ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
Have we done this as a thread before? Never mind. Inspired by derf's thread, here is its mirror image.
I propose a citizen's wage, to be set at a level approximating the income of someone on social security today assuming that they were claiming JSA and housing benefit. Let's say £10k/year. I propose a citizen's wage of £5k/year for under 16's to be paid to a parent with custody, rising after the age of 16 and reaching the full amount at 21, with half being paid to the parent and half to the child until the child has left home or reaches 21.
Pros:
- we would save a fortune on the bureaucratic infrastructure associated with social security; everything could be dealt with through the tax system
- for most the existence would be too impoverished to prefer not working. Taxation would be high, to pay for the citizen's wage (an additional 35% tax replacing NI), but the citizen's wage would not be lost when work started. Assuming the rest of the tax structure stayed broadly similar to today, someone on an average wage of £20k would see ~£9k of it, on top of their £10k CW, thus having a net income of £19k. Someone on £100k would see ~£43k of it on top of their CW, thus having a net income of £53k.
- we would benefit massively from those who could comfortably live on the CW without working. Instead of signing on as a full-time job they would be free to pursue their art, music, writing; they can care for family-members, provide child-minding, without losing their financial independence.
- the voluntary sector would benefit massively from the freedom of people to volunteer full-time, and from the freedom of workers to take some paid time out to volunteer their skills.
- people would have the financial freedom to take jobs they cared about instead of those that would pay the best, which will tend to increase wages for those jobs which society values most highly.
- retraining would be easier, benefiting both the workers who are retraining and the rest of society that benefits from the new skills.
- wages would rise and income inequality would fall, because there is less power over a worker who does not fear losing his job. The most equal societies in the world also have the lowest crime, the best educational attainments, the highest purchasing power per capita. Our quality of life would improve immensely.
Cons:
The bankers would leave the country.*
*consequence may be filed under wrong heading
I propose a citizen's wage, to be set at a level approximating the income of someone on social security today assuming that they were claiming JSA and housing benefit. Let's say £10k/year. I propose a citizen's wage of £5k/year for under 16's to be paid to a parent with custody, rising after the age of 16 and reaching the full amount at 21, with half being paid to the parent and half to the child until the child has left home or reaches 21.
Pros:
- we would save a fortune on the bureaucratic infrastructure associated with social security; everything could be dealt with through the tax system
- for most the existence would be too impoverished to prefer not working. Taxation would be high, to pay for the citizen's wage (an additional 35% tax replacing NI), but the citizen's wage would not be lost when work started. Assuming the rest of the tax structure stayed broadly similar to today, someone on an average wage of £20k would see ~£9k of it, on top of their £10k CW, thus having a net income of £19k. Someone on £100k would see ~£43k of it on top of their CW, thus having a net income of £53k.
- we would benefit massively from those who could comfortably live on the CW without working. Instead of signing on as a full-time job they would be free to pursue their art, music, writing; they can care for family-members, provide child-minding, without losing their financial independence.
- the voluntary sector would benefit massively from the freedom of people to volunteer full-time, and from the freedom of workers to take some paid time out to volunteer their skills.
- people would have the financial freedom to take jobs they cared about instead of those that would pay the best, which will tend to increase wages for those jobs which society values most highly.
- retraining would be easier, benefiting both the workers who are retraining and the rest of society that benefits from the new skills.
- wages would rise and income inequality would fall, because there is less power over a worker who does not fear losing his job. The most equal societies in the world also have the lowest crime, the best educational attainments, the highest purchasing power per capita. Our quality of life would improve immensely.
Cons:
The bankers would leave the country.*
*consequence may be filed under wrong heading
