It appears Socialist Finland may have woken up.

[Shad]

I am an American and I wasn't calling anything socialism. I was pointing out the hypocrisy of those who dismiss anything government ran as being "godless communism" or "nanny state" while using the government ran examples I gave.

I was talking about the reference to infrastructure

 

[Jumi]

Population decline is connected to the welfare state and the taxes required for it.

Oh, how do taxes cause population decline? Americans at least seem to imagine taxes being a huge burden on non-Americans based on gut.

 

[Jumi]

That is one part of the solution, in the UK they are gradually raising the retirement age.Contributions will have to go up.

Right-wing pro-EU parties in my country are for raising retirement age and pro-immigration to fill some jobs. Is it the same in UK?

 

[Jumi]

Even Lenin stated Marx wasn't a major influence of his, and Marx and Engels provided very little in regards to what Lenin and other Communist Revolutionists would set out to do (they wrote more about what society would like once it was a worker's utopia - most of their writings as a whole is a mountain of cultural and economic analysis and critique). It's to the point that often political scientist will say Marxism (with some going as far to say Communism) has never been attempted.

They attempted Communism and some influences were taken from Marx. Lenin's idea that Marx was obsoleted is reason why they never considered taking Marx that seriously. The split and hostility between "socialists" in Europe and Russia is partly from this. When Soviets recruited spies, they often went for right-wing conservative parties, same as the US funding our "left" the social democrats. Nominally one would think it would be the opposite, but it makes sense on a couple of levels.

Seeing as our "socialists" were anti-communist this was the practicality:

Because of the SDP's anti-communist activities, the United States Central Intelligence Agency supported the party by means of funds laundered through Nordic sister parties, or through organizations that bought "luxury goods" such as coffee abroad, then imported and sold them for a high profit, as post-war rationing served to inflate prices.

SDP is the social democratic party and member of the socialist international. I quoted wiki because there is just too much to say on it...

 

[Altfish]

Which is horrible solution as far as importing people and increasing the age of retirement which is just fleecing of people forced to go back to work as the government can not manage much.

No.
I should have retired at 65, about 10-years ago it was announced it would be 66; my children will probably have to work until they are 68, my grandchildren 70. But our life expectancy is increasing, so that is ok. Nobody is being 'forced' back to work.
The great advantage of 'importing' people is they tend to come between the ages of 20 and 40 and then go home. So, the government has no education costs and no significant health or pension costs; thus they over their stay are a net contributor to the UK pot.

 

[Altfish]

Right-wing pro-EU parties in my country are for raising retirement age and pro-immigration to fill some jobs. Is it the same in UK?

I don't think it is necessarily 'right-wing' that is leading to the increased retirement age; it is down to maths and the improving health of people.
The right wing are anti-immigration.

 

[Shad]

No.
I should have retired at 65, about 10-years ago it was announced it would be 66; my children will probably have to work until they are 68, my grandchildren 70. But our life expectancy is increasing, so that is ok. Nobody is being 'forced' back to work.
The great advantage of 'importing' people is they tend to come between the ages of 20 and 40 and then go home. So, the government has no education costs and no significant health or pension costs; thus they over their stay are a net contributor to the UK pot.

Importing people to keep a system afloat that couldn't cope with reality is a horrible solution.

 

[Shad]

Oh, how do taxes cause population decline? Americans at least seem to imagine taxes being a huge burden on non-Americans based on gut.

As the surplus funds decrease via taxes. Simple math here. If you have less funds people are going to cut down on expenses which includes a major one, children.

European taxes rates are higher than America. That data is available on European government websites under taxes. You heard of those things right? Websites?

 

[Altfish]

Importing people to keep a system afloat that couldn't cope with reality is a horrible solution.

Why?
I've already explained that most go back home after about 10-20 years. They are net earners for the country.

 

[Shad]

Why?
I've already explained that most go back home after about 10-20 years. They are net earners for the country.

So? You are still importing people to save a system designed for citizens from collapse.

 

[Altfish]

So? You are still importing people to save a system designed for citizens from collapse.

No, what are you talking about???

You can do what the UK has voted to do and ban immigrants (or greatly reduce them) then the country will collapse.
Capitalism is based on a growing economy, to grow it you need more employees; birth rates are falling so where do you suggest these people come from?

 

[Shad]

No, what are you talking about???

About using immigration to save a social program.

You can do what the UK has voted to do and ban immigrants (or greatly reduce them) then the country will collapse.

I am talking about immigration for a purpose such as saving a social program.

Capitalism is based on a growing economy, to grow it you need more employees; birth rates are falling so where do you suggest these people come from?

I am not against immigration based on individual choice. I am against a government using immigration to rescue it's own policy from collapse.

 

[Jumi]

As the surplus funds decrease via taxes. Simple math here. If you have less funds people are going to cut down on expenses which includes a major one, children.

Is that how poor countries have so few children, because they can't afford it and need to cut down on expenses?

European taxes rates are higher than America. That data is available on European government websites under taxes. You heard of those things right? Websites?

You want me to try to prove your theory? Can't do it, seems just as unprovable to me as it seems to you.

 

[Jumi]

The right wing are anti-immigration.

Yeah, I think in a lot of countries it's like that. Though I've heard the British also have anti-immigration leftists.

In my country the anti-immigration party candidates tend to score a bit left of center. Though especially foreign medias tend to make up things about them being "right-wing" through association.

The traditional right and left tend to be pro-immigration where I live. For completely different reasons of course...

 

[Altfish]

About using immigration to save a social program.

I am talking about immigration for a purpose such as saving a social program.

I am not against immigration based on individual choice. I am against a government using immigration to rescue it's own policy from collapse.

It is not about 'saving' a social program; nothing of the sort.
It is just a by-product of immigration that the UK plc makes a profit out of them. We don't encourage immigration to fund anything, in recent times quite the opposite.

 

[Shad]

Is that how poor countries have so few children, because they can't afford it and need to cut down on expenses?

Actually poor nations have higher population growth rates than the rich nations do. Those nations just have a higher mortality rate

You want me to try to prove your theory?

You do not need to prove anything. It is simple math.

Can't do it, seems just as unprovable to me as it seems to you.

You never tried but I do not expect you to.

 

[Jumi]

Actually poor nations have higher population growth rates than the rich nations do. Those nations just have a higher mortality rate

That's exactly the point.

You do not need to prove anything. It is simple math.

It's too simple when it doesn't fit the dataset.

You never tried but I do not expect you to.

Why would I try the impossible. Face it, you weren't even attempting to prove your own. You're not going to do it, why would I?

 

[Shad]

That's exactly the point.

No as your claim had nothing to due with mortality rates

"Is that how poor countries have so few children, because they can't afford it and need to cut down on expenses?"

Which I countered that those nations still have more births than 1st world nations with high taxes. Those nations do have a tax burden close to 1st world nations thus have no money to spend. Those nations have a far lower standard of living. Try again

It's too simple when it doesn't fit the dataset.

Nope. Income tax didn't come into exist for most nations until WW2 and after. Birth rates declined and continue to do so as the cost of living is high and so are the taxes.

Why would I try the impossible

You never tried. You only made the point so you could dismiss it. You had no intention of trying anything. Fool yourself all you want

Face it, you weren't even attempting to prove your own. You're not going to do it, why would I?

Wrong. You just were keen to dismiss it for no reason.

How many families need both partners working these days compared to in the past?

 

[Jumi]

No as your claim had nothing to due with mortality rates

"Is that how poor countries have so few children, because they can't afford it and need to cut down on expenses?"

Which I countered that those nations still have more births than 1st world nations with high taxes. Those nations do have a tax burden close to 1st world nations thus have no money to spend. Those nations have a far lower standard of living. Try again

Well, you can afford to have kids in my country. I'd say it's much safer than having kids in the US, since government pays for free care, maternity packages and there's even some money each month you can think of it like a tax reduction for families as kids if it makes sense. It's just extra money for families. No one needs to work two jobs to provide for kids, not even single moms. The tax burden that Americans often imagine isn't really that much because you've already paid for services. No ones out on the street because of kids. Of course our system is nothing like your Democrats or Republicans seem to fathom.

Nope. Income tax didn't come into exist for most nations until WW2 and after. Birth rates declined and continue to do so as the cost of living is high and so are the taxes.

Correlation is not causation. Bring in people from different cultures and education levels and you get quite different results. Uneducated people, immigrants from poorer countries with traditional family values tend to have lots of kids. The higher cost of luxuries isn't prohibitive.

You never tried. You only made the point so you could dismiss it. You had no intention of trying anything. Fool yourself all you want

I don't tend to convert to any political or religious ideas just because someone tells me their views. If they got something to back them up I might consider. If they tell me to read a Bible or go study some of their religious material, they often use the same type of argument you are now using. How about you look into how well children are provided for and convince yourself of my views? Not going to do it. I never expected you to.

Wrong. You just were keen to dismiss it for no reason.

How many families need both partners working these days compared to in the past?

I have reasons, you're just not hearing it.

In your country I hear people working two jobs just to make ends meet even without kids. Somehow you still have higher birth rates. In my country you don't need both parents working if all you want is kids. Sure you can't afford to buy new computers every year and visit Thailand for two weeks a year(a common thing workers here do) if you have kids and only have one parent working.

 

[Shad]

Well, you can afford to have kids in my country. I'd say it's much safer than having kids in the US, since government pays for free care, maternity packages and there's even some money each month you can think of it like a tax reduction for families as kids if it makes sense. It's just extra money for families. No one needs to work two jobs to provide for kids, not even single moms.

I said both partners working not two jobs. You ignored the costs of food, the increased expenses, increases housing costs, increased clothing costs, etc.

The tax burden that Americans often imagine isn't really that much because you've already paid for services. No ones out on the street because of kids. Of course our system is nothing like your Democrats or Republicans seem to fathom.

I am Canadian.

Correlation is not causation.

Wrong as the decline in birthrates match the changes in family finances including income taxes.

Bring in people from different cultures and education levels and you get quite different results. Uneducated people, immigrants from poorer countries with traditional family values tend to have lots of kids. The higher cost of luxuries isn't prohibitive.

Luxuries? This is babble as the cost of children isn't a luxury product nor needs such products.

I don't tend to convert to any political or religious ideas just because someone tells me their views. If they got something to back them up I might consider. If they tell me to read a Bible or go study some of their religious material, they often use the same type of argument you are now using. How about you look into how well children are provided for and convince yourself of my views? Not going to do it. I never expected you to.

Pot meet kettle. Yawn

I have reasons, you're just not hearing it.

You provided no reasons until this post. You babbled before that

In your country I hear people working two jobs just to make ends meet even without kids.

Canada? Yes as uneducated people do not get paid 40k a year for no reason.

Somehow you still have higher birth rates.

Canada's is lower than Finland

In my country you don't need both parents working if all you want is kids. Sure you can't afford to buy new computers every year and visit Thailand for two weeks a year(a common thing workers here do) if you have kids and only have one parent working.

How many families having kids with both partners working?