that can out years ago that have all
been
banned.

Nothing like in fact.

Yes it is,

No it isn't.

how many do you need to immigrants supoport one persons pension ?

Pyramid schemes don't work like that.

you know the parents of the kids yuo order for becayse
their parents can;t do it. Who's paying for their pensions?

Their kids.

How many people do you need to import as immigrants in oder
to support their pension unless it's one or less theres your pyramid.

That isn't what a ponzi scheme is.

On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 18:40:13 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 2 November 2015 19:19:25 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 30 October 2015 18:07:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:26:07 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all know
which
way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's
biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But at
least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our
economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the
elderly,
work indefinitely?

It's like those pyramid schemes that can out years ago that have all
been
banned.

Nothing like in fact.

Yes it is,

No it isn't.

how many do you need to immigrants supoport one persons pension ?

Pyramid schemes don't work like that.

you know the parents of the kids yuo order for becayse
their parents can;t do it. Who's paying for their pensions?

Their kids.

How many people do you need to import as immigrants in oder
to support their pension unless it's one or less theres your pyramid.

That isn't what a ponzi scheme is.

I never said it was I've not mentioned the ponzi scheme.
What I want to know id ho many peolpe are employed to pay for teh pensions
of teh parent who's kids you help out because their parents can;t speak americain or do amazon orders or collect parcels and all the others thibngs you've said they can;t do for themselves or their kids.

So the question remains how many people are emplopyed to pay for the pensiuons of those two adults that have how many children is it ?

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 18:40:13 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 2 November 2015 19:19:25 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 30 October 2015 18:07:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:26:07 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all
know
which way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's
biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But
at
least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our
economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the
elderly,
work indefinitely?

It's like those pyramid schemes that can out years ago that have
all
been
banned.

Nothing like in fact.

Yes it is,

No it isn't.

how many do you need to immigrants supoport one persons pension ?

Pyramid schemes don't work like that.

you know the parents of the kids yuo order for becayse
their parents can;t do it. Who's paying for their pensions?

Their kids.

How many people do you need to import as immigrants in oder
to support their pension unless it's one or less theres your pyramid.

That isn't what a ponzi scheme is.

I never said it was I've not mentioned the ponzi scheme.

You clearly did go on about pyramid schemes.

What I want to know id ho many peolpe are employed to pay for teh
pensions of teh parent who's kids you help out because their parents
can;t speak americain or do amazon orders or collect parcels and all
the others thibngs you've said they can;t do for themselves or their kids.

There is no nice tidy number. One of the Italian immigrants who must have
showed up here after the war must have something like 40 descendants
now given that one of his sons, one of the garage salers, has 20 grandkids.

So the question remains how many people are emplopyed to pay for
the pensiuons of those two adults that have how many children is it ?

There is no nice tidy number.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Wednesday, 4 November 2015 18:40:13 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Monday, 2 November 2015 19:19:25 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Friday, 30 October 2015 18:07:20 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 29 October 2015 16:26:07 UTC, Andy Cap wrote:
On 29/10/15 16:01, Adrian wrote:

years (to 2039, since it's on 2014 figures)?

No mention of demographics there, though, and I think we all
know
which way the average age is going... Rapidly.

Woo. With zero migration, we could be looking at the world's
biggest
retirement home just off the northern shore of France... But
at
least
there won't be brown people working, earning, growing our
economy,
paying
taxes to cover our pensions.


How does this constant expansion of the young, paying for the
elderly,
work indefinitely?

It's like those pyramid schemes that can out years ago that have
all
been
banned.

Nothing like in fact.

Yes it is,

No it isn't.

how many do you need to immigrants supoport one persons pension ?

Pyramid schemes don't work like that.

you know the parents of the kids yuo order for becayse
their parents can;t do it. Who's paying for their pensions?

Their kids.

How many people do you need to import as immigrants in oder
to support their pension unless it's one or less theres your pyramid.

That isn't what a ponzi scheme is.

I never said it was I've not mentioned the ponzi scheme.

You clearly did go on about pyramid schemes.

What I want to know id ho many peolpe are employed to pay for teh
pensions of teh parent who's kids you help out because their parents
can;t speak americain or do amazon orders or collect parcels and all
the others thibngs you've said they can;t do for themselves or their
kids.

There is no nice tidy number. One of the Italian immigrants who must have
showed up here after the war must have something like 40 descendants
now given that one of his sons, one of the garage salers, has 20
grandkids.

And some others are at the other extreme. My next door neighbour arrived
from Italy at the age of 3 along with her brother who must have been about
5 or something. Her brother is now one of the most productive accountants
in town, she married a local who has 3 farming operations with his brothers.
They only have 2 kids now, one died after working for a few years. The
parents
speak almost no english at all. Their pension would be well and truly paid
for
by their kids and their kids.

Same with another mate of mine who also married the daughter who was
born in Italy and showed up at about 3. Not so dramatically paid for by
the kids and grandkids, but still very adequately paid for. The immigrants
also speak almost no english, essentially because we have so many Italian
immigrants in this particular town that they didn't need to.

So the question remains how many people are emplopyed to pay for
the pensiuons of those two adults that have how many children is it ?

There is no nice tidy number.

dennis@home put finger to keyboard:

On 30/10/2015 09:33, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 30/10/15 08:29, 78lp wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 30/10/15 07:09, Wolfgang Schwanke wrote:
Birth rates eventually decrease when living standards
rise, as can be seen in western countries. It's therefore expected
that they will decline worldwide in the not too distant future when
living standards rise in other parts of the world, and population
growth will eventually peter out.

Living standards are beginning to deteriorate

Like hell they are on everything from life expectancy to years in good
health to the quality of housing we live in to the way we get around
and the holidays we can afford,
and the choice of food there is to eat etc etc etc.


All are deteriotating in the experience of my generation.

They must have singled you out because they are improving in most
places.

PS learn to spell.

*P.S.
*Learn

You're welcome.

On 02/11/2015 21:28, Peter Duncanson wrote:
Yes, but this part of the thread is about final salary schemes.

The quote above from Andy (Vir Campestris) says "These days most final
salary pensions are public sector". I'm just pointing out that I and
quite a few others are in final salary schemes which aren't public
sector and funded by tax payers.

Umm. I have a bit of final salary private sector pension I hope won't be
dead by the time I come to claim it. Perhaps I should have said new
ones... though a University scheme is a marginal case. I have a feeling
that the Govt. would bail out your scheme if it ran out of money; I have
less faith that they'd do that for me.

Andy

On 30/10/2015 09:00, Norman Wells wrote:
"John Rumm" wrote in message
o.uk...
On 29/10/2015 19:48, Norman Wells wrote:
"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...

Is there never to be a cap on the world's population?

Its starting to look like it will fix itself eventually.
Birth rates are dropping world wide now except
in places where its now so low that that place is
right down in the noise.

How come the world's population is increasing by 50% every 40 years
or so?

How come it will increase from the present 7 billion to 10 billion by
2050?

The truth is, it's out of control and exponentially rising.

Fortunately you are likely mistaken.

See:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTznEIZRkLg

No, that's all wishful thinking dependent on if, if, ifs, which won't
happen. Even he admits the *only* way to prevent exponential growth is
to bring the third world into the first. The likelihood of that
happening however is, well, about zero.

The graph of world population over time is inexorably upwards at an ever
increasing rate. Even at the existing rate of growth, it will reach 16
billion by 2100 from the current 7 billion, and the harsh truth is that
it can't possibly produce enough food for that many. There just isn't
enough land that can be productively cultivated.

Even here in nicely arable Britain, using all the farmland available, we
can currently only produce enough food to sustain just 60% of the
population, or about 36 million. We have to import the rest. That
proportion will fall to just over 50% if the latest projected increase
to 70 million people happens by mid 2027, ie in just an astonishingly
short 12 years from now.

The only way to stop catastrophic world population growth is to have
global government with Draconian powers over life and death. And that
just won't come about by 2027, 2050, 2100, or any time before it's far
too late.

Sorry to be so apocalyptic so early in the morning, but the writing is
on the wall, and it's as well to read it.

Paul Erlich was saying this in the 1960's. He was wrong, and so are you.

In message ,
newshound writes
On 30/10/2015 09:00, Norman Wells wrote:

The graph of world population over time is inexorably upwards at an ever
increasing rate. Even at the existing rate of growth, it will reach 16
billion by 2100 from the current 7 billion, and the harsh truth is that
it can't possibly produce enough food for that many. There just isn't
enough land that can be productively cultivated.

Even here in nicely arable Britain, using all the farmland available, we
can currently only produce enough food to sustain just 60% of the
population, or about 36 million. We have to import the rest. That
proportion will fall to just over 50% if the latest projected increase
to 70 million people happens by mid 2027, ie in just an astonishingly
short 12 years from now.

The only way to stop catastrophic world population growth is to have
global government with Draconian powers over life and death. And that
just won't come about by 2027, 2050, 2100, or any time before it's far
too late.

Sorry to be so apocalyptic so early in the morning, but the writing is
on the wall, and it's as well to read it.

Paul Erlich was saying this in the 1960's. He was wrong, and so are you.

Malthus was saying essentially the same thing in 1798, so it's certainly
not a new idea.
--
John Hall
"Honest criticism is hard to take,
particularly from a relative, a friend,
an acquaintance, or a stranger." Franklin P Jones

On 06/11/15 20:58, newshound wrote:
Paul Erlich was saying this in the 1960's. He was wrong, and so are you.

Yeah, right.

How are you doing there bud?

http://vps.templar.co.uk/Cartoons%20...itics/Okay.png



--
the biggest threat to humanity comes from socialism, which has utterly
diverted our attention away from what really matters to our existential
survival, to indulging in navel gazing and faux moral investigations
into what the world ought to be, whilst we fail utterly to deal with
what it actually is.

On Fri, 6 Nov 2015 21:16:26 +0000, John Hall
wrote:

Paul Erlich was saying this in the 1960's. He was wrong, and so are you.

Not necessarily. All you can say for certain is that that particular
apocalypse hasn't happened YET! But then again, it depends on what
particular apocalypse you define ... For example, is extinction at
the hands of humankind of a great many of the other species on earth
an apocalypse? Clearly it is for the species concerned, as well as
others that rely on them, possibly even including ourselves. I
probably wouldn't use the word 'apocalypse' to describe it, though,
but words like 'calamity' and 'disaster', definitely.

Malthus was saying essentially the same thing in 1798, so it's certainly
not a new idea.

Quite. Predicters of doom and gloom, whether religiously or
scientifically based, can always say: "It just hasn't happened yet!"

Human over-population is a problem, no matter how you look at it. It
may well be that if the general population of the world doesn't choose
to do something to curb it while acting as private individuals, then
governments will have to act forcibly to curb it.
--
================================================== ======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html

Java Jive wrote
John Hall wrote

Paul Erlich was saying this in the 1960's. He was wrong, and so are you.

Not necessarily. All you can say for certain is that
that particular apocalypse hasn't happened YET!

We can also say that while famine was common in the century or two
before say 1945, we don't see that anymore except where the place has
imploded in the most obscene levels of civil war and civil chaos or have
been stupid enough to let some fool like Kim Jong Il rule the roost.

And even with the first of those, famine could still be eliminated
if we chose to air drop food into those areas instead of having
our own people distributing the food in those areas.

But then again, it depends on what particular apocalypse you define

Erlich didn't predict an apocalypse and neither did Malthus.

... For example, is extinction at the hands of humankind of
a great many of the other species on earth an apocalypse?

Nothing like what Erlich or Malthus go so completely wrong.

Clearly it is for the species concerned, as well as others
that rely on them, possibly even including ourselves.

We don't rely on any particular species anymore and never have.

I probably wouldn't use the word 'apocalypse' to describe it,
though, but words like 'calamity' and 'disaster', definitely.

But nothing like what Erlich and Malthus
were so mindlessly hyperventilating about.

Malthus was saying essentially the same thing
in 1798, so it's certainly not a new idea.

Quite. Predicters of doom and gloom, whether religiously or
scientifically based, can always say: "It just hasn't happened yet!"

But when what they are predicting like famine is in fact
not seen anymore except etc and where it is still seen
can be quite readily fixed by say just executing some fool
like Kim Jong Il, they still have a problem with their claim.

Religious predictions of the end of the world are different in
the sense that the same considerations don't apply to them.

Human over-population is a problem, no matter how you look at it.

But its starting to look like it may be fixing itself and has
done already in the modern first world and much of the
second world now that birth rates are dropping world
wide except where they are already right down in the noise.

It may well be that if the general population of the world doesn't
choose to do something to curb it while acting as private individuals,
then governments will have to act forcibly to curb it.

Not if it ends up limiting itself without any action by
govt or any forcible action by individuals as it has in
the modern first world and much of the second world.

Not one modern first world country is even self replacing
now if you take out immigration, not even the ones that
were a real problem in the past population wise like Ireland.