It seems to me the logical outcome of progressively raising the social security cap is to come clean and treat it as tax. At than point you might as well merge tax and social security. That way you have a realistic chance of putting an asbolute floor under someones income. Doing so would also make it easier to get over the double tax problem, and remove inconsistencies.
I suspect one department would also be cheaper to run than two.

At the moment there is a lot of talk about declining birthrate, but the birthrate measures such as the “crude birthrate” themselves are related to total population (= n/p x 1000, n=births per year, p=total population). If more people live on longer, and n is static, then the CBR appears to decline. But if the age they live on longer to reaches a limit, then it will rise even if the actual births for year is the same.

Done quite a lot of research on this one.

Firstly it isn’t quite cyclic and is already more than a ‘bulge’. Don’t forget the added factor that people are simply living longer. Secondly whichever way you look at it the fact is that continued population growth can’t be the answer to help us cope with the increased costs involved with having a larger proportion of older people in our society. Only then does it become a timebomb.

We have to level out. And yes there will be a difficult gap, a period of transition as people readjust society to cope with a different demographic.

What is important is to readjust society in a way that understands and values this new demographic for the potential it might offer. They are not a ‘burden’, with scientific proof and many social, gerontological, and economic studies to suggest that older people can be of great benefit in the future, not just within the confines of their families.

“Speaking of the ‘burden’… will only be valid if we fail to restructure society and its institutions to reflect these new realities.”
(OECD’s Berglind Asgeirsdottir)

“In vielen psychologischen, philosophischen und soziologischen Untersuchungen ist bereits deutlich geworden, dass vor allem die Gruppe der soziokulturell bevorzugten Alten eine Ressource aufweisen kann, die keine andere gesellschaftliche Gruppe in diesem Maße besitzt: das Potential der Weisheit. Ob und wie das Alter mit dieser Ressource zu Lösungen sozialer, philosophischer, auch ökonomischer Fragen der Zukunft beitragen will, auch dies ist eine Frage der Kultur einer Gesellschaft.”
(Dr Kinsler, Margrit (2003), Alter – Macht – Kultur)

“There is nothing inherently problematical about growing old. And yet in most nations of the world, old age is increasingly understood in “social problem” terms. As we all must age and eventually die, any cultural belief system that cannot provide security, meaning, and self-esteem for those who reach the conclusion of life’s natural sequences will eventually have to change.”
(Trinity University gerontology department, San Antonio)

With numbers on their side, they could of course take things into their own hands.

First, demographics:

I read the demographics paper which was done in preparation for Imagine Jersey 2035, before attending the consultation day (probably one of the few there who did). At the time I thought it was “not bad” – it seemed reasonably aware of the problems within population estimating, and also seemed pretty thorough. (And there was a lot of other stuff to read, and an alternative policy approach to put forward.)

Now I am not so sure. First, Tony’s point about the birth rate. And second the real possibility of a recession within the Finance Industry and very possibly a higher rate of emigration for a while (as happened before in our last economic slowdown around 2002).

I haven’t got the time to reread the paper now, but if elected, it will be one of the first things to revisit!

Second, social security and tax:

A classic case of what I repeat to anyone listening. Be clear about the principles which you want to see and stay focussed on them. These are, in this case, a) the need for a progressive, fair, transparent and simple (as simple as possible, bearing in mind the other requirements) tax and benefit system, and b) everyone must have an adequate income (not one that is arrived at by taking the result of Loughborough University’s survey into how much it costs to live in Jersey, and then setting income support at a lower rate!

So, sticking to the principles, then look carefully at the system to make it comply with your principles.

I am perfectly capable, intellectually, of doing this. And I am afraid that is what it boils down to – having the intelligence to work out complicated stuff and check that it actually does work the way it is intended.

The other things you need are:

a) the ability to listen to what people tell you about how the system actually does work,
b) oh and then to take it on board
c) and remember it (and not forget all about it)
d) and then the desire to take effective action.

Stick to the principles, listen to what people tell you, analyse, and take action.

One is that the demographic timebomb is permanent. Unless birthrates are falling to the point of extinction, at some point the population is going to rise again. The problem seems more of a cyclical one – how can we cover the years in which there is an older population needing more support from a younger one. When the baby-boomers generation is gone, the problems may well go away too; the question is – how long is the tunnel, and if cyclical, what kind of period do we need to face. If the population is in permanent decline, then we are facing a different order of problem, and it is primarily biological rather than purely economic.

The same kind of cyclical effect occurs with schools, when a bulge ripples through the system over a number of years, but then is gone. Our organisations are not really well constructed to adjust flexibly to these effects.