Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Basic Income

Fez909

Fez909

toilet expert
Are there any threads on this? It sounds like a great idea and I don't think I've seen it being discussed on here, but I'm sure it must have been.

I remember DotCommunist mentioning Citizen's Income a few times. Is this the same thing?

Articles/books on the subject etc are also welcome.

Cheers
 
Thread was a bit of a mess, tbh. I'm surprised there was negative feeling about it, too. How about we give it another go (unless you find the bigger thread)?

Definition of basic income: a universal payment to every citizen of the country whether they work or not, rich or poor, whatever. It would be set high enough that you could live on this (so a 'living wage'?), paying for housing, food, bills, etc. If you want to work, then you keep your basic income in full, and your wages top it up (subject to the normal deductions and so on). This is how I understand it working from the little I've read on it so far. No other benefits would exist. Please correct me if I'm wrong!

Here's why I think it would be good: If there was a BI set at a level that people didn't need to work then obviously a proportion of the country would stop working. I don't see this as a problem. There's not enough jobs to go around at the minute, so this would ease some of the pressure on those who actually want to work by reducing applicants. I would hope that the days of 1500 applicants for coffee shop jobs would be over. Of course there will still be people who want to work in coffee shops and other unskilled jobs. Perhaps just a day or two a week to give themselves a bit more spending money?

One thing that gets mentioned occasionally on here is job sharing. This is currently impractical as most people can't afford to halve their wages, and the employer is not going to pay two people each a salary to do the job that one person can do. With a BI, then anyone could afford to share their job. Job sharing advantages: two people, two perspectives/skill sets; time off can be arranged between the two workers, and you have cover for sickness and when one person leaves. I'm sure there would also be environmental benefits if something like this was widespread like fewer cars on the road.

The minimum wage would be able to be scrapped as there would be no need to do shit jobs for inhumane wages. If a job was truly shit, but essential, then the employer would have to offer a wage sufficient enough to tempt people into it. But that still might end up being a low rate? Who knows. It may be that some jobs don't exist at the minute because nobody would pay someone the minimum wage to do it - perhaps at £2ph it becomes worth it, and someone somewhere wouldn't mind doing the job for that rate. But they'd choose to do it, as they don't need the money, it would just be a bit extra to top up their BI.

I did have some more thoughts on this, but I've taken so long to type this I've forgotten. Will try to remember later on.

Anyone think this is a good idea?
Why are my ideas above wrong?
 
the big difficulty (as I think I may have said on the other thread) is the huge variation in housing costs around the country.

When it's possible to get a 3 bed house in an ex pit village somewhere up north for less than you can get a bedsit in much of London for, the whole thing is kinda skewed...
 
I think it's a great idea but presumably the cost of it is the major disadvantage. Although by eliminating poverty you would save a fair bit.
 
Wouldn't there be fewer people wanting to live in London if a BI was in place? I reckon a lot of people are in London because that's where the work is.

Perhaps it would reverse the decline in population and fortunes of some of these pit villages as well. Instead of money and people leaving the communities, there would now be a steady, guaranteed income to every community.
 
Fez909 said:
..............
Definition of basic income: a universal payment to every citizen of the country whether they work or not, rich or poor, whatever. It would be set high enough that you could live on this (so a 'living wage'?), paying for housing, food, bills, etc. If you want to work, then you keep your basic income in full, and your wages top it up (subject to the normal deductions and so on).
.....................
Click to expand...
It would be a massive amount of money, how would it be raised? / who would fund it?
 
weltweit said:
How nice for them, I am sure they will agree !! :)
Click to expand...

Why wouldn't they? It could have enormous benefits for the entire country. And it would save money on the current system by removing the means testing and lots of the administration. It would get the economy going again because everyone would have regular income and so money to spend.

Would you oppose it?
 
weltweit said:
So, how much is the BI? £16k pa, perhaps more? and how many people in the UK? 65,000,000 give or take, which means 65,000,000 x £16,000 = £ 1,040,000,000,000 which is a trillion pounds a year. Total government spending in 2012 was only £694.89bn so that means those who do pay taxes will have to pay a whole lot more (almost double) than they are paying at the moment. I seriously doubt they will vote for it!
Click to expand...

I asked if you would oppose it, not if you could guess how others would receive it. I also never mentioned £16k. Nor did I say everyone would receive it (about 18 million people in the UK are children - there's no reason to give children £16k a year).
 
Fez909 said:
I asked if you would oppose it, not if you could guess how others would receive it. I also never mentioned £16k. Nor did I say everyone would receive it (about 18 million people in the UK are children - there's no reason to give children £16k a year).
Click to expand...

So only adults, that makes a difference. But what is the point in taxing people in work X, but then giving them back Y as a BI ... why not tax them less in the first place?

I just picked £16k out of the air, what level would you set it at?
 
weltweit said:
So, how much is the BI? £16k pa, perhaps more? and how many people in the UK? 65,000,000 give or take, which means 65,000,000 x £16,000 = £ 1,040,000,000,000 which is a trillion pounds a year. Total government spending in 2012 was only £694.89bn so that means those who do pay taxes will have to pay a whole lot more (almost double) than they are paying at the moment. I seriously doubt they will vote for it!
Click to expand...
You're out of your depth.
 
weltweit said:
So only adults, that makes a difference. But what is the point in taxing people in work X, but then giving them back Y as a BI ... why not tax them less in the first place?

I just picked £16k out of the air, what level would you set it at?
Click to expand...

It's called wealth redistribution. I don't know what level it would be set at. I don't have the mathematical/economic skills to work something like that out.

Would you oppose it?
 
I think it's a stupid idea. It would lead to even greater social division, no-one would do the shit jobs, it would create even more massive resentment to those who want to work but can't (strivers vs skivers on steroids) and there's no way we'd ever be able to pay for it. Why bother working if you'd be taxed from the first pound at 50% or whatever it would need to fund it?
 
weltweit said:
I don't think asking for further details is trolling.
Click to expand...

Here you go then. The citizen's income trust have done some rough costings on their idea for a BI. You can read read it here (pdf).

After you've read it, will you be able to answer if you would oppose a basic income, in principle?
 
There are a lot of reasons why people work other than just money. Purpose, identity, to have a social network. These reasons would become more important which could be a good thing. Lower paid johs would have to be more pleasant to do.
 
ChrisFilter said:
I think it's a stupid idea. It would lead to even greater social division, no-one would do the shit jobs, it would create even more massive resentment to those who want to work but can't (strivers vs skivers on steroids) and there's no way we'd ever be able to pay for it. Why bother working if you'd be taxed from the first pound at 50% or whatever it would need to fund it?
Click to expand...

So much wrong in this.

How can someone who wants to work every be classed as a skiver, especially in a society where they don't have to?

Shit jobs will either be necessary, in which case the wages will keep going up until they reach the point that people are willing to put up with the conditions for the remuneration, or they will be unnecessary, and so who cares that no one will do them?

If you work currently, you may find you are only slightly better off than not working. Or perhaps worse off, if you happen to be on a low hour contract. With BI, you can never be worse off, and the more you work, the better off you are. Full stop. Plus you've just invented the fact that you'd be taxed at 50% from the first pound. No implementation for this yet exists, so why criticise an imaginary version of it?
 
ChrisFilter said:
I think it's a stupid idea. It would lead to even greater social division, no-one would do the shit jobs, it would create even more massive resentment to those who want to work but can't (strivers vs skivers on steroids) and there's no way we'd ever be able to pay for it. Why bother working if you'd be taxed from the first pound at 50% or whatever it would need to fund it?
Click to expand...
Could you imagine something more worthwhile to go to work for than financial gain?

If all your basic needs were being met food, heating and housing.
 
Fez909 said:
Here you go then. The citizen's income trust have done some rough costings on their idea for a BI. You can read read it here (pdf).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the link. It is interesting, incidentally that pdf says children will receive CI, but the sums are very small. Unless I have misunderstood the pdf .... :

Age Weekly CI
0-17 £34
18-24 £45
25-64 £57
65plus £114

I just don't see how that will let me pay my bills. Unless I have missed something, I am in the 25-64 category which means about £230 a month. My rent alone is £800 plus .....

Fez909 said:
After you've read it, will you be able to answer if you would oppose a basic income, in principle?
Click to expand...

I don't understand Fez909 why you are so keen to get me to decide for or against. Is it not possible to have an open mind and be interested in the details?
 
weltweit said:
I don't understand Fez909 why you are so keen to get me to decide for or against. Is it not possible to have an open mind and be interested in the details?
Click to expand...

Because I started this thread to learn about the BI, not to try to sell the idea to those who would be opposed to the idea on principle. Your insistence on seeing the details makes me think that you are one of those people, and that's why I believe you're trolling.

I knew you would use the figures in that PDF back on this thread, even though I tried to make it clear I don't agree with their numbers, and you did.

So, if you would never support this anyway, regardless what the figures said, why are you here?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

JimW
Short-lived Canadian experiment in guaranteed minimum income
Replies
0
Views
657
JimW
JimW
Idris2002
Marx and rising working class share of income in the 19th century
Replies
8
Views
1K
revol68
revol68
stuff_it
'Middle Class' it's basically just a construct isn't it...
18 19 20 21 22
Replies
654
Views
28K
JimW
JimW
ItWillNeverWork
Epistemological Holism and The Incompleteness Theorem
2 3
Replies
71
Views
3K
littlebabyjesus
littlebabyjesus
I
Are we all basically the same?
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Blagsta
Blagsta
Back
Top Bottom