Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

Irelands taxpayer:dependants current ratio is 6:1 by 2050 estimates are 2:1

  • 01-03-2012 6:31pm
    #1
    uberalles
    Registered Users Posts: 836 ✭✭✭


    Is this true?

    I over heard someone saying this and Im wondering if there is any truth in it.


Comments

  • #2
    Kennie1
    Registered Users Posts: 302 ✭✭Kennie1


    I assume you are referring to the pension support ratio.

    Yes they estimate that by 2050 for every 2 people that is working 1 person with be claiming a non/contributory pension. This was based on a retirement age of 65, but the government has bought in new measures pushing out the retirement age to 68 so the above figures need to be reworked to take account of this change. That said I do not think that it will change the ratio too much.


  • #3
    uberalles
    Registered Users Posts: 836 ✭✭✭uberalles


    Kennie1 wrote: »
    I assume you are referring to the pension support ratio.

    Yes they estimate that by 2050 for every 2 people that is working 1 person with be claiming a non/contributory pension. This was based on a retirement age of 65, but the government has bought in new measures pushing out the retirement age to 68 so the above figures need to be reworked to take account of this change. That said I do not think that it will change the ratio too much.

    Is this sustainable? Is Ireland heading for a financial disaster as a result of this?


  • #4
    BuffyBot
    Moderators, Motoring & Transport Moderators Posts: 24,924 Mod ✭✭✭✭BuffyBot


    Thread moved to more appropriate forum


  • #5
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    The problem with these estimates is that they are based on certain assumptions about fertility rates, emigration, immigration, unemployment rates and labour market participation.

    If any of those factors change, so do the dependency ratios. For example, even though there has been progress in recent years, our female labour force participation rate is below the EU average. If that increased, then we would have more people at work reducing the dependency ratio.

    Ditto the baby boom, more kids born (which we are seeing) in the present means more adults working in 25 years also reducing the dependency ratio.

    The most extreme predictions (we will drop to 2:1) are clearly scaremongering predictions but the "we will be all right" people are not right either. The truth is somewhere in between but I am not a fortune-teller or a time-traveller able to predict the future.


  • #6
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 32,943 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    uberalles wrote: »
    Is this sustainable? Is Ireland heading for a financial disaster as a result of this?

    Not just Ireland.

    Seen a few news reports/Panorama type programmes on British TV saying exactly the same thing.

    Its going to be an issue for a lot of countries.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    AlmightyCushion
    Moderators, Education Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators Posts: 35,041 Mod ✭✭✭✭AlmightyCushion


    NIMAN wrote: »
    Not just Ireland.

    Seen a few news reports/Panorama type programmes on British TV saying exactly the same thing.

    Its going to be an issue for a lot of countries.

    It's a problem for most developed countries. Ireland is slightly better off than most of the EU.


  • #8
    Debtocracy
    Registered Users Posts: 208 ✭✭Debtocracy


    By 2050 the ratio will be 1 human worker plus 5 robots for every 1 pensioner.


  • #9
    Sleepy
    Registered Users Posts: 24,140 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    You also have the unfortunate fact that cradle-to-grave welfare recipients are breeding faster than the productive members of society.

    With non-contributing parents as role-models, these off-spring are also likely to be drains on society reducing the ratio.


  • #10
    Geuze
    Registered Users Posts: 13,036 ✭✭✭✭Geuze


    Eurostat publish data and reports on ageing:

    http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/cache/ITY_OFFPUB/KS-SF-08-072/EN/KS-SF-08-072-EN.PDF


    "The EU27 population is projected to become older with
    the median age projected to rise from 40.4 years in 2008
    to 47.9 years in 2060.

    The share of people aged 65 years or over in the total
    population is projected to increase from 17.1% to 30.0%
    and the number is projected to rise from 84.6 million in
    2008 to 151.5 million in 2060.

    Similarly, the number of people aged 80 years or over is
    projected to almost triple from 21.8 million in 2008 to
    61.4 million in 2060.

    The young age dependency ratio for the EU27
    population is projected to rise moderately to 25.0% in
    2060, while the old age dependency ratio is expected to
    increase substantially from its current levels of 25.4% to
    53.5% in 2060.

    Whereas in 2008 in the EU27 there are 4 persons of
    working age (15-64 years old) for every person aged
    65 years or over; in 2060 the ratio is expected to be 2
    to 1.


  • #11
    Liam Byrne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,163 ✭✭✭✭Liam Byrne


    Godge wrote: »

    Ditto the baby boom, more kids born (which we are seeing) in the present means more adults working in 25 years also reducing the dependency ratio.

    I'm not so sure - we can't even provide enough jobs for the current population; where are all the extra jobs going to come from ?


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    WalterMitty
    Registered Users Posts: 1,582 ✭✭✭WalterMitty


    People are living much longer and are being promised money from government for the majority of their lives. If pensions were properly funded and not paid on PAYG basis there would be less concern. The state already has 100s of billions of unfunded pension obligations accrued (at current entitlement levels and payment amounts). Young workers can always be imported into EU on lower terms than existing EU citizens to provide care and services to the old europeans and grow the overall population of the continent. People in europe will not get as much from state in decades to come as it aint sustainable.


  • #13
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,234 ✭✭✭✭Victor


    Just because there are more people over 65, doesn't mean that those people will be dependent. When pensions were first introduced, hardly anyone at all reached 65, unless the were quite well off. 100 years ago, the typical pensioner might have lasted 5 years beyond 65, now they are lasting 15-20 years longer. They are also healthier.

    There are many 65 year olds who can continue in the workforce, perhaps not as coal miners or building labourers, but we have been moving away from such employment for more than a century.
    Liam Byrne wrote: »
    I'm not so sure - we can't even provide enough jobs for the current population; where are all the extra jobs going to come from ?
    Care assistants for old people.

    More seriously, there are plenty of jobs to go around, we are simply dealing with a blip due to the banking/construction problem.


  • #14
    MadsL
    Registered Users Posts: 20,299 ✭✭✭✭MadsL


    With private pensions tanking, perhaps abolishing compulsory retirement may be in order. Here in the US, I know of a woman still working full-time as a nurse at 80.


  • #15
    RichardAnd
    Registered Users Posts: 3,627 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    Victor wrote: »

    More seriously, there are plenty of jobs to go around, we are simply dealing with a blip due to the banking/construction problem.


    I'm not so sure. From what I've seen in industry, the aim is to reduce increase profit and efficiency which often comes at the expense of employment. I know that this is likely to conjure the image of a Luddite smashing an automated loom but I just feel that technology is advancing so much that human workers are becoming more redundant than ever before.

    Now, before someone raises the argument that a new technology creates new jobs (something I do agree with), consider this. The company I work for has a product aimed to reduce administration required in pharmaceutical labs by moving much "paper" work into an electronic form. It's not yet fully live but it has been released to one customer already who, I am told, will be able to let three administrators go once his software is fully implemented. For this, the company I work for (the only vendor of such software) has hired one temporary contractor for six months.

    Further, there is also the argument that the unemployed could work as engineers and developers (in the software sense). This is a moot point because not only does it take years of training and experience to make a good computer programmer, not everyone is disposed to such a job in the first place. This is no reflection on the intelligence of the individual but rather, it's a case of interests and talents laying in different areas.

    To me, it seems that technology is more focused on generating wealth and efficiency when it should be geared towards improving the lot of humanity.


  • #16
    Bullseye1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,731 ✭✭✭Bullseye1


    By 2050 there will be no retirement or should i say no pensions.


  • #17
    uberalles
    Registered Users Posts: 836 ✭✭✭uberalles


    Sleepy wrote: »
    You also have the unfortunate fact that cradle-to-grave welfare recipients are breeding faster than the productive members of society.

    With non-contributing parents as role-models, these off-spring are also likely to be drains on society reducing the ratio.

    The welfare wonderland has turned Darwinism on its head.

    Unsuccessful dole head couples can have way more kids that successful working tax paying couples = mad.

    You breed them. Ill feed them.


Advertisement