Basic Income

[ChrisFilter]

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?

People who want to work but can't are already being classed as skivers in the papers, by the govt and, increasingly, by the great British public.

There would be a massive shortfall in labour for essential services, I'd predict. Unless immigrants were employable but not eligible for the basic income or some variation of that rule thereof.

Taxes would need to be loads higher, that goes without saying. 50% was an example.

Why criticise it? Because I thought you wanted people's thoughts. Because it's a discussion forum. I didn't know you just wanted agreement, sorry.

 

[ChrisFilter]

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.

Personal fulfilment. Volunteering for good causes. To stop the mind numbing boredom that accompanies unemployment.

 

[free spirit]

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?

sod this agreement in principle lark.

let's see the numbers and see how they stack up. That leaflet is useless because it doesn't account for housing benefit, council tax benefit etc, in fact it deliberately ignores them because a citizens income doesn't work when you then have shared household benefits such as housing benefit. If even the proponents of it can't make a rational case for it, then that gives a decent indication of how viable it would be in reality.

 

[ChrisFilter]

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.

Unfortunately the world just isn't that utopian. I get the feeling you're picturing cheerful binmen whistling and hauling rubbish for the bonhomie, but given the strains on the tax system caused by BI the state or local govt run services would be really stretched, so unlikely to be more pleasant.

 

[weltweit]

...........
So, if you would never support this anyway, regardless what the figures said, why are you here?

I don't think that is fair. I don't know much at all about the concept which is why I asked for details, I am just trying to understand it. As I am not against benefits in general there should be no reason why I would be against them organised in a different way, if that way makes good sense.

 

[ChrisFilter]

Anyone think this is a good idea?

This is why people are giving you their opinion.

 

[Fez909]

People who want to work but can't are already being classed as skivers in the papers, by the govt and, increasingly, by the great British public.

There would be a massive shortfall in labour for essential services, I'd predict. Unless immigrants were employable but not eligible for the basic income or some variation of that rule thereof.

Taxes would need to be loads higher, that goes without saying. 50% was an example.

Why criticise it? Because I thought you wanted people's thoughts. Because it's a discussion forum. I didn't know you just wanted agreement, sorry.

There's a difference between not being able to find a job in a society where you have to work, and we're pitted up against each other for the few positions available, and one where working is essentially optional, and there is no divide between those who get money from the state and those who don't. Everyone is now "on benefits".

Immigrants can be granted citizenship, and it happens all the time already. I don't see a fundamental problem there.

Taxes higher, yep.

I meant why are you attacking a tax system you've just made up in your head, not why are you attacking BI as a concept. The two are distinct.

I'm definitely not here for "just agreement" as I'm still trying to understand the consequences myself.

 

[yield]

Personal fulfilment. Volunteering for good causes. To stop the mind numbing boredom that accompanies unemployment.

There are some jobs that'd require such technical expertise that you'd have lifers.

Otherwise you'd be able to do apprenticeships at whatever you like.

 

[ChrisFilter]

There's a difference between not being able to find a job in a society where you have to work, and we're pitted up against each other for the few positions available, and one where working is essentially optional, and there is no divide between those who get money from the state and those who don't. Everyone is now "on benefits".

Immigrants can be granted citizenship, and it happens all the time already. I don't see a fundamental problem there.

Taxes higher, yep.

I meant why are you attacking a tax system you've just made up in your head, not why are you attacking BI as a concept. The two are distinct.

I'm definitely not here for "just agreement" as I'm still trying to understand the consequences myself.

If it was open to immigrants you'd have to really nail down immigration policies because a living wage for nothing would be very appealing to people from poverty-stricken countries.

 

[free spirit]

actually, I suppose it could work if you had state provided housing for all according to their needs as well, but I can't see how it could work without that without couples being much better off than single people due to savings made from shared housing costs.

Unless you're not actually going to set the levels at levels people can actually live on including housing costs etc, which kinda defeats the purpose.

 

[Fez909]

sod this agreement in principle lark.

let's see the numbers and see how they stack up. That leaflet is useless because it doesn't account for housing benefit, council tax benefit etc, in fact it deliberately ignores them because a citizens income doesn't work when you then have shared household benefits such as housing benefit. If even the proponents of it can't make a rational case for it, then that gives a decent indication of how viable it would be in reality.

I wouldn't have thought that agreeing that something is a worthwhile thing in principle would be such a controversial thing. If it doesn't even seem like a good idea in principle then why bother number crunching? If you are number crunching, then that's an implicit agreement.

I don't like the citizen's income numbers from the quick glance I've seen. The payments are not high enough and they propose a flat tax. I don't know if anyone else has seriously worked out the costings...?

 

[Fez909]

This is why people are giving you their opinion.

Great. That's what I'm after.

Though don't make up a policy and then attack it as if I've proposed it, or it is intrinsic to a BI.

 

[weltweit]

actually, I suppose it could work if you had state provided housing for all according to their needs as well, .............

That would require the nationalisation of housing, all housing no? not really sure that is a goer..

 

[Fez909]

actually, I suppose it could work if you had state provided housing for all according to their needs as well, but I can't see how it could work without that without couples being much better off than single people due to savings made from shared housing costs.

Unless you're not actually going to set the levels at levels people can actually live on including housing costs etc, which kinda defeats the purpose.

Yeah, that's pretty complicated. I don't think couples should/would be treated any differently to singles, though. A lot of the savings would come to the reduced bureaucracy in implementing it. If you start investigating who is a couple, etc, you're back to where you were before.

Plus, is it such a bad thing that couples are better off? It's the same as now, except now you don't have the safety net of the BI as a single person.

 

[free spirit]

I wouldn't have thought that agreeing that something is a worthwhile thing in principle would be such a controversial thing. If it doesn't even seem like a good idea in principle then why bother number crunching? If you are number crunching, then that's an implicit agreement.

I don't like the citizen's income numbers from the quick glance I've seen. The payments are not high enough and they propose a flat tax. I don't know if anyone else has seriously worked out the costings...?

because in principle some of the stuff IDS was saying on benefits before the election seemed to make some sense, but now we actually see the numbers and exactly what he intended, it's clear that this is not something that I could possibly support.

Not that I believed him before the election, I worked on the assumption it'd just be another way of screwing over everyone on benefits and unfortunately that assumption has proved correct.

 

[free spirit]

That would require the nationalisation of housing, all housing no? not really sure that is a goer..

yes, that would seem to be a serious flaw to the plan to me.

Certainly unless we're talking serious 'come the revolution' stuff, but I'm sure some fucking stalinist bastard would have shot me by then for disagreeing with them on something, so I doubt it'd affect me.

 

[Fez909]

because in principle some of the stuff IDS was saying on benefits before the election seemed to make some sense, but now we actually see the numbers and exactly what he intended, it's clear that this is not something that I could possibly support.

Not that I believed him before the election, I worked on the assumption it'd just be another way of screwing over everyone on benefits and unfortunately that assumption has proved correct.

The Universal Credit might actually reduce administration costs. In that sense it would be a success, and perhaps something to build on for a IB. UC for all, set at the right rate = IB?

The amount that will be paid out on UC will be far below what it should be, but that doesn't mean there weren't savings on the admin side. It is still a means tested benefit, though, so the savings will have been minimal.

 

[weltweit]

...... Though don't make up a policy and then attack it as if I've proposed it, or it is intrinsic to a BI.

The idea behind "Basic Income" must surely be that someone can live on it alone, reasonably. Does that mean that it should be the same or higher than what people can currently get on benefits?

People continue to get it when they are working, does that mean employers will pay less than they used to in the knowledge their employees are getting the BI? Or will a minimum wage per hour still apply?

 

[Fez909]

Why would housing have to be nationalised? We already pay benefits for people to rent privately, and there is a cap on the amount that is paid out. Add this to whatever number they calculate for living costs and you have a baseline for the BI rate, surely?

 

[Fez909]

The idea behind "Basic Income" must surely be that someone can live on it alone, reasonably. Does that mean that it should be the same or higher than what people can currently get on benefits?

People continue to get it when they are working, does that mean employers will pay less than they used to in the knowledge their employees are getting the BI? Or will a minimum wage per hour still apply?

No one has mentioned you have to be able to live alone. There aren't enough houses in the country if everyone wanted to do that.

Yes, it should be more than people get on benefits currently. Benefits are deliberately set below the amount a person needs in order to compel them into employment.

Minimum wage laws could be abolished, I reckon. I mentioned it further up the thread.

 

[free spirit]

Why would housing have to be nationalised? We already pay benefits for people to rent privately, and there is a cap on the amount that is paid out. Add this to whatever number they calculate for living costs and you have a baseline for the IB rate, surely?

because the reduction in housing benefit is at least as major a component of the benefits trap as JSA.

 

[weltweit]

No one has mentioned you have to be able to live alone. ...............

Sorry, misunderstanding, I meant that people should be able to live on BI on its own.

Although I do think people should still be able to live in suitable housing "on their own".

 

[Fez909]

because the reduction in housing benefit is at least as major a component of the benefits trap as JSA.

But the reduction in housing benefit is not something set in stone. We're talking about something we'd like to see happen, and whether it is possible. We know it is possible, because the rates used to be set higher. Increase the housing rates again, add living costs, and there's your baseline.

 

[Fez909]

Sorry, misunderstanding, I meant that people should be able to live on BI on its own.

Although I do think people should still be able to live in suitable housing "on their own".

I would say that would be classed as a luxury. Get a part time job and you'd be able to afford it

 

[free spirit]

But the reduction in housing benefit is not something set in stone. We're talking about something we'd like to see happen, and whether it is possible. We know it is possible, because the rates used to be set higher. Increase the housing rates again, add living costs, and there's your baseline.

please state your proposal more clearly. What would you suggest happens re housing benefit alongside this basic income suggestion?

I can't have much idea if it's something I'd like to see or not without actually knowing what you're actually suggesting.

 

[weltweit]

..... Get a part time job and you'd be able to afford it

And on that note I had better get back to my job hunting

 

[Fez909]

please state your proposal more clearly. What would you suggest happens re housing benefit alongside this basic income suggestion?

I can't have much idea if it's something I'd like to see or not without actually knowing what you're actually suggesting.

All I'm saying is if housing benefit was previously capped at £100* a week, for example, and that was enough for everyone to rent a house, then the BI baseline could be said to be £100* plus whatever figure is calculated as necessary for living costs. Say living costs are calculated to be £100* a week, then BI could be £200*. No need for nationalised housing, because the payment is enough for everyone to rent privately.

*All numbers for explanatory purposes only!

 

[free spirit]

All I'm saying is if housing benefit was previously capped at £100* a week, for example, and that was enough for everyone to rent a house, then the BI baseline could be said to be £100* plus whatever figure is calculated as necessary for living costs. Say living costs are calculated to be £100* a week, then BI could be £200*. No need for nationalised housing, because the payment is enough for everyone to rent privately.

*All numbers for explanatory purposes only!

so no housing benefit then, everyone would just get enough from their basic income allowance to cover housing and all other costs?

 

[Fez909]

so no housing benefit then, everyone would just get enough from their basic income allowance to cover housing and all other costs?

Yeah!

 

[free spirit]

Yeah!

ok, so say that's an average of £300 per person a week for 50 million people, that's £780 billion a year.

Not that this is necessarily money that can't be found from higher taxes, but it's a lot different to what was being made out in that leaflet.