Best Of

Um, @Leon, @Malmesbury et al, the "Universe 25"/"Mouse Utopia"/"Calhoun Experiments", whilst not that well known, were known enough for me to discuss it in one of the works Xmas dinners last Christmas, where I fascinated/repelled various luminaries with the story[1], especially when I threw in the phrase "mouse incel" . The alt-right and frankly insane commentator "WhatIfAltHist" - you'd like him - did a YouTube on them

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Behavioral_sink
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/this-old-experiment-with-mice-led-to-bleak-predictions-for-humanitys-future-180954423/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTDTVbourzU

[1] I spend a lot of time in trains and taxis, and two of my jobs mean I have a fund of grotesque stories to entertain them. They can be repurposed for a more genteel audience.

I am not sure that I buy it though. Population Fertility rates for humans are dropping everywhere (albeit from a higher base in Africa etc) whether the country is densely or thinly populated.

Zambia has 20 million people in a country twice the size of France for example, yet the fertility rate is dropping there too. (Incidentally there is some belief amongst demographers that many estimates of current populations are overestimated in Africa).

The drop in fertility rates is pretty universal, in both rich and poor countries, the densely and thinly populated, in ones with welfare states and without, in countries with expensive and those with cheap housing, religious and irreligious alike, from different starting points

I think we have to look at other societal changes, and these would have to be worldwide, and particularly taken up by young women. Smartphones and Internet access spring to mind.

Education, opportunities, birth control and reduced child mortality rates have all played a part in reduced fertility rates.

Hardly surprising as most women don't want to be a baby factory and want to do other things with their lives..

Sure, but these have been around for decades, but with Smartphones that information is much more widely available, including on the life opportunities as alternatives to serial maternity.

If you were born in an African village - I suspect opportunities beyond the village only arrived in the past 10-15 years as mobiles arrived..

I first went to Malawi in 2005, and it was very difficult to arrange with my local contact, essentially mail, fax and landlines didn't work. I arranged it all months in advance when he was in the UK, and he just met me off the plane on the designated day.

By 2010 I could text him from my bed in Leics, and all his staff had phones. Airtel have effectively created electronic money there and even in remote villages there is an Airtel shack to buy phone credit, and you can transfer to others and pay bills more easily than I can in Britain. Even vegetable stalls at the roadside can be paid electronically. Its been a remarkably quick transition.

FPT on the baby bust (and it’s not so irrelevant - Trump is in some ways a reaction to it)

The irony is that the world needs far fewer people. Unless and until we can go to other planets we need to put less pressure on Planet Earth, we need to get our present 9 billion down to 1-2 billion

The problem is how do you get there without societal collapse. Gaia may, in her own way, be doing it for us

Africa needs fewer people, the western world needs a few more babies

African birth rates are declining from a very high base and will continue to do so based on forecast.

Fertility rate has fallen from 6.1 to 4.8 in just over a decade

So Africa is sorting itself out, especially as it is exporting plenty of young men to Europe.

https://www.mercatornet.com/to_the_surprise_of_demographers_african_fertility_is_falling

So Africa more than double replacement fertility rate still, thanks for the confirmation.

Meanwhile most western nations well below replacement fertility rate meaning ever higher taxes on the working population to fund an ever ageing population.

While most western voters want their navies to send back the migrant boats where they came from

Africa, with its declining birth rate and exporting its young men, is going the same way as the west, just more slowly. The more it exports fertile young men to the west the more their birth rates will fall. Now forecast to peak in 2060.

‘The UN now projects that Nigeria will have 342 million people by 2060, 200 million less than they forecasted ten years ago. Will even these estimates hold up?’

What voters want is irrelevant. It’s what the political class wants and they want more. Hell, your party happily hoovered up tens of thousands, with their economically inactive fiscal liability relatives, to wipe old peoples arses.

Africa’s birth rate will likely be down to replacement level, within a generation.

I highly doubt it, Africa has fewer women graduates in the workplace than most of the world and is much more religious

Twenty years ago, that was true of the Middle East.

Most of the Middle East still has above replacement level fertility.

West Bank and Gaza being two of the highest.

They're both trying to outbreed each other.

Russia: despite traditional values and massive incentives has a birth rate comfortably below UK levels.

On top of a high death rate, made worse by the Ukraine war.

Until recently, a lot of people thought of Putin as a 3-D chess player (and the MAGA's and tankies still admire him), but what could be more stupid than launching a war of choice that leaves you weaker than when you started?

Russia's vast oil revenues could have been used to transform the lives of its population, *and* to build up its armed forces.

Demographic pressures were one of the reasons for the SMO. About a million Ukrainian (mostly younger people who are more mobile) moved to Russia as soon as it kicked off. There's about 3 million people living in the fascistly occupied/heroically denazified territory who will be eventually added to the population of the Russian Federation. A big motivation for staying put under Russian occupation is that you can just stop paying your mortgage/car payment to Ukrainian banks with no adverse consequences.

OTOH, plenty of young Russians have got out of Dodge.

And up to a million young Russian men have been killed or injured, if we are to believe the more alarming statistics

This was all cleverly analysed in the Spectator

https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/the-global-populations-need-to-fall/

This year, Russia has conquered about 150 square miles of territory, at a cost of about 200,000 casualties. That's an insane ratio of reward to cost.

The Soviets lost more than 25 million people in The Great Patriotic War. The odd 200,000 in the SMO is a rounding error.

The differences are that:

(a) back in 1941, the typical Soviet woman had 6 children in her lifetime, rather than 1.4. Their leaders are still acting as if they can lose millions in war, and the population will rapidly bounce back.

(b) the Nazis wished to exterminate or enslave the population. They had no choice but to take whatever casualties were necessary in order to win. This war is a war of choice.

So what? My thesis explains the continuation of the SMO. Yours suggests any rational Kremlin would not have launched it. Mine more closely matches the facts on the ground.

Bit like Gaza, Putin dare not stop now unless handed something he can call a win. These despots will always do what is best for themselves regardless of the human cost.

Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA

Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.

All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that

Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.

Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.

It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.

Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +

@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.

Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.

Any cash drawn out from ISAs could arguably be income and I am sure you would need to check the fine print on that before claiming your WFA

ISAs are tax free. As is any money I borrow against my property, as is 25% of my pension, as is any shares I sell provided I keep below the CGT allowance, as is drawing on my savings. I don't claim the WFA I get it automatically for the very reason that I have a taxable income below £35k.

Yet I have a large amount of capital that is ignored for the purposes of WFA, which wasn't the case prior to the U turn. I will not be an exception here. There will be lots of us, in fact most people I know of my age.

You are defending the indefensible.

So? WFA is also tax free. As a self professed tax dodging LD (quelle surprise) you may have dodged your way back into keeping your WFA, the question is would all the income of HMRC admin trying to find your non taxable income to deprive you of your WFA end up costing more than any savings made?

Excuse me! Tax dodging? I think that deserves an apology. I have never tax dodged. I have bought shares. I have taken out ISAs. I have bought a home and a holiday home to enjoy. I have a DC drawdown pension. I didn't dodge my way into keeping my WFA. On the contrary,I don't want it. It is not my fault Reeves is giving to me. I will give it away. I didn't contrive to get it. This is the Govt fault not mine. So your accusations is very unfair.

Where is the tax dodging there? None whatsoever.

I think you need to apologise for that @HYUFD. I have never dodged a penny of tax in my entire life.

We are not going back to the old days @hyufd are we? We have got on in recent years despite our political differences, but that was uncalled for.

I was just pointing out that the new threshold for WFA doesn't take into account retirees who have saved for their retirement as opposed to the small number who are on large DB pensions. Remember most people are not on DB pensions and those that are mostly get a modest pension and rely on savings as well.

No I will not, it may be legal tax dodging but still a tax dodge nonetheless.

By your own admission you have bought ISAs, used 25% of your pension etc to avoid paying tax on it in retirement.

Hence making it much harder for HMRC to remove your WFA without employing extra administrators to trace all that tax free extra income you have.

I didn't necessarily say that was a negative but a factual tax dodge it is

None of that is tax avoidance let alone evasion. Nor is it a dodgy it's using the tax system as it is designed to encourage people to save for rainy days and pensions.

The 25% lump sum pension was a common way to pay off your mortgage, it's still a decent reason for saving money into a pension.

Likewise ISA's are designed to encourage people to save....

...and also have the side effect of enabling pensioners to tax dodge, legally.

If kjh wants to whinge about still getting his WFA he should not have invested in so many ways of avoiding tax on his retirement income

I didn't you idiot. I did nothing to avoid tax on retirement. I bought a house and a holiday home, I bought shares, I took out a pension through my life. None of this is doing anything to avoid tax. It is normal stuff. The only thing I have done to minimise tax is take out ISAs, which is hardly radical and something everyone does. I have paid oodles of tax and done nothing to avoid it including a huge amount of stamp duty.

This is bonkers stuff @hyufd. It is not my fault that the govt cocks up and gives me WFA which I don't deserve and which I will give away.

Tell me what should I have done differently?

You have just said yourself you did it so much of your income is non taxable and to minimise tax. No, most people don't as most people aren't as high earning and educated in ways to legally tax dodge in retirement as you were.

WFA has been removed for all taxable income over £35k, to remove it for legal tax dodgers like you would require HMRC to employ lots of extra administrators to trace all the extra tax minimised income you get and find enough to get you over the £35k threshold.

Which would end up costing the HMRC more than any savings made from finally removing your WFA in the end

Hang on - he hasn't

The single thing he has done is take his taxed earnings and saved them in an ISA...

To legally minimise tax in retirement

And you wouldn't

You are so tedious at times

But the stupid thing is I didn't. Not at all. I have done nothing to avoid tax in retirement.

I have done nothing to reduce my tax in retirement unless you count taking out a pension and investing in ISAs. You know what everyone does. In fact the Government makes you do the former now for goodness sake. It is compulsory.

It is not my fault that the Govt is so stupid it gives me the WFA when it really shouldn't and as a consequence @hyufd accuses me of being a tax avoider when I have done nothing to avoid tax and will voluntarily give it away. I mean what more can I do to make @hyufd happy.

And he seems to think that if only HMRC had the resources they would find a pot of money to tax of mine. Sadly my affairs are not that complicated. They know it all.

I may be missing something here but I’m really struggling to see, in this spat, what you’ve done that is in any way wrong or any different to what millions of us do 🤷‍♂️

Nope you have got it all right. Mad isn't it.

I simply made the point that with the U turn on WFA I will now get the WFA even though I am well off and that I shouldn't and that I will give it away.

Some may think that virtuous of me.

Not @HYUFD. It has somehow evolved (god knows how) into me being a tax avoider. How is beyond me.

Rest assured I very much doubt anyone else on here agrees with HYUFD on this. Or even understands what he is trying to claim.

“Man who raped child and attempted to rape woman in west London park is jailed for life”

https://x.com/standardnews/status/1941165936356049280?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw

“Navroop Singh, 24”

Terrible, but I sense a subtext.
Spit it out, man.

Oh sorry, you want a context? Uhm, ok. Shall we look and see what country now has the highest incidence of rape in the world? Here you go



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_statistics

Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top, as it suggests that women are more likely to report rapes here than elsewhere, and that's surely the first step to tackling the problem and reducing incidence.

Sweet Jesus Christ I’m going to preserve this reply in amber, like a Mesozoic freak mosquito, so it can be admired in future centuries in its pristine weirdness

This opener is especially brilliant

“Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top”

You really should read the text of your own sources.

" Each entry is based on that country's definition of rape, which varies widely throughout the world. It does not specify whether recorded means reported, brought to trial, or convicted. It does not include cases of rape which go unreported or unrecorded"

So as an example - a study conducted by France’s National Observatory on Crime and Criminal Justice concluded that 9 out of 10 rapes in Paris go unreported - so are not included in your statistics.

“Those statistics are of reported rapes. Given how few rapes are reported it's actually encouraging to see Britain at the top [of the World Rape Chart]”

Are you encouraged, Richard?

I am more disturbed by the fact you seem to be reveling in rape statistics and are reduced to using partial and dubious data sets (which you also misinterpret) as a means of proving some rather obscure point.

I am not encouraged by any rape. But if they are happening I would much rather see every one of them reported than 9 out of 10 ignored and the whole system that allows violnce against women perpetuated.

You are doing nothing to make the world a better place by weaponising the statistics of violence against women for your own ends.

Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA

Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.

All pensioners with an annual income above £35,000 will get no WFA, savings and investment income could well be included in that

Yeah the income will but not the capital. It is easy to tie your capital up without generating £35k of income from it and live off the capital. Pension funds, ISA, capital growth shares, property, etc. Without going into detail I will be miles away from £35k income, but by anyone's measure I am very very well off. That will be true of many well off pensioners. It is how we prepared for retirement if we didn't have a DB pension.

Because of the benefit rules on capital even though I have a low income I lost the WFA as I should. Now, as for a lot of rich pensioners, who don't have DB pensions I will get it.

It is nonsense. I and others like me shouldn't get it. I will probably donate it.

Only if you sell the capital do you get any earnings from it, dividends from shares, rental income from property etc would still count for the £35k +

@hyufd you haven't a clue. I have over £5m invested nearly all of which is not revenue generating but capital generating or doing nothing. It is ISAs, property I don't rent out out but use and can borrow against, drawdown pensions I can control, etc. I will be long dead before I spend all of this. My sole income is my state pension and a few thousand in dividends and interest. I realise capital or savings to make up what I need to live which don't impact the £35k figure. I will be dead before it runs out. Consequently I now get the WFA which is nonsense.

Others who are a lot less well off than me but don't have DB pensions will be doing exactly the same. It is nonsense that I will get it. When tied into benefits I wouldn't.