“Which is why importing young healthy workers, to pay for the retired is the option taken by many Western economies.”
But as I have demonstrated countless times (with figures, not opinion) and have no intention of doing so again, many of the “young, healthy workers” which we import do not make a net contribution to the nation’s funds. This is especially so if they have a child or two (no matter where the children reside). There is also the problem that, incredible as it may seem, eventually those “young healthy workers” become old decrepit pensioners who have probably made no provision to fund their retirement and will rely on the State to see them through their dotage. They will simply become a larger replacement for the current “less % paying taxes now, and more % getting them”. In short young people eventually get old – a phenomenon that does not seem to have been taken on board. So what do we do then? I know – we can import more from elsewhere. Eastern Europe will probably be empty by then (or if not, the few left will have no services to provide for them as all the “young healthy workers” will have upped sticks and headed west). So it must be Africa or Asia, then. But hang on! Many people from there cannot speak English, go to prayers on Friday and think it is OK to mutilate girls and young women! It will make Europe unrecognisable” Er…er….
A rising population (however it comes about) is simply unsustainable and as I said in an answer to another question, the nation needs to develop an economic model that does not depend on a constantly increasing population.
“The rest of the houses (7) are occupied by either single mothers, or young men in their 20/30's and none are working, and haven't for a long time”
And there you have it, Mikey. All too often the drag on the public purse in the form of benefits is laid at the door of pensioners. The proper State pension (that is, pensions that have been fully funded by the recipients) is a perfectly sustainable system. Many of those in that category not only have funded their State pension but also have other income on which they continue to pay tax. What is not sustainable is “retirement age benefits”, received by the people you describe. They spend their lives doing little or nothing, being sustained by the taxpayer. When they reach “retirement” age that sustenance continues uninterrupted and they usually receive more than those who have fully funded their State pension. That is where the drag on the public purse comes. Plus, of course, they knock out children who will continue in the same manner, adding to the benefits bill, knocking out children of their own, all needing “pensions” (I‘m sure you get the idea).