Over population - should births be taxed?

[SteveT]

Am I any more prejudiced leaning towards the hysterical 'Mail' than you leaning to the liberal Guardian?

[expat]

>Am I any more prejudiced leaning towards the hysterical 'Mail' than you leaning to the liberal Guardian?

yes

[SteveT]

I don't think Huguenot needs the help and protection from your dubious ramblings and stalkerish tendencies expat.

[SeanMacGabhann]

What's RosieH's recent line? "oh the irony"

[DJKillaQueen]

Please folks let's not descend into the childish mud slinging that pervades the lounge sometimes. There is a good debate to be had here and it should be enough to say that you diasgree without resorting to insult.

Huguenot is right in that immigration is a complicated issue. I agree that the top heavy age demographics are a pressing isuue (60% of the welfare bill is spent on OAPS and pensions for example) but I disagree that immigration is the answer to balancing that out. Unemployment has to be taken into account. We have a lot of people not actively part of the labour force at the moment and that is a huge drain on our economy. Immigration, where it can be controlled sensibly and fairly, should always be relative to the percentage of unemployment (along with skills shortages) imo.

[SteveT]

DJKillaQueen wrote:-

We have a lot of people not actively part of the labour force at the moment and that is a huge drain on our economy.

We also have a lot of people actively avoiding becoming part of the labour force too.

If they were made to work there would be substantially less immigration needed.

[SeanMacGabhann]

As an employer what you want is someone who is self-motivated and not afraid to work hard

The sort of person, say, who crosses continents to get a job. And not so much the sort of person who turns up to work (late) only because their benefits have been stopped

[DJKillaQueen]

You both hit the nail on the head. Employers want the most productive and reliable person they can find (and rightly so). Tax payers just want everyone working so that they don't have to keep them. Not an easy thing to solve.

[SteveT]

You've knocked all the goodness out of it............

[helena handbasket]

I could be wrong, but non-EU immigrants can't claim benefits anyway so it's work or starve. My entry visa states "no access to public purse" and I came as the wife of a British citizen, ex forces no less.

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Magpie Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

>

> > My understanding is that an immigration cap is

> a

> > policy yet to be introduced by the Coalition.

> > Currently, there is a points based system

> > introduced in the dying days of the last Labour

> > government when they realised that their open

> > doors policy on immigration had been a disaster

> > socially, electorally, and had little long term

> > economic benefit as any increase in economic

> > output is offset by the increase in population.

>

> An immigration cap is pointless politics. It can

> only be applied to non-EU countries and all it

> will mostly do is block some highly skilled people

> who are needed in the UK.

[acumenman]

How over populated do we need to get before someone states the obvious, how many can the world sustain?

Fish stocks dwindling.

All kinds of animals becoming extinct or perilously close.

Trying to reach oil a mile below sea level.

Aren't these all signs that mankind is out of control, close to the edge of collapse?

[Huguenot]

I think it's a sign that the current methods are reaching the end of their useful life.

It's not a sign that mankind is out of control. We'd be out of control if we didn't recognise the problem and create a groundswell of educated political influence that enables us to resolve them.

Probably start by putting down the Daily Mail and picking up something more sensible.

[aspidistra]

I'd disagree that the problem is recognised by Those Who Must Be Obeyed.

Here's David Attenborough's recent speech to the RSA, entitled 'Planet and Population:

http://populationmatters.org/2011/news/david-attenboroughs-speech-rsa-population/

The point he reiterates throughout is how the subject of population growth appears to be taboo, across governments and NGOs. It's like the elephant in the room, that all avoid mentioning for fear of wounding - religious? national? - sensibilities.