nThe problem in the UK is not aging, but pretending to be young. Today, for every 100 people of working age, there are about 30 retirees to support; by 2045, this will rise to about 35. This is known as the old-age dependency ratio, meaning each worker bears a heavier burden. With a shrinking tax base and rising expenditures, pensions and the National Health Service (NHS) rely on the current pool of taxpayers. When taxpayers decrease and beneficiaries increase, there are only three outcomes: cut pensions, weaken healthcare, or raise taxes. This is not an opinion, but arithmetic.n
nAccording to the Office for National Statistics (ONS), without further immigration, the old-age dependency ratio will rise to about 44 by the 2050s, meaning 100 working-age people will have to support nearly half as many retirees. To maintain the status quo, the UK needs a net immigration of 400,000 to over 700,000 people annually, about 1% of the population. This is not an absurd figure. Canada has maintained a similar proportion for years, and Australia’s net immigration reached 518,000 in the 2022-23 fiscal year, nearly 2% of its population. Advanced countries have long understood that immigration is not a threat but a lifeline.n
nThe UK is already on this path. The ONS estimates that net immigration reached 960,000 by June 2023; although it fell to about 720,000 the following year, it remains higher than pre-pandemic levels. Most of these immigrants come from non-EU regions, entering on work or study visas. The issue is not the numbers, but the direction. The government dares not admit this is a long-term phenomenon, treating it instead as a “temporary imbalance.” The result? Housing shortages, strained healthcare, and crowded education. Without prepared policies, public sentiment naturally turns negative. Then politicians claim they must “control immigration.”n
nRegrettably, few in mainstream politics dare to mention the words “population structure.” Everyone talks about borders, security, and asylum, yet no one acknowledges: without an influx of young workers, who will pay taxes? Who will care for the sick? Who will support the nation? Reducing immigration is easy, but the cost is borne by every pensioner’s pension and every patient’s surgery schedule. Pretending there is no cost is the most expensive illusion of our time.n
nEncouraging childbirth? It sounds appealing but fails in practice. The total fertility rate in England and Wales is only 1.41 in 2024, and South Korea’s has dropped to 0.72. Countries offer subsidies, tax benefits, and childcare, but none have succeeded. Even if more children were born today, they would only enter the workforce in over twenty years, and the state must first bear the cost of their education and healthcare. By the time these children grow up, the aging problem will already be overwhelming.n
nHealthcare illustrates the issue best. In the NHS in England, one in five employees is not British, with even higher proportions among doctors and nurses. Without them, the entire system would immediately become unbalanced. To reduce reliance on foreigners, more local training and retention are needed, but this requires money, time, and political will. In recent years, we have lacked all three.n
nImmigration is not a panacea, but it is a tourniquet. Foreign populations will also age, that is a fact; but without them, society will age even faster. Immigration policy should act as a “buffer,” buying ten to twenty years to restructure, boost productivity, and improve education and housing supply. Otherwise, aging and xenophobia will only drag the UK down together.n
nAging is certain, and numbers do not lie. The UK can choose to face it, using planned immigration to support intergenerational balance; or it can choose to evade it, allowing taxes to rise, pensions to shrink, and healthcare to collapse. The question is not whether to open the door, but whether to take responsibility for reality.n
